Original Sin

[grannymh]

Old Religion!
New Religion!

A hundred personal interpretations of the many individual points found in the first three chapters of Genesis …each interpretation attempting to explain either old or new “religion” depending on the involved century.

When faced with so many personal different explanations about human nature and Divine Revelation, we ordinary folk feel overwhelmed. My simple suggestion is to go back to chapter 14, Gospel of John where Jesus promises the Holy Spirit. When all is said and done, it is the Catholic Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, which proclaims the truth. This is why I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This book, which is not a page-turner, helps sort out solid doctrines from legitimate speculations.

There are a number of speculations arising from the first three chapters of Genesis. One which was in an old thread was the speculation that Adam and Eve were vegetarians. What is not a speculation is that Adam’s nature per se is an unique union of both the spiritual and material worlds. (CCC, 355) To understand this, one needs to continue reading the following CCC paragraphs.

This century’s dangerous speculation is that Adam was not a complete human being at the beginning–meaning that he did not know right from wrong. CCC, 366 refers to the spiritual soul as being created immediately by God. There is not even a hint that somehow the spiritual soul and its tools had to be developed over time or over a span of personal experiences. Granted, Adam and ourselves need to learn how to use our intellectual powers; however, the fact remains that our capacity for intellectual thought, including judging right from wrong, is present at conception when our body made of matter became a living person. (CCC, 365)

When Adam is incorrectly described, all kinds of “spiritual” substitutions are used to explain conscience. For example, understanding conscience as some kind of punishing source or that its “rules” are determined by individuals. These are extreme ideas which can flow from the facts that when we choose “wrong”, it is possible to feel guilty and that we can change our conscience to what pleases us regardless.

Catholic teaching is so important because it keeps knowledge of human nature in the correct balance as created by God.

Please refer to the link in post 405. Thank you Simpleas.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-consciences-have-to-be-formed-not-just-followed

 

[OneSheep]

First of all, grannymh, are you responding to something I wrote? I don’t understand why you write some of the things you do, they seem to be assertions that are “correcting” something that no one else wrote.

Spirituality, grannymh, is much more than quoting something from a book. Have you ever heard “The truth will set you free?” Are you operating from “The truth will set you free, except from the Truth”? Can you understand that every single person is different, that every single person has a different relationship with God, will have a slightly different vocabulary, and have a slightly different conscience? We are not robots, grannymh. Much of our makeup is very mechanical, and that is part of what enslaves us, but we can be free. Are you chained to certain doctrine? Do you fear saying something “wrong”? Be free, grannymh! You are imprisoned by fear! Speak from your heart, not from a book! I will pray for your freedom.

Old Religion!
New Religion!

A hundred personal interpretations of the many individual points found in the first three chapters of Genesis …each interpretation attempting to explain either old or new “religion” depending on the involved century.

When faced with so many personal different explanations about human nature and Divine Revelation, we ordinary folk feel overwhelmed. My simple suggestion is to go back to chapter 14, Gospel of John where Jesus promises the Holy Spirit. When all is said and done, it is the Catholic Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, which proclaims the truth. This is why I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This book, which is not a page-turner, helps sort out solid doctrines from legitimate speculations.

There are a number of speculations arising from the first three chapters of Genesis. One which was in an old thread was the speculation that Adam and Eve were vegetarians. What is not a speculation is that Adam’s nature per se is an unique union of both the spiritual and material worlds. (CCC, 355) To understand this, one needs to continue reading the following CCC paragraphs.

This century’s dangerous speculation is that Adam was not a complete human being at the beginning–meaning that he did not know right from wrong. CCC, 366 refers to the spiritual soul as being created immediately by God. There is not even a hint that somehow the spiritual soul and its tools had to be developed over time or over a span of personal experiences. Granted, Adam and ourselves need to learn how to use our intellectual powers; however, the fact remains that our capacity for intellectual thought, including judging right from wrong, is present at conception when our body made of matter became a living person. (CCC, 365)

Here is an example of “why did she say that?”. Did someone say something contrary to that last sentence?

