Adam & Logic

[StrawberryJam]

Why are we now having to skip another science? Why can we dismiss the age of earth question?
How many hard sciences does this Church require we dismiss???

 

[grannymh]

Why are we now having to skip another science? Why can we dismiss the age of earth question?
How many hard sciences does this Church require we dismiss???

I will try to answer your valid questions by explaining some basic principles of Catholicism.

In general, Catholicism does not declare doctrines in natural science. Therefore, the scientific age of the earth is not a Catholic doctrine. However, Catholics and everybody else, including high ranking clergy, are free as individuals to study the age of the earth and present their conclusions. There are some really great Catholics who work in the area of the sciences.

In general, Catholicism does declare doctrines in faith and morals based on Divine Revelation. The fact is that there are people who do not believe certain Catholic doctrines and therefore present their own versions. The fact is that no matter how many people, including clergy, who present their own versions about Divine Revelation, Catholic doctrines remain as declared under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In general, there is a clear division between natural science in the material environment and Divine Revelation in the spiritual world of God the Creator. Please note that God the Creator is not limited to the spiritual world because our material world is His creation regardless of how and when the material world was formed.

So far, so good???

What began in the 20th century and is now prevalent in the 21st century is that certain science research interpretations directly oppose certain Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin. Because we are in the image of God in that we have a spiritual soul, we are called by God to share in His life through knowledge and love, here on earth (sanctifying grace) and, following bodily death, we can share in God’s life in eternal joy (Beatific Vision). When the interpretations of any theory deny the Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature, there is trouble.

When it comes to true knowledge about human origin and human nature – Divine Revelation trumps.

As for Original Sin, Catholicism has doctrines explaining Original Sin because this sin directly involves humanity’s relationship with divinity.

This is a philosophy forum and not an apologetics forum as such. However, philosophy is often used as a part of apologetics. Adam and logic is a philosophical approach (deductive method of reasoning) to our first parent. Because of this, as OP I choose to focus on humans.

Adam exists regardless of old the earth is. This is why I can skip discussion about the age of the earth. This thread goes straight to God’s interactions with humans, starting with Adam as taught by the Catholic Church.
From post 217. “Because we are focusing on humans, we can skip the age of the earth, etc., and go straight to God’s interaction with humans (a happy intervention), starting with our honored first parents.”
This will sound really silly. But the we is me… including posters.

The topic of Adam is so important that I am making a choice to keep the thread away from distracting discussions.

 

[simpleas]

One alternative view is that the forbidden fruit is not a fruit at all, but a metaphorical one, possibly the fruit of the womb, i.e. sex and procreation from the tree of life.

In the Book of Enoch [21] chapt. 1, verse 69: “And the third was named Gadreeel: he it is that showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men], the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons of death to the children of men. And from his hand they have proceeded against those who dwell on the earth from that day and for evermore.” Therefore, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was flesh and the methods to acquire it.

Ok so i’ve been on wikipedia!
But in my own quest to dig deeper into adam’s original sin, I find some sort of sexual relation as more of an answer than that of the forbidden fruit. It seems to answer my own question’s about our fallen human nature.
It maybe wrong, but some stories are told to hide a truth, so not to frighten, but to enlighten.

 

[grannymh]

One alternative view is that the forbidden fruit is not a fruit at all, but a metaphorical one, possibly the fruit of the womb, i.e. sex and procreation from the tree of life.

In the Book of Enoch [21] chapt. 1, verse 69: “And the third was named Gadreeel: he it is that showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men], the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons of death to the children of men. And from his hand they have proceeded against those who dwell on the earth from that day and for evermore.” Therefore, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was flesh and the methods to acquire it.

Ok so i’ve been on wikipedia!
But in my own quest to dig deeper into adam’s original sin, I find some sort of sexual relation as more of an answer than that of the forbidden fruit. It seems to answer my own question’s about our fallen human nature.
It maybe wrong, but some stories are told to hide a truth, so not to frighten, but to enlighten.

The fruit could be metaphorical because the real temptation and sin is Adam’s free choice to scorn his Creator.

I cannot figure out how some people think Original Sin is somehow related to sexual relations. This idea is out of chronological order because one cannot have the results of Adam’s choice before he actually makes that choice. Perhaps the problem is that we do not fully understand Adam’s original holiness and justice which included mastery of self. (CCC 377; 387; and 400) Original holiness and justice was and still is a tough one for me. The only way, I finally came to some understanding is by looking at wounded human nature and then looking at the amazing Adam before the Fall.

