Adam and Eve story - Logically flawed?

[CentralFLJames]

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

This implies that the concept of original sin is based on a logical absurdity.

Is it?

The truth is God knew they would partake of the forbidden fruit. As counter intuitive as it sounds, God in His Omniscience judged that a greater good would come out of Man’s fall in permitting man to exercise the Free Will He gave man knowing that Man would abuse that freewill.

Thus while there are many consequences and terrible sufferings and an inherited imperfection in the core humanity of humankind the sin of Adam and Eve has opened up for us greater blessings from God than if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

The consequences of original sin are:

CCC Para. 400: The harmony in which Adam & Eve had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination (Cf. Gen 3: 7-16). Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man (Cf. Gen 3:17,19). Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay” (Rom 8:21). Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground” (Gen 3:19; cf. 2:17), for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history (Cf. Rom 5:12).

Why God let Adam & Even Sin:
CCC Para. 412: But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away” (St. Leo the Great, Sermo 73, 4: PL 54, 396). And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exultet sings, ‘O happy fault, . . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 1, 3, ad 3; cf. Rom 5:20).

Hope this helps calibrate some perspectives and attitudes.

Hope to see you on the other side,
James

 

[John_Hiner]

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

This implies that the concept of original sin is based on a logical absurdity.

Is it?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Original Sin was and is the severance of human will from Divine will. It is called “original” in two senses, first, because it was the first human sin, on which all others have been based, and second, because it severed the origin of human actions from God and attached it to man’s will. This separation from God had consequences regardless of the First Parents’ knowledge or culpability. This is not a logical absurdity, but the expected reality of choices.

If one steps unknowingly on a weak board on a bridge, and falls through, one’s intention or knowledge has no bearing on the consequences. One falls, even if one is not “culpable” for the misstep.

The Original Sin turned on obedience, not on knowledge of the consequences. Adam and Eve were not asked to estimate the probable outcomes and to exercise prudence in obeying God’s command.* They were given a direction and expected to choose to obey, maintaining the natural unity between their free will and God’s stated will. To the damnation of many, they chose to follow their own perceived interests rather than to obey.

*Please note, if Adam had known the consequences in advance and made an independent judgment to abide by God’s command, based on Adam’s prudence and desires rather than on obedience, then the Original Sin would have been the same; the source of man’s action would have been severed from God’s will and attached independently to man’s will. The negative consequences and necessary responses from God would have been the same. The issue is the severance of man’s will from God’s will, not whether the fruit was eaten or not.

The punishments inflicted by God on man for the Original Sin are required by God’s respect for Adam and Eve’s decision, not upon “fair play.” “Guilt” is the separation from God caused by sin, not a legal or juridical consequence under operation of law.

Once severed from God’s will, the origin of man’s actions could not be reunited with God’s will except through the Sacraments instituted by Christ.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Ilroy]

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

This implies that the concept of original sin is based on a logical absurdity.

Is it?

They did know right from wrong. God told them not to eat AND told them the consequences if they did eat. Your whole argument is based on many assumptions you make that just plain aren’t there AND you are taking things out that ARE there.

Genesis Chapter 3:
1* Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’"

 

[BlaineTog]

You’re trying to square a circle here.

And you’re presuming the answer to your question. Stop that. It’s bad for the thread. It impedes getting to the truth.

They could not know that that eating the fruit was evil, they could not know that disobeying God was evil. Because God clearly says in Gen 3:22 that that had BECOME like him, knowing good from evil.

Besides the point, and I feel as if you didn’t read my post. They knew that they should do what God said, and that should have been enough. If you want a drink of water, you should pour yourself a glass and drink it, not pour yourself a glass and then pour it on your head. This has nothing to do with good or evil, only with correct or incorrect actions.

Interestingly evil seems to have existed before the fall of Adam and Eve, I wonder who created that?

No one. Evil is not a thing, but the absence of a thing.

Why couldn’t God be bothered to explain the consequences before they did it?

He told them that they would die. Pretty drastic consequences, no?

He must have forseen they they would do it if he was omniscient, why didn’t be guard the tree before like he later guarded the tree of life (closing the gate after the horse has bolted).

Because he respected their free will. If your lover decides she doesn’t want you, it is wrong of you to force her to stay with you, even if you know the new guy she’s going with is bad news. As such, he had to give them the ability and the opportunity to disobey him.

I go back to my parent letting an infant walk off a cliff culpability. God appears to be totally culpable here.

Except the Parent-Child relationship is not adequate here to explain the relationship between God and Man. It’s also Master-Servant, Friend-Friend, Brother-Sister, and Husband-Wife. If the husband really loves the wife, he will let her go.

