Adam & Logic

[grannymh]

Fhansen,
It’s very weird how this thread has touched on another form of understanding Adam, I’ve just started to read a book on spirituality today and it’s mentioned something known as Kabbalah (tree of life) which in turn lead me to the website below.

If I could ask
Would the link below be one of the variety of beliefs you entertain?
Thanks

spiritofthescripture.com/id2347-what-does-the-garden-of-eden-represent.html

I will be happy to answer that with these comments about the link.

The section on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the opposite of Catholicism. The section on Adam and Eve cleverly denies the existence of God as Creator of our spiritual soul which in turn denies the Catholic doctrine that human nature is made in the image of God. Not only does this deny human nature, it covertly denies the possibility of eternal joy.

As the link says “It should be obvious that Adam and Eve weren’t literal people.” As anti-Catholics know, knock out Adam’s Original Sin and Jesus becomes a human prophet among the list of human prophets. The heresy of Arianism is alive and well in modern dress.

Here is a comment from the writer of this link. “In the traditional Christian church, we are mostly taught to look at the literal, surface meaning of scripture.” That is not the Catholic Church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In the Catholic Church, does Holy Scripture end with verse 28, chapter 1 of the book of Genesis?

Think about that. Are we to go forth and multiply with no responsibilities? No need for morals like honesty and love as long as we are multiplying. What would be the worth of women after they stop multiplying?

And what about the verse which precedes verse 28? How did Adam know he was created in God’s image if his only function was to go forth and multiply?

How do we know that we are in the image of God without a logical understanding of Adam?

GM I think I will wait for your overall reaction to my scenario itself that you promise…

My understanding of what you try to say would be helped perhaps by small targeted yes/no statements followed by elucidation of clear principles and why they apply to each yes/no statement.

Maybe its me but you’ve so overdone the socratic method and shorthanded your thoughts above I really am at a complete loss as to what you are even on about.
Sorry about that . Maybe one of us hasn’t had enough sleep. It could be me.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I will be happy to answer that with these comments about the link.

The section on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the opposite of Catholicism. The section on Adam and Eve cleverly denies the existence of God as Creator of our spiritual soul which in turn denies the Catholic doctrine that human nature is made in the image of God. Not only does this deny human nature, it covertly denies the possibility of eternal joy.

As the link says “It should be obvious that Adam and Eve weren’t literal people.” As anti-Catholics know, knock out Adam’s Original Sin and Jesus becomes a human prophet among the list of human prophets. The heresy of Arianism is alive and well in modern dress.

Here is a comment from the writer of this link. “In the traditional Christian church, we are mostly taught to look at the literal, surface meaning of scripture.” That is not the Catholic Church.

Adam and Eve don’t have to be literal people for original sin to be actual.

Per the CCC

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

It’s the original fault not the story that is necessary for faith.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

An alternate view:

From Joseph Campbell power of Myth

“In the Old Testament story God points out the one forbidden thing. Now, God must have known very well that man was going to eat the forbidden fruit. But it was by doing that that man became the initiator of his own life. Life really began with that act of disobedience.”

This is an oldie but a goodie, though it strongly contradicts the Catholic view.

I believe its very dear to psychology which hold that we mature and become fully human only by making mistakes and “sinning”. Might even be at the heart of the Prometheus myth.

Its attractive to a certain type of person, probably those Victorian “self-made men who worship their creator” types.

 

[grannymh]

GM I think I will wait for your overall reaction to my scenario itself that you promise…

My understanding of what you try to say would be helped perhaps by small targeted yes/no statements followed by elucidation of clear principles and why they apply to each yes/no statement.

Maybe its me but you’ve so overdone the socratic method and shorthanded your thoughts above I really am at a complete loss as to what you are even on about.
Sorry about that . Maybe one of us hasn’t had enough sleep. It could be me.

So you missed my reactions to your scenario…no big deal…they weren’t that important.

"Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

“Critical thinking is a tool by which one can come about reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process.” See interesting information in this link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

By the way, my name is granny not GM.

My sincere thank you to all who have participated in this thread. You are in my prayers.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This is an oldie but a goodie, though it strongly contradicts the Catholic view.

I believe its very dear to psychology which hold that we mature and become fully human only by making mistakes and “sinning”. Might even be at the heart of the Prometheus myth.

Its attractive to a certain type of person, probably those Victorian “self-made men who worship their creator” types.

It doesn’t seem that much coloring outside the lines. An omniscient God would know that they would sin, if he has foreknowledge before He creates them, he must have willed it. As Granny points out Christ as redeemer hangs on the need to redeemed from something, the fall.

