Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[grannymh]

I see I’ve missed a lot but could not concentrate on this until now. Weekend over, my bible lesson done.

So, what is perfect innocence? God is holy. He is perfect. Holy means to be set apart. God certainly is set apart! More than any man could be. He is above everything and everyone - being the creator He must be. There is no evil in God. He must be purely good or He cannot be God.

Adam’s perfect innocence reflected the above. We are called to be holy too. We are called to be saints: Romans 1:7 - 1 Corinthians 1:2
This is a common theme running through the New Testament.

But Adam had perfect innocence. Because the fall did not yet occur. He was innocent because he had not yet eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The name of the tree says a lot.

Before he ate of it, he knew only good. God had given him special gifts, the preternatural gifts. But he warned Adam that to keep these gifts he had to remain innocent and not know evil.

But Adam decided not to adhere to God’s request/warning and listened instead to the serpent - representing satan and evil. And so, by eating of the fruit, evil entered into Adam and now he was no longer innocent.

I apologize if I’m saying things we all know. Where to start otherwise??

It should be noted that Adam’s responsibility in eating of the fruit was far greater than Eve’s. God had spoken to Adam, not to Eve. Adam could have told Eve she made a mistake and not shared in the consumption, instead he listened to the creature that was made FROM him and completed the sin.

Woman has suffered through the ages because of this; being blamed for “tempting” Adam. My, what great powers we women have! LOL. When all the time it was Adam who should have acted like the head of his family and taken the correct action. Eve was weak, having been convinced by satan, Adam should have been strong, having spoken directly to God.

And what am I doing here? Blaming Adam. And didn’t Adam blame Eve? And Eve blamed the serpent? Yes. We’re very good at blaming others for what we do.

Don’t know if this has been covered. Maybe I should stop and read on.

Fran

I learned that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil **symbolically **evokes the insurmountable limits that Adam being a creature must freely recognize and respect.

Naturally, this does mean that the organic fruit is a fantasy. It means that there is a proper symbol for the tree’s material presence.The concept that the tree **symbolically **evokes the insurmountable limits is how one can understand Adam’s Original Sin. Original Sin is real because there is the event of Adam’s disobedience.
Genesis 3:11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?

Please refer to Richca, post 13 above, for further information.

 

[frangiuliano115]

On the last Adam and Logic thread I was interested in working on the words :

…22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "

Because we are told that Adam had infused knowledge, I wondered what this knowledge actually entailed, because it seems that there was a transformation in knowing something more from those words : become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
Awhile back in I think the second Adam thread we discussed experience of good and evil, yet I question that because how does a creature experience what God knows, apart from having a spiritual essence of God within them or something along that.

But from reading the above, I have now started thinking about this :

As long as he remained in the divine intimacy

What was divine intimacy for Adam and Eve? We as Catholic’s would say divine intimacy would be receiving Christ’s body and blood.
How did intimacy between the first man and woman work, could it be that they were just spiritual creatures, that need not to do anything other than avoid the “tree of knowledge”? Could they have worshipped God in some way, or maybe just the innocent existence was worship in itself?

Thanks.

Hello Simpleas,

For us divine intimacy is receiving communion, as you said.

Would you say that for Adam and Eve it was far more? I think so. Adam spoke to God, he walked in the garden with Him, God gave him direct instructions. No wondering what God would want for our life - Adam knew it for sure! I’d say that this is divine intimacy in a way that we cannot achieve it. Well, maybe some saints have; like the ones who have seen Jesus; that would sure help me along a bit!

As far as A and E being spiritual creatures, this would be a mistake in thinking. Do you mean like angels?? Then they could have never sinned. The bible clearly teaches that they were the first man and woman, so they were not spiritual creatures.

In a way, though, we all are spiritual. You know: We are spirits in a material world. If you mean it in that sense, then it is correct. It’s always difficult to know exactly what people mean - we have to use these words we have…

Innocent existance is worship in itself. Yes, of course. Jesus said that we’re to be like children. Children are open, their mind is not made up, they’re pliable, they listen, they learn, they accept, they don’t question everything to death. So yes, innocence is worship, Jesus said so.

