Adam & Logic

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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.

GM why do you think this is of importance? You keep repeating it but the significance is lost on me .

You may find it difficult to demonstrate that, apart from the Bible, there are solid and clear empirical sources backing the reality of a two parents for the whole human race (defined as the only material creatures with an immortal soul) who damaged the human race by sinning (if that is what you mean by “the reality of Adam”).

It may also be apriori fallacious to assert that Genesis should be considered scientific “evidence” (as the word is commonly used in this context), let alone a historical document comparable to those that, for example, acceptably vindicate the existence of Caesar.

Accepting “that God as Creator exists” (which itself is problematic as one would also have to prove that YHW of the Bible is to be identified with the person of this unknown Creator God) probably doesn’t make the Adam explanation any more “scientific evidence” than before. The reason is that strict “evidence” (for the purposes of science and law) must be able to stand on its own empirical grounds without the aid of further “faith assumptions” to give it greater import.
Thus, the bloody knife with the alleged assassin’s finger-prints upon it is significantly coercive empirical evidence for the jury. That means any of them can check the prints against the assassins hand and the results will always be the same. However if the bloody knife is simply said by some to come from the assassin’s kitchen draw … well that doesn’t go too far by comparision. The “coercive force” of this “evidence” relies on the jury trusting a few flatmates on this. The jury cannot prove this to themselves. This evidence is not empirical by comparision. In fact a scientist would not call this “evidence” at all. A historian might call this 'evidence" but even then its pretty dubious.

So I think we may be jumping categories if we believe Revelation should be given the same coercive status as empirical “evidence” - even if we are believers.

The coercive force of Faith is not the same as that of reason - though both can provide certainty. However the basis and nature of that certainty arises from completely different fonts and to confuse them is probably a category mistake.

 

[simpleas]

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?

I thought your Q 2 was asking what makes O.S unique, not what makes Adam unique.

All of the above I can agree with

 

[grannymh]

I thought your Q 2 was asking what makes O.S unique, not what makes Adam unique.

All of the above I can agree with

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?”

There can be a variety of possible answers to Q 2. One answer could be that the position of Adam in human history makes Original Sin unique. This is related to the Catholic teaching that Adam was the first human.

 

[grannymh]

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?)

Dang! I left out some information. You are right. Thank you.

I was responding to your introduction of “basic principles”…which I put in bold below.

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.

Because I hail from a different method of seeking truth, I went back to post 247
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11120927&postcount=247
The two axioms are:

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts with humans.
   What I left out is that we can conclude from observing nature that a super-natural Creator needs to exist. Granted that there are some
   super-intelligent, super-resourceful, and super-communicative natural animals. When it comes to survival, some animals adapted to their environment way better than we could. Personally, I need to have a dark chocolate fix, so I definitely yield to the bear which hibernates during the winter.

One of my experiences in Alaska was waiting for a mother bear and her two cubs to cross the road ahead. Thank heavens, she was highly sentient and quick thinking, because it took her one look and she knew I was harmless. I was never so ignored except when I am on that thread in the Clubhouse Forum. I do not doubt the capabilities of animals.

One of the differences between a truly rational animal and a highly sentient and adaptive animal is that the rational being can build on natural intelligence and capabilities not only what is inherent in the individual, but also what is found in other folk. The eagle can fly. While flapping our arms does nothing, our rational abilities have flown us far beyond our blue skies. The elephant is strong. While we can teach the elephant “building chores,” the elephant does not design machines strong enough to build the tallest buildings or the longest bridges. I do not doubt the capabilities of animals. Nor do I doubt those rational capabilities of humans, which are beyond our beloved animals.

I should have followed the basic principle that “God as Creator exists” with a sentence or two explaining that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible. (from Creed said at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass). Looking at ourselves in the mirror, the visible is our decomposing anatomy and the invisible is our spiritual rational-thinking soul. Because highly sentient and extremely talented animals cannot of themselves create their own rational-thinking spiritual soul, the existence of the spiritual rational soul in the human species requires a non-material source as a Creator. Thus, the existence of God as Creator.

As for your inquiry about “matter of animals” I was using the definition, “matter is the substance of which a physical object is composed” or the perhaps philosophical description “the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) This was substantiating my position that animals cannot be “spiritual” in the same way humans are spiritual.
From CCC, 365. I put the significant words in bold.

