Evolution could not happen without God. If the Bible says that Adam was created from the dust of the ground, I take this to be true. I am then left with the feeling that the ToE is somewhat a myth.It’s a historical event told in a mythological style. While Catholics can believe in evolution, they are bound to affirm the historicity of the story of the Fall
Okay, to take a “meta” view of that statement, we can say that by eating of the fruit, we also feel shame for “wanting to be like God”, for “opposing and disobeying”. That makes some sense, for sure, if that is what follows.There’s truth in that IMO. The ultimate rejection, the one that reportedly causes all the other separation and alienation, even from and within ourselves, is the rejection of God, as God, by wanting to be God themselves. By wanting to be “like God”, but by opposing and disobeying His superior authority, His godliness, they simultaneously rejected their “creaturely status” as the catechism teaches, and shame entered their world.
Indeed, this also can follow with the tree representing rejection itself. They ate of rejection, and they self-rejected (felt shame). If we are ashamed of their action, or labeling it as “wrong”, are we also rejecting, or are we accepting, or is it neither?They no longer accepted themselves, they hid behind clothes as a sort of awkward attempt to cover their shame, their “ungodliness”. Their shame, that we all carry with us to this day, was wrong ; their innocence had been lost where previously they didn’t even know they were naked.
Another “meta” question: When we use the words “pride” and “self-righteousness”, do we do so with a sentiment of acceptance, or one of rejection? Are the terms merely expressions of objective observation, or do we judge our “pride” and “self-righteousness”? Not sure what you meant by the “extremes”, but I agree that rejection does lead to a lot of suffering and harm.I don’t know that evil is just an illusion that comes from identifying something as such, however, as if evil is caused by a being with free will rejecting a good of creation. But maybe. They had, in a way, identified themselves/their bodies as evil-and shame and self-hatred resulted, after their counterparts, pride and self-righteousness- first asserted themselves. This is the paradox of human nature and both extremes certainly cause gobs of ugliness in our world, and both, incidentally, come from rejecting/not accepting ourselves for who we truly are. Humility brings us back around to sanity but it’s a fairly rare commodity to the extent that we desperately need it IMO.
I definitely see Jesus’ mission in this also.Humility brings us back around to sanity but it’s a fairly rare commodity to the extent that we desperately need it IMO. I think the acceptance of a Superior, of God, is the final answer. That’s what Jesus came to accomplish, true reconciliation between man and God.
So, if the tree itself represents human capacity for rejection, what does the serpent represent?Adam and Eve had free will since day one…
This is why the devil (serpent) had to tempt and trick Eve in order to make her, by her own will, take the fruit and convince Adam, by his own will, to do the same.
So what do you think of the idea of the tree representing rejection itself?The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.
I think you have a very good point there, and I come to favor this reading. However, I am thinking that if the tree represents capacity to reject, rejection itself, then we can look at the many standard interpretations of the story more charitably.I really don’t see how people can miss that eating from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” refers to man being given a conscience. When you think about it you realize that it is the conscience which truly separates us from all other animals and is also responsible for ALL of the achievements and innovations done by man because it creates in us the desire for a greater good than what we have, and of course, the desire for the greatest good which is God. It is the conscience which truly makes us human.
On the contrary, Augustine proves (De Lib. Arb. i, 11) that “nothing else than his own will makes man’s mind the slave of his desire.” Now man does not become a slave to his desires, except through sin. Therefore the cause of sin cannot be the devil, but man’s own will alone.First of all, God, not men, gave them one command and through the serpent, the devil, a literal being, enticed Eve by telling her that, while knowing who God is, to ignore His command. I see no symbolism here at all. Man and God knew each other.
First off not everything in the Old Testament is historical. In the Pentateuch extremely few things are especially when compared to our modern sense of history. Many Jewish scholars even doubt if Abraham was an actual historical figure.For example, the problem with the “conscience” symbolism is that it makes one wonder why God would forbid man from eating it. On the other hand, God could certainly warn against rejection itself, which is an aspect of the conscience, but does lead to problems that can be avoided. For an example of avoiding rejection as a motivator, we can be solely motivated by compassion, love, will to do mercy, etc. which I think was reflected in other posts on this thread.
The “garden” can be viewed as a false paradise where animal pre-humans never thought about the cares of the world. Like other animals they lived their life by the status quo, whatever that was at the given moment. They had no drive to find something better to build or change their environment, those drives only came with the conscience which created the search for the greater good. Pain, suffering, toil, death, the “punishments” in the A&E story were things they never took into consideration. If they were in pain, that became the new status quo and they lived with it. They became realizations when they were given a conscience and knew that there could be something better than them.
It’s more profound that that I think. They simply were guilty-of acting outside of/not in accord with nature-and their sense of shame was the unavoidable consequence, because theIr own natures attested to this anomaly. They knew, without necessarily knowing how they knew, that they were guilty. Their guilt would remain until they, by another act of the will, as it was informed, had a change of heart and reversed their course, with God’s help, until they would know better IOW. Only then could their innocence be regained.Okay, to take a “meta” view of that statement, we can say that by eating of the fruit, we also feel shame for “wanting to be like God”, for “opposing and disobeying”. That makes some sense, for sure, if that is what follows.
Why would they do so though? In my understanding the essence of their sin could be seen as “pride”, placing themselves equal to or above their Creator. The desire to be like God, not at all a bad desire in itself, would be the motivating factor, but the idea that they could be like Him without Him, that creation doesn’t need their Creator, making themselves His equal, is essentially the sin of pride.Indeed, this also can follow with the tree representing rejection itself. They ate of rejection, and they self-rejected (felt shame). If we are ashamed of their action, or labeling it as “wrong”, are we also rejecting, or are we accepting, or is it neither?
The extremes are shame and self-hatred on the one hand, and pride and self-righteousness on the other, both being two sides of the same coin IMO. Pride sets an inordinately high standard for who we should be, while shame hates itself for not living up to that standard. At least that’s the origin of shame IMO. In true innocence we aren’t trying to “measure up”. Anyway, both, shame and pride, cause huge problems in ourselves and our world.Another “meta” question: When we use the words “pride” and “self-righteousness”, do we do so with a sentiment of acceptance, or one of rejection? Are the terms merely expressions of objective observation, or do we judge our “pride” and “self-righteousness”? Not sure what you meant by the “extremes”, but I agree that rejection does lead to a lot of suffering and harm.
I do not dispute that. There were two first human beings who somewhere along the evolutionary line were given a human soul AND a conscience as a guide. The were the sources of sin entering the world. A pre-human animal-like creature without a human soul or a conscience cannot sin because there was no intent to do something which they knew was wrong. The first true humans with a human soul and a conscience did have the ability to choose to do evil over good. Whatever the first sin was, it was through them that sin entered the world.It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
impassibility (freedom from pain)
immortality (freedom from death)
integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
desires)
infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
essential for happiness)That’s great! I may have taught that class.I had Religion Class in Catholic School
I never even alluded to that one.There is no evidence of souls, so the science on that does not exist.
Whether or no you think it makes no sense to you doesn’t mean it cannot be true. To be honest it seems more likely to me that we evolved from a sea creature. If you look between your fingers and toes, at the base, you will see that we still have the remnants of webbing.I’ve seen an illustration of the lemur-like creature we supposedly evolved from, which makes no sense.
From “Humani Genris”:Interpreting the Bible in the way you are proposing ignores a number of encyclicals and the fact God, not evolution, gave Adam and Eve gifts that no human alive today possesses.