 

[fhansen]

It doesn’t seem that much coloring outside the lines. An omniscient God would know that they would sin, if he has foreknowledge before He creates them, he must have willed it. As Granny points out Christ as redeemer hangs on the need to redeemed from something, the fall.

The Catholic account is that God had foreknowledge of the Fall and fore-ordained to use it to bring about a greater good, rather than willed sin/evil as if He were the direct lone cause of every evil committed.

 

[fhansen]

Its attractive to a certain type of person, probably those Victorian “self-made men who worship their creator” types.

Now I would think the “Victorian self-made men” types would be the ones who endeavor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, regardless of professions of faith or otherwise, rather than the types who might humble themselves before and bow to God. Francis of Assisi and John of the Cross just don’t fit my concept of the modern-age so-called individualist.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The Catholic account is that God had foreknowledge of the Fall and fore-ordained to use it to bring about a greater good, rather than willed sin/evil as if He were the direct lone cause of every evil committed.

I don’t see a difference “allowing it for purpose” and willing it. The events are still the same the outcome is still the same.

Knowing their fate before He creates them, he creates them anyway. He must have wanted it that way. If He wanted a different outcome would have done it differently.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you missed my reactions to your scenario…no big deal…they weren’t that important.

"Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

“Critical thinking is a tool by which one can come about reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process.” See interesting information in this link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

By the way, my name is granny not GM.

My sincere thank you to all who have participated in this thread. You are in my prayers.

Sorry GMH (I keep leaving off the H).
If you had a reason for defining my word “socratic” I am afraid I have missed that as well sorry.

BTW was the above your 'answer" to my scenario - or am I to wait for something more?

 

[fhansen]

I don’t see a difference “allowing it for purpose” and willing it. The events are still the same the outcome is still the same.

Knowing their fate before He creates them, he creates them anyway. He must have wanted it that way. If He wanted a different outcome would have done it differently.

Yes, I understand. But at the same time, if God is considered to be the direct cause of evil, then free will becomes an illusion-human moral responsibility is denied and we’re reduced to automatons. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It doesn’t seem that much coloring outside the lines. An omniscient God would know that they would sin, if he has foreknowledge before He creates them, he must have willed it. As Granny points out Christ as redeemer hangs on the need to redeemed from something, the fall.

I believe the problem for these guys is reconciling God-given human freedom with God’s authority over us as Creator.

For some reason they see these two facts as self contradictory.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Now I would think the “Victorian self-made men” types would be the ones who endeavor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, regardless of professions of faith or otherwise, rather than the types who might humble themselves before and bow to God. Francis of Assisi and John of the Cross just don’t fit my concept of the modern-age so-called individualist.

"Life begins with an act of disobedience” is prob just the sort of thing both a modern-age individualist and a self-made man and Adam might agree on.

But what sort of “life” is it really compared to what is lost.

 

[fhansen]

"Life begins with an act of disobedience” is prob just the sort of thing both a modern-age individualist and a self-made man and Adam might agree on.

But what sort of “life” is it really compared to what is lost.

The life that we’ll presumably have-and is promised- when no one any longer disagrees with and rebels against Reality. The life we’ll have when we eat from the Tree of Life, in harmony with the rest of the universe, rather than dividing from it. Boundless peace and happiness at being home again from an exile away from the source of our happiness. I’m not saying the exile is worthless or unprofitable-just something to leave behind when we’ve learned better.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

An alternate view:

From Joseph Campbell power of Myth

“In the Old Testament story God points out the one forbidden thing. Now, God must have known very well that man was going to eat the forbidden fruit. But it was by doing that that man became the initiator of his own life. Life really began with that act of disobedience.”

If the above set you thinking then I recommend Merton’s shortish work “New Man” which investigates very similar concerns.

eg

“Prometheus is condemned to be his own prisioner because he is incapable of understanding the liberality of God… the fire he thinks he has to steal is after all his own fire.”

“He cannot enjoy the gifts of God unless he snatches it away when God is not looking. This is necessary for he demands that giftys be his by right of conquest.”

“That is the paradox St paul saw so clearly: salvation belongs to the order of love, of freedom, of giving. It is never ours if it is conquered…only if it is freely given and received.”

“Adam wanted to add to his knowledge of good (which he already had) by an existential knowledge of evil. He wanted not only to know evil by theoretical inference from good, but he also wanted to know evil in a way that even God did not know - by experience.”

“…in reaching out for more he reached out for what was disastrously less and lost his inheritance… however it does not seem to me that this act alone would have sufficed by itself to destroy his union with God. That damage was done by all that was actually implied in the attitude leading to his sin… the Promethean exploit.”

“The fact that he was induced to steal the experience of evil (by an act of disobedience) clearly indicates to me that he felt that all the good that had come to him from God, could if lost, be stolen back.”