Can you tell me from your heart, not from a book why such speculation is dangerous? This, again, says “fear”. I pray that you find it within yourself to answer that question.

When Adam is incorrectly described, all kinds of “spiritual” substitutions are used to explain conscience. For example, understanding conscience as some kind of punishing source or that its “rules” are determined by individuals. These are extreme ideas which can flow from the facts that when we choose “wrong”, it is possible to feel guilty and that we can change our conscience to what pleases us regardless.

Catholic teaching is so important because it keeps knowledge of human nature in the correct balance as created by God.

Please refer to the link in post 405. Thank you Simpleas.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-consciences-have-to-be-formed-not-just-followed

Yes, that is a good article. We could discuss this, but I am beginning to wonder if you are somewhat incapable of normal conversation. I think it must be the fear factor. I asked you a bunch of questions about this in my last post to you.

The fact is that our conscience mechanism is involved with enormous amounts of daily experiences. When we show up to a party looking very different than everyone else, our consciences give us a belt, for example. But I qualify the “we”! Some people do not feel ashamed, others do. Is the person “wrong”? Is there something in the CCC that says we are to stop or correct the conscience when it comes to trivial things? (OMG, I hope not).

No, grannymh, there is no single conscience on earth that is exactly the same as another, and it would be impossible to legislate a conscience to fit everyone. Does that scare you, grannymh? Please, do not be afraid. The Church guides us on the important content.

 

[OneSheep]

Reading it again, grannymh, I get it.

“We ordinary folk feel overwhelmed.”

There is nothing to fear, grannymh. There is nothing overwhelming about the comfort of our relationship with God. If there is fear there, please address it. God loves you very much. God asks you not to fear Him.

God Bless your day.

 

[OneSheep]

I for one agree with you, but I’ll try to play the devil’s advocate (no pun) and suppose that the labels evil / good people have to do rather with practical reasons.

I understand that X has been blind and ignorant when he has done bad things, but if X persists in doing bad things and harming people and shows no signs of changing his behavior, it entitles me to simplify my language for practical reasons and label him as “evil”, where “evil” is somehow the equivalent of “Don’t follow his example: danger!” or even “Avoid him: danger!” when I have enough reasons to fear that X will harm me or others. So the label “evil” shouldn’t prevent me to continue to understand his blindness and to harbor no resentment towards him. (Likewise, “he’s a good man” may mean not that I’m sure he can’t do anything wrong, but that I’ve noticed that his behavior is mostly good.) That’s why they say “love the sinner, hate the sin”. But it’s true that this phrase may be used as well to hide our incapacity of forgiveness, when we end up by concentrating so intensely on the sin that the sinner is in fact ignored as a person, reduced to his function of being a “plinth” of his sin.

You have a very good point, use of the word in the way you stated is practical, to some degree. What I am talking about is essentially building the Kingdom.

Look at these words:
Stupid
Lazy
Worthless
Evil
Bad

When we use these words in reference to someones character, they carry with them resentment. The ordinary use of these words reflects lack of understanding and forgiveness from the speaker. When we use the words, the resentment is implied and upheld.

So, in the Kingdom, let’s have our language reflect our sentiments. If I say “bad” person, I mean that I resent the person. If I say “bad” person, and I don’t resent the person, then I am still giving the impression that I not only resent the person, but the person should be resented. This is implied in phrases like “Axis of Evil”.

And, like you stated, the label itself stereotypes. My conscience is quite averse to stereotypes. “Psychology” is full of them: “Egotistical” “OCD” " “Schizophrenic”, etc. can all put people in little boxes. “Evil” and “bad” are the worst of such labels, for with resentment, our empathy is blocked.

