Adam & Logic

[Blue_Horizon]

So the command that God gave to Adam as the first human, wasn’t a personal command?

Thanks.

Its an interesting question. Obviously a first pass and literal interpretation of Genesis suggests it was indeed a personal command. However I am not sure we are bound to that interpretation as the “natural law” alternative seems a perfectly theologically consistant and acceptable understanding.

I suppose it boils down to whether or not Revelation (which is theologically a necessary corollary of God giving Adam and Eve a personal command) was given in Eden.

I don’t know that I have ever noticed that question asked or discussed in my all too brief 55 years of Catholic theological study/pondering .

The Bible is full of anthropromorphisms where what is really just the “voice of nature/reason” is personified into a personal divine and inspired command from on High so my first instinct is to use Occam’s razor (in dubious cases the simplest explanation is usually the correct one).

However, unwounded human nature in Eden is different. We are told that God walked with man in the cool of the evening. Now this Presence of God is certainly not on a par with that of heaven…but neither will it be as “weak” as that we now experience under grace after the Fall where we “see as through a glass darkly.”

Then again, it cannot be denied that Adam and Eve also lived by faith even in Eden (just as did the Angels at the first instant of their creation before they fell or were confirmed in the Beatitude of heaven).

Also, Revelation (as given after the Fall) is usually explained as necessary due to our wounded nature (our weakened reason is no longer so easily able to “read” the dictates of creation and “natural law” as we could in Eden).

So in short I cannot quite decide either way.
I suspect Revelation was still a well kept secret at the time Adam and Eve fell (kept in reserve just in case they fell as it were). However this goes against a literal reading of Genesis.

Without a strong counter argument (the above understanding of the post fall need for Revelation may not be strong enough) it would probably be best to stick to the lieral meaning of Genesis..

 

[Blue_Horizon]

continued from below…

Forgot to add:

The point I am making is that, personal command or not, the evil of choosing to eat from the TOTKOGAE certainly involves more than disobeying a direct command (regardless of content).

Eternal law (which includes God’s “positive law” (ie personal commands)) has an intrinsic connection with “Natural law” (i.e. the good of our own created nature’s).

To disobey God’s personal commands is always to also deny or exceed the good/purpose of the world/human-nature also. God’s personal commands are not purely abitrary or of meaningless content where he is simply “making his authority felt.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I can empathize with how really difficult it must be for thinking Christians today.
And about the philosophers back in Europe in those days, I’d be like that too: “black swan = turkey”, if I woke up and the sky were green with pink pokadots.
This weather’s making me cranky. I do appreciate your posts.
As you rightly state,

Thanks for the empathy - it makes life bearable doesn’t it .

 

[grannymh]

Are you talking about sin as we know it now, or the sin that Adam committed?

So the command that God gave to Adam as the first human, wasn’t a personal command?

Thanks.

Once you have answered some questions, you will have the Catholic
doctrine(s). These will serve as guidelines for answers to other questions. Please be patient.

First question. How many original sins are there?

This is not a trick question. Off CAF, I have read the idea that there are lots of original sins.

Second question. Is there anything which makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique? If yes, what makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique?

These two questions are the start…

 

[simpleas]

continued from below…

Forgot to add:

The point I am making is that, personal command or not, the evil of choosing to eat from the TOTKOGAE certainly involves more than disobeying a direct command (regardless of content).

Eternal law (which includes God’s “positive law” (ie personal commands)) has an intrinsic connection with “Natural law” (i.e. the good of our own created nature’s).

To disobey God’s personal commands is always to also deny or exceed the good/purpose of the world/human-nature also. God’s personal commands are not purely abitrary or of meaningless content where he is simply “making his authority felt.”

Eternal Law? We are not in the eternal world yet so how is natural law connected now?

So you think that there was a variety sins before the fall and the sin of disobedience?

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

Once you have answered some questions, you will have the Catholic
doctrine(s). These will serve as guidelines for answers to other questions. Please be patient.

