Adam & Logic

[grannymh]

With respect to Pope Pius XII.

I am amazed at his intelligence which let him see clearly what was happening in the early 20th century. Especially, since we needed guidance in regard to our foundational doctrines.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I wonder how many readers noticed that the crucial issue in this “Message” was not put in bold.

The Catholic Church is not against evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

What is required of the faith is a rejection of polygenism and belief in original sin.

Pope Benedict XVI

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that – however stammeringly – was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity. (Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, S.D.S. Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16)

The challenge isn’t “does evolution debunk original sin” but rather “original sin is true how does it fit in with our knowledge of evolution.”

 

[simpleas]

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

I have no problem believing that God made us, apparently 93% of the mass in our body is made of stardust.God created the whole universe. When it says God made man from the earth, then its very believable.
If we all evolved from a certain creature God created through time, when we were developed enough, he gave us a soul…

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church is not against evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

What is required of the faith is a rejection of polygenism and belief in original sin.

Pope Benedict XVI

The challenge isn’t “does evolution debunk original sin” but rather “original sin is true how does it fit in with our knowledge of evolution.”

Because I have been dealing with Adam since my own Catholic faith was shaken, it is possible to answer questions, from a Catholic position, without discussing evolution.

Years back, before the present ban, this philosophical thesis was offered.
Thesis: The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.
Due to a number of circumstances, including my own, discussion on this philosophical thesis was aborted. Yet, its approach has remained imbedded in my poor brain. Today, I use as my base for exploration – Divine Revelation trumps. Considering the number of Christian religions, I have deliberately chosen the Catholic religion.

The Catholic Church has not abandoned the philosophical (deductive) approach to the truths about God and human nature.
From CCC, 66.“Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”

Please note that CCC, 66 does not indicate that defined Catholic doctrines will change.

It is apparent that some, not all, Catholics are not sure what is included in Catholic teachings about human nature and its origin. FYI – The CCC Index of Citations, page 689, lists all the paragraphs which reference some point in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Of course, everyone is free to dismiss Catholic teachings. But – that does not change the reasoning process based on the fact that God exists.

Of course, the first three chapters of Genesis are not science 101. But – that does not change the information presented in those chapters.

Of course, the Catholic Church depends on the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. That goes with the territory.

In any scenario, the challenge is to first understand Catholic doctrines as being in the realm of spirituality, including the teaching that each human is in the image of God. That is why the human person is worthy of profound respect. Since we are spiritual creatures, it should be common sense to be curious about our goal beyond our material environment. (CCC, 396; CCC, 1730)

There is a lot to discuss about the Catholic position. --** I hope that we can keep this thread alive.**

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Because I have been dealing with Adam since my own Catholic faith was shaken, it is possible to answer questions, from a Catholic position, without discussing evolution.

Years back, before the present ban, this philosophical thesis was offered.
Thesis: The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.
Due to a number of circumstances, including my own, discussion on this philosophical thesis was aborted. Yet, its approach has remained imbedded in my poor brain. Today, I use as my base for exploration – Divine Revelation trumps. Considering the number of Christian religions, I have deliberately chosen the Catholic religion.

The Catholic Church has not abandoned the philosophical (deductive) approach to the truths about God and human nature.
From CCC, 66.“Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”

Please note that CCC, 66 does not indicate that defined Catholic doctrines will change.

It is apparent that some, not all, Catholics are not sure what is included in Catholic teachings about human nature and its origin. FYI – The CCC Index of Citations, page 689, lists all the paragraphs which reference some point in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Of course, everyone is free to dismiss Catholic teachings. But – that does not change the reasoning process based on the fact that God exists.

Of course, the first three chapters of Genesis are not science 101. But – that does not change the information presented in those chapters.

Of course, the Catholic Church depends on the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. That goes with the territory.