I’m trying to catch up. Sorry for the continuous posts.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

On the last Adam and Logic thread I was interested in working on the words :

…22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "

Because we are told that Adam had infused knowledge, I wondered what this knowledge actually entailed, because it seems that there was a transformation in knowing something more from those words : become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
Awhile back in I think the second Adam thread we discussed experience of good and evil, yet I question that because how does a creature experience what God knows, apart from having a spiritual essence of God within them or something along that.

But from reading the above, I have now started thinking about this :

As long as he remained in the divine intimacy

What was divine intimacy for Adam and Eve? We as Catholic’s would say divine intimacy would be receiving Christ’s body and blood.
How did intimacy between the first man and woman work, could it be that they were just spiritual creatures, that need not to do anything other than avoid the “tree of knowledge”? Could they have worshipped God in some way, or maybe just the innocent existence was worship in itself?

Thanks.

Re Genesis 3:22 Behold man has become as one of us…knowing good and evil…

Now man knew evil too. What was God to do? Let man live forever? He had told Adam that if he ate of the tree he would surely die. But he didn’t die. Not right away. He first died spiritually and then was to die physically too. Just as an animal had to die to clothe A and E. The first sacrifice. The first blood spilt for man’s sake. A look forward to the sacrifice of Jesus.

Could we imagine if man had lived forever? After Cain and Abel we see things becoming worse and worse. Man’s sin is affecting all and is getting worse. Could you imagine if a Hitler would have lived forever? It was God’s justice that allowed man to die physically.

You’re right, of course, that man cannot know what God knows. I don’t think we should dwell too much on what Adam knew or did not know. He knew enough to get along with his wife, he knew enough to keep the garden, he knew the giver of the knowledge - I don’t understand the necessity of delving further into this. Books could be written but it becomes one’s personal understanding. I think this just muddles our thoughts. I like to keep focused.

Fran

 

[grannymh]

The reason that the Catholic Church teaches that a human is a spiritual creature can be found in Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1: 27. It is God Who unites the spiritual and material worlds within the completed human person. CCC 355. As CCC 362 clearly states: “The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual.”

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Thanks

Genesis 2: 15-17 isn’t what I quoted. But I will answer

The verse’s suggest God teaches Adam how to survive by tending the garden for food, and how to survive spiritually and physically by not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I wonder if Adam ever dared to question God on this command.

Your new title to this thread no longer has original relationship between God and the first man and woman, but I think it’s safe to incorporate it into the discussion?

Oops. Got ahead of you! Sorry about that. Going post by post.

Nothing could be added to above that is worthwhile.

Also, at this point I never even look at the title of the thread anymore. Just keep going! Wherever it takes us. Is this wrong?? You’ll put me back in place!

Fran

 

[grannymh]

One of the tricks which help people to get a grip on Genesis 3: 22 is to discover that the Hebrew author believed in one almighty God as Creator in the beginning, Genesis 1:1. From here, one turns to the principle of non-contradiction which is obvious in Genesis 3: 22. There cannot be two equal almighty Creators and one almighty Creator at the same time in the same place. In the battle for the number one spot, it should be understandable that Adam lost.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think this verse refers to Adam and Eve, upon eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, determining for themselves what is good and what is evil and thus usurping the perogative and authority of God who created them and making themselves out to be their own gods. Human beings are creatures created by God, they are not God himself. The CCC#396 says:

 

[frangiuliano115]

I need to reassure you and others that the original relationship between Adam and God fits in with this thread. Starting with God as the employer and Adam the employee gardener. Genesis 2: 15-17. That is one kind of relationship.

Because this thread is about Adam, using the same first three Genesis chapters as in the previous thread, one can continue to question. …

When I looked at old questions, I realized that the answers had to include more than one Scripture reference. In reality, we have to use the context of three chapters in order to find answers to old questions. Because of the obvious need to use three chapters, it was obvious that we belonged in the Sacred Scripture Forum.

Therefore, please continue to seek additional information regarding previous questions in the previous Adam threads.

Another realization is that we also need to consult Catholic teachings in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Regarding Scripture and the CCC, the best thing is to check Scripture in the *CCC *Index of Citations starting on page 689. Read CCC 20-21 for the explanation of small print.

