Adam & Logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue_Horizon said:
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!
Click to expand...
Adam wanted to know evil by experience??? I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but that Adam is not the one in this thread. Furthermore, the real Adam in this thread was the first in his species; therefore, he did not have an 'inheritance" in the normal understanding.

When it comes to knowledge of good and evil – “good and evil” is simply a designation for knowing everything under the sun. What else is there to know besides good and evil and what is between the two? The reality is that God as Creator is the only one who knows everything. So when Satan tempted Adam to be like a God, one can imagine the thoughts going through Adam’s head. We need to keep in mind that Adam was not an infant intellectually.

According to Catholicism, Adam already knew about good and evil because God gave Adam a commandment of obedience. Both Adam and ourselves have a conscience. We are real and Adam is real. To affirm that reality, we understand ourselves and then we look for a human character in the first three chapters of Genesis who is like us. We are not a myth and neither is our counterpart.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Glad to have been able to make your evening!

I was really offering Merton as an acceptable counter-point to Campbell on this theme.
If Campbell is following the “you must sin to grow” theme that I think he is then I don’t agree with him.

While we may grow by sinning and repenting (if the Other offers us the opportunity which the Other need not do in all justice) I do not believe it is a necessary or best way to possess our full humanity and to be what God wanted us to be.

If “you must sin to grow” really just means “you must suffer to grow” then there is surely no issue with that. But then we aren’t talking about the Fall in that case anyway.

Merton certainly doesn’t agree that Adam’s sin was in any way a good thing.
We better reach our mature humanity and holiness through innocence.

Well that’s my reading of Merton - but it is a tough read.
 
grannymh said:
Adam wanted to know evil by experience??? I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but that Adam is not the one in this thread. Furthermore, the real Adam in this thread was the first in his species; therefore, he did not have an 'inheritance" in the normal understanding.

When it comes to knowledge of good and evil – “good and evil” is simply a designation for knowing everything under the sun. What else is there to know besides good and evil and what is between the two? The reality is that God as Creator is the only one who knows everything. So when Satan tempted Adam to be like a God, one can imagine the thoughts going through Adam’s head. We need to keep in mind that Adam was not an infant intellectually.

According to Catholicism, Adam already knew about good and evil because God gave Adam a commandment of obedience. Both Adam and ourselves have a conscience. We are real and Adam is real. To affirm that reality, we understand ourselves and then we look for a human character in the first three chapters of Genesis who is like us. We are not a myth and neither is our counterpart.
Click to expand...
GMH don’t shoot the messenger :o.
Probably better to hold fire until you’ve actually read what he has to say fully and in context.

Its a shortish book (and very hard to get as its highly theological and therefore not popular like his other works)
You are going to have to read it at least twice before you even start to piece together as to what he is really saying. Like you I threw it on the floor in disgust more than once the first time through.

But really it was me jumping to conclusions as to what he was trying to say.
What he is saying is probably fairly simple, but it so breaks the mould of conventional understandings that there is nothing “safe” to hold onto at first.

In fact I learn’t a lot more just by rifling through the book for quotes that would give the jist of what he says on this particular discussion.

Its amazing that a guy so difficult to live with could come out with the stuff he does for his time.

An observation re your shoot from the hip reaction to Merton though:
Did Adam “know” Eve?
Here we see the difference between Greek and Hebrew understandings of that simple little word.
That to my mind is is the distinction Merton is making us understand wrt Adam’s knowing.

“Inheritance”? I think you are over-thinking this one.
I understood from the context that it means all the gifts that God gave Adam - like a Father. No big deal to me.

I don’t know if you have read much of Merton.
He doesn’t write in a dry dogmatic theology style (though he was a very well trained theologian). He has a mystical approach and therefore we can expect poetic licence.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Glad to have been able to make your evening!

I was really offering Merton as an acceptable counter-point to Campbell on this theme.
If Campbell is following the “you must sin to grow” theme that I think he is then I don’t agree with him.

While we may grow by sinning and repenting (if the Other offers us the opportunity which the Other need not do in all justice) I do not believe it is a necessary or best way to possess our full humanity and to be what God wanted us to be.