In any scenario, the challenge is to first understand Catholic doctrines as being in the realm of spirituality, including the teaching that each human is in the image of God. That is why the human person is worthy of profound respect. Since we are spiritual creatures, it should be common sense to be curious about our goal beyond our material environment. (CCC, 396; CCC, 1730)

There is a lot to discuss about the Catholic position. --** I hope that we can keep this thread alive.**

To be clear, are you saying that a literal interpretation of the fall is needed to discuss this?

 

[Aloysium]

The Catholic Church is not against evolution. . . Pope Benedict XVI . . . "original sin is true how does it fit . . .

The quote:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that – however stammeringly – was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world.

The clay is **a **being.
This special being formed the thought of God.
When he did so the **spirit **entered the world.

I would add that his forming these words was actually God’s calling him, His Spirit entering into Adam.
Original sin involves man’s subsequent turning from God.

I believe the science will ultimately support monogenism.
.

 

[grannymh]

To be clear, are you saying that a literal interpretation of the fall is needed to discuss this?

Thank you for your reasonable question.

What I said in post 674 is that the Catholic Church has not abandoned the philosophical (deductive) approach to truths about God and human nature. (CCC, 66)
As far as I know, there is nothing in the philosophical method used to discover truths that requires a literal interpretation of the Fall.

It is understandable that people are so entrenched in the debates of literal vs. figurative, science vs. faith, that the foundation for this thread (post 1) has been overlooked. This foundation for this thread consists of Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. As far as I know, there is nothing in the philosophical method that requires that every verse in those first three chapters automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

The jewel of this thread is that it gives us the freedom to move away from the debates of figurative vs. literal, faith vs. science.

This may be a downside for some people. It is Catholic teachings that become the authority when there are questions about literal vs. figurative; science vs. faith.

Because an organization has the right to determine its policies, I respect the ban on evolution discussion. I will not debate the ban.

I follow the principle of rendering to Caesar the material things that are his and rendering to God the spiritual things that are His. We belong to the spiritual world of God. And the spiritual world of God is explained by the Catholic Church based on the many research papers found in Holy Scripture and Tradition. There are so many ways of ending up in the doctrines of Catholicism.

Going back to this statement above.
“As far as I know, there is nothing in the philosophical method used to discover truths that requires a literal interpretation of the Fall.”

When we are free from the literal only or the figurative only format, we might ask ourselves about the truth being presented. What is the truth that the writer of Genesis was describing? Is it a literal truth or is it a speculation used as a figurative description of a truth? When we are using the deductive method, we might examine the two axioms to see how they would support a literal truth described figuratively. This is not easy which is why a thread is being used.

Going back to the second statement above.
“As far as I know, there is nothing in the philosophical method that requires that every verse in those first three chapters automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.”

This should be obvious, but it is not. We keep hearing the question "Is Genesis literal? There are 50 chapters in the book of Genesis with more verses than I am willing to count. Can that question about literal be a tad more specific? Is the talking snake literal? Could it be that the author of chapter three had never seen Satan in person?

Are you beginning to understand why I do not have a simple yes or no to the question, “To be clear, are you saying that a literal interpretation of the fall is needed to discuss this?”

When we remove the authority of science from the first three chapters of Genesis, we are still free to check out those chapters based on Catholic doctrines. I am definitely prejudiced toward the Catholic Church. But in our free world, we need a firm position in order to analyze all those verses.

As I said in post 674,
“Of course, everyone is free to dismiss Catholic teachings. But – that does not change the reasoning process based on the fact that God exists.”
What is needed to discuss issues of this thread, is a process or method that allows us to start with some basic truths apart from the material world of science.

In no way, does this mean that science is useless. It simply means that the spiritual world of God is first when we are examining the human being pre-Fall and post-Fall.

This thread is asking readers to look at human nature itself based on the Catholic approach to human nature. Because of the process or method, we can freely examine individual points in the first three chapters of Genesis from the literal position and from the figurative position. Eventually, we can add to the axiom “God as Creator interacts with humans.” With the Socratic Method, we can pose the question, Does God act personally with each human? That should really stimulate critical thinking. We need to get ourselves into the discussion.