Any questions?

WHAT ARE THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS!

I wasn’t around back then…

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well these are our questions, but would A&E have asked the same? This infused knowledge that they had, would that have covered the basics?

I found this written by a priest :

therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm

thought I’d share it as I found it informative regarding preternatural gifts the first parents enjoyed.

Yet he has this to say regarding infused knowledge :

*However any attempt to describe the extent of Adam’s infused knowledge would be hazardous. On the supernatural level, opinion differs from Suarez’ position that Adam probably had a belief in the Trinity and the future Incarnation of the Word of God, to a minimist school which credits the first man only with the essentials necessary for salvation.
*

I haven’t come across any other Catholic writings which attempt to explain Adam and Eve’s knowledge, which lead to a disbelief of God’s word in favor of the fallen angel word.

And maybe you shouldn’t be looking for it. There’s enough to deal with regarding what we know.

Also interesting, Simpleas, is that I checked out your link, which I must say I’m not too interested in for reasons I’ve stated many times. We catholics give ourselves TOO MUCH TO READ.

However, did you notice under the title: TERMINOLOGY, pp 9, item 2) acts tend to moral evil.

How could you miss this? It’s what we’ve been talking about other times! So you see, we tend to end up thinking what we want to anyway - so I like to stick to the bible, or at the least the CCC. And end it there.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

One of the tricks which help people to get a grip on Genesis 3: 22 is to discover that the Hebrew author believed in one almighty God as Creator in the beginning, Genesis 1:1. From here, one turns to the principle of non-contradiction which is obvious in Genesis 3: 22. There cannot be two equal almighty Creators and one almighty Creator at the same time in the same place. In the battle for the number one spot, it should be understandable that Adam lost.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Not sure if this is a reply to my post regarding man not being given permission to live forever.
??

He could have lived forever and still not been a God. We must still explain why he had to physically die.

(this post may not have been meant for me)

Fran
p.s. all caught up --!

 

[simpleas]

And maybe you shouldn’t be looking for it. There’s enough to deal with regarding what we know.

Also interesting, Simpleas, is that I checked out your link, which I must say I’m not too interested in for reasons I’ve stated many times. We catholics give ourselves TOO MUCH TO READ.

However, did you notice under the title: TERMINOLOGY, pp 9, item 2) acts tend to moral evil.

How could you miss this? It’s what we’ve been talking about other times! So you see, we tend to end up thinking what we want to anyway - so I like to stick to the bible, or at the least the CCC. And end it there.

Fran

Good for you Fran, thanks for sharing what you like to do. Funny I thought a forum was to openly discuss the subject in hand, to ask questions, add thoughts etc, you mean we shouldn’t seek discussion with like minded people? Of course there will always be some unanswered questions about God etc, because we are the creatures as is always pointed out.
You have your bible study group which I think will be of some comfort to you, explaining God’s word and discussing with others, but if a difficult question arises do you say we shouldn’t dig to deep?
There is much to read regarding our faith, I never knew just how much…

Maybe the TERMINOLOGY, pp 9, item 2) acts tend to moral evil, should be posted on the other thread, you may not be aware, but we were hopefully going to investigate A&E’s original relationship with God. (look at the link provided in the O.P) That’s if it interests you.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Richca;13314391:

Could I disagree just a bit?

A and E didn’t KNOW evil before they ate of the tree. So I don’t think that back then they were deciding for themselves what was good and what was evil. Evil had to enter first.

Nowadays, we decide for ourselves what is good and evil by the subjectively moral society we live in.

Back then, I don’t think they were usurping God’s authority

in a knowledgeable way. I believe satan tricked them into this. The fruit looked good, they were told God was worried they’d become like Him, they were promised they’d not die. They did not respect God’s friendship, they disobeyed Him (this was the knowing sin), and so evil entered.

After evil entered, I’d say that we sarted to want to become our own god, as is proven from the degeneratin of mankind from thence onward to Noah. Many now deny His authority.

Am I knit picking here? This seems important to me.

Fran

What is important to me — is knowing your **source **for all this.