As I ponder this anew, I realize that the order of events logically presumes that there are just two parents without children at the time of the Fall which is the watershed where Adam had to say yea or nay to God. Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature which would descend from him. (CCC 404) It seems to me that if Adam had children before his choice, how could they inherit original holiness and justice which would be their natural human state if Adam had said yea. And if there were other humans living, how could their children inherit original holiness and justice from Adam?

Actually, if there were any other humans living at the time of Adam and Eve, how could they have inherited original holiness and justice because that inheritance had to come, through birth, from Adam.

Recall that Eve’s human nature was determined by God Himself so that she could be the spouse of Adam. As spouse and future mother, she would share the results of Adam’s choice, good or bad. Together, because of God’s original blessing, they would transmit the human nature resulting from Adam’s decision. Because they were the only two humans, the transmission of original holiness and justice, because of Adam’s yea, would benefit all humanity down to us.

 

[wmw]

This tying sex to something forbidden is quite revealing for our state of mind, but very out of order in the Garden of Eden narrative. First: God tells them to be fruitful and multiply:

Genesis 1:
27 God created mankind in his image;

in the image of God he created them;

male and female* he created them.

28 God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.

Then He’s commands them not to eat of the tree:

Genesis 2:
16The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the gardeni 17except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

Then Eve is made and the two are talked about as one body & flesh without shame:

Genesis 2:
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.*

25The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.*

Then the eating of the Fruit and Punishments:

Genesis 3:
10He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.” 11Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?

The first mention of intercourse is after the fall in reference to the birth of Cain:

Genesis 4:
1The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.”

I can’t imagine a way to tell the story that shows that the “fruit” is not sex any clearer. Maybe on the extreme of pushing it, it might be twisted into a pair of refusals to have sex and maybe why Eve’s is a minor infraction, but Adam’s refusal is more serious, possibly about retaliation from Eve’s refusal, but this too really seems a stretch.

By the way historically the apple was a rare commodity in Egypt that only the top levels of Egypt’s sociaty could have and often took extreme measures by slaves to bring it to them and part of the reason it was used as a symbol of evil. in the story. Which suggests a symbol of the missuse of power or freedom not sex.

 

[simpleas]

The fruit could be metaphorical because the real temptation and sin is Adam’s free choice to scorn his Creator.

I cannot figure out how some people think Original Sin is somehow related to sexual relations. This idea is out of chronological order because one cannot have the results of Adam’s choice before he actually makes that choice. Perhaps the problem is that we do not fully understand Adam’s original holiness and justice which included mastery of self. (CCC 377; 387; and 400) Original holiness and justice was and still is a tough one for me. The only way, I finally came to some understanding is by looking at wounded human nature and then looking at the amazing Adam before the Fall.

As I ponder this anew, I realize that the order of events logically presumes that there are just two parents without children at the time of the Fall which is the watershed where Adam had to say yea or nay to God. Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature which would descend from him. (CCC 404) It seems to me that if Adam had children before his choice, how could they inherit original holiness and justice which would be their natural human state if Adam had said yea. And if there were other humans living, how could their children inherit original holiness and justice from Adam?

Actually, if there were any other humans living at the time of Adam and Eve, how could they have inherited original holiness and justice because that inheritance had to come, through birth, from Adam.

Recall that Eve’s human nature was determined by God Himself so that she could be the spouse of Adam. As spouse and future mother, she would share the results of Adam’s choice, good or bad. Together, because of God’s original blessing, they would transmit the human nature resulting from Adam’s decision. Because they were the only two humans, the transmission of original holiness and justice, because of Adam’s yea, would benefit all humanity down to us.

I considered there may have been children in the garden before the fall, as when the sin was committed all adam and eve’s decendents would have contracted it anyway same as us. But I don’t know enough to make a informed discussion.

My thoughts ponder on the nephilim, not enough is told to us of who they were, could they have been someway involved in the fall with satan as leader to lead man away from God? Gen 6:4 son’s of God resorted to the daughter’s of man. So they were the son’s of God on the earth, who took Daughter’s of men for themselves?
Sorry I’m jumping ahead, back to Adam.