*Did God actually want them to eat the fruit?

This is truely a logical nightmare.*

No he didn’t, and I would submit that you should, for the sake of humility, consider the possibility that if it were really a logical nightmare, wouldn’t more people a problem with it than do?

 

[BeyondDoubt]

Immaterial
They could know that it was wrong because they were told not to do it.

They did not know it was wrong, they couldn’t.

They did not know that not doing as you are told by God was wrong.

They did not know that doing what the cunning serpent (God’s creation and surely God knew the serpent would do this when he made him) said was wrong.

They had no concept of good and evil.

You can’t get out of the logical flaw in the story of Eden.

 

[Rolltide]

Yeah… but where does that leave the doctrine of original sin if you
don’t take the story as a wholey historical fact?

Intact, because certain restrictions still apply to the interpretation.

Are you suggesting that the Church allows Catholics to discard parts of the story or interpret them in their own way?

Correct, within certain parameters set by the church. (In actuality, very few passages from the Bible have a dogmatic interpretation from the Church.)

Where do I find that teaching?

Here’s the link to the most recent analysis by the International Theological Commission, which at the time was led by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s an extensive document that goes into all the minutia. Specifically, examine the following two paragraphs:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

 

[Rolltide]

1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.** It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution**, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

All I find these days is the Church totally dancing around it couched in wooly terms from Vatican II documents.

Now… did it historically happen as stated in the Bible - yes or no?

What does the Church say?

The current position is that the jury is still out. Catholics are free to believe it word-for-word as the literal truth, or they are free to believe that it is partially allegorical. If you believe in some form of evolution and read it as partially allegorical, however, there are some points that remain dogmas. For example, as stated above, the church does define that Adam and Eve existed, and that they were the first two humans. We are NOT free to believe that a group of humans evolved, for example. I’ll have to look up what else is mandatory out of the story to believe, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both spent a LOT of time explaining the church’s current position.

 

[BeyondDoubt]

It’s all in the Catechism, starting in the high 300s.

Just like that… one bound and he was free.

Not so fast… where does the CCC say this is literal history or an allegorical story?

You will find that the CCC is incredibly cagey about the whole thing, which is pretty incredible considering the doctrine of original sin rests on it and all that goes with it.

Just a few things to consider.

What followed here was your private interpretation, I didn’t see any reference to Church teaching.

But anyway we’ll discuss your private theory…

• They were already alive, even though they had not eaten of the tree of life. Therefore by analogy they would already know good and evil without eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

No they didn’t. Gen 3:22 disproves that. They BECAME like God, knowing good from evil. They didn’t know before.

But God kicked them out the house even though they had no way of knowing it was wrong to not do what God said and wrong to do what - God’s own creature the cunning serpent who God must have known what he would do - said. (gasp)

Wither ominiscience? (why did God allow the serpent to do that when he clearly takes preventative measures - access to the Tree of Life - in other places)?

So, are you open to these possibilities, or are you just on a rant?

I the largest part of my life being open to one possibility… I don’t believe it anymore, I’ve had the scales removed from my eyes… I decided to be honest with myself.

I want others to be honest too.

 

[Rolltide]

You will find that the CCC is incredibly cagey about the whole thing, which is pretty incredible considering the doctrine of original sin rests on it and all that goes with it.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin, and the theological interpretation of Eastern Catholics is similar, although compatible with Catholic belief while maintaining union with Rome, so there is some wiggle room for understanding…

 

[BeyondDoubt]

Rolltide;3226958 Intact, because certain restrictions still apply to the interpretation.

Correct, within certain parameters set by the church. (In actuality, very few passages from the Bible have a dogmatic interpretation from the Church.)

So you believe the Church allows us to do that?

Where do I find that teaching?

Here’s the link to the most recent analysis by the International Theological Commission, which at the time was led by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s an extensive document that goes into all the minutia. Specifically, examine the following two paragraphs:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Interestingly there is NO MENTION of the eden story there.

So has the Church abandoned it?

 

[Rolltide]

Just as an aside, you might find the following thread helpful. The issues involving evolution are dealt with in depth here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=205156&highlight=adam+eve+church+position

 

[Rolltide]

Interestingly there is NO MENTION of the eden story there.

Click the link. You haven’t read the whole document. It’s 95 paragraphs long…

 

[Rolltide]

So you believe the Church allows us to do that?

Where do I find that teaching?