My sincere worry is that the source is attacking God’s creative power. It almost sounds like the **source **considers that the tree is acting like a god.

Attacks on the reality of Adam are normal. But, attacks on human nature as God created it are a bit new to me. Then again, it could be due to the **sources **pre-1950 which were watering down Catholic doctrines…

Therefore, I am very interested in sources.

 

[grannymh]

WHAT ARE THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS!

I wasn’t around back then…

Fran

Old questions are previous questions. As OP of the thread “Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity” I realized that looking at the first three chapters of Genesis is like working a puzzle. We need to put pieces together. Therefore, the Sacred Scripture Forum was chosen because Sacred Scripture provides pieces.

I am more interested in this thread. I do not need to search every post in a long thread so that I can list each and every previous question. I welcome all questions on this thread’s topic. I do not care where they come.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

A and E didn’t KNOW evil before they ate of the tree. So I don’t think that back then they were deciding for themselves what was good and what was evil. Evil had to enter first.

Nowadays, we decide for ourselves what is good and evil by the subjectively moral society we live in.

Back then, I don’t think they were usurping God’s authority in a knowledgeable way. I believe satan tricked them into this. The fruit looked good, they were told God was worried they’d become like Him, they were promised they’d not die. They did not respect God’s friendship, they disobeyed Him (this was the knowing sin), and so evil entered.

After evil entered, I’d say that we sarted to want to become our own god, as is proven from the degeneratin of mankind from thence onward to Noah. Many now deny His authority.

Am I knit picking here? This seems important to me.

Fran

What is important to me — is knowing the **source **for this sentence in post 27–part of which is correct and part is not correct according to Catholic teachings.
“A and E didn’t KNOW evil before they ate of the tree. So I don’t think that back then they were deciding for themselves what was good and what was evil. Evil had to enter first.”

My sincere worry is that the source is quietly attacking God’s creative powers. It almost sounds like the **source **considers that the tree is acting like a god . Or more likely, God could only create the beginning of human nature. Therefore, it is up to the tree to complete God’s work.

Attacks on the reality of Adam are normal. But, attacks on human nature as God created it are a bit new to me. Therefore, I am very interested in the source so that I can examine the context and get a clearer picture of the comment about Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[frangiuliano115]

What is important to me — is knowing the **source **for this sentence in post 27–part of which is correct and part is not correct according to Catholic teachings.
“A and E didn’t KNOW evil before they ate of the tree. So I don’t think that back then they were deciding for themselves what was good and what was evil. Evil had to enter first.”

My sincere worry is that the source is quietly attacking God’s creative powers. It almost sounds like the **source **considers that the tree is acting like a god . Or more likely, God could only create the beginning of human nature. Therefore, it is up to the tree to complete God’s work.

Attacks on the reality of Adam are normal. But, attacks on human nature as God created it are a bit new to me. Therefore, I am very interested in the source so that I can examine the context and get a clearer picture of the comment about Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

It’s not like God is creating the beginning of human nature and the tree completes it.

Adam and Eve represent the first humans as we know them. Science itself has determined that there indeed was a first human. We have to begin by accepting this. I don’t understand your “attacks” on the reality of Adam. Who’s doing the attacking?

Now, are you asking me my source for post 27??

Which part is not correct? Which part do you not agree with?

It’s all plain from the first chapters of Genesis, which you have picked. Adam was innocent and knew only GOOD. God told him not to eat of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

He ate of it. THEN Adam knew evil.

What am I missing here? I was on another thread where the poster would not be clear in what he was saying. I can’t speak to something unless it’s clear.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Good for you Fran, thanks for sharing what you like to do. Funny I thought a forum was to openly discuss the subject in hand, to ask questions, add thoughts etc, you mean we shouldn’t seek discussion with like minded people? Of course there will always be some unanswered questions about God etc, because we are the creatures as is always pointed out.
You have your bible study group which I think will be of some comfort to you, explaining God’s word and discussing with others, but if a difficult question arises do you say we shouldn’t dig to deep?
There is much to read regarding our faith, I never knew just how much…

Maybe the TERMINOLOGY, pp 9, item 2) acts tend to moral evil, should be posted on the other thread, you may not be aware, but we were hopefully going to investigate A&E’s original relationship with God. (look at the link provided in the O.P) That’s if it interests you.

