A lesson learned, Adam and Eve

[djames99]

I carried this over from the Scripture forum. It treats on the dissimilarities of judicial norms applied to created beings, and I feel seems non characteristic for a universe of plural created being environment.
.
I find some judicial inconsistencies in the sentence of Adam and Eve.

Up to the time of this garden event, judicially we know the Justice system was already fully established by the events of the fall of the angels. We know the punitive standards so far indicate that those created who are close to God, that is, those upper echelon executives close enough to experience a spiritual "sense" of a God existing, not quite a beatification in the true definition, even benefited by a one on one social interaction with him, could, before receiving sanctifying grace, find themselves in hell for sins committed.

Next, we jump to a different type of being. In the environment where he could sin, these dual nature beings are restricted to many of the privileges a close relationship and living conditions with it's experiences could provide. As well, the entity that is the enemy of this being acts out obscurely on him when desired, is capable of putting into mechanical action through the chemical and biological nature by applying his tempting instrument.

This process of intrusion cannot be physically prevented at it’s source or point of application.

The case of the fall of the angels, their free choice was imputed to them individually, and no blanket stigma to the genus(aware intelligent communitive spiritual beings) was applied. The reasoning of this decision was that each angel was unique and of it’s own species. The fact that they were of the same genus and similar in communicative abilities the courts found irrelevant. The fault is attributable to the genus.

The case of the fall of man, the woman ate the forbidden fruit and passed it to the man who also took a bite. Here the defensive celestial statutes readily available to the higher beings was not available to Eve. The obvious fact that a spirit form who tempted her was not the same species as the dual nature form of Eve, should therefore negate the stigmatic process to man, since we know that communicative abilities is not a factor, and only the type of being is significant. I don’t understand this reasoning. The direct sin of Eve could be imputed, as it was in the spirit to spirit analogy. We note that the mechanism is the same in that one persuades in some way to an action. One direct, another subtley. The differences imply some mitigation to the least advantaged*.

Another mystery to me is are the odds for a sin to be committed. If man is fallible, then the odds are two, that he will sin immediately, that he will sin later. If there were no external influences, then we could realize a Garden scene with possible stigmatization 1000 years down the road with the result of millions of generations of pre-sinless ancestors, mixed with a population of thousands of post original sin progeny. My question is, what are the odds that man happens to sin immediately and conveniently, orienting only progeny to the stigmatic agenda.?

Rawls, A Theory of Justice.

 

[Regina_Love]

They did not sin immediately, only after satan’s interference. They not only sinned, but also ate from the tree of knowledge. God makes laws to protect His children. God commanded them not to eat of this tree, because they were not ready for this knowledge. They were not ready because with knowledge comes the responsibility of responding in right action, and the consequences of responding sinfully.

 

[grannymh]

They did not sin immediately, only after satan’s interference. They not only sinned, but also ate from the tree of knowledge. God makes laws to protect His children. God commanded them not to eat of this tree, because they were not ready for this knowledge. They were not ready because with knowledge comes the responsibility of responding in right action, and the consequences of responding sinfully.

According to the Catholic Church, Adam had a rational, intellective, spiritual soul; therefore, he was totally ready to make the free choice of scorning his Creator.

 

[D_Martin]

My question is, what are the odds that man happens to sin immediately and conveniently, orienting only progeny to the stigmatic agenda.?

One in however many trees were in the Garden, the same odds as them eating from the Tree of Life before procreation, of the next generation. And none if they trusted in God’s Judgement for them. The odds would be very high if they learned to see God as they believe He ought to be, rather then He is.

 

[Michael19682]

djames99:

The case of the fall of man, the woman ate the forbidden fruit and passed it to the man who also took a bite. Here the defensive celestial statutes readily available to the higher beings was not available to Eve. The obvious fact that a spirit form who tempted her was not the same species as the dual nature form of Eve, should therefore negate the stigmatic process to man, since we know that communicative abilities is not a factor, and only the type of being is significant. I don’t understand this reasoning. The direct sin of Eve could be imputed, as it was in the spirit to spirit analogy. We note that the mechanism is the same in that one persuades in some way to an action. One direct, another subtley. The differences imply some mitigation to the least advantaged*.

