Adam & Logic

[Roscoe_Turner]

As for understanding Original Sin, may I suggest reading the posts discussing the topic of this thread which is Adam, a true human being, from the Catholic position which includes the spiritual world of God.

But from the view of Aquinas the effect of original sin is a physical one, that is why it is hereditary. If there are components of our heritage that aren’t entirely “human” aka homo sapiens there is implications to the hereditary nature of original sin. There are humans from Africa that don’t carry Neanderthal DNA, Humans from Europe do. Even if you take that the “first man” sprung from the clay as literal truth, the water (DNA) became muddy along the way.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That I think makes for interesting theological questions. . .

That discussion is about genetics and the scientific concept of species. The OP has to do with Genesis and what it tells us. There is concern that pursuing your points here might lead to the thread being terminated, so I will forego a more specific response.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That discussion is about genetics and the scientific concept of species. The OP has to do with Genesis and what it tells us. There is concern that pursuing your points here might lead to the thread being terminated, so I will forego a more specific response.

We aren’t talking about evolution but rather DNA. Even we take a literal approach to Genesis that Adam sprung forth whole. If there are other humans where do they fit in the idea of original sin. If Adam is “human” and original sin is passed through his descendants, what about those that have other contributions from other types of humans.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . DNA. . . other humans where do they fit . . .

Genetics and the scientific definition of species.
You may wish to start your own thread.

 

[grannymh]

But from the view of Aquinas the effect of original sin is a physical one, that is why it is hereditary. If there are components of our heritage that aren’t entirely “human” aka homo sapiens there is implications to the hereditary nature of original sin. There are humans from Africa that don’t carry Neanderthal DNA, Humans from Europe do. Even if you take that the “first man” sprung from the clay as literal truth, the water (DNA) became muddy along the way.

St. Thomas Aquinas said a lot of things. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition. Index of Citations, page 751-752. Paragraph 404 is a good example.

Since every view of St. Thomas has not been automatically turned into a Catholic doctrine,
and
since the Catholic reference to human nature assumes its unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds,
and
since a physical effect has to be physically described,
and
since the physical description and physical location of these physical effects have not been presented,
I am guessing that you are referring to something either outside of Catholicism or a misunderstanding of something said within Catholicism.

The wonderful thing about the Catholic Church is that it does not matter if one’s ancestors lived in Europe instead of Africa. All people, as descendants of Adam and Eve, are eligible for the Sacrament of Baptism which erases the contracted state of Original Sin. In Baptism, we receive Sanctifying Grace so that we are sharing in God’s life. Amazing!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Adam had a conscience to guide him. . .

This brings to mind some further thoughts:
It would be in his conscience that Adam heard God speak to him and thereby knew he should not eat that fruit.
There is no discussion in Genesis of his being troubled by the question, “To eat or not to eat?”
He heard that he could do better for himself, make himself greater than God had made him. He figured he could do as he pleased, take what he wanted, and acted as if he were not a creature, belonging and owing everything to God.
My conscience makes me think twice because I am aware of my sinfulness and ignorance.
Adam went full steam ahead with his choice, pretty much knowing what he was doing, but learning of the consequences later.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

All people, as descendants of Adam and Eve, are eligible for the Sacrament of Baptism which erases the contracted state of Original Sin. In Baptism, we receive Sanctifying Grace so that we are sharing in God’s life. Amazing!

It’s how you are defining human, that is the issue that presents itself when looking at the DNA. We are an amalgamation of species. Mostly Homo Sapiens but there are other things in the mix depending on where you ancestors came from.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This brings to mind some further thoughts:
It would be in his conscience that Adam heard God speak to him and thereby knew he should not eat that fruit.
There is no discussion in Genesis of his being troubled by the question, “To eat or not to eat?”
He heard that he could do better for himself, make himself greater than God had made him. He figured he could do as he pleased, take what he wanted, and acted as if he were not a creature, belonging and owing everything to God.
My conscience makes me think twice because I am aware of my sinfulness and ignorance.
Adam went full steam ahead with his choice, pretty much knowing what he was doing, but learning of the consequences later.

Also after eating of the tree of good and evil he learned he was naked and ashamed? Why? Nakedness isn’t shameful especially if the only person around is your wife. I think the “good and evil” are representing something else.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Nakedness isn’t shameful . . .