First question. How many original sins are there?

This is not a trick question. Off CAF, I have read the idea that there are lots of original sins.

Second question. Is there anything which makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique? If yes, what makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique?

These two questions are the start…

Q 1. From what I read in Genesis and CCC there was one original sin.

Q 2. Unique in the fact that the first Humans A&E caused sin through the devil, where there once was no sin, now all humans are subject to sin.

 

[grannymh]

Q 1. From what I read in Genesis and CCC there was one original sin.

Q 2. Unique in the fact that the first Humans A&E caused sin through the devil, where there once was no sin, now all humans are subject to sin.

One Original Sin is correct.

Second question. Is there anything which makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique? If yes, what makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique?

Answer. “Q 2. Unique in the fact that the first Humans A&E caused sin through the devil, where there once was no sin, now all humans are subject to sin.”

I am so sorry…but when there is one Original Sin, then first humans plural is not correct.

What is happening with the answer to number 2, is that it is a broad creative explanation of sins which of course cannot be what is unique about Original Sin since the Original Sin is only a onetime event. In addition, if Original Sin is caused through the devil, then how is Adam involved?

One of the unique things about Catholic human origin teachings in general is that their individual statements are on the crisp and clear side. For example, there is the simple statement that in his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds. This is followed by the fact that God established man in His friendship. (CCC, 355) This is followed by the explanation that man is able to know and love his Creator God. (CCC, 356-357)

When we agree with the Catholic teaching that one man, whatever his name is, committed the one Original Sin, then it is much easier to spot the uniqueness of both Adam and Original Sin.

For the record. Adam and Eve committed a personal sin meaning that each freely chose to disobey God’s command. But, because of Adam’s special relationship to God as the first human creature (Eve was not the first human) in addition to the fact that he personally disobeyed, he is the one who is credited with committing the one Original Sin. The original relationship of Adam and his spouse is why both immediately lost the grace of original holiness. (CCC, 371; CCC, 399-405; Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

One could possibility say that the basic, fundamental Catholic teachings regarding Adam and Original Sin are logically based on the unique. What follows is supplementary explanations. (CCC, 20-21) So, would you kindly go back to question 2. I know you have the answers among your many posts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Eternal Law? We are not in the eternal world yet so how is natural law connected now?

Thanks.

SimpleAs there really is no substitute for using time, imagination, intelligence and elbow-grease to find the truth.

I am here suggesting leads to follow up on and research for yourself if you are really keen to understand. “Eternal Law” (I used capitals) is not an expression I just made up on the spot. So it looks a bit simplistic to think one might understand this 800 year old theological concept by a 30 sec private pondering upon the words “eternal” and “law”.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia would be a good place to start on the net. Eternal Law is also closely linked to Revelation. We are really talking about “Divine positive law” here so that may be a more fruitful search for you to pursue. Good luck.

So you think that there was a variety sins before the fall and the sin of disobedience?

This does not seem related to our discussion so I am at a bit of a loss to understand what you are asking here…

I am saying that your understanding of Adam’s sin is somewhat flat and 2-dimensional.
Sin is not mere disobedience of God’s arbitrary Will full stop. It is always also against His Intelligence (ie his Wisdom as expressed in the “plan” behind Creation - which includes human nature and the laws inherent in the created cosmos).

 

[simpleas]

One Original Sin is correct.

Second question. Is there anything which makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique? If yes, what makes the original sin, or the original sins, special or unique?

Answer. “Q 2. Unique in the fact that the first Humans A&E caused sin through the devil, where there once was no sin, now all humans are subject to sin.”

I am so sorry…but when there is one Original Sin, then first humans plural is not correct.

What is happening with the answer to number 2, is that it is a broad creative explanation of sins which of course cannot be what is unique about Original Sin since the Original Sin is only a onetime event. In addition, if Original Sin is caused through the devil, then how is Adam involved?