The idea of stigma for me is that it serves as an apparent lowering, debasing of the person(s) bearing it. If man had dominion over all the creatures created, including the serpent, then why did he obey “it’s” advice? Is that why Jesus made himself servant (or most low and stigmatized) of all – to do just that – to harness man’s tendency towards the sin of (what is essentially) idolatry and turn it into Grace. The original disobedient tendency of original sin still with us by nature is now our impetus towards Grace. If we had no (repentance for) sin, we’d have no forgiveness, we’d never learn. In terms of justce this is not really punishment, but rehabilitation; the ongoing act of God’s creative (and salvic) work in us. When this creation ends only the Father knows.

Another mystery to me is are the odds for a sin to be committed. If man is fallible, then the odds are two, that he will sin immediately, that he will sin later. If there were no external influences, then we could realize a Garden scene with possible stigmatization 1000 years down the road with the result of millions of generations of pre-sinless ancestors, mixed with a population of thousands of post original sin progeny. My question is, what are the odds that man happens to sin immediately and conveniently, orienting only progeny to the stigmatic agenda.?

How would a society of pure people with no sin to pass down – dare I say it, behaviourally – ever have amongst them one to commit such sin. Probability? Who could possibly compute those odds? The power of sin therefore had to be the factor that exploited man’s freedom to set the course of his own actions. Interesting that the story uses food, with its associated appetite, hunger, as the source of their undoing. Just as today there is no-one without sin, so then. Did you ever read The Confessions of Augustine? He found sin in demanding his own mother’s breast milk. Yet we know that it is ok to kick in the womb, since John the Baptist did it sucessfully when he was near the Lord.

 

[atheistgirl]

It makes zero sense to me that a loving Deity would punish all of mankind for the wrong doing of two individuals.

It’s just like my great great grandpa once stole a sheep and my siblings and I are doing time for it.

No justice system I know of, except for North Korea, collectively punishes entire families for the error of others in a previous generation. North Korea’s labor camps are full of generations of people born there, because their parents or grandparents offended the regime.

It’s immoral, illegal and unjust.

And yet this is exactly what God is said to have done

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

It makes zero sense to me that a loving Deity would punish all of mankind for the wrong doing of two individuals.

It’s just like my great great grandpa once stole a sheep and my siblings and I are doing time for it.

No justice system I know of, except for North Korea, collectively punishes entire families for the error of others in a previous generation. North Korea’s labor camps are full of generations of people born there, because their parents or grandparents offended the regime.

It’s immoral, illegal and unjust.

And yet this is exactly what God is said to have done

Sarah x

The “punishment” was a natural consequence; nature itself had been scorned or disrupted by their act, they had created disorder where order had previously reigned, their “exile” was self-imposed. But this has an upside according to our faith. The universe won’t come crashing down around them. Humankind has a chance to recognize their folly and turn from it, turn from “unnaturalness” (sin), and back to the created order of things.

 

[atheistgirl]

The “punishment” was a natural consequence; nature itself had been scorned or disrupted by their act, they had created disorder where order had previously reigned, their “exile” was self-imposed.

Knowing the consequences, I’m sure God could have fixed it that future generations did not have to suffer the infliction of a ‘‘fallen’’ world, but He chose not to.

It’s fine to say don’t eat of the fruit or you will die, but I suspect the concept of death didn’t mean much to Adam and Eve if they were living in an eternal paradise (at that point).

Just as I can say don’t put your finger in the socket or you’ll get a shock. But if you’re a child, don’t understand how electricity works and are just viewing what looks like a harmless box on the wall, my admonition you’ll get a shock doesn’t mean very much.

If the child disobeys, they sure will get a shock, and won’t ever disobey again.

What if I said, OK, you disobeyed me, the shock was a natural consequence of your disobedience, I’m not be punishing you, you punished yourself, but now, you’re going to get shocked every minute of your natural life, and I’m not going to stop there, you’re kids, and your kid’s kids, and your kid’s kid’s kids ad infinitum are going to get shocked every minute of their life too.