“The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider** the soul to be the “form” of the body**:** i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body;** spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”

 

[simpleas]

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?”

There can be a variety of possible answers to Q 2. One answer could be that the position of Adam in human history makes Original Sin unique. This is related to the Catholic teaching that Adam was the first human.

Ok.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I’m with you now…

 

[grannymh]

Original sin is the name of Adam’s original offense against his Creator.

This offense was a sin of disobedience. This sin of disobedience destroyed the original relationship between Divinity (God) and humankind (the first Adam).

Both Adam and his sin of disobeying God are unique because there is only one “first” human and one “first sin” which had the capability of shattering the first friendship relationship between the first created human and God as Creator.

Apparently, the seriousness of the first sin (original) remained with some of Adam’s descendants until the time for this particular group of Adam’s descendants to formalize this particular information in official writing.

The writer of the first three chapters of Genesis considered that the difference between the physical/material universe and human beings to be major, that is, the difference had to be explained at the very beginning. The difference between human nature and the animals which could walk, fly, swim, including the creeping things that crawl on the ground, was common knowledge of all living people including both the Hebrews who worshiped the One God and the people who worshiped different gods. Yet, human nature was the same in that within the hearts of people everywhere there was some kind of understanding of something super-natural.

Loving God, the writer searched the “Divine truths” handed down generation to generation. Thus, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Divine Revelation, which would eventually become Catholic Doctrines, was preserved.

 

[fhansen]

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?”

There can be a variety of possible answers to Q 2. One answer could be that the position of Adam in human history makes Original Sin unique. This is related to the Catholic teaching that Adam was the first human.

The OS was not merely the choice to commit a particular sinful or unrighteousness act. Rather it was the choice, by man, to determine what constitutes sinful or unrighteousness acts, disregarding the will of God in the matter. It was to effectively disregard God as God, and we’re now born without the knowledge of God Adam was privileged with. From there the door was opened for all other sins so long as man felt justified in committing them since justice/righteousness was no longer God’s province, i.e. human morality became relativized by Adam’s act and God wouldn’t force Adam to recognize Him as his God; apparently wanting Adam (man) to come to learn that for himself.

 

[grannymh]

May I gently tweak the few places which are a step or two away from the fundamental significance of Adam’s Original Sin.

The OS was not merely the choice to commit a particular sinful or unrighteousness act. Rather it was the choice, by man, to determine what constitutes sinful or unrighteousness acts, disregarding the will of God in the matter.

While free choice is an essential element of Original Sin, Adam was fully able to determine what would be sinful or an unrighteousness act before Original Sin could be committed. Pre-fall human nature had to determine if a particular act, like eating organic fruit, would be considered a serious sin of disobedience. Adam certainly knew the seriousness of the act of disobedience from the first moment of his life in the Garden. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Adam also knew that he had a spiritual soul which made him and his spouse the sole founders of the unique human species. (Genesis 2: 18)

It was to effectively disregard God as God, and we’re now born without the knowledge of God Adam was privileged with.

In a real sense, one can say that Adam disregarded God. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that Adam continued to know God as his Creator. (Genesis 3: 8-10)

In my humble opinion, it would be clearer to say that we are not born in the state of original holiness and justice. (CCC, section “Man in Paradise”, paragraphs 374-379) Human nature is human nature even when it is wounded. Therefore, both Adam and ourselves are gifted with a spiritual soul in the image of God. From the beginning, Adam shared in God’s life in the Garden. We are born in the contracted state of Original Sin. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s salvific grace erases Original Sin so that we are in the state of Sanctifying Grace. In this state, we share in God’s life as Adam did. However, the consequences of Original Sin persist in our human nature and thus our nature is wounded not radically changed from that of Adam’s. (CCC, 404-406; CCC, 399-401)

Yes, Adam and Eve were privileged in that they knew God in a better way due to special gifts. We need to remember that our sharing in God’s life is what brings us to eternal joy with God in the Beatific Vision. (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730- 1731;
CCC, 404-405; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867; CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

From there the door was opened for all other sins so long as man felt justified in committing them since justice/righteousness was no longer God’s province, i.e. human morality became relativized by Adam’s act and God wouldn’t force Adam to recognize Him as his God; apparently wanting Adam (man) to come to learn that for himself.

My apology, but I am not quite sure I understand this correctly. However, the Catholic Church is clear that starting with our first ancestor Adam, man “is subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.” (CCC, 396) The “freedom” found in both Adam’s and our human nature is further explained in CCC, 1730-1738. The door being opened to sin is described in CCC, 401.