Ok, the tree of good and evil which they ate from, because they were told they would be like God, and so big big temptation! They had no knowledge/wisdom, so how do they know they are making a wrong choice, God told them not to eat for they would die, but if they had no knowledge/wisdom of death, how could they really make that decision, other than satan persuading them some how?

 

[simpleas]

This tying sex to something forbidden is quite revealing for our state of mind, but very out of order in the Garden of Eden narrative. First: God tells them to be fruitful and multiply:

Then He’s commands them not to eat of the tree:

Then Eve is made and the two are talked about as one body & flesh without shame:

Then the eating of the Fruit and Punishments:

The first mention of intercourse is after the fall in reference to the birth of Cain:

I can’t imagine a way to tell the story that shows that the “fruit” is not sex any clearer. Maybe on the extreme of pushing it, it might be twisted into a pair of refusals to have sex and maybe why Eve’s is a minor infraction, but Adam’s refusal is more serious, possibly about retaliation from Eve’s refusal, but this too really seems a stretch.

By the way historically the apple was a rare commodity in Egypt that only the top levels of Egypt’s sociaty could have and often took extreme measures by slaves to bring it to them and part of the reason it was used as a symbol of evil. in the story. Which suggests a symbol of the missuse of power or freedom not sex.

I never before now thought of the apple being the symbol of evil. I always thought the serpent was the evil one, by tempting them to eat so they could be like the God they knew. When they did, they were ashamed to see each other naked, why? Because the holiness and grace they had was taken the moment they ate the apple?

 

[grannymh]

I considered there may have been children in the garden before the fall, as when the sin was committed all adam and eve’s decendents would have contracted it anyway same as us. But I don’t know enough to make a informed discussion.

My thoughts ponder on the nephilim, not enough is told to us of who they were, could they have been someway involved in the fall with satan as leader to lead man away from God? Gen 6:4 son’s of God resorted to the daughter’s of man. So they were the son’s of God on the earth, who took Daughter’s of men for themselves?
Sorry I’m jumping ahead, back to Adam.

Ok, the tree of good and evil which they ate from, because they were told they would be like God, and so big big temptation! They had no knowledge/wisdom, so how do they know they are making a wrong choice, God told them not to eat for they would die, but if they had no knowledge/wisdom of death, how could they really make that decision, other than satan persuading them some how?

What Adam had, since he was established in holy relationship with God, was the knowledge of right from wrong as was proper to being a creature and not a God. In other words, he was smart enough to recognize the difference between himself and God. I must be the last generation which learned that essential bit of common sense knowledge somewhere in grades K-8 which was our Catholic grade school. At that time, we learned Catholic doctrines without opening the Bible. Landing on CAF, I was embarrassed that I did not know some of the more interesting tidbits (like sexy Eve) in the first three chapters of Genesis. Sorry, I can’t find an appropriate smilie. This will have to do --

Now, I feel blest because it is so much easier to start with a few basic Catholic doctrines which flow from the premise of Genesis 1:1. Once we catch on to the fact that Catholic philosophy/theology is basically logical starting from some basic Catholic Doctrines, we can figure out how pre-science and pre-Google authors described basic spiritual truths in the first three chapters of Genesis. However, I recognize the current difficulties of these chapters because of a kind of free-for-all when it comes to Catholic doctrines in areas that contradict some areas of our material/physical environment.

Because I am limited in time and may not get back to this thread until later, I will share a study method of mine. My basic source is the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421. In addition, I will use some of the cross-references in the margin. My apology, I have not completed checking all the cross-references. I also save some CCC quotations in other kinds of threads which appear useful. I am not one to reinvent the wheel. A good source for Scripture notes are the footnotes and the “Index of Citations” starting on page 689 of the Catechism. Not only are there sources from Scripture, but also from councils, encyclicals and major writers etc. I should add that further information about Adam is in the New Testament, for example, Romans 5: 12-21.

Back to Adam.
Warning. Putting together the puzzle of Adam, based on the above sources of information, is not for the faint-hearted. One needs a granny’s curiosity and stubbornness plus a bit of feminine logic.

 

[wmw]

I never before now thought of the apple being the symbol of evil. I always thought the serpent was the evil one, by tempting them to eat so they could be like the God they knew. When they did, they were ashamed to see each other naked, why? Because the holiness and grace they had was taken the moment they ate the apple?