Thanks.

What do you do when you read two articles from two different authorities and they don’t agree with each other? Do you realize that different theologians have different opinions?

You could read all you want to but it can’t be presented as church teaching. Church teaching comes from the bible, the CCC and Papal bulls. A differing opinion can also be cleared up by a Papal encyclical, but that’s a different story.

The questions that are unanswered will remain unanswered. We’re not to conjecture our own answers using our own opinions.

I went to the links in the O.P. as you requested. I found a link to a list of bible books, a link to an ad (or something) for the CCC , and a test based on the CCC. So what good did it do me?? I’ve never found a link to be of any use to me so far, although I’ve been here only two months. Not that I’ve never gone to one.

Now, if I could figure out what we’re doing here, I’d be happy to contribute since it IS an interest of mine, as you well know, having discussed with me whether man is good or bad.

But, Simpleas, I wish you understood me more. Maybe this will end up not being a good thread for me.

In Christ,
Fran

 

[simpleas]

What do you do when you read two articles from two different authorities and they don’t agree with each other? Do you realize that different theologians have different opinions?

You could read all you want to but it can’t be presented as church teaching. Church teaching comes from the bible, the CCC and Papal bulls. A differing opinion can also be cleared up by a Papal encyclical, but that’s a different story.

The questions that are unanswered will remain unanswered. We’re not to conjecture our own answers using our own opinions.

I went to the links in the O.P. as you requested. I found a link to a list of bible books, a link to an ad (or something) for the CCC , and a test based on the CCC. So what good did it do me?? I’ve never found a link to be of any use to me so far, although I’ve been here only two months. Not that I’ve never gone to one.

Now, if I could figure out what we’re doing here, I’d be happy to contribute since it IS an interest of mine, as you well know, having discussed with me whether man is good or bad.

But, Simpleas, I wish you understood me more. Maybe this will end up not being a good thread for me.

In Christ,
Fran

The thread was mentioned in the O.P, but not linked, I thought it had been linked.

Here it is :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=962850

Maybe we will start to understand each other as the thread progresses

 

[simpleas]

From Post 449 in “Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity”

I asked this :

What did Adam and Eve know about God’s power, themselves as spiritually human creatures, the whole universe, before God said :

And the Lord God said, “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.”

Grannymh I wanted to ask you what you meant with this answer :

There are so many others who can do a better job explaining this unusual verse.

What is unusual about the verse in your opinion?

Thanks
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13301765#post13301765

 

[grannymh]

It’s not like God is creating the beginning of human nature and the tree completes it.

Adam and Eve represent the first humans as we know them. Science itself has determined that there indeed was a first human. We have to begin by accepting this. I don’t understand your “attacks” on the reality of Adam. Who’s doing the attacking?

Now, are you asking me my source for post 27??

Which part is not correct? Which part do you not agree with?

It’s all plain from the first chapters of Genesis, which you have picked. Adam was innocent and knew only GOOD. God told him not to eat of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

He ate of it. THEN Adam knew evil.

What am I missing here? I was on another thread where the poster would not be clear in what he was saying. I can’t speak to something unless it’s clear.

Fran

Yes, I was asking for the source of post 27. However, do not trouble yourself with that. I have just figured out a possible source which would possibly date back to the 1940’s. This period is very important regarding the direction of the Catholic Church in modern times. At the moment, I would offer the beginning paragraphs of the great encyclical Humani Generis, 1950, Pius XII.

I am sure that I am not always clear.

You need to understand that I grew up in a geographical area which still taught basic Catholic doctrines. I had no doubt about the reality of Adam and the necessity of the Hypostatic Union. Thus, when I landed on CAF, I was in shock to learn that Adam as a real founder of the human species did not exist. As someone who was taught basic Catholic doctrines, I immediately recognized the seriousness of the last sentence in CCC 389.

