Was Adam representitive of the entire human race?

[minkymurph]

Ha, blinking well Ha (just good for 2 Ha’s)
I spend most of my time in this forum searching, as the topics have odd names nonunderstandable to broken English speakers.
So, I’ll fall right in love to the one who finds the thing - I give up seeking here and therefor stuck to the three I found

There’s a thread entitiled ‘God and Jesus: Is this a proper thing to say’ may interest you. Type that into your search and hopefully it should take you to it. You maybe need to refine your search. If you type in ‘Trinity’ you will be taken to anything that vaguely relates to the word. We are dealing with computers which can’t, YET, think for themselves. Try Trinitarian theology, or Relationship of the Blessed Trinity. Happy searching.

 

[Karlsruhe]

No, it doesn’t work
when I type in GOD AND JESUS
then this pops up

Was Adam representitive of the entire human race?<<
It appears there’s no thread for he holy Trinity

 

[Lief_Erikson]

They do? Well, yes years of male oppression would develop that tendency which is exactly what God said would happen: ‘your craving will be for your husband and he will dominate you.’ That was a consequence of original sin.

By the same reasoning, the coming of Christ was a consequence of original sin and is to be rejected, for his coming, also, was predicted in those early prophecies. “He shall strike his heel, and you shall strike his head.” The coming of the “seed” was predicted at that moment.

Even if man becoming head over the woman was a consequence of sin (and I’m not sure that’s true- from the first, Eve was created as a “helpmate”), that wouldn’t mean that it is a bad thing for woman in the changed order, any more than the coming of Christ is a bad thing for her.

There is no need for submission in a perfect union.

Even if that was true, no one on Earth has a perfect union with God . . . we won’t until we reach heaven, so it’s irrelevant.

But I don’t think it is true. Angels and archangels, seraphim and cherubim all dwell in the presence of God, and Jesus told his disciples that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the houses of Israel. Paul said that we would judge the angels, one day. So it’s pretty clear that in a perfect order, submission still exists.

Peter and Paul were very precise and rigid in their commands that Christians submit to “authorities,” which included the emperor, or secular authority, as well as their spiritual hierarchy on Earth. Paul also made repeated statements that wives should submit to their husbands, as this was the will of Christ.

 

[minkymurph]

Even if that was true, no one on Earth has a perfect union with God . . . we won’t until we reach heaven, so it’s irrelevant.

Paul also made repeated statements that wives should submit to their husbands, as this was the will of Christ.

Do those who go directly to heaven and not pass through the purgatorial state, the Saints, not do so because they have reached the fulfillment of faith in this life? I stand to be corrected of course. The Apostle Paul, well there are raging rows about what he said; how literally it should be taken, was he recording an infallible teaching or giving his own opnion in relation to custom at the time? We could go on forever. You obviously believe the man is the head of the woman and that woman was created to be man’s subject. I don’t. It’s unlikely we would change each others mind so we just have to agree to differ.

 

[minkymurph]

Even if man becoming head over the woman was a consequence of sin (and I’m not sure that’s true- from the first, Eve was created as a “helpmate”), that wouldn’t mean that it is a bad thing for woman in the changed order, any more than the coming of Christ is a bad thing for her.

Domination of women has never been good for them and cannot be compared to Christs sacrifice on the cross, rebirth as children of God and eternal salvation. Technically you are right. Being someone’s subject is not always a bad thing, but we humans being as we are it more often than not is because we by and large don’t make a good job of things. I think there is any amount of historical evidence that women have had it rough at the hands of men. Translations of the Bible I have read state that man and woman complemented each other. Not all translations read ‘helper.’ We had a debate in a history class if democracy was really better than dictatorship as if you had a good dictator, it may not be so bad and preferable to a wishy-washy liberal government who wants to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. Problem is, most dictators were not good dictators who had the best interests of their people at heart. It was power and we humans handle power very badly. Maybe because we where never meant to have it in the first place.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This is an interesting quote which makes some sense to me but I don’t know where the notion comes from of fallen angels being jealous of mans’ prerogative to repent and return to Gods’ favor. I’m not saying it’s not true, I just hadn’t heard it before, especially as a motive for satans’ jealousy. Is there some source material out there for this?

I have absolutely no supporting material for this whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form at all.

I do think it’s true, if for no other reason than it “sounds nice”, and you’re more than welcome to run with it and dig up any support you can find or invent or whathaveyou.