If “you must sin to grow” really just means “you must suffer to grow” then there is surely no issue with that. But then we aren’t talking about the Fall in that case anyway.

Merton certainly doesn’t agree that Adam’s sin was in any way a good thing.
We better reach our mature humanity and holiness through innocence.

Well that’s my reading of Merton - but it is a tough read.
Click to expand...
I think they are similar in that they are speaking to the mystical experience. You need to get out of the everyday to experience it. Although freely given we have to reach for it.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
GMH don’t shoot the messenger :o.
Probably better to hold fire until you’ve actually read what he has to say fully and in context.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are mixing me up with one of your other friends. I am granny.😃

As for shooting the messenger? The messenger is the Catholic Church. But please do not be concerned. On this thread, it is a tad difficult to recognize Catholic Church teachings.

I woke up this AM with a wonderful thought about the Socratic Method. 👍 It sounds like a great philosophical tool which will stimulate critical thinking which, by the way, is a good thing. I apologize for my slow thinking. When I was sharing about how we used to solve problems back in the days before fax machines – guess what? Our meeting was just like the Socratic Method you referred to in post 634. There was a lot of critical thinking and no one shot the messenger.

And guess what? This Socratic method sounds like a great way to approach various issues regarding Adam & Logic.

A good starting place is the real primeval event which took place at the beginning of human history. (CCC, 390; CCC, 388-389; CCC, 396-409; and especially CCC, 289)

To refresh my memory…

"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
An observation re your shoot from the hip reaction to Merton though:
Did Adam “know” Eve?
Click to expand...
This reminds me of one of my most embarrassing moments in Alaska. A young friend was talking about her guy and she mentioned that they were getting to “know” each other in the biblical sense. I had to ask “how?” :o But maybe you are referring to another meaning.
Here we see the difference between Greek and Hebrew understandings of that simple little word.
That to my mind is is the distinction Merton is making us understand wrt Adam’s knowing.
Click to expand...
I refuse to ask how.
“Inheritance”? I think you are over-thinking this one.
I understood from the context that it means all the gifts that God gave Adam - like a Father. No big deal to me.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
I don’t know if you have read much of Merton.
He doesn’t write in a dry dogmatic theology style (though he was a very well trained theologian). He has a mystical approach and therefore we can expect poetic licence.
Click to expand...
Decades ago, I read *Seven Story Mountain. *I was impressed, but now I cannot remember why beyond the fact that someone was sharing his inner life with me. To be honest, I stopped reading decades ago. That may have been a good thing. Currently, I read what is necessary for my part-time work off CAF in the area of Catholic teachings. That is a good thing.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
I think they are similar in that they are speaking to the mystical experience. You need to get out of the everyday to experience it. Although freely given we have to reach for it.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about Merton but I’ve never thought Campbell would’ve actually *had *mystical experiences, at least not in the sense of the Catholic reporting of said events.
 
grannymh said:
I woke up this AM with a wonderful thought about the Socratic Method. 👍 It sounds like a great philosophical tool which will stimulate critical thinking which, by the way, is a good thing.

-snip-

And guess what? This Socratic method sounds like a great way to approach various issues regarding **Adam & Logic. **
Click to expand...
To refresh everyone’s memory …

"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

To get everyone up to speed, here are the two axioms of this thread.
  1. God as Creator exists. from post 1.
  2. God as Creator interacts with humans. from post 247
The goal of this thread is to affirm that there is a real human Adam as explained by the Catholic Church using the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In my humble opinion, it is logical, given the human nature we possess, that Adam possessed the same basic human nature which is explained in the Catechism. That being the case, we can proceed logically to related Catholic teachings . I do realize that it is a tad difficult to recognize Catholic Church teachings on this thread.