Frankly, I am finding that all these new teachings about Adam sidestep some of the basic human nature doctrines that I learned in my geographical area. Thus, it is hard for me to be clear when I have no clue why people consider Adam so stupid that he had to eat organic fruit from a tree teaching him about right and wrong.

Regarding the question “Who’s doing the attacking?” Obviously, there are unnamed public persons who would like to see the Catholic Church crumble from within so that a new and improved Catholicism can be built according to popular preferences. In some geographical areas, this would be considered as emerging Christianity. However, I have noticed that currently this new Catholicism is based on Progressive Christian individuals.

Regarding the clarity of the above. It rates a zero because knowledge of this depends on one’s geographical location. This is a public message board. I am learning so much about the new Catholic teachings. Yet, at the same time, I cannot put aside the Catholicism I learned many years ago.

Regarding this inquiry about post 27.
Now, are you asking me my source for post 27??
Which part is not correct? Which part do you not agree with?

Because I have now figured out that I grew up in an unique Catholic area–apparently, I need to be more clear. This means I have to learn the revised Divine Revelation in the new Catholic teachings in order to be clear.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, I was asking for the source of post 27. However, do not trouble yourself with that. I have just figured out a possible source which would possibly date back to the 1940’s. This period is very important regarding the direction of the Catholic Church in modern times. At the moment, I would offer the beginning paragraphs of the great encyclical Humani Generis, 1950, Pius XII.

I am sure that I am not always clear.

You need to understand that I grew up in a geographical area which still taught basic Catholic doctrines. I had no doubt about the reality of Adam and the necessity of the Hypostatic Union. Thus, when I landed on CAF, I was in shock to learn that Adam as a real founder of the human species did not exist. As someone who was taught basic Catholic doctrines, I immediately recognized the seriousness of the last sentence in CCC 389.

Frankly, I am finding that all these new teachings about Adam sidestep some of the basic human nature doctrines that I learned in my geographical area. Thus, it is hard for me to be clear when I have no clue why people consider Adam so stupid that he had to eat organic fruit from a tree teaching him about right and wrong.

Regarding the question “Who’s doing the attacking?” Obviously, there are unnamed public persons who would like to see the Catholic Church crumble from within so that a new and improved Catholicism can be built according to popular preferences. In some geographical areas, this would be considered as emerging Christianity. However, I have noticed that currently this new Catholicism is based on Progressive Christian individuals.

Regarding the clarity of the above. It rates a zero because knowledge of this depends on one’s geographical location. This is a public message board. I am learning so much about the new Catholic teachings. Yet, at the same time, I cannot put aside the Catholicism I learned many years ago.

Regarding this inquiry about post 27.
Now, are you asking me my source for post 27??
Which part is not correct? Which part do you not agree with?

Because I have now figured out that I grew up in an unique Catholic area–apparently, I need to be more clear. This means I have to learn the revised Divine Revelation in the new Catholic teachings in order to be clear.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Grannymh, I have profound respect for you. Not too many people have your intelligence. Which is why I strive to understand you.

What do you mean by:

“Frankly, I am finding that all these new teachings about Adam sidestep some of the basic human nature doctrines that I learned in my geographical area. Thus, it is hard for me to be clear when I have no clue why people consider Adam so stupid that he had to eat organic fruit from a tree teaching him about right and wrong.”

I see major misconceptions here. Adam was so stupid? Maybe he was just weak.
He had to eat organic fruit to teach him about right and wrong? He didn’t learn about right and wrong from the organic fruit. He knew he was doing wrong when he ate it. The story of Adam and Eve strives to explain to us how evil entered into the world.

Do you not see the difference?

Now, let’s understand - a moment here. The church does not teach that there was an actual man named Adam (red earth) or woman named Eve (life) but it is documenting that there was a first man and a first woman - they’re names may not have been Adam and Eve. The story is to show how we inherited the Sin Nature.

Also, I don’t use sources. I hate to repeat myself, I think it bothers simpleas to some degree - I’ve taught this stuff for years. If I know an answer I say it, if I don’t, rarely will I look it up. I don’t have the time or the inclination to learn much more. I never express my own opinion, that’s not how I was trained.

If there’s a basic problem with this, let me know - as I already said, this thread may not be for me.

Fran