My only rationale for believing it is that it’s about the simplest “personality based” solution to the weird enigma of an ANGEL, for God’s sake, completely mucking up his existence over the, as presented in scripture, trivial creation of man!

I say “personality based” because it doesn’t rely on God laying down a COMMANDMENT that, “All angels henceforth shall serve mankind!”, but rather the motivation of satan to rebel comes from his “private revelation” (personal observation) of the facts as observed by him of what God was, probably somewhat quietly, doing in His creation of man’s environment (material world circa Eden) and then man’s creation as another critter like himself (satan) with some measure of intellect and absolute free will.

PRIVATE REVELATION is not RELIABLE! It will MESS YOU UP!

…anyway, so speaketh this noodle-head.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The “flaw”, I believe, is simply the relative imperfection of anything outside of God. He determined that it was still worth it to create knowing that evil would result from combining freewill with flawed creation in the form of us and angels.

Creation was not flawed!

There was no FLAW at all. It is simply an inherent quality of free will that evil is possible due ONLY to it. The capability to do evil is not a BUG, but rather a FEATURE!

The only way that God can be God as a being who does no evil, is if there is contrast to Him. He is the being who HAS absolute free will and yet NEVER creates evil with it! WE, and the angels, are beings with absolute free will who do (or have, as the angels only had one chance to mortally sin) create evil, or rather “rearrange creation evilly”, which propogates evil into creation which subsequently propogates more evil, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, ad nearly infinitum, till Jesus comes back because we’ve done our lessons properly, finally.

We’re not particular good students now are we?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The problem with this is that man was created after the animals. It’s not a straight line time progression, apparently.

I realize that.The purpose of all earthly life is fulfilled in man I believe. You’re seeing smooth because I’,M not expressing the chronology at all but the union in terms of distance. Before after don’t pertain to eternall activity. How long were the fallen angels pure? That doesn’t pertain to them IMO. but nearness and farness 'in or ‘out’ likeness unlike

OK. I like to think of there being three different “eternities”, in rather a nesting fashion.

• God’s eternity is God’s absolute freedom of His absolute power, and which has no beginning or end.
• The angels eternity, which had a beginning but no end, where the “free will gifted” inhabitants “probably” were created simultaneously, which has some strange impossible for humans to understand version of “time”, in which angels and demons deal with our human-time-bound environment and us. (My “guess” is that the angels were created VERY close to the “angel time” when man’s environment was created, so that they wold be witnesses thereof.)
• Our human eternity, which had a beginning “just after” the beginning of “angel eternity” and which has no end, but which has a “material phase” and an “after material phase”, which was ORIGINALLY only composed of the so-called “after material phase” which yet contained our material environment. First our environment was created, then Adam was created, through whom all the rest of our kind were created individually into “human time” (we are created in the material phase), where we (Adam) goofed and led God to split our “after material phase” into our present “material phase” and after material phase".

…and my train of thought has run off the tracks, so I’ll shut up now.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Not sure what you meant by that last line. Thanks in advance for an explanation.

Just expressing in dramatic terms that we are a composite being.

Is there something wrong with refering to our lower faculties as beast? Is Animal a word less offensive or more accurate?

We aren’t really a “composite being”, but more like a “being of it’s composition”.

One can’t be human, even if dead, without being composed of what God used to make us from.

In our eternity (the human one as opposed to the angelic one or God’s eternity) we are ALWAYS connected with our material body (though if in the post-life portion it is a “mysterious semi-to-full glorified” form of connection).

Here’s another of my unsubstantiated opinions again: The Holy Spirit is God’s taking “angelic form” so as to “connect with them” as He did with us by taking “human form” in Jesus.

Of course, He took “angelic form” BEFORE He created angels (I think!?), while He took “human form” AFTER He created man.

Why? I haven’t thought that far out yet… Give me time!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
God created our environment, the non-“angelic”/non-“god” realm, before He created us. Then He created us as the second of two creatures with “full” free will.

We were not created to be in any way like angels, other than we possess both have free will and intellect.

What distinguishes us from angels isn’t so much what we’re made of as what state our lives operate in. Eternal or becoming.

Nah. With all due respect, that sounds like Theo-babble to me!

Humans are created from our God-created-for-us environment. Angels are created from THEIR God-created-for-them environment.