I am worried that I have not come close to answering your very important question. At the least, can we use this post as a start?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am worried that I have not come close to answering your very important question. At the least, can we use this post as a start?

Let me rephrase then, do you feel it is necessary to this discussion to believe that humanity was formed in the way the second creation story of Genesis describes. Adam made of mud, fully formed Adult, sprung to life with the breath of God, Created before all the animals, Eve formed from Adam’s rib, etc.?

then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman.

 

[grannymh]

Let me rephrase then, do you feel it is necessary to this discussion to believe that humanity was formed in the way the second creation story of Genesis describes.

I do not feel it is necessary to this discussion to believe that humanity was formed in the way the second creation story of Genesis describes.

Adam made of mud,

It would not be necessary to believe that mud was the exact material or matter used. Because the first axiom of the thread is “God as Creator exists,” it would be necessary to accept that Adam’s anatomy was “fashioned” by God. “Fashioned” in the sense of making or transforming.

fully formed Adult,

Practically speaking, I do not feel it is necessary to believe either yes or no about Adam as a fully formed Adult. This is because Adam’s nature, fully formed or infantile, is one of the major issues to be discussed.

sprung to life with the breath of God,

This description can be both literal and figurative at the same time. What has to be accepted is that God created human nature based on the first axiom that God is the Creator.

Created before all the animals,

This time line is new to me. When I listen to Genesis 2:19-20, I hear God interacting with Adam which is the second axiom “God as Creator interacts with humans.” I also hear a reference to the fact that animals are not a suitable partner for Adam. This goes back to God as Creator Who can create different natures such as animal and human. Rather than pin down a time line, I would say that the two axioms have to be accepted for the discussion.

Eve formed from Adam’s rib,

What has to be accepted is that God is the Creator of Eve. Refer to Genesis 1:27. What is necessary to believe is that she is the same human nature as Adam, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. CCC, 371 simply says.
**371 **God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

Call me chicken if you want to. To me this is so mysterious that I do not want to chance a false interpretation.

etc.?

It depends on what it is.

For me, it is important to present the truths found in Catholicism. (Opening Post) It is important to have correct information on the table. What happens after that is up to the participants in the discussion.

What I do believe is that each person in a discussion should be prepared to make a discovery. It could be a major truth revealed by God or it could be a small detail which explodes into wonderful thoughts about God and us.

 

[Ion]

I do not feel it is necessary to this discussion to believe that humanity was formed in the way the second creation story of Genesis describes.

It would not be necessary to believe that mud was the exact material or matter used. Because the first axiom of the thread is “God as Creator exists,” it would be necessary to accept that Adam’s anatomy was “fashioned” by God. “Fashioned” in the sense of making or transforming.

Practically speaking, I do not feel it is necessary to believe either yes or no about Adam as a fully formed Adult. This is because Adam’s nature, fully formed or infantile, is one of the major issues to be discussed.

This description can be both literal and figurative at the same time. What has to be accepted is that God created human nature based on the first axiom that God is the Creator.

This time line is new to me. When I listen to Genesis 2:19-20, I hear God interacting with Adam which is the second axiom “God as Creator interacts with humans.” I also hear a reference to the fact that animals are not a suitable partner for Adam. This goes back to God as Creator Who can create different natures such as animal and human. Rather than pin down a time line, I would say that the two axioms have to be accepted for the discussion.

What has to be accepted is that God is the Creator of Eve. Refer to Genesis 1:27. What is necessary to believe is that she is the same human nature as Adam, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. CCC, 371 simply says.
**371 **God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

Call me chicken if you want to. To me this is so mysterious that I do not want to chance a false interpretation.

It depends on what it is.

For me, it is important to present the truths found in Catholicism. (Opening Post) It is important to have correct information on the table. What happens after that is up to the participants in the discussion.