One of the unique things about Catholic human origin teachings in general is that their individual statements are on the crisp and clear side. For example, there is the simple statement that in his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds. This is followed by the fact that God established man in His friendship. (CCC, 355) This is followed by the explanation that man is able to know and love his Creator God. (CCC, 356-357)

When we agree with the Catholic teaching that one man, whatever his name is, committed the one Original Sin, then it is much easier to spot the uniqueness of both Adam and Original Sin.

For the record. Adam and Eve committed a personal sin meaning that each freely chose to disobey God’s command. But, because of Adam’s special relationship to God as the first human creature (Eve was not the first human) in addition to the fact that he personally disobeyed, he is the one who is credited with committing the one Original Sin. The original relationship of Adam and his spouse is why both immediately lost the grace of original holiness. (CCC, 371; CCC, 399-405; Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

One could possibility say that the basic, fundamental Catholic teachings regarding Adam and Original Sin are logically based on the unique. What follows is supplementary explanations. (CCC, 20-21) So, would you kindly go back to question 2. I know you have the answers among your many posts.

Thanks,

I am so sorry…but when there is one Original Sin, then first humans plural is not correct.
Thanks for the correction, I still ponder back to reading that Eve was the first to sin, then Adam. If I remember correctly though, although Eve was tempted first, she was made from Adam so we attribute the O.S to Adam. When I said they sinned through the devil, I was of the understanding that the devil and his angels revolted against God, and wanted to turn man away from God also. So by tempting them, he achieves it and causes O.S.

Romans 5 : 12-14

*Well then; it was through one man that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.

1. Sin already existed in the world before there was any law, even though sin is not reckoned when there is no law.
2. Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam’s was. He prefigured the One who was to come . . .*

O.S being the first sin, which is the cause of all sin in the world, was around long before Moses’ law. But noone can be held accountable where there is no law.
Adam broke a command from God not a law, and was held accountable, but those who sinned from Adam until Moses could not be held accountable?

 

[Aloysium]

T . . . Romans 5 : . . . 13. Sin already existed in the world before there was any law, even though sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14. Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam’s was. He prefigured the One who was to come . . .

O.S being the first sin, which is the cause of all sin in the world, was around long before Moses’ law. But noone can be held accountable where there is no law.
Adam broke a command from God not a law, and was held accountable, but those who sinned from Adam until Moses could not be held accountable?

What the verses mean to me is that sin and its consequences exist whether or not one knows of the existence of sin or that one has breached a moral code. Being made aware of the law, however, makes one more accountable.

 

[simpleas]

SimpleAs there really is no substitute for using time, imagination, intelligence and elbow-grease to find the truth.

I am here suggesting leads to follow up on and research for yourself if you are really keen to understand. “Eternal Law” (I used capitals) is not an expression I just made up on the spot. So it looks a bit simplistic to think one might understand this 800 year old theological concept by a 30 sec private pondering upon the words “eternal” and “law”.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia would be a good place to start on the net. Eternal Law is also closely linked to Revelation. We are really talking about “Divine positive law” here so that may be a more fruitful search for you to pursue. Good luck.

This does not seem related to our discussion so I am at a bit of a loss to understand what you are asking here…

I am saying that your understanding of Adam’s sin is somewhat flat and 2-dimensional.
Sin is not mere disobedience of God’s arbitrary Will full stop. It is always also against His Intelligence (ie his Wisdom as expressed in the “plan” behind Creation - which includes human nature and the laws inherent in the created cosmos).

The point I am making is that, personal command or not, the evil of choosing to eat from the TOTKOGAE certainly involves more than disobeying a direct command (regardless of content).

Your above quote is what I didn’t understand, there was more involved than just disobeying the command from God.
When I questioned Eternal Law, I wasn’t questioning you and your knowledge, but Eternal Law and how it connects with natural law, for someone having trouble understanding genesis I’m not that informed about all that is related, but I think you know that?

I am in the process of learning, and I do appreciate your suggestions.
I will google The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, but will give it more than 30 seconds!