From our own Catholic Answers site:
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

This provides brief quotes and links to the appropriate documents from the Vatican. It also gives a good summary of the Church’s current position.

 

[BeyondDoubt]

Rolltide;3226959 64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.** It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution**, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

Again the Eden story is not mentioned, nor is there any help for those Catholics who were brought up to believe it was literally true (me) pre Vatican II school education.

The current position is that the jury is still out.

That’s the current position? Possible? It’s hard to tell.

Is it the historical position?

Catholics are free to believe it word-for-word as the literal truth, or they are free to believe that it is partially allegorical.

Catholics are allowed to privately interpret the Bible?

What happened to the Council of Trent?

If you believe in some form of evolution and read it as partially allegorical, however, there are some points that remain dogmas.

Which specific points can we dismiss?

For example, as stated above, the church does define that Adam and Eve existed, and that they were the first two humans. We are NOT free to believe that a group of humans evolved, for example.

Why not? We can dismiss Eden and trees and snakes why not this point as well?

I’ll have to look up what else is mandatory out of the story to believe, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both spent a LOT of time explaining the church’s current position.

They have spent a lot of time guardedly reducting the creation story to the minimal that will still (just) fit (so far) with an evolution view, but what does the Magesterium teach us.

In fact if Catholics are allowed to believe literal or allegorical (and I find that concept interesting) then did the last two Popes really teach anything about it?

 

[BeyondDoubt]

This provides brief quotes and links to the appropriate documents from the Vatican. It also gives a good summary of the Church’s current position.

But the Church’s current position is not a position, it’s a wooly choice - one of which is incompatible with previous teaching.

 

[Rolltide]

I have to bow out of the discussion until tomorrow due to the late hour, but I’ll rejoin when I get a chance…

 

[BeyondDoubt]

OK… if Catholics are allowed to believe the theory of evolution (with provisos - and I haven’t seen a Magesterial teaching that says we can by the way) then…

Who were Adam and Eve’s parents?

Did they die?

Was there death in the world before Adam and Eve?

Is the ‘you shall die’ part of Eden story another point we can dismiss?

 

[BeyondDoubt]

The official historical infallible Catholic position…

“We record what is known to all, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion whom he miraculously took from the side of Adam while he was asleep.”
Pope Leo XIII - Providentissimus Deus

I rest my case.

The “current” Catholic position is a contradiction of previous infallibly defined teaching.

Anything goes.

 

[puzzleannie]

It is not a false premise, Adam and Eve did not know what was good and what was evil, they didn’t know that disobeying God was evil. The were not given ‘all the knowledge they need’ they didn’t have the knowledge of right and wrong.

it.

yes they did, yes they had
the devil lied when he told them they would be like God in their knowledge of right and wrong. they had already been given enlightened intellect and perfect will to know good and evil and all the knowledge required and the free will to use it.

you have been corrected in your false assumption
your refuse to accept correction
you are obdurate and not amenable to instruction,
discussion closed until your mind reopens

 

[BeyondDoubt]

yes they did, yes they had

No they didn’t, they had no moral compass.

Only after eating the fruit did they BECOME like God knowing good from evil.

the devil lied when he told them they would be like God in their knowledge of right and wrong.

Adam and Eve had no concept of what a lie was. Why should they think that doing what the serpent said is evil?

they had already been given enlightened intellect and perfect will to know good and evil

No they didn’t! Gen 3:22.

and all the knowledge required and the free will to use it.

No they didn’t! Gen 3;22

you have been corrected in your false assumption
your refuse to accept correction
you are obdurate and not amenable to instruction,
discussion closed until your mind reopens

I used to have a closed mind like you. I’m free now.

Here’s another humdinger.

Christ was preordained before creation to be the saviour of mankind, before man was created.

God created Adam and Eve knowing they would need saving? Really? Adam and Eve were set up.

It looks like it was already mapped out that Adam and Eve would sin.

Are they really culpable?

God didn’t have to put the tree where it was.
He didn’t have to leave it unguarded.
He didn’t have to create the serpent so cunning and deceitful.
He didn’t have to let the serpent into the garden.
He could have warned Adam and Eve about the serpent.
and so it goes on…

God is supposedly omniscient.

It looks like Adam and Eve were manouvered into doing this.

Anyway… the Catholic Church today is drawing ever further away from this story… even Pius XII started to get guarded about it back in 1950.

It’s all true but its symbolic is the current position… but try and tie anyone down to specifics and well…

It’s allegoric… even though the Council of Trent and subsequent Popes said otherwise.

Ah… but then the spin about what the Fathers really meant to say at Trent starts.