Let me back track that a bit. Part of the problem of the story is that everything is Good as often repeated by God. No the apple isn’t a thing of evil. The Jewish slaves of Egypt would know this. The apple itself is good to eat, but the actions of the ones who hoard it for themselves are evil.

In Genesis the first evil is the act of eating a good apple. Eve was confused by the lies of Satan (the serpent), the father of all lies; the twisting of truth is a source of evil in the world also. Therefore, yes, the serpent is this source of evil. Adam’s sin is greater because he made a more informed and purposeful act of evil. The responsibility for the greater consequences are Adam’s, zero for the apple, only to a limited extent Eve’s and as an accomplice Satan’s evil is second only to Adam’s choice.

I was taught in my Catholic High School that this hierarchy of types of sin and the depths of the responsibility for sinning are a major part of the story as well as how Satan works to confuse and stumble us into sin.

Don’t listen to his lies about how this makes women lesser and more easily fooled and men more wise and important; no, we are all fallen and fall into sin in all of these ways.

Its a story of how at the very start we fall into sin and still do to this day.

 

[grannymh]

Let me back track that a bit. Part of the problem of the story is that everything is Good as often repeated by God. No the apple isn’t a thing of evil. The Jewish slaves of Egypt would know this. The apple itself is good to eat, but the actions of the ones who hoard it for themselves are evil.

In Genesis the first evil is the act of eating a good apple. Eve was confused by the lies of Satan (the serpent), the father of all lies; the twisting of truth is a source of evil in the world also. Therefore, yes, the serpent is this source of evil. Adam’s sin is greater because he made a more informed and purposeful act of evil. The responsibility for the greater consequences are Adam’s, zero for the apple, only to a limited extent Eve’s and as an accomplice Satan’s evil is second only to Adam’s choice.

I was taught in my Catholic High School that this hierarchy of types of sin and the depths of the responsibility for sinning are a major part of the story as well as how Satan works to confuse and stumble us into sin.

Don’t listen to his lies about how this makes women lesser and more easily fooled and men more wise and important; no, we are all fallen and fall into sin in all of these ways.

Its a story of how at the very start we fall into sin and still do to this day.

You must be younger than I am because I got the bare truth about Original Sin.

In the beginning, Adam, as the first human being, had the responsibility of maintaining his and all humanity’s relationship with our Creator. It is this responsibility which is key to Original Sin, even though both Adam and Eve were informed as to what was right and wrong.

If Adam did not maintain this unique relationship with God, then the relationship would be broken. That is common sense. It is also common sense that the terrible act of breaking a relationship with God is the first evil. What else could destroying the relationship between humanity and divinity be if not evil?

Now, what is the best way of destroying the human relationship with the divine Creator?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . In Genesis the first evil is the act of eating a good apple. . .

Another thing about the first evil act is its triviality. How mundane, really, eating an apple. No holocaust, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no treachery of Emperors and Kings, no slavery, just a simple everyday act.

I am reminded of the C.S.Lewis quote:
“You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

 

[simpleas]

Another thing about the first evil act is its triviality. How mundane, really, eating an apple. No holocaust, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no treachery of Emperors and Kings, no slavery, just a simple everyday act.

I am reminded of the C.S.Lewis quote:
“You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

I like that quote by C.S Lewis, makes you think that a small, easy way to sin will lead to a bigger way to sin. Mmm yes, seeing as Adam and Eve were the only two human’s alive, so there wouldn’t have been “No holocaust, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no treachery of Emperors and Kings, no slavery”. And living with only animals, and possibly angels, who could fly/have certain power, it’s easy to see how the two human’s would want to be like them, and God.

But the actual act seem’s only to have opened their eye’s to each other’s nudity, and also they then knew good from evil…I wonder why God didn’t teach them that, before, so they could be on their guard against the evil one.

 

[simpleas]

What Adam had, since he was established in holy relationship with God, was the knowledge of right from wrong as was proper to being a creature and not a God. In other words, he was smart enough to recognize the difference between himself and God. I must be the last generation which learned that essential bit of common sense knowledge somewhere in grades K-8 which was our Catholic grade school. At that time, we learned Catholic doctrines without opening the Bible. Landing on CAF, I was embarrassed that I did not know some of the more interesting tidbits (like sexy Eve) in the first three chapters of Genesis. Sorry, I can’t find an appropriate smilie. This will have to do --

Now, I feel blest because it is so much easier to start with a few basic Catholic doctrines which flow from the premise of Genesis 1:1. Once we catch on to the fact that Catholic philosophy/theology is basically logical starting from some basic Catholic Doctrines, we can figure out how pre-science and pre-Google authors described basic spiritual truths in the first three chapters of Genesis. However, I recognize the current difficulties of these chapters because of a kind of free-for-all when it comes to Catholic doctrines in areas that contradict some areas of our material/physical environment.