Makes the Redemption even more loving an act of God if the above be half true!

 

[fhansen]

If the above set you thinking then I recommend Merton’s shortish work “New Man” which investigates very similar concerns.

eg

“Prometheus is condemned to be his own prisioner because he is incapable of understanding the liberality of God… the fire he thinks he has to steal is after all his own fire.”

“He cannot enjoy the gifts of God unless he snatches it away when God is not looking. This is necessary for he demands that giftys be his by right of conquest.”

“That is the paradox St paul saw so clearly: salvation belongs to the order of love, of freedom, of giving. It is never ours if it is conquered…only if it is freely given and received.”

“Adam wanted to add to his knowledge of good (which he already had) by an existential knowledge of evil. He wanted not only to know evil by theoretical inference from good, but he also wanted to know evil in a way that even God did not know - by experience.”

“…in reaching out for more he reached out for what was disastrously less and lost his inheritance… however it does not seem to me that this act alone would have sufficed by itself to destroy his union with God. That damage was done by all that was actually implied in the attitude leading to his sin… the Promethean exploit.”

“The fact that he was induced to steal the experience of evil (by an act of disobedience) clearly indicates to me that he felt that all the good that had come to him from God, could if lost, be stolen back.”

Makes the Redemption even more loving an act of God if the above be half true!

This is quite good-might not be able to disagree with anything here.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is quite good-might not be able to disagree with anything here.

Its powerful stuff isn’t it.

So according to Merton, in God’s Redemptive Act He is basically saying to Adam/Us

“OK, you steal the created gifts I gave you in Eden…take it to the hilt and steal My Life as well which I place before you as my ultimate gift.”

And when faced with this new opportunity as we have not has since the ongoing bondage of Eden…we are also given a rare opportunity to truly face our own original evil…and possibly repent in love instead."

 

[fhansen]

Its powerful stuff isn’t it.

So according to Merton, in God’s Redemptive Act He is basically saying to Adam/Us

“OK, you steal the created gifts I gave you in Eden…take it to the hilt and steal My Life as well which I place before you as my ultimate gift.”

And when faced with this new opportunity as we have not has since the ongoing bondage of Eden…we are also given a rare opportunity to truly face our own original evil…and possibly repent in love instead."

OK, and since “salvation belongs to the order of love” it cannot be conquered, cannot be stolen, only “freely given and received”. God’s life cannot be stolen; we lose it when we try; we gain it when we allow Him to be God and give it to us. This one I could’ve written myself:
**
"…in reaching out for more he reached out for what was disastrously less and lost his inheritance… **

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

"Life begins with an act of disobedience” is prob just the sort of thing both a modern-age individualist and a self-made man and Adam might agree on.

But what sort of “life” is it really compared to what is lost.

I see it more akin to losing your virginity. You had innocence before but wow! what you gain.

Not that it can’t be misused or perverted but a sexual life, in proper context, trumps a pre-sexual one.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

If the above set you thinking then I recommend Merton’s shortish work “New Man” which investigates very similar concerns.

eg

“Prometheus is condemned to be his own prisioner because he is incapable of understanding the liberality of God… the fire he thinks he has to steal is after all his own fire.”

“He cannot enjoy the gifts of God unless he snatches it away when God is not looking. This is necessary for he demands that giftys be his by right of conquest.”

“That is the paradox St paul saw so clearly: salvation belongs to the order of love, of freedom, of giving. It is never ours if it is conquered…only if it is freely given and received.”

“Adam wanted to add to his knowledge of good (which he already had) by an existential knowledge of evil. He wanted not only to know evil by theoretical inference from good, but he also wanted to know evil in a way that even God did not know - by experience.”

“…in reaching out for more he reached out for what was disastrously less and lost his inheritance… however it does not seem to me that this act alone would have sufficed by itself to destroy his union with God. That damage was done by all that was actually implied in the attitude leading to his sin… the Promethean exploit.”

“The fact that he was induced to steal the experience of evil (by an act of disobedience) clearly indicates to me that he felt that all the good that had come to him from God, could if lost, be stolen back.”

Makes the Redemption even more loving an act of God if the above be half true!

I am a big fan of Thomas Merton, I haven’t read “New Man” I will dl it tonight. Thanks for the recommendation.

Looking at the quotes, I’ll have to read it to put them in context, but it all open to us, that is free will. I don’t see this far off from Campbell. To see the value of something it must be experienced. Only in hindsight do we see it as there all along. Campbell sees us swimming in the cosmic soup and we are sorting it out for ourselves guided by the myths. Adam’s story and ours as well. We have to “skin our knees” to experience life.