These two environments are utterly different. We don’t become angels when we “die”. We remain human creations, human persons, composed of that “eternal human environment-stuff” which we WOULD HAVE BEEN created of if Adam hadn’t blown it.

The “glorified body” is merely the “eternal human environment-stuff” which we SHOULD have been created from, while what we got was the “school room” version (“dumbed down with training-wheels”) of it due to having to do our lessons, and which we only actually GET when we’ve completed our schoolwork.

 

[minkymurph]

PRIVATE REVELATION is not RELIABLE! It will MESS YOU UP!

I agree with you and I disagree with you. It depends on the Revelation. Saint Bernadette saw 16 apparitions of the Virgin Mary. In the last apparition, she gave her a message which she was to tell no one and until the day she died, Bernadette never told anyone what that secret was. Now David Icke had a revelation that the British Royal family were all shape changing reptiles and he had the power to save the world. I don’t go along with those revelations, but one’s that deepen our understanding of truth yes. No one else saw the apparitions only Bernadette herself and the interesting thing was, when she was questioned by the Parish Priest as to who this ‘lady in white was who had appeared to her,’ she stated the lady told her ‘I am the Immaculate conception.’ The Immaculate conception was being discussed at the highest level at the time and the Pope was considering passing it as infallible doctrine. Bernadette however was an illiterate shepherdess and couldn’t have known this, the Priest was pretty taken aback at what she said as an illiterate shepherdess, (she was also about 13) would not have spoken in such a way. We know the visions at Lourdes were authentic and I’ve had the wonderful experience of having been to Lourdes twice.

 

[fhansen]

Creation was not flawed!

There was no FLAW at all. It is simply an inherent quality of free will that evil is possible due ONLY to it. The capability to do evil is not a BUG, but rather a FEATURE!

The only way that God can be God as a being who does no evil, is if there is contrast to Him. He is the being who HAS absolute free will and yet NEVER creates evil with it! WE, and the angels, are beings with absolute free will who do (or have, as the angels only had one chance to mortally sin) create evil, or rather “rearrange creation evilly”, which propogates evil into creation which subsequently propogates more evil, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, ad nearly infinitum, till Jesus comes back because we’ve done our lessons properly, finally.

We’re not particular good students now are we?

I’m saying that the possiblity of evil comes from Gods’ gifting freewill to beings who are unavoidably imperfect due to their not-being-Him. The greater their freedom, the greater the possibilty of a “fall”. This is the reason, I believe, why anyone would even consider doing anything as stupid or unwise as to “rearrange creation evilly”-something we would never do if we possessed His perfect wisdom. It’s probably like saying even God can’t create another God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
most likely find that Adam and Eve did do little venial sins all the time, for which they were forgiven by God during their daily walks with Him, and the ONLY mortal sin available for them to do was to be “inappropriate” with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

Alot would come to light if the mystery of the fruit were revealed wouldn’t it? Everyone has a best guess but what it is is danced around. Do you know what the fruit of the tree is?

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was simply “evidence of irrevocable action”.

The fruit didn’t “grant” any knowledge, other than that it was bitten. You can’t “unbite” a fruit!

When Adam/Eve bit it, they realized they’d just done PRECISELY what God told them not to do! They couldn’t hide the evidence! Oh ****! What do we do NOW!!?

Then they did those silly things, like try to hide, make excuses, blame it on that bully, etc.

There’s really no mystery in the fruit, other than it only supplied Adam/Eve the opportunity to PROVE utterly that they’d disobeyed God.

How does sin even venial happen if we aren’t burdened with disordered desires?

For the same reason that seemingly unjust suffering happens, in our post-Eden earthly environment. Not having God’s perfect knowledge of how things operate in their environment, and only possessing preternatural knowledge, they wold occassionally “stumble over things”, which annoyed them. Being “annoyed” with God’s creation, because you don’t perfectly understand it in every detail, is venial sin. I’m sure there were laughs had all around during their little walks when Adam/Eve (and maybe some offspring?) asked God to explain that “annoying thing over there”, and their being sorry they got annoyed, after which God taught them further of what they needed to learn about their environment.

Man was created to be taught by God, even in Eden, about how to get closer to Him, and not be “annoyed” by the things they’re being taught.

As far as the fruit goes I don’t think it was in their minds untill Eve heard a voice from it.