Therefore, to use “evil” or “bad” without the accompanying resentment is a change in ordinary vocabulary. I do not have anything against changing vocabulary when it is practical to do so. It seems to me, however, that when we say “there is no such thing as a bad person” the statement reflect forgiveness. To me, it is much more practical to leave the definition unchanged and make the statement with the definition unchanged. We can forgive everyone, we can overcome all resentment. We can see that there is no such thing as an “evil (bad, wicked)” person.

Besides that, we have plenty of vocabulary that expresses that a person is not to be trusted, and dangerous, without using the labels. Granted, we can use almost any vocabulary to express resentment, and we hear it in a person’s voice. But when it comes to the use of the words we are talking about, they are nearly always charged with condemnation.

To me, use of “bad” or “evil” when describing anything that exists upholds dualism. Do you see what I’m talking about? I am talking about a vocabulary for non-dualism, a vocabulary for monism.

 

[grannymh]

First of all, grannymh, are you responding to something I wrote?

When my intention is to reply directly to something a person said, I use the quote button like I am doing now. In general posts, I am replying to “content” appearing on this public message board since I landed on CAF. In addition, I can present and reply to content (related to this thread) that I have gathered apart from this public message board.

I don’t understand why you write some of the things you do, they seem to be assertions that are “correcting” something that no one else wrote.

I respect our guests and their interests.

Earlier today, I checked the numbers for “Currently Active Users” at the bottom of this Forum. There were five CAF Members and 82 guests. This is the highest ratio I have seen. Maybe this is the morning for members to sleep in. Seriously, the average ratio is way smaller.

Each CAF member and each guest are equally important. Because I do use a particular book, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as a base for my study of Original Sin, I am also very aware of the misunderstandings connected to this book, including the misunderstandings of some our guests. Practically speaking, the sources of misunderstandings exist regardless of where they appear-- in the media or on a public message board. And yes, I hope to correct those misunderstandings in my small way.

 

[simpleas]

My apology, but this is technically removed from Catholicism to the point that I am not sure what is meant by the use of “from the beginning”.

Note: I consider that the beginning of Adam’s relationship with God was when Adam was given his spiritual rational soul, including the soul’s rational intellect’s tool (conscience) used for discerning right from wrong according to the law of God written deep within the human person. The voice of conscience speaks gently to us to “do this” or “shun that.”

For additional information about our conscience…

From* Guadium et Spes,* # 16

• 1. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

Thanks.

So if Gods law was written deep into Adam and Eves hearts so they would know right from wrong they would have been alive a few years…to develop the conscience.

I read something somewhere that Adam and Eve when created and given a soul sinned that same day, but that can’t be.

 

[simpleas]

From reading comments and questions on previous pages, I sense confusion between forgiving a sin and the results of the sin.

At one of Life’s Healing Journey retreats, a visiting priest explained forgiveness in this manner.

He referred to the crowded parking lot. Then he offered this scenario. “Suppose,” he began. "I get to the parking lot in time to see another car back into mine. The driver gets out and tells me that the crowded lot made it difficult to maneuver and he hopes I will forgive him.

Being the good priest that I am…" said while he winked at us in the audience. “Being the good priest that I am, forgiving others as I was taught, I would say to the man that of course I forgive you. That being sincerely said, I would then ask the man for his name and address so I could send him the bill for the repair of my car.”

Another way to look at forgiveness and the results of sin is this example from second grade. The nun had us picture a bow and arrow type contest where there was a target that had to be hit. The arrows stuck in the target. When the contest was over, a man came around and pulled each arrow out of the target. Then the nun said that the man pulling out the arrows was, in a way, like God forgiving us for shooting the arrows.

Note: Never mind that this was a contest and naturally the arrows would stick in the target. However, as I remember, none of us pointed out the inconsistency of the example. We were that caught up in the nun’s words. (She must have been an actress before the nunnery.)