“Nakedness” is different than being solely “unclothed”
It suggests: vulnerability, a lack of protection; devoid of specific qualities and fullness (the naked ground, stalk); without concealment, perhaps self-deceit (the naked truth). I don’t read it as meaning “nude”.

 

[simpleas]

Please, what is the problem?

*St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225 *

Christ was Adam? Adam was christ?

 

[simpleas]

This is the reply I had prepared before I reached the limit for a single post.
It answers No. 2.

The answer to No. 3 is that I do not recall you using the word destroy.

No. 2.
We need to recognize the difference between living in some kind of Eden atmosphere of original holiness and justice and the value of imitating the virtues of Adam and Eve.

We need to become more familiar with the term sanctifying grace as being the same as original holiness because both refer to sharing in God’s life on planet earth.

As for mastery of self, that in itself does not remove the possibility of sin. Today, we have the special graces of the Catholic seven sacraments which help us gain and keep mastery of self.

May I gently suggest that you pause on previous post statements regarding the simple fact that Original Sin shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity?

Please think about who established the relationship between Adam the creature and God the Creator. Who had authority or power to create a being capable of sharing in Divine life?

I don’t have the idea of living back in an actual garden of Eden. I read alittle of PJP 2 theology of the body, and he suggested we should aim to live as once A&E did.

As the idea of Jesus being the new Adam has recently been discovered to me, I’d say it was either God the father or Jesus who had authority or power to create a being capable of sharing in Divine life.

 

[grannymh]

It’s how you are defining human, that is the issue that presents itself when looking at the DNA. We are an amalgamation of species. Mostly Homo Sapiens but there are other things in the mix depending on where you ancestors came from.

I use the Catholic definition of human. Please refer to post 1. A DNA definition is deficient (lacking in some necessary quality or element) which is why it is not part of this thread.

Hopefully, some readers have noticed that the fully-complete definition of human can be used in the deductive method of reasoning which can lead logically to two sole parents of the human species. It follows from the premise that God as Creator exists and the premise that God as Creator interacts with humans.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I use the Catholic definition of human. Please refer to post 1. A DNA definition is deficient (lacking in some necessary quality or element) which is why it is not part of this thread.

Hopefully, some readers have noticed that the fully-complete definition of human can be used in the deductive method of reasoning which can lead logically to two sole parents of the human species. It follows from the premise that God as Creator exists and the premise that God as Creator interacts with humans.

This definition?

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221
357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the **dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. **And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

Neanderthal buried their dead and created art etc. Evidence of those things, so you are including them. It’s much broader than our species Homo Sapiens. Correct?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . our species Homo Sapiens. . .

This is a discussion that warrants its own thread.

 

[grannymh]

*St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. *The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

Christ was Adam? Adam was christ?

I doubt it.

It looks like I have answered all your questions, except the one about needing Jesus to repair the broken relationship with God.

Adam, in whom is all humankind as one body of one man, severed his bond with God by committing the very serious act of disobedience aka Original Sin. God, Who is Divine, created the bond between Himself and His beloved humans. Obviously, God is the only one Who could restore this bond of sharing in His own life. Adam is just a human creature.

Yet, God so loved humankind that He did not abandon us. Jesus Christ assumed human nature minus sin, so that He, being Divine, could take Adam’s place in reparation for the shattered union between humanity and Divinity.

May God bless you as you continue to learn from all the information given you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Been away…

GM I don’t really understand your response to my below speculative scenario.
Maybe I have missed something:

The Scenario was:
Is there any intrinsic reason in your theology of the Fall why Adam and Eve could not have had children before they themselves Fell?

And if the above is possible (which I personally see no problem with as God did order them to go forth and multiply before Original Sin) then it would seem possible to have one set of children still in original innocence and another set in original sin?

I would be quite interested in seeing how you apply your understanding of Catholic theology principles in this area to such a scenario and exactly why you may or may not accept it as possible.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… 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.

GM I am a little dubious about this approach.
Are you able to provide a specific source for this type of explanation of how the truths of Genesis were communicated to mankind?