A good starting place is the real primeval event which took place at the beginning of human history. Here we see the watershed of human history which is Original Sin. (CCC, 390; CCC, 388-389; CCC, 396-409; CCC, 355-421; CCC, 1730-1732; and especially CCC, 289)

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
 
…Thank you for catching us up. I really appreciate that. Perhaps you might add one more fact so I can feel anything I might add has not been said or has no need to be said at all.
Where exactly did Adam come from bodily ? I realize it all goes back to God and The Holy Spirit’s breath gave Adam his unique Soul…but on the evolutionary line…if it applies…how did Adam get here ? Thank you

"Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, **elenctic 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

To get everyone up to speed, here are the two axioms of this thread.
  1. God as Creator exists. from post 1.
  2. God as Creator interacts with humans. from post 247
The goal of this thread is to affirm that there is a real human Adam as explained by the Catholic Church using the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In my humble opinion, it is logical, given the human nature we possess, that Adam possessed the same basic human nature which is explained in the Catechism. That being the case, we can proceed logically to related Catholic teachings . I do realize that it is a tad difficult to recognize Catholic Church teachings on this thread.

A good starting place is the real primeval event which took place at the beginning of human history. Here we see the watershed of human history which is Original Sin. (CCC, 390; CCC, 388-389; CCC, 396-409; CCC, 355-421; CCC, 1730-1732; and especially CCC, 289)

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/**
 
BklynTony said:
…Thank you for catching us up. I really appreciate that. Perhaps you might add one more fact so I can feel anything I might add has not been said or has no need to be said at all.
Where exactly did Adam come from bodily ? I realize it all goes back to God and The Holy Spirit’s breath gave Adam his unique Soul…but on the evolutionary line…if it applies…how did Adam get here ? Thank you.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the Catholic Church includes *both *rational spiritual soul *and *decomposing material anatomy in its teachings about the human person. From the universal Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 365. For additional information, please refer to paragraphs 355-421 and paragraphs 1730-1732,
**365 **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.
In general, the human body is part of the material world of natural science. Natural science is a gift from God which has benefited society especially in the medical arena.

While Catholics, including clergy, are involved in natural science, there are no official, properly defined Catholic doctrines regarding some specific area or theory of science. The current, modern exception is that the Catholic Church must address scientific theories which intersect with Catholic doctrines. From Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, #35. I put the key point in bold. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.** If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.**
This paragraph remains intact in the 21st century.

There are various answers to the question “Where exactly did Adam come from bodily?” Many suggestions come from the material realm of science. However, it must be remembered that when a particular scientific theory intersects with Catholic doctrines – Divine Revelation trumps.

This citation has current information.
Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.

Regarding individual science theories, there is a ban on evolution discussion in this Forum. Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)
 
grannymh said:
The fact is that the Catholic Church includes *both *rational spiritual soul *and *decomposing material anatomy in its teachings about the human person. From the universal Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 365. For additional information, please refer to paragraphs 355-421 and paragraphs 1730-1732,
**365 **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.
In general, the human body is part of the material world of natural science. Natural science is a gift from God which has benefited society especially in the medical arena.

While Catholics, including clergy, are involved in natural science, there are no official, properly defined Catholic doctrines regarding some specific area or theory of science. The current, modern exception is that the Catholic Church must address scientific theories which intersect with Catholic doctrines. From Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, #35. I put the key point in bold. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.** If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.**
This paragraph remains intact in the 21st century.

There are various answers to the question “Where exactly did Adam come from bodily?” Many suggestions come from the material realm of science. However, it must be remembered that when a particular scientific theory intersects with Catholic doctrines – Divine Revelation trumps.

This citation has current information.
Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.

Regarding individual science theories, there is a ban on evolution discussion in this Forum. Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION
Pope John Paul II

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points”

“Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward** the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis**. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION
Pope John Paul II

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points”

“Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward** the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis**. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
Click to expand...
To date, from my understanding, the Church would say that there need not be a conflict between monogenism and evolution.
 
fhansen said:
To date, from my understanding, the Church would say that there need not be a conflict between monogenism and evolution.
Click to expand...
There can be however, depending on the definition.

There are dogs of every shape, size and colour because of how we breed them.
These differences occur because specific genes are being selected when the dogs are bred.
If something like this is what is meant be evolution, I don’t see there being a problem.
There were dinosaurs then, and now we have birds.