I find the whole concept of original sin to be profoundly unjust.

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

Knowing the consequences, I’m sure God could have fixed it that future generations did not have to suffer the infliction of a ‘‘fallen’’ world, but He chose not to.

It’s fine to say don’t eat of the fruit or you will die, but I suspect the concept of death didn’t mean much to Adam and Eve if they were living in an eternal paradise (at that point).

Just as I can say don’t put your finger in the socket or you’ll get a shock. But if you’re a child, don’t understand how electricity works and are just viewing what looks like a harmless box on the wall, my admonition you’ll get a shock doesn’t mean very much.

If the child disobeys, they sure will get a shock, and won’t ever disobey again.

What if I said, OK, you disobeyed me, the shock was a natural consequence of your disobedience, I’m not be punishing you, you punished yourself, but now, you’re going to get shocked every minute of your natural life, and I’m not going to stop there, you’re kids, and your kid’s kids, and your kid’s kid’s kids ad infinitum are going to get shocked every minute of their life too.

I find the whole concept of original sin to be profoundly unjust.

Sarah x

Well, do you consider this life to be unjust? There’s certainly a great deal of injustice in it, the worst of which is human-made, which could be said to be a continuation of Adams stance. Sin =injustice IOW, at least one form of it. In any case we have to ask ourselves, is this life worth it?, whether or not we recognize it to be “shocking”, and regardless of how the shocks came to be. If we answer, “yes, it is worth it”, then we’re already agreeing, at least tacitly, with God that even this messed world is still worth it, still worth creating, existence is still good, and if we believe that God will make it even better, that justice will ultimately prevail and be restored, than existence is that much better yet.

 

[grannymh]

It makes zero sense to me that a loving Deity would punish all of mankind for the wrong doing of two individuals.

It’s just like my great great grandpa once stole a sheep and my siblings and I are doing time for it.

No justice system I know of, except for North Korea, collectively punishes entire families for the error of others in a previous generation. North Korea’s labor camps are full of generations of people born there, because their parents or grandparents offended the regime.

It’s immoral, illegal and unjust.

And yet this is exactly what God is said to have done

Sarah x

The Catholic faith teaches that humanity, as in the person of Adam, was originally in friendship with their Creator. When Adam, the creature, freely chose to scorn our Creator, he shattered humanity’s relationship with God.

Catholicism teaches that it is this state of humanity’s broken relationship with the Creator which is transmitted by propagation. If Adam, the creature in whom was the whole human race “as one body of one man” had chosen to obey the Creator, then we would be born in the state of original holiness and justice which is the state of friendship with God. Today’s Catholicism refers to original holiness and justice as the state of “sanctifying grace”.

 

[atheistgirl]

The Catholic faith teaches that humanity, as in the person of Adam, was originally in friendship with their Creator. When Adam, the creature, freely chose to scorn our Creator, he shattered humanity’s relationship with God.

Why didn’t it just shatter his relationship with God

Catholicism teaches that it is this state of humanity’s broken relationship with the Creator which is transmitted by propagation. If Adam, the creature in whom was the whole human race “as one body of one man” had chosen to obey the Creator, then we would be born in the state of original holiness and justice which is the state of friendship with God.

I just don’t understand that mentality.

 

[grannymh]

Why didn’t it just shatter his relationship with God

Because God loved all of humanity and the deal was that in Adam was all of humanity. And yes, Adam did know the seriousness of his actions. If I were there, I would have slapped him upside the head.

I just don’t understand that mentality.

On a human basis of understanding, not understanding that mentality is understandable.

A belief in God as a transcendent Pure Spirit requires one to recognize the difference between God and ourselves. A difference which is hard to understand in our material/physical environment. Yet, from the dawn of human history, all cultures have had a sense of the super-natural. Catholicism teaches that at the dawn of human history, the super-natural God created natural human nature in a manner that Adam (and his descendants) could eventually live in joy forever with our Creator.

Catholicism teaches that God loves each human being – a love which does not depend on affirmation. For me, this is a comforting thought. Still, I realize that I have to choose to love God even when my knowledge of Him and His actions is slim.