I do not believe we can really say that “Divine Truths were handed down from generation to generation” before Genesis - but perhaps I misunderstand you.
I believe that all we can say is that the redaction represented by Genesis and canonised by Judaism and Catholicism is Divine Truth/ Revelation.

If by some great miracle we suddenly discovered/unearthed the quite different writings that the author of Genesis is said to have melded and edited together (from different at least two Hebrew tribes/traditions) - I do not believe those writings could be called Revelation or “Divine truths”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

simpleas:
If we knew God as Adam did before the fall, obviously there would be no sin.

(I’ve been away and am going back thru the posts.
This seems to have slipped thru without comment.)

SimpleAS this is completely mistaken sorry .
Only the saints by a special grace (usually called purgatory or heaven) can sin no more.
Or maybe I misunderstand you here.

Perhaps you can explain why you think we would do better than Adam if we had Adam’s appreciation of God?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And both had the gift of immortality before the Fall.

Hmmmn, doesn’t sound quite right.
Can you define what you mean by “immortality” - there are different ways of enjoying immortality and I am not sure the verb “had” is suggestive of the kind they had .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Being wounded by Original Sin did not radically change Adam and Eve’s basic human nature of body and soul.

All good stuff GM but a few minor observations.

**"Did not radically **change Adam and Eve’s basic human nature of body and soul"
I know what you are trying to say but you may have categories of being a little mixed up (using the word “changed” in reference to “human nature” prob isn’t helpful) and end up underplaying the true gravity of the Wound which the Church indeed asserts.

As the CCC states: “human nature has not been totally corrupted” which means it came pretty close. I think that if we stick with the word 'corrupted" rather than “changed” things will fall into the right places.

No wound (great or small) can really change “basic human nature” as you call it. Such natures are by definition fixed and static. A human-being will always be composed of body and soul. The only “change” that definition could possibly undergo is that God rescinds His Divine Idea (blueprint if you wish)…then “poof” all concrete humans disappear as if they never existed.

But back to the CCC, what does serious “corruption” mean? I suggest it is not about the ontological status of “human nature” being attacked (which your expression above formulation suggests), rather the exercise/use of the powers inherent and given to us in that fixed human nature.

Just as a serious physical wound means we lose the use of certain bodily powers
(e.g. the use of a leg) so too by OS have we lost considerable facility **in the use **of inherent spiritual powers we still possess - which lie completely latent or very weak. This is often explained as the sofully ul losing its “normal” dominion over the body.

In short, the Wound has nothing to do with attacking or changing “basic human nature” at all. This is not really possible. Which is what I believe was the point you were making.
It has everything to do with our very seriously weakened mastery or use of the “powers” always inherent in human nature wounded or not. As the CCC puts it: “human nature is wounded in the natural powers proper to it…” (ie in the use of the powers).

Of all the creatures mentioned in the beginning of Genesis, Adam is totally unique.

This may not be as black and white as you state. Do you have an authoritative Magisterial source for this affirmation?

I believe, at least in terms of the book of Genesis itself, Eve can be viewed as just as unique as Adam wrt origination of the human species if that is what you mean.
There are in fact two Creation accounts in Genesis. In the first account Adam and Eve are both directly created by God. Only in the second account is Eve derived from Adam.

To opine that the second Account is but an amplification of the first does not appear very tenable as an explanation to resolve this textual contradiction. This is because on some significant points the two accounts are contradictory. This is the main reason why scholars believe the author of Genesis combined at least two very different source materials from different Hebrew tribal sources.

So if Genesis itself has contradictory views on the “uniqueness” of Adam as originator of the human race I find it difficult to believe we can support a theological doctrine upon it.

But then again maybe the Church has settled the matter despite Genesis
Hence if you have come across a clear Magisterial source on this point I would be quite interested to check it out.

His spiritual soul

I have noticed over the years that you use this phrase a lot yet it is really a redundancy isn’t it?
The soul is by its very nature immaterial - which is the primary meaning of “spiritual” in Catholic philosophy. There is no such thing as a “material soul” (though at a stretch one might be signifying a body).

Everybody knows that souls are immaterial - so I am wondering what special meaning you may be intentionally averting readers to by the construction?

Or is it that you are simply part quoting the CCC which uses this construction only when explicitly contrasting the difference between soul and body, as in:
“O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul”?