Thanks alot

 

[grannymh]

O.S being the first sin, which is the cause of all sin in the world, was around long before Moses’ law.

I am so sorry, but there is a misunderstanding. Original Sin is a single act by one person at the dawn of human history. And it is not the cause of all sin in the world. Real people “cause” sin. People know about sin and can freely commit sin.

This thread is about Adam, a real person. Perhaps the confusion is because of Adam’s single action of disobedience, “sin” entered the world after Original Sin. (CCC, 401; Genesis 4: 8) Remember that Cain was the one who sinned. “Sin” can enter the world; but, it takes a separate individual (Cain is not Adam) to actually commit a real sin.

Sad to say, but ignoring the difference between Original Sin and the real sins committed by Adam’s descendants, downgrades the Catholic doctrines centered on the fact that Adam directly shattered the relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam is reduced to a bad example and Jesus Christ hanging bloody on His cross is not the salvific mission of reconciliation. (CCC, 406; CCC, 389)

Perhaps there is someone who has figured out the uniqueness of Adam.
Using this uniqueness could secure the deductive method on this thread.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The point I am making is that, personal command or not, the evil of choosing to eat from the TOTKOGAE certainly involves more than disobeying a direct command (regardless of content).

Your above quote is what I didn’t understand, there was more involved than just disobeying the command from God.
When I questioned Eternal Law, I wasn’t questioning you and your knowledge, but Eternal Law and how it connects with natural law, for someone having trouble understanding genesis I’m not that informed about all that is related, but I think you know that?

I am in the process of learning, and I do appreciate your suggestions.
I will google The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, but will give it more than 30 seconds!

Thanks alot

No probs.
You are very welcome to question my knowledge, even if you weren’t doing so here, I am quite fallible.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am so sorry, but there is a misunderstanding. Original Sin is a single act by one person at the dawn of human history. And it is not the cause of all sin in the world. Real people “cause” sin. People know about sin and can freely commit sin.

This thread is about Adam, a real person. Perhaps the confusion is because of Adam’s single action of disobedience, “sin” entered the world after Original Sin. (CCC, 401; Genesis 4: 8) Remember that Cain was the one who sinned. “Sin” can enter the world; but, it takes a separate individual (Cain is not Adam) to actually commit a real sin.

Sad to say, but ignoring the difference between Original Sin and the real sins committed by Adam’s descendants, downgrades the Catholic doctrines centered on the fact that Adam directly shattered the relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam is reduced to a bad example and Jesus Christ hanging bloody on His cross is not the salvific mission of reconciliation. (CCC, 406; CCC, 389)

Perhaps there is someone who has figured out the uniqueness of Adam.
Using this uniqueness could secure the deductive method on this thread.

GM what is your view on the following speculative scenario:
Adam and Eve have children before and after they (Adam and Eve) Fall.
Clearly the children conceived after their Fall (and their descendants) will contract original sin. What about the children (and their descendants) conceived before the Fall?

In other words, given that we only know one actual scenario do we have enough of a grasp on the basic principles to extrapolate inferences to other (quite possible) scenarios.

Or would you believe that the “basic principles” mean such a scenario as I have just described is not even possible for some reason? (If we accept that Adam and Eve were truly unique historical individuals then I believe this complicated speculative scenario should be quite possible).

BTW the only uniqueness I can see in Adam (if he is considered as a unique historical individual rather than a personification or metaphor for the human race as a whole)
is that he is the only person whose actions may have repercussions for all humanity. This is by reason of the fact that his body is the only body that acts as an apex-ial, causal “gateway” into ALL human bodies. (Of course if one follows the 1st creation account then we have to talk about both Adam and Eve I suppose).

 

[simpleas]

I am so sorry, but there is a misunderstanding. Original Sin is a single act by one person at the dawn of human history. And it is not the cause of all sin in the world. Real people “cause” sin. People know about sin and can freely commit sin.