What I do believe is that each person in a discussion should be prepared to make a discovery. It could be a major truth revealed by God or it could be a small detail which explodes into wonderful thoughts about God and us.

That means any story would do it… ???Just bla bla bla something but keep in mind that God is the creator and everything is ok…
I don’t think so.

 

[Ion]

I think there can’t be any interpretation if the story is not literary true.

 

[Ion]

I think there can’t be any interpretation if the story is not literary true.

What i meant is there were true events that are reflected in the Genesis, maybe the expression is in a form to make it accessible to all generations?
I do not believe it is an allegory because we are not creators and we would too far from it’s truth.

 

[grannymh]

That means any story would do it… ???Just bla bla bla something but keep in mind that God is the creator and everything is ok…
I don’t think so.

I think there can’t be any interpretation if the story is not literary true.

What i meant is there were true events that are reflected in the Genesis, maybe the expression is in a form to make it accessible to all generations?
I do not believe it is an allegory because we are not creators and we would too far from it’s truth.

Ion,

I have combined your three posts into one because, in my humble opinion, they all point to the important fact that Catholicism’s search for truth does not stop with chapter three of Genesis.

The comment that it is possible that any story, bla, bla, bla, would do as long as God is Creator is true because we find that in a number of religions around the world, including ancient cultures. This is why Jesus commissioned us to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28: 16-20)

People can be interested in the qualifications of the Catholic Church and its history. We answer “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1: 1) At Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass we profess “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) We find in the Creation Story the direct link with Jesus hanging bloody on His cross.

While it is valid to say that there can’t be any interpretation if the story is not literary true, we must keep in mind that the Catholic Church, with the wisdom and guidance of the promised Holy Spirit, discerns Divine Revelation. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Ion’s last post can lead to further discussion and it can point back to post 679.
“What i meant is there were true events that are reflected in the Genesis, maybe the expression is in a form to make it accessible to all generations?
I do not believe it is an allegory because we are not creators and we would too far from it’s truth.”

Yes, there are true events in the first three chapters of Genesis. (I only deal with the first three chapters and not Genesis as a whole.) These events are essentially connected to the truth of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. The Catholic Church knows that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ. (CCC, 389, last sentence) The events of being created in the image of God and being able to communicate with Him are essential to the understanding of our own human nature. We find our ultimate goal in those three chapters.

Regarding the designation of “allegory”, we do find figurative language in the Creation Story. It is used to affirm a real event which is difficult to explain in human language. (CCC, 390) Going back to post 679. This serves as an example of how the Catholic Church finds truth in the story of Adam.

There are two kinds of one truth, that of the spiritual world and that of the material world. Our human nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual world and the material world. (CCC, 355; CCC, 364-366; CCC, 1730-1731) When we examine our human nature according to the information in those three chapters, we look to the Catholic Church as our guide when it comes to the spiritual world and our place in it. When it comes to the truths of the material world, we find that the Catholic Church does not have specific doctrines about the original composition of our decomposing material anatomy. It does have teachings about our sacred body, but not specifically about our blood and guts, skin and bones. We seek a doctor for information about our physical body. The Catholic Church has plenty of teachings about the value of our bodies in God’s eyes and the need to morally respect our body and the body of others. We shall not murder human life in the womb.

In post 679, I separated some of the obvious references to our physical body as not being covered by Catholic doctrines. In real life, when we do this, we must look at the complete Catholic teachings, especially our belief in the resurrection of our body. We simply cannot stop at Genesis, chapter three. We have to keep going to Pentecost and the founding of the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ. We receive the Holy Eucharist, the true presence of Jesus Christ, Who strengthens us in our Faith.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[simpleas]

I do not feel it is necessary to this discussion to believe that humanity was formed in the way the second creation story of Genesis describes.