 

[simpleas]

The OS was not merely the choice to commit a particular sinful or unrighteousness act. Rather it was the choice, by man, to determine what constitutes sinful or unrighteousness acts, disregarding the will of God in the matter. It was to effectively disregard God as God, and we’re now born without the knowledge of God Adam was privileged with. From there the door was opened for all other sins so long as man felt justified in committing them since justice/righteousness was no longer God’s province, i.e. human morality became relativized by Adam’s act and God wouldn’t force Adam to recognize Him as his God; apparently wanting Adam (man) to come to learn that for himself.

*God wouldn’t force Adam to recognize Him as his God; apparently wanting Adam (man) to come to learn that for himself. *

Could you explain what you mean here?

Adam knew God before O.S.
Are you saying he didn’t recognize God after he sinned, maybe he didn’t, because he then feared God?

 

[fhansen]

May I gently tweak the few places which are a step or two away from the fundamental significance of Adam’s Original Sin.

While free choice is an essential element of Original Sin, Adam was fully able to determine what would be sinful or an unrighteousness act before Original Sin could be committed. Pre-fall human nature had to determine if a particular act, like eating organic fruit, would be considered a serious sin of disobedience. Adam certainly knew the seriousness of the act of disobedience from the first moment of his life in the Garden. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Adam also knew that he had a spiritual soul which made him and his spouse the sole founders of the unique human species. (Genesis 2: 18)

I’ve explained this before; I guess I’ll keep explaining it. The natural law was written in Adam’s heart; he knew right and wrong. He did not have the right or the capability to determine what the law consists of, to write the law himself, to determine what is right and what is wrong for a human being IOW; that is God’s turf.

In a real sense, one can say that Adam disregarded God. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that Adam continued to know God as his Creator. (Genesis 3: 8-10)

After banishment from the garden we’d presume that Adam no longer walked with God, no longer knew Him in the immediate sense that he knew Him in Eden; the separation had been completed.

In my humble opinion, it would be clearer to say that we are not born in the state of original holiness and justice.

It’s another way of saying that.

Yes, Adam and Eve were privileged in that they knew God in a better way due to special gifts. We need to remember that our sharing in God’s life is what brings us to eternal joy with God in the Beatific Vision. (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730- 1731;
CCC, 404-405; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867; CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

Yes, and the vision of God is said to begin even now, in this life, via our faith and the communion it establishes with Him.

 

[fhansen]

*God wouldn’t force Adam to recognize Him as his God; apparently wanting Adam (man) to come to learn that for himself. *

Could you explain what you mean here?

Adam knew God before O.S.
Are you saying he didn’t recognize God after he sinned, maybe he didn’t, because he then feared God?

By disobeying God, by spurning His authority, Adam essentially refused to recognize God as his god, becoming his own god, determining his own morality. Our job is to learn why we must remain subjugated to God, why that can only be a good thing. In this world, where good and evil are experienced-are literally known-we can, with the help of time, revelation, and grace-the grace of the Atonement, come to learn of our absolute need for God, so we may run, like Prodigals, back to the open arms of the Father, choosing the Good, alone. That’s what God seeks to draw us without force, into doing.

 

[simpleas]

By disobeying God, by spurning His authority, Adam essentially refused to recognize God as his god, becoming his own god, determining his own morality. Our job is to learn why we must remain subjugated to God, why that can only be a good thing. In this world, where good and evil are experienced-are literally known-we can, with the help of time, revelation, and grace-the grace of the Atonement, come to learn of our absolute need for God, so we may run, like Prodigals, back to the open arms of the Father, choosing the Good, alone. That’s what God seeks to draw us without force, into doing.

But we don’t refuse to recognize God…do we? I mean depending on ways in which people sin, theres not a refusal to acknowledge God as our creator, we can just sin in small issues…

When we talk about Adam, do we need to always talk of ourselves as humans/sin now, in order to understand Adam.
I know Adam is the first human and all men are in/from Adam, but Adam was different maybe not in bodily form, but in his relationship with God, his soul would’ve been completely clean and intune with God?