This thread is about Adam, a real person. Perhaps the confusion is because of Adam’s single action of disobedience, “sin” entered the world after Original Sin. (CCC, 401; Genesis 4: 8) Remember that Cain was the one who sinned. “Sin” can enter the world; but, it takes a separate individual (Cain is not Adam) to actually commit a real sin.

Sad to say, but ignoring the difference between Original Sin and the real sins committed by Adam’s descendants, downgrades the Catholic doctrines centered on the fact that Adam directly shattered the relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam is reduced to a bad example and Jesus Christ hanging bloody on His cross is not the salvific mission of reconciliation. (CCC, 406; CCC, 389)

Perhaps there is someone who has figured out the uniqueness of Adam.
Using this uniqueness could secure the deductive method on this thread.

Ok so I’m not even clear on what O.S was to begin with…its worse than I thought:blush:

Our first parents lost the original holiness and justice, their first born would then be born without original holiness and justice, effecting them in a way that they can then break the harmony between God and other humans.
Our first parents had a special relationship with the creator, and he wanted them to live holy and immortal, and they did. Adam loses this, sin enters the world, therefore O.S is the cause of sins in the world…no?

I do understand that we choose to sin or not, but why we can do this is from the O.S.

I was going to mention cain.

After reading romans 5 12-21 which you quoted, I couldn’t understand how there was sin but noone could be held accountable because there was no law until Moses.
But remembering Cain, murdering Abel and Gods interaction with Cain made me wonder that Cain was aware of his sin, and was held accountable.
(That might be a question for another thread though)

For the record, I am not trying to ignore the difference of O.S and our sin, nor downgrade catholic doctrine…I am trying my best to understand.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Ok so I’m not even clear on what O.S was to begin with…its worse than I thought:blush:

There is a difference between God the Creator and Adam the creature. We refer to both God’s spiritual world and to the material world of the universe in which Adam lived as a material/spiritual being. God is a Divine, super-natural infinite Creator Spirit without restrictions. Adam’s human nature itself is an unique unification of both the spiritual world and the material world.

God established Adam in His Divine friendship which is possible because Adam was in the unique image of God.

Comments? Acceptance? Rejection?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Both Adam and Cain were punished for their sins.

Gen 3

17
To the man he said: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat from it,
Cursed is the ground because of you!
In toil you shall eat its yield
all the days of your life.
18
Thorns and thistles it shall bear for you,
and you shall eat the grass of the field.
19
By the sweat of your brow
you shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
from which you were taken;
For you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.

Gen 4

11
Now you are banned from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.d
12
If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a constant wanderer on the earth.
13
Cain said to the LORD: “My punishment is too great to bear.
14
Look, you have now banished me from the ground. I must avoid you and be a constant wanderer on the earth. Anyone may kill me at sight.”
15
Not so! the LORD said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times. So the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight.
16
Cain then left the LORD’s presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

 

[grannymh]

After reading romans 5 12-21 which you quoted, I couldn’t understand how there was sin but noone could be held accountable because there was no law until Moses.
But remembering Cain, murdering Abel and Gods interaction with Cain made me wonder that Cain was aware of his sin, and was held accountable.
(That might be a question for another thread though)

For the record, I am not trying to ignore the difference of O.S and our sin, nor downgrade catholic doctrine…I am trying my best to understand.

Thanks.

St. Paul’s writings can be complicated to modern ears. Individual verses of Romans 5: 12-21 appear in some manner in 15 or so paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. (CCC, Index of Citations, page 710)

Therefore, when dealing with the reality of Adam and Original Sin, it will be helpful to only concentrate on that point when reading Romans 5: 12-21. Here St. Paul does not hesitate about the reality of Adam and Original Sin. He refers to the “trespass of Adam”; the “transgression of one person”; the “one transgression”; and the “disobedience of one person”.