I’m absolutely sure (!?) that God told them about the ONE (and ONLY) “mortal sin producing” thing which they could do, right up front and utterly explicitly (DON’T Do THIS!).

Satan was just impatient (he’s just FULL of ancillary sins isn’t he!?) that it was taking “too long” for Adam/Eve to do what he (satan) saw as inevitable, which really WASN’T inevitable, by scandalizing mankind as best he could into proving they were “inferior” to him, and supposedly poke God in eye in the process.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t think anyone will ever isolate a ‘sin gene.’ Though some mad scientist may try in an attempt to irradicate it. It is inherent in our nature and as you say, our will. We do not however know in a physical sense what human will is. We cannot physically define will, mind, personality, and ultimately, soul. We don’t know for sure what exactly the original sin was other than the first human pair willed something other than what God willed for them. We do however know very well the fall out of original sin.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
When God was creating man’s environment, satan (being the “brightest” of the bunch capable of observing God’s doings) quickly figured out that this “material persistence” quality of the stuff that man would eventually be made from would allow them to disobey God and LIVE with an opportunity to repent and be forgiven that which they (the angels) would eternally be “damned”!

What makes you think that Satan would even want God’s mercy or forgiveness or love to be jealous of it? If he could want that he could receive it.

This is incorrect. Satan can’t repent because repentence is an impossibility for angels due to there very nature. ALL decisions of angels (demons) are ETERNALLY MADE, because they live in a “no turning back” kind of eternity.

God’s eternity is also a “no turning back” kind of eternity, but He never errs in His decisions. We also, eventually, live in a “no turning back” kind of eternity, but we are singularly graced with being allowed to “turn back” (repent) while still in the “material phase” of our human eternity.

He eternally rejects God and being jealous of humans because they can receive those things doesn’t make sense to me . He hates God and God’s image and likeness is just more to desire destruction for IMO.

When satan decided to mortally sin by rejecting God over his “brilliance” he eternally defined what HATE meant. He “hates God” because the definition of “hate” is what he did!

The REASON that he (satan) did what he did (which defined hate) was due to a misinterpretation of what God was showing him, and the “final straw” of what he was shown was man as “priviledged”, when in fact man was just gifted in his facility of free will (being far greater than the angels) while the angels were treated equally by being gifted in their facility of intellect (being far greater than man’s).

Satan illutrates all the sins possible in his treatment of, dealing with, the “creation of man” scenario!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I was just clarifying, and that was not a “shot” at you.

I’m just curious as to whether in your opinion the Church’s interpretation of revelation overides personal interpretation, or not.

Should you choose not to answer, that’s fine.

Firstly I would say why are you curious to know? I’m sorry I mentioned any personal revelation as you seem to have taken great exception to that fact. Call me a heretic or not really a Catholic if you want. Accuse me of believing I don’t need the Church, thinking I’m better than everyone else or whatever your reading into what I said if you choose. It’s not the first time someone has taken 2+2 from one of my posts and come up with 10. I’ve said what I have said and I’m not going to enlarge on it. I’m not going to degrade something I greatly treasure by subjecting it to an argumentative dissection in an internet forum. Forget I said it and come back to the thread.

I’m curious to know whether in your opinion the Church’s interpretation of revelation overides personal interpretation, because if it doesn’t, then you have told me that you need correction.

I’m not interested in anything but finding our what you think, by what you voluntarily say here, and clarifying where you are correct according to the Church, as well as where you are incorrect according to the Church, and informing you to the best of my ability, and hopefully in the most charitable way as possible, of your correctness and incorrectness.

You know full well that anything you say can be misinterpreted, and the thing to do with a misinterpretation is to inform the misinterpreter as to how they are incorrect in their misinterpretation.

I’m certainly not asking you to “degrade something [you] greatly treasure” here! Actually, I’m not sure how explaining something you greatly treasure CAN be degraded by making it more clear to others?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

the wife tends to look up to and submit to the husband automatically…

They do? Well, yes years of male oppression would develop that tendency which is exactly what God said would happen: ‘your craving will be for your husband and he will dominate you.’ That was a consequence of original sin. Men would think it would be natural to be the ‘head’ and women would submit as Sin completely disrupted the divine union of the man and woman. They where ‘one flesh.’ Their head was God. Originally, man did not need to be a head as both man and woman were in the presence of God, he communicated with both directly and in God’s presence, there is no head other than God. The idea that women need to submit to men for a marriage to work to me is another distortion of the divine union caused by sin. There is no need for submission in a perfect union.