If however, a theory claims that it is this sort of process that has led to the creation of animals and of man, it is wrong.
Man is a separate being, and regardless of how some people choose to live, he is not an animal.

Man was created as is revealed in Genesis.
One man: body and spirit in holy unity.
It is from that human being that we have all originated.

That it occurred, I believe science will finally reveal, when all the data is in, the definitions sorted out and the statistics clarified.
How this occurred, I do not believe science can tell us.
There is no way of knowing if God simply moulded matter to form a body similar to those of animals, or perhaps created an egg that split in two within the womb of some hominid, these two being Adam and Eve.

This computer is held together and performs its functions as a result of the physical laws of nature.
No one would claim that it could have been formed by the random limited properties of matter alone.
Yet something far more complex, far more miraculous, some say came about in that fashion.
 
grannymh said:
It sounds like you are mixing me up with one of your other friends. I am granny.😃

As for shooting the messenger? The messenger is the Catholic Church. But please do not be concerned. On this thread, it is a tad difficult to recognize Catholic Church teachings.
Click to expand...
OK I think its time I retired from this thread.
GMH you have such a unique response style that I am repeatedly unable to grasp the reasons for the positions you take or even sometimes why you say the things you do 😊.

When politely challenged it would be good to sometimes acknowledge you may have gone a little off course - or supply sources when requested.

I was looking forward to a normal, lucid explanation for your objection to my scenario below as I believe you have the experience to offer something salient.
(Personally I see no intrinsic reason why A&E could not have gone forth and multiplied before eating of the tree 🤷). But for some it didn’t get off the blocks.
Cheers.
 
fhansen said:
To date, from my understanding, the Church would say that there need not be a conflict between monogenism and evolution.
Click to expand...
With respect to the ban on evolution discussion…

Post 665, quoted above, is a wrong conclusion promoted by those who wish to change Catholic doctrines to fit their personal preferences. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. :mad:

As a part-time writer/editor/researcher off CAF, I assure you that once the writings of John Paul II are thoroughly studied instead of being cherry picked, the same old truths about human origin and human nature will remain intact.

I trust that all will continue to abide by this forum’s ban on evolution discussion.

By the way, when one looks at some of the posts in this thread, one should get some ideas about how to remain true to Catholic teachings. When one believes in God’s existence, then the next step is to believe His personal invitation to each person to come and share in His divine life on earth (Sanctifying Grace) and eventually in heaven (Beatific Vision). This personal invitation to us is possible because God interacts with us as His beloved creatures.

This is a thread for believers. It is also a thread for those who wish to believe.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION
Pope John Paul II

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points”
Click to expand...
I wonder how many readers noticed that the crucial issue in this “Message” was not put in bold.
 
grannymh said:
With respect to the ban on evolution discussion…

Post 665, quoted above, is a wrong conclusion promoted by those who wish to change Catholic doctrines to fit their personal preferences. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. :mad:

As a part-time writer/editor/researcher off CAF, I assure you that once the writings of John Paul II are thoroughly studied instead of being cherry picked, the same old truths about human origin and human nature will remain intact.

I trust that all will continue to abide by this forum’s ban on evolution discussion.

By the way, when one looks at some of the posts in this thread, one should get some ideas about how to remain true to Catholic teachings. When one believes in God’s existence, then the next step is to believe His personal invitation to each person to come and share in His divine life on earth (Sanctifying Grace) and eventually in heaven (Beatific Vision). This personal invitation to us is possible because God interacts with us as His beloved creatures.

This is a thread for believers. It is also a thread for those who wish to believe.
Click to expand...
You’re asserting that monogenism and the theory of evolution necessarily conflict-in light of Humani Generis??? Which one do you oppose BTW?
 
fhansen said:
You’re asserting that monogenism and theory of evolution necessarily conflict-in light of Humani Generis???
Click to expand...
Because I follow the ban on evolution discussion, I cannot discuss you question.

From the position of the Catholic Church, I will point to the amazing intelligence of Pope Pius XII.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top