 

[fhansen]

But we don’t refuse to recognize God…do we? I mean depending on ways in which people sin, theres not a refusal to acknowledge God as our creator, we can just sin in small issues…

When we talk about Adam, do we need to always talk of ourselves as humans/sin now, in order to understand Adam.
I know Adam is the first human and all men are in/from Adam, but Adam was different maybe not in bodily form, but in his relationship with God, his soul would’ve been completely clean and intune with God?

The way I see it, and the way the Church teaches it, is that man is born *separated *from God-and that is the chief aspect of OS; that’s the most striking-and harmful-injustice that resulted from Adam’s sin, from Adam having “scorned” God, as the catechism put it.

Man was meant for communion with God. And yet, do we have that communion from birth? Do we “walk with” God? Do we know Him in a direct, intuitive, immediate sense? If we did, do you think sin would prevail in this world? Or do we need to hear about Him, come to believe in Him (again, so to speak), place our *hope *in, and ultimately enter into a communion of *love *with Him, a communion to be fully realized with the Beatific Vision?

An ongoing question we need to ask ourselves: do we still, in one way or another, prefer ourselves to God, as Adam was said to have done?

 

[grannymh]

I’ve explained this before; I guess I’ll keep explaining it. The natural law was written in Adam’s heart; he knew right and wrong. He did not have the right or the capability to determine what the law consists of, to write the law himself, to determine what is right and what is wrong for a human being IOW; that is God’s turf.

Thank you.

It is very important to understand that “natural law” was written in Adam’s heart at the very beginning of his life. I found a direct reference to natural law and the fact that it is part of human nature in this link, #9, The Creation of Man.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

However, as I have learned, one has to be very careful about declarative sentences which appear to merge an action such as a choice to determine what constitutes serious sin with the specific action of willfully and with full knowledge committing the Original Sin.

Personally, I have lost count of the number of people who have posted that Adam was stupid when it came to the difference between right or wrong. Adam had to wait for the opportunity to digest fruit from the forbidden tree. At that time and space, Adam’s spiritual rational soul was activated. Obviously, I have expanded the “one word” most used to describe an incomplete Adam. That word is “innocence”.

I sincerely believe that most people have no clue that the words “innocence” and “innocent” can be used as a stealth attack on the reality and logic of Adam.

Adam was innocent when he named the animals because he had not yet committed the Original Sin. While innocent, meaning lack of guilt, can include lack of knowledge, there is no way to dismiss Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 2: 20; Genesis 3:10; and the New Testament.

CCC, 397, refers to Adam letting his trust in his Creator die in his heart. In my humble opinion, this is what leads to your observation that Adam, on his own, wanted to determine the law of right and wrong. If I am misunderstanding, please let me know.

The below sentence is what concerns me because it is not clear that Adam had to understand the seriousness of sin before he could commit one.
“The OS was not merely the choice to commit a particular sinful or unrighteousness act. Rather it was the choice, by man, to determine what constitutes sinful or unrighteousness acts, disregarding the will of God in the matter.” from post 520. I put the key points in bold.
Adam had to choose to abandon God’s law before he freely sinned. The attack on the reality of Adam tries to point out that Adam did not have the intellectual capability of us humans. And then the attack continues that we are not responsible for our sins because of what we inherited from Adam. Yes, I know that whether or not Adam is real depends of what is being attacked.

CCC, 298 speaks to the fact that Adam went against the requirements of his creaturely status. This too can lead to your position. However, there is a time separation between thinking about chucking the requirements of his creaturely status and actually sinning. Being with Eve came before Adam’s action of disobedience. Granted that the time separation could be a mini-minute; however, given all the misunderstandings of the nature of the human species, it is important to defend the rational soul of Adam which is the source of Adam’s ability to choose sin with full knowledge. We cannot exclude free will that is based on intelligence before sin’s guilt.

 

[simpleas]

The way I see it, and the way the Church teaches it, is that man is born *separated *from God-and that is the chief aspect of OS; that’s the most striking-and harmful-injustice that resulted from Adam’s sin, from Adam having “scorned” God, as the catechism put it.

Man was meant for communion with God. And yet, do we have that communion from birth? Do we “walk with” God? Do we know Him in a direct, intuitive, immediate sense? If we did, do you think sin would prevail in this world? Or do we need to hear about Him, come to believe in Him (again, so to speak), place our *hope *in, and ultimately enter into a communion of *love *with Him, a communion to be fully realized with the Beatific Vision?

An ongoing question we need to ask ourselves: do we still, in one way or another, prefer ourselves to God, as Adam was said to have done?