Because I am limited in time and may not get back to this thread until later, I will share a study method of mine. My basic source is the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421. In addition, I will use some of the cross-references in the margin. My apology, I have not completed checking all the cross-references. I also save some CCC quotations in other kinds of threads which appear useful. I am not one to reinvent the wheel. A good source for Scripture notes are the footnotes and the “Index of Citations” starting on page 689 of the Catechism. Not only are there sources from Scripture, but also from councils, encyclicals and major writers etc. I should add that further information about Adam is in the New Testament, for example, Romans 5: 12-21.

Back to Adam.
Warning. Putting together the puzzle of Adam, based on the above sources of information, is not for the faint-hearted. One needs a granny’s curiosity and stubbornness plus a bit of feminine logic.

Try this smiley! lol

 

[grannymh]

But the actual act seem’s only to have opened their eye’s to each other’s nudity, and also they then knew good from evil…I wonder why God didn’t teach them that, before, so they could be on their guard against the evil one.

No need to wonder.
Adam was taught the difference between good and evil before Satan could smile at him.

What can be easily learned from Genesis 2: 15?
Genesis 2: 15. “The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.”
What can be easily learned from Genesis 2: 17?
Genesis 2:17. “… From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
Now, combine the two answers which are easily learned from Genesis 2: 15 and 17.
Next, refer to the two formal axioms presented in this thread. 1. “God as Creator exists.” and 2. “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.”

Bingo!
You now know that Adam intellectually knew the difference between good and evil before Eve tasted yummy organic fruit. Therefore, he was fully equipped to go toe to toe with Satan when that “snake in the grass” tempted him.

Congratulations!
You have logically deduced some basic Catholic doctrines.

 

[simpleas]

Yes i’m slowly learning!
Sorry if i seem to be asking the same question over.
But i’m getting there!

Thanks

 

[simpleas]

Ok, sorry to be a pain, but i’m still trying to understand the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3 2: 6 (In short) eve say’s they can eat the fruit from all trees except the one in middle, that God said they would die. Satan tells her" no you will not die, God knows when you eat it you will be like Gods knowing good from evil"

Gen 3. 22 God say’s “see man has become like one of us with his knowledge of good and evil.”

So what i’m failing to fully understand, is how they knew Good from evil prior to eating the fruit. Yes i understand that they somehow knew right from wrong, being a creature, but they couldn’t have known what pure goodness and pure evil was until they made that mistake.

To me i read it as,they only aquire the ability to know good from evil after they have been tempted. and ate the fruit.

 

[grannymh]

Yes i’m slowly learning!
Sorry if i seem to be asking the same question over.
But i’m getting there!

Thanks

Post 230 is simply shifting the playing field in order to change the approach to this valid conundrum – “I wonder why God didn’t teach them that, before, so they could be on their guard against the evil one.” – to another, and maybe easier, approach.

O.K. ?

What I did was to shift from “God teaching Adam” to what it was He should have taught him. Then I shifted from Adam to readers of this thread.

We can agree that the subject matter that Adam needed to learn is the important knowledge of knowing good from evil. Let us put aside Eve’s act of gobbling up organic fruit and look for the places where God interacted with Adam (axiom 2).

Because it is important for us to use our own minds instead of Google, I shifted away from Adam and asked readers:

1. What can be easily learned from Genesis 2: 15?
   Genesis 2: 15. “The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.”
2. What can be easily learned from Genesis 2: 17?
   Genesis 2:17. “… From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
   Considering that Adam was probably barefoot, maybe we should take off our shoes. Whatever will help us take the place of Adam in Genesis.

First, as readers, we can examine these two familiar situations.

1. When we are at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, isn’t there a feeling of love, perhaps security in the presence of God? We know we can die and go to heaven, with maybe a pit stop in purgatory.
2. When we are about to commit a grave sin, does something nag us about the danger to our soul, a danger that could separate us from God? Or maybe we know from experience that sinning is tearing us apart, apart from our natural goodness and apart from our Creator.