The nun paused dramatically indicating that the point of the example was about to be revealed. “Now picture the target after the arrows have been removed,” she whispered. “Do you see the holes the arrows left in the target?” Of course, we could picture those holes!
She had us in her hands as she gave us the meaning of her story. “Those holes,” she said, “are the result of the arrows. They remained. When we sin, our sins are like the arrows hitting the target. Even when we are forgiven – when the arrows are lovingly removed – the results of sins, like those holes, remain.”

God demonstrated His forgiveness of Adam by promising a Reconciler. But the results of the Original Sin remain, like the holes made by arrows.

Great examples, wish I would have had teachers like this in my secondary school!

 

[simpleas]

Bingo!
The fruit seen by Adam and Eve was “good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom”. The fruit was good, since all God’s creation was good, and they could naturally recognize the goodness of the fruit (it wasn’t an illusion), because they were created good. To eat, to enjoy the beauty of nature and to desire wisdom are natural, fundamental attributes of man and all of them are good. The Church doesn’t teach that any of them is a sin. So why did God forbid them to eat the fruit and to acquire wisdom?

The text of Genesis explains that God wanted to stop his creatures from knowing good and evil because He didn’t want them to become “like Him”. But this reminds us rather of various mythologies with humans who rebel against multiple jealous gods and manage to steal some of their powers, since those gods weren’t omnipotent and omniscient and had to defend themselves from the threat represented by humans: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

IMO a way to make sense of this interdiction, in light of our history, is that self-control and the capacity to delay gratification, as psychologists say, is essential for our development - see the famous experiment with marshmallows:
newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer

I thought God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as he had made them perfect, without any chance of illness/death, so why would God be worried that they would live forever if they also ate from the tree of life?
So when they sinned they lost everlasting life, “you will surely die” therefore God could not allow them to eat from the tree of life in a state of sin?

The marshmellow story was interesting:thumbsup:
But the children could see, if they wanted what their reward would be, we cannot see, we have only been told what our reward will be if we wait…

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

So if Gods law was written deep into Adam and Eves hearts so they would know right from wrong they would have been alive a few years…to develop the conscience.

Here is the real problem found in certain approaches to conscience. Our conscience, which is a tool or act of our intellect, is spiritual. Conscience is not something separate from our spiritual soul. Because the spiritual is not material like our newborn bodies, the spiritual does not develop over time. The conscience is part of the territory of the spiritual soul which is created complete by God Himself. In your previous link, conscience is viewed as listening to the voice of God as He revealed himself in Scripture and in Tradition.

It is unreasonable to propose God holding back His own revelation which is essential to the goal of Adam and Eve. This primary goal, which depends on God, is to reside forever in God’s love. The Garden of Eden, either figurative or real geography, is meant to be temporal, that is, until Adam choses either obedience or disobedience. After this decision, Adam’s descendants (with Adam’s wounded nature) will populate the earth.
A key point made by Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver is that many, not all, people understand that conscience as listening to their own voice.

Please note that using our intellect and will to form our conscience means maintaining the original voice of God living within the human heart. This is not the same as our sharing in the life of God. Nor is it the same as the development of our infant body into an adult.

I read something somewhere that Adam and Eve when created and given a soul sinned that same day, but that can’t be.

That is a speculation that is neither here nor there when we consider Adam as a real person in whom all humankind is “as one body of one man.” Adam’s original holiness and justice was meant for all human nature. (CCC, 404)

 

[grannymh]

General Questions to think about when it comes to human spirituality.

What in the world makes Adam and Eve perfect? What is the standard for human perfection and who developed that standard?

What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?

 

[acacia12]

Interesting discussion. There is a kinda 12 step program feel to it.

 

[grannymh]

General Questions to think about when it comes to human spirituality.

What in the world makes Adam and Eve perfect? What is the standard for human perfection and who developed that standard?

:doh2:

Since Catholicism teaches the Divine Revelation found in the first three chapters of Genesis, it would be common sense to find out what that text actually teaches about God and humans. Genesis 1: 1 should be obvious.