 

[inocente]

Why didn’t it just shatter his relationship with God

It’s easier to understand as allegory. We can imagine a world where there is no death, so why do we suffer? The Genesis 2-3 story argues that it can’t be God’s fault therefore it must be ours.

So we are all Adam and Eve, we all bring suffering on ourselves and we all must try to find a way back to the Garden, as in an old Joni Mitchell song:

*By the time we got to Woodstock, we were half a million strong,
And everywhere there was song and celebration.
And I dreamed I saw the bombers riding shotgun in the sky,
Turning into butterflies above our nation.

We are stardust, we are golden, we are caught in the devil’s bargain,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.*

 

[Michael19682]

atheistgirl:

I just don’t understand that mentality.

Interesting that you say mentality. When I try to consider what is presumably an atheist viewpoint, I think of the scenario where you “throw out the baby with the bath water”. If as an atheist (you believe that God cannot be seen or heard) and that his actions are not explainable, then you would still need an explanation for the main social problems attributed to an intelligently designed universe, i.e., sin, sickness and death. Unless you want to suppress free thought and imagination in people everywhere, you’ll need to answer them. Genesis was based on a Babylonian myth. modified for monotheistic purposes. Enuma Elish. None of that changes the reality of God. God is, Love.

 

[grannymh]

Interesting that you say mentality. When I try to consider what is presumably an atheist viewpoint, I think of the scenario where you “throw out the baby with the bath water”. If as an atheist (you believe that God cannot be seen or heard) and that his actions are not explainable, then you would still need an explanation for the main social problems attributed to an intelligently designed universe, i.e., sin, sickness and death. Unless you want to suppress free thought and imagination in people everywhere, you’ll need to answer them. Genesis was based on a Babylonian myth. modified for monotheistic purposes. Enuma Elish. None of that changes the reality of God. God is, Love.

May I gently remind you that some fundamental Catholic doctrines are based on Divine Revelation (not on a modified Babylonian myth) which are proclaimed in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Catholicism has not abandoned the truth of God’s love.

 

[Michael19682]

May I gently remind you that some fundamental Catholic doctrines are based on Divine Revelation (not on a modified Babylonian myth) which are proclaimed in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Catholicism has not abandoned the truth of God’s love.

Of course.

 

[djames99]

I don’t dispute the arguments of the two parties. I question why what appears to be a standard of justice that was not applied equally among the judged.

 

[djames99]

I don’t dispute that he sinned and was not deserving.

I find it puzzling the same reasoning, which is that the two angels were of differing species, therefore did not require stigmatization among the genus, was not applied in Eve’s case to mitigate her, that is, satan is a differing species than Eve, therefore not requiring stigmatization of the human race.

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t dispute that he sinned and was not deserving.

I find it puzzling the same reasoning, which is that the two angels were of differing species, therefore did not require stigmatization among the genus, was not applied in Eve’s case to mitigate her, that is, satan is a differing species than Eve, therefore not requiring stigmatization of the human race.

I’m not so sure at all that I understand your genus, species definitions clearly and succinctly. Whether the human race is or is not stigmatized, in whose eyes is this the case?

When a dog bites a person or is considered a dangerous animal by reason of past aggression towards people, it is put down, is it not? You just can;t do the same thing with a person. There is hope for a person in the way there is not for a dog. Similarly, angels (if I buy into the fallen angel story – where did you get it from?) are supposedly lacking of freewill, like their their hellish opposites, demons. They have a predetermined and narrow scope in God’s plan. People, with freewill, can veer toward evil, or become more perfectly good. Therefore the applicable justice must be different.

 

[Michael19682]

May I gently remind you that some fundamental Catholic doctrines are based on Divine Revelation (not on a modified Babylonian myth) which are proclaimed in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Catholicism has not abandoned the truth of God’s love.

If it be outside the scope of the thread I am sorry, but I think on second thought you can have both working in the same scripture without the need to say this chapter is DivRev and that verse is BabMyth? E.g. When Jesus came as a man, he built on God’s creation, humanity, in order to save us. So can’t we say that Moses built on myth to save it? IOW’s, to make it true to the story of humanity? Just thoughts …