It would not be necessary to believe that mud was the exact material or matter used. Because the first axiom of the thread is “God as Creator exists,” it would be necessary to accept that Adam’s anatomy was “fashioned” by God. “Fashioned” in the sense of making or transforming.

Practically speaking, I do not feel it is necessary to believe either yes or no about Adam as a fully formed Adult. This is because Adam’s nature, fully formed or infantile, is one of the major issues to be discussed.

This description can be both literal and figurative at the same time. What has to be accepted is that God created human nature based on the first axiom that God is the Creator.

This time line is new to me. When I listen to Genesis 2:19-20, I hear God interacting with Adam which is the second axiom “God as Creator interacts with humans.” I also hear a reference to the fact that animals are not a suitable partner for Adam. This goes back to God as Creator Who can create different natures such as animal and human. Rather than pin down a time line, I would say that the two axioms have to be accepted for the discussion.

What has to be accepted is that God is the Creator of Eve. Refer to Genesis 1:27. What is necessary to believe is that she is the same human nature as Adam, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. CCC, 371 simply says.
**371 **God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

Call me chicken if you want to. To me this is so mysterious that I do not want to chance a false interpretation.

It depends on what it is.

For me, it is important to present the truths found in Catholicism. (Opening Post) It is important to have correct information on the table. What happens after that is up to the participants in the discussion.

What I do believe is that each person in a discussion should be prepared to make a discovery. It could be a major truth revealed by God or it could be a small detail which explodes into wonderful thoughts about God and us.

Nicely put Grannymh

 

[fhansen]

What i meant is there were true events that are reflected in the Genesis, maybe the expression is in a form to make it accessible to all generations?
I do not believe it is an allegory because we are not creators and we would too far from it’s truth.

Ion, what we have to understand is that Scripture, while inspired, is also often difficult to understand, and Genesis 1-3 is a perfect example, with much depth of meaning about human nature and man’s relationship with God to be found there. And we need to know as well that the Church is equally inspired, inspired to correctly understand and convey the meaning of God’s word to us. And in that sense we can place our faith in the Church in the same way that we place our faith in the bible. So where language may be figurative the Church can discern it as so, as necessary, and where it is literal the church can also discern this. In the story of creation some important truths revealed are that God exists, that God is the creator of everything, including man, and that God has a unique relationship with man, where the two commune with each other, a relationship that must remain intact in order for man to remain intact, so to speak.

The story tells us that there were a literal first pair of parents who are literally the ancestors of all living humans who literally disobeyed God, breaking communion with Him, and that a profound change then took place in their lives as a result: the loss of immortality, the loss of self-control, the loss of harmony within themselves and with the world around them-the experience of good and evil with all that implies, including the suffering we all come to know in this world. In order for those truths to be literally true other aspects of the story need not be literally true. There need not be literal trees with literal fruit or a literal serpent involved in the account: these things can serve to figuratively represent or signify literal truths-and the Church interprets those meanings for us as well.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

What I do believe is that each person in a discussion should be prepared to make a discovery. It could be a major truth revealed by God or it could be a small detail which explodes into wonderful thoughts about God and us.

Love this. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

On Adam made of earth/mud - the note from the NAB, interesting word play

usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

God is portrayed as a potter molding the human body out of earth. There is a play on words in Hebrew between ’adam (“human being,” “man”) and ’adama (“ground”). It is not enough to make the body from earth; God must also breathe into the man’s nostrils. A similar picture of divine breath imparted to human beings in order for them to live is found in Ez 37:5, 9–10; Jn 20:22. The Israelites did not think in the (Greek) categories of body and soul.

Man: the Hebrew word ’adam is a generic term meaning “human being.” In chaps. 2–3, however, the archetypal human being is understood to be male (Adam), so the word ’adam is translated “man” here.

Per the timeline first God places the man in the garden, then decides he needs a helpmate, forms the animals, finds them lacking and then forms Eve.

Gen 2:15

The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

Gen 2:18-19

The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him

So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.