Then the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, publically declared that one of the creatures in His created universe would be in His own image so that the creature (human person) could share in the Creator’s own life.
(Genesis 1: 26-31; CCC, 36; CCC, 225; CCC,307; CCC, 355-357; CCC, Index of Citations, page 689))

There is nothing more perfect than freely sharing in God’s life for eternity.

It should be noted that humans are not merely some type of mechanical material object. Human nature is a God-created unification of the spiritual and material. Hence, our spirituality should be freely directed to an eternal union with our Creator.

The reality is that in our current environment, the deep meanings of our spirituality are being attacked. Instead of standing as an individual, it is far better to be in tune with Catholicism.

 

[OneSheep]

:doh2:

Since Catholicism teaches the Divine Revelation found in the first three chapters of Genesis, it would be common sense to find out what that text actually teaches about God and humans. Genesis 1: 1 should be obvious.

Then the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, publically declared that one of the creatures in His created universe would be in His own image so that the creature (human person) could share in the Creator’s own life.
(Genesis 1: 26-31; CCC, 36; CCC, 225; CCC,307; CCC, 355-357; CCC, Index of Citations, page 689))

There is nothing more perfect than freely sharing in God’s life for eternity.

It should be noted that humans are not merely some type of mechanical material object. Human nature is a God-created unification of the spiritual and material. Hence, our spirituality should be freely directed to an eternal union with our Creator.

The reality is that in our current environment, the deep meanings of our spirituality are being attacked. Instead of standing as an individual, it is far better to be in tune with Catholicism.

So, which “deep meanings” of our spirituality do you see being attacked? I see Christian morality being pressured by society, but that is nothing new, and arguably is less so than before. What are you referring to, grannymh?

There is nothing you wrote in your post that has been “attacked” on this thread. Indeed, there is room for all of our viewpoints in our great Church.

 

[simpleas]

General Questions to think about when it comes to human spirituality.

What in the world makes Adam and Eve perfect? What is the standard for human perfection and who developed that standard?

What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?

What way does our conscience develop? Our conscience is taught by other people when we are growing, we are also taught how to walk/talk. If we were never aided by others would we not be able to walk, talk or develop a conscience by ourselves?

 

[vames]

I thought God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as he had made them perfect, without any chance of illness/death, so why would God be worried that they would live forever if they also ate from the tree of life?
So when they sinned they lost everlasting life, “you will surely die” therefore God could not allow them to eat from the tree of life in a state of sin?

The marshmellow story was interesting:thumbsup:
But the children could see, if they wanted what their reward would be, we cannot see, we have only been told what our reward will be if we wait…

Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to say. I don’t see the consistency here. God has no reasons to defend and protect Himself from His creatures, as they can’t really steal any of His powers and use them to fight against Him. “Wanting to be like God” in this sense is a stretch: how can a creature become like the Creator behind His back and despite His will? This sounds like “God can be defeated” and it’s incompatible with our understanding about God as being omniscient and omnipotent. By contrast, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” implies that God wants us to “be like Him” and that our true destiny as individuals and species is to grow up, to gain wisdom, to better ourselves.

In real life, children can’t see the future benefits of becoming able to delay gratification. Kids often hate school because of its discipline and don’t understand why they can’t be spoiled as much as they want. But your point “we cannot see, we have only being told” is valid in this context of this thread

 

[vames]

General Questions to think about when it comes to human spirituality.

What in the world makes Adam and Eve perfect? What is the standard for human perfection and who developed that standard?

What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?

Our newborn anatomy includes the brain with its capacity of conscience. We talk about “informed conscience” precisely because we know that content of the conscience is variable. Do we believe that God orders us to eat only kosher food? Do we believe that “infidels” should be killed or converted in the name of Allah? There are countless posts on CAF about what means to be faithful to our conscience and the relationship between “I feel that it’s good or at least harmless for me” and “I was taught that it’s bad for me”.