Would you consider it appropriate to call God “she” in any context?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I was the one who said I had been offered a place at a Catholic University. I live in Northern Ireland and things work very differently here. There are a great many Catholic schools and the vast majority of Catholics attend Catholic schools. Some non-Catholic children attend Catholic schools as well due to the fact they have such a good reputation. Non-Catholic schools are called ‘controlled’ schools as they are funded by the State. Few Catholics if any would attend a state school here. Catholic schools are called ‘maintained’ schools as they are partly funded by the state and partly by the Church. To teach in a Catholic school you must complete what they call the Catholic Certificate of Education irrespective of your subject. You cannot teach in a Catholic school without one. There are very few Priests here who actually teach. One’s who do teach at University level. To teach religious studies you must complete what is called a Bachelor of Education degree which is actually two degrees, one in education and one in your specialist subject. You also need to take what is called a subsidary subject, mine will be history. To enter what is called ‘teacher training,’ studying for a BEd, which is what I will be doing come September, you need exams in English and Maths and a qualification in a Science subject as well as straight A’s in the subjects you want to study at higher level. The University also has an entrance exam. Getting a place to train as a teacher is therefore pretty stiff here. We also have integraded schools which are interdenominational and they are funded by the State. But there are not many of those. There are pressure groups here that want all schools to become integraded and faith schools done away with since peace broke out here.

Spelling is not overly important, then?

I’m being picky because examiners are notoriously picky about such things, and it’s unwise to develop bad habits which might thwart one’s plans.

Plus, we do have that little “edit” button down there…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs

PRIVATE REVELATION is not RELIABLE! It will MESS YOU UP!

I agree with you and I disagree with you. It depends on the Revelation. Saint Bernadette saw 16 apparitions of the Virgin Mary. In the last apparition, she gave her a message which she was to tell no one and until the day she died, Bernadette never told anyone what that secret was. Now David Icke had a revelation that the British Royal family were all shape changing reptiles and he had the power to save the world. I don’t go along with those revelations, but one’s that deepen our understanding of truth yes. No one else saw the apparitions only Bernadette herself and the interesting thing was, when she was questioned by the Parish Priest as to who this ‘lady in white was who had appeared to her,’ she stated the lady told her ‘I am the Immaculate conception.’ The Immaculate conception was being discussed at the highest level at the time and the Pope was considering passing it as infallible doctrine. Bernadette however was an illiterate shepherdess and couldn’t have known this, the Priest was pretty taken aback at what she said as an illiterate shepherdess, (she was also about 13) would not have spoken in such a way. We know the visions at Lourdes were authentic and I’ve had the wonderful experience of having been to Lourdes twice.

Private revelation may be helpful, but it must always be subservient to public revelation as given us by the Church.

We can certainly agree on that, yes?

 

[minkymurph]

I’m curious to know whether in your opinion the Church’s interpretation of revelation overides personal interpretation, because if it doesn’t, then you have told me that you need correction.
I’m certainly not asking you to “degrade something [you] greatly treasure” here! Actually, I’m not sure how explaining something you greatly treasure CAN be degraded by making it more clear to others?

I could ask by what authority you correct but that would be petty. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume your someone who means well and not a Pharasee. You may not be asking me to degrade something I greatly treasure. That does not mean it will not happen if I subject it to internet scrutiny. Truth cannot overide truth because it does not need to. Truth can never be antagonistic to truth. Truth can never contradict truth. If someone receives a personal revelation from God, it cannot be contrary to the INFALLIBLE teaching. If it where, God would be fallible, and God is not fallible. I don’t know what I said that gave you the impression that personal revelation would overide what the Church states as infallible. However, not everything the Church says is infallible. The Church does not however say that everything it says is infallible. There are theological opinions that at present, the Church has no definite teaching. When the Church has not stated something infallibly, we are free to believe what we choose. At least that’s how I read the Catechism. The Church has stated infallible doctrine regarding the special creation of man, special creation of the soul, and sin and redemption. I dispute none of this. I am entitled to form philosophical opinions based on evidence of my own, when the Church has not declared it as infallible doctrine. I hope this puts this to bed but I have a feeling it won’t.