Funny you should ask this, I asked the same similar question the other day…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11582689#post11582689

You are talking about us again, I am thinking more of Adam…
Can to two not be separate when discussing Adam?

If we knew God as Adam did before the fall, obviously there would be no sin. People profess to believe in God, but still choose to sin, they haven’t had the same connection as Adam once had.

 

[fhansen]

Thank you.

It is very important to understand that “natural law” was written in Adam’s heart at the very beginning of his life. I found a direct reference to natural law and the fact that it is part of human nature in this link, #9, The Creation of Man.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Here’s another good link:
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

The below sentence is what concerns me because it is not clear that Adam had to understand the seriousness of sin before he could commit one.

“The OS was not merely the choice to commit a particular sinful or unrighteousness act. Rather it was the choice, by man, to determine what constitutes sinful or unrighteousness acts, disregarding the will of God in the matter.” from post 520. I put the key points in bold.
​

The point of that statement was only to assert a difference in kind between Adam’s OS and any sin that followed. Adam wasn’t simply choosing to commit a particular personal sin, such as murder (which he wouldn’t desired to yet anyway in his original innocence); rather he was deciding something more basic; he was deciding whether or not to sin to begin with, whether or not to disobey God at all. Once disobedience occurred, God’s reign within man ceased; it had been broached, man had freed himself from the constraints that reason and love would necessarily place upon him.​

 

[grannymh]

If we knew God as Adam did before the fall, obviously there would be no sin. People profess to believe in God, but still choose to sin, they haven’t had the same connection as Adam once had.

May I briefly interrupt?

How is it obvious that If we knew God as Adam did before the fall, obviously there there would be no sin?

Greater knowledge of God or a better connection of God benefits a person. It does not remove human nature’s ability to initiate and control one’s own actions. (CCC, 1730-1733)

 

[fhansen]

May I briefly interrupt?

How is it obvious that If we knew God as Adam did before the fall, obviously there there would be no sin?

Greater knowledge of God or a better connection of God benefits a person. It does not remove human nature’s ability to initiate and control one’s own actions. (CCC, 1730-1733)

That’s good point. Their relationship obviously didn’t prevent Adam from sinning.

 

[fhansen]

simpleas:
Funny you should ask this, I asked the same similar question the other day…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11582689#post11582689

You are talking about us again, I am thinking more of Adam…
Can to two not be separate when discussing Adam?

If we knew God as Adam did before the fall, obviously there would be no sin. People profess to believe in God, but still choose to sin, they haven’t had the same connection as Adam once had.
And yet Adam sinned. While we lack the benefit Adam had, by his proximity to God, we also have an advantage over him, at least over Adam as we last meet him in Genesis: we’ve had time spent away from the Master to learn of the foolishness of sin, to learn of the fallacy in thinking we can have a life worth living apart from God. We’ve spent time in the pigsty, relatively speaking, so we can gain enough wisdom to run, like the Prodigal, back to the Father. With revelation we learn of Him. With grace we’re empowered to commune with Him. Our Redeemer makes it all worthwhile, and the life we’re to gain now is presumably greater than the one Adam enjoyed in Eden.

 

[grannymh]

Here’s another good link:
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

The point of that statement was only to assert a difference in kind between Adam’s OS and any sin that followed. Adam wasn’t simply choosing to commit a particular personal sin, such as murder (which he wouldn’t desired to yet anyway in his original innocence); rather he was deciding something more basic; he was deciding whether or not to sin to begin with, whether or not to disobey God at all. Once disobedience occurred, God’s reign within man ceased; it had been broached, man had freed himself from the constraints that reason and love would necessarily place upon him.

In addition to the discussion of “innocence” as it is explained in post 527, may I simply address this one point from post 529? I put key words in bold?
“Adam wasn’t simply choosing to commit a particular personal sin, such as murder (which he wouldn’t desired to yet anyway in his original innocence);”

Being in the state of innocence, meaning lack of guilt, does not remove human nature’s ability to initiate and control one’s own actions. It does not remove human nature’s inherent ability to be master of one’s own actions. With God-given freedom, Adam, having
a fully-complete human nature, could act or not act so as to perform deliberate actions on his own responsibility. To do this or that in the Garden, means that there are good and not-so-good (evil) possible actions which Adam could freely perform, even if he desired to murder. (CCC, 1730-1733; CCC, 396, last sentence)