So it takes a big leap to think of Adam and Eve as people with a perfectly formed conscience, *despite *the fact that they didn’t even know good from evil. Hence the lack of solidarity with them and their Original Sin: 1) how can we think of them as real people, when they were endowed with a perfect conscience that real people can only dream about? and 2) *despite *their perfect conscience, they were duped as easily as small kids who quickly forget their parents’ advice when they are shown a tempting cake?

 

[OneSheep]

What way does our conscience develop? Our conscience is taught by other people when we are growing, we are also taught how to walk/talk. If we were never aided by others would we not be able to walk, talk or develop a conscience by ourselves?

Here is a typical experience:

Toddler A sees toy toddler B has.
Toddler A wants toy toddler B has.
Toddler A takes toy other toddler B has.
Toddler B cries and feels hurt.

When this happens enough times, toddler B will learn that “stealing hurts”, and a rule will develop in his conscience: “Stealing is bad” The child will feel guilty when he steals something from someone else (unless the child is blinded by his desire), and the child will think negatively toward other children who steal. Child B may feel compelled to control child A through violent means.

Certainly this will all come together faster if the parents get involved, but parental guidance is not imperative for a child to develop a normal conscience. People from all cultures and societies have mores, and the main mores are quite similar.

 

[vames]

To me, use of “bad” or “evil” when describing anything that exists upholds dualism. Do you see what I’m talking about? I am talking about a vocabulary for non-dualism, a vocabulary for monism.

Reason and judgement divide, classify and create hierarchies; intuition and love unite and transcend divisions and hierarchies. You can’t have one without the other, but it isn’t so obvious. Using language already means “labeling” (giving names) and differentiating between things. So language isn’t exactly your ally when you try to describe the ambiguity and the continuous nature of reality.

But one becomes aware that the meaning of a word changes: there’s a time when stereotypes are useful to help define or defend the integrity of a certain group in relation with others (bulgarus > bugger) and there’s a time where they become obsolete. One realizes that the language that he uses can be deceiving and must be rethought (the thing that makes fire burn must be “the phlogiston” and the thing that makes you harm others must be -----?). Is “there’s no such thing as bad people” mainstream? Maybe not now, but there are reasons to hope that it is feasible, that it is the direction.

Galatians:

23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

 

[OneSheep]

Is “there’s no such thing as bad people” mainstream? Maybe not now, but there are reasons to hope that it is feasible, that it is the direction.

If people like you and I do not encourage people in that direction, it is not going to happen. Can you imagine a world where adults forgive unconditionally? Can you imagine a world where when someone says, “Googlians are bad people” the person is recognized as living in a cloud of resentment, and that we are not to believe the person?

 

[grannymh]

Our newborn anatomy includes the brain with its capacity of conscience. We talk about “informed conscience” precisely because we know that content of the conscience is variable. Do we believe that God orders us to eat only kosher food? Do we believe that “infidels” should be killed or converted in the name of Allah? There are countless posts on CAF about what means to be faithful to our conscience and the relationship between “I feel that it’s good or at least harmless for me” and “I was taught that it’s bad for me”.

So it takes a big leap to think of Adam and Eve as people with a perfectly formed conscience, *despite *the fact that they didn’t even know good from evil. Hence the lack of solidarity with them and their Original Sin: 1) how can we think of them as real people, when they were endowed with a perfect conscience that real people can only dream about? and 2) *despite *their perfect conscience, they were duped as easily as small kids who quickly forget their parents’ advice when they are shown a tempting cake?

Sometime back I thought I recognized Cartesian [extreme] dualism. The beginning of this post is a great modern example or rather it is a great example of the Cartesian legacy which eventually led to communism and the denial of spiritual soul.

No wonder so many people are confused about Adam.,…when they are confused about conscience and perfection and intellective rational tools.

My apology, but I am not sure how to deal with all this. Personally, I find Catholic teaching so much easier to understand.