Eve’s name is also wordplay from the next chapter

[3:20] The man gives his wife a more specific name than “woman” (2:23). The Hebrew name hawwa (“Eve”) is related to the Hebrew word hay (“living”); “mother of all the living” points forward to the next episode involving her sons Cain and Abel.

Another interesting note is about Gen 2:25

The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.

[2:25] They felt no shame: marks a new stage in the drama, for the reader knows that only young children know no shame. This draws the reader into the next episode, where the couple’s disobedience results in their loss of innocence.

and from the next chapter 3:1

Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made.

He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”

[3:1] Cunning: there is a play on the words for “naked” (2:25) and “cunning/wise” (Heb. ‘arum). The couple seek to be “wise” but end up knowing that they are “naked.”

It seems that we miss a lot of story reading it in translation. It’s more entertaining and reads more as allegory if you can see the inside “jokes” of the wordplay.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It seems that we miss a lot of story reading it in translation. It’s more entertaining and reads more as allegory if you can see the inside “jokes” of the wordplay.

Even in English, the words used are important. Describing transcendental truth, it is more like poetry than philosophy.

If you take a look at your quote from Benedict (He is some writer!) for example, his use of “clay” gives one a sense of God’s moulding of man. Had he used slime, dust or earth (other translations) there would have been a very different feel to what he was trying to convey.

 

[grannymh]

I am so glad that the Thomists are a charitable lot. I am sure that sometime ago, they recognized that I had hit a dead end with my demonstration of Adam and Eve being the sole parents of humankind. Those dear posters have been so quiet…giving me time to figure out the next step. Here it is. At least part of the next step is here.

Axiom 2 “God as Creator interacts with humans.” is verifiable by selected passages in Holy Scripture. We do not have to prove these passages because, according to post 1, we are using the teachings of the Catholic Church. Circular reasoning does not apply because we consider that both ends of the circle (Catholic teachings and selected passages) contain truth.

Yet, there are still valid questions about axiom 2. “God as Creator interacts with humans.”

My first question is “How” does God interact? My answers kept going back to various scripture passages. “Why” does God interact? went straight to John 3: 16. While my answers are valid, they do not necessarily lead to the one and only original first human lovingly known as Adam.

Sometimes, I am so used to looking at a problem from our human angle, that I overlook God’s angle in addressing a problem. When Divine Revelation insists on the first human (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 22) then, from God’s position, God must have a way of interacting with an individual. Genesis 2: 18-20 describes God interacting with Adam as the first individual who was alone. This individual gives names to animals and again it is clarified that there was not another living organism with the same human nature as Adam.

God interacted with Adam. How? By giving Adam another job in addition to Genesis 2: 15. This answer was going nowhere. Being tired of it all, I rested and turned to look at God, figuratively speaking, and there He was in person, figuratively speaking, talking personally with the individual Adam about the cattle, birds, and all the wild animals. The “personally” angle was not figurative. There was no population of humans, just Adam. There was no voice from heaven like when John baptized Jesus. There were only two persons, one Divine and one human chatting with each other.

Now, I realize that a third axiom is needed – something like “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.” (CCC 374; CCC, 356-357; CCC, 1730-1732; and common sense)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I don’t think your axioms necessarily lead to the Catholic view. You can take the view of Panetheism and your axioms are still followed. God is creator and God interacts with humans. It’s impossible not to interact.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn “transcends”, “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that ‘All is God’, panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4] Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to paradoxical transcendent Divine Panentheism, through intellectual articulation of inner dimensions of Kabbalah, with the populist emphasis on the panentheistic Divine immanence in everything and deeds of kindness.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think your axioms necessarily lead to the Catholic view. You can take the view of Panetheism and your axioms are still followed. God is creator and God interacts with humans. It’s impossible not to interact. . .

God as Creator relates to humanity through each of us individually that we may all participate in eternal communion with Him.