With the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John) the Catholic Church has gradually grasped the full significance of Divine Revelation starting with that given in the first three chapters of Genesis. Even then, often Divine Revelation is like a seed from which further Divine Revelation flows until Divine Revelation is completed in Jesus Christ. Yet, it has taken centuries to define and declare the Catholic doctrines based on Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation did not and will not change. (CCC, 54-55; CCC, 65-67)

I sincerely hope that the above clears the way for you to return to the teachings on human origin, including the Original Sin at the dawn of human history. Questions are always welcomed.

 

[grannymh]

GM what is your view on the following speculative scenario:
Adam and Eve have children before and after they (Adam and Eve) Fall.

Negative.

Clearly the children conceived after their Fall (and their descendants) will contract original sin. What about the children (and their descendants) conceived before the Fall?

Negative. Because there were only Adam and his spouse before Adam deliberately chose to scorn his Creator.

In other words, given that we only know one actual scenario do we have enough of a grasp on the basic principles to extrapolate inferences to other (quite possible) scenarios.

Or would you believe that the “basic principles” mean such a scenario as I have just described is not even possible for some reason? (If we accept that Adam and Eve were truly unique historical individuals then I believe this complicated speculative scenario should be quite possible).

Interesting.

I view “extrapolations” as being worthy of the evidence.

Thus, I need to adequately identify “basic principles” if they are to serve as the evidence for extrapolations. For example, I offer that the first basic principle regarding Adam’s historic reality is that 1. God as Creator exists. The material or matter of animals cannot create a spiritual principle aka rational soul. It is clear from all the “creation concepts” in the first three chapters of Genesis that there is definitely a spiritual principle in both male and female humans. (CCC, 355-384)

It is fascinating to discover that Divine Revelation (as preserved by the Catholic Church) is one of the sources of evidence for the reality of Adam. Obviously, this means that in order to accept Divine Revelation as a source, one has to believe in God. Thus, the first axiom of this thread’s use of the deductive method is

1. God as Creator exists.

In addition, the “creation concepts” in the first three chapters of Genesis include the observable axiom that 2. God as Creator interacts with humans. (CCC, 54; CCC, 356-358; CCC, 1730-1731) However, we need to be especially careful not to stop with these first three Genesis chapters. (CCC, 359;* CCC*, 65-66))

BTW the only uniqueness I can see in Adam (if he is considered as a unique historical individual rather than a personification or metaphor for the human race as a whole)
is that he is the only person whose actions may have repercussions for all humanity. This is by reason of the fact that his body is the only body that acts as an apex-ial, causal “gateway” into ALL human bodies. (Of course if one follows the 1st creation account then we have to talk about both Adam and Eve I suppose).

Oh.

May I share that it is so much fun to search out uniqueness which continues to this day with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church aka the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Negative.

Negative. Because there were only Adam and his spouse before Adam deliberately chose to scorn his Creator.

Interesting.

I view “extrapolations” as being worthy of the evidence.

Thus, I need to adequately identify “basic principles” if they are to serve as the evidence for extrapolations. For example, I offer that the first basic principle regarding Adam’s historic reality is that 1. God as Creator exists. The material or matter of animals cannot create a spiritual principle aka rational soul. It is clear from all the “creation concepts” in the first three chapters of Genesis that there is definitely a spiritual principle in both male and female humans. (CCC, 355-384)

GM you have unfortunately lost me here from the getgo. I don’t really understand the content or relevence of your response to my simple speculative scenario? (e.g. what relevence does the “matter of animals” have to my question?)

Anyways, I gather you do not see it as even possible for Adam and Eve to have children before the Fall - is that your objection? If so, why would you think this is not possible?

Obviously this is not what historically happened, we all know that from Genesis.
However discussion/reasoning wrt to other theologically consistant possibilities (different yet based on what we do know actually happened) can assist in elucidating implicit principles hidden in what actually happened.

This philosophic approach I believe is known as a “thought experiment”. I believe it is just as philosophicly acceptable as attempts to use deductive logic to gain more insight into what is implicit in the known and agreed historical data of Genesis/Revelation.