What is it that we learned? 1. is good. 2. is evil. What did Adam learn in his two encounters with God. 1. is good. 2. is evil.

One bit of added information to the above. Catholicism sees the “garden” as a sign of Adam’s familiarity with God. Adam is in a peaceful relationship with God. Genesis 3: 8 “When they heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, …”

Please, what are your questions so far. We have only touched the surface.

 

[Jozefo]

I haven’t read the entire thread, but I’ve scanned through a bit. I see the present topic is about ‘knowing’ good and evil. Has the thought occurred that one of the definitions of knowledge is sexual intercourse? As in intimate relation? Also, one of the definitions of intercourse is commerce.

Taking these together leads to another logical conclusion: that Adam was cognizant of right and wrong before he ate of the tree, but having not eaten, was not intimately associated with evil. And in fact, by taking a bite, he took ownership and custody of the sin, and bartered away his innocence.

Seems like there are different levels and natures of knowing present in the story to me.

 

[grannymh]

Ok, sorry to be a pain, but i’m still trying to understand the knowledge of good and evil.

So am I in the midst of trying to piece it together.
Let me know what you think about posts 230 & 233. For the time being, I am concentrating on Adam, because it is he who commits the Original Sin.

Gen 3 2: 6 (In short) eve say’s they can eat the fruit from all trees except the one in middle, that God said they would die. Satan tells her" no you will not die, God knows when you eat it you will be like Gods knowing good from evil"

I worked through post 233 from one meaning, i.e., from Adam’s and our view. Now, I see that “good and evil” can have two meanings. Thank you for the Genesis citation below.

Gen 3. 22 God say’s “see man has become like one of us with his knowledge of good and evil.”

One of the things often overlooked is the difference in status between the infinite God and the finite human. Adam looked at what was good and what was evil from his personal position in relationship to his God. On the other hand, the word omniscient, as the all-knowing Creator, comes to mind when I think of God’s knowledge of good and evil. What other knowledge is there besides all that is good and all that is evil?

Notice that Scripture does not say that Adam becomes a god; but rather Adam is like a God. Still, it is not the same as being in the image of God. Being in the image of God refers beautifully to man’s nature; while God’s infinite knowledge of good and evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits of Adam’s human nature.

Adam attempted to be a god by preferring himself over God and against the requirements of his creaturely status. This preference, resulting in disobedience, is the Original Sin. Being the creature, Adam could maintain his relationship with God only by living in free submission to God. Deciding to disobey this requirement of obedience in order to raise himself up to the level of God, according to Satan’s offer of all knowledge, is how Adam’s Original Sin shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity.

Your questions will help find me find more details.

So what i’m failing to fully understand, is how they knew Good from evil prior to eating the fruit. Yes i understand that they somehow knew right from wrong, being a creature, but they couldn’t have known what pure goodness and pure evil was until they made that mistake.

To me i read it as,they only aquire the ability to know good from evil after they have been tempted. and ate the fruit.

Try thinking of eating the fruit as subsequent or secondary to the actual sin of scorning the Creator. Try thinking of Original Sin as a two-part action. First Adam lets his trust in his Creator die in his heart. He yields to Satan’s false promise that a creature can be a god. He scorns God’s love for him and instead wants to live as some kind of god, apart from the real God. To put that choice into action, Adam deliberately disobeys God’s command and eats the one fruit which was forbidden.

At this point, could you expand on the concept of pure goodness and pure evil? To me, pure goodness would be poin1 in post 233. Pure evil would be the eternal separation from God, point 2 in post 233.

As I recall, I learned about Adam first and then Original Sin by itself. It seems to me, from reading threads, that the tree itself has to be understood first and then human nature. Original Sin appears to be omitted or replaced by a nasty trick on humans.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t read the entire thread, but I’ve scanned through a bit. I see the present topic is about ‘knowing’ good and evil. Has the thought occurred that one of the definitions of knowledge is sexual intercourse? As in intimate relation? Also, one of the definitions of intercourse is commerce.

Taking these together leads to another logical conclusion: that Adam was cognizant of right and wrong before he ate of the tree, but having not eaten, was not intimately associated with evil. And in fact, by taking a bite, he took ownership and custody of the sin, and bartered away his innocence.

Seems like there are different levels and natures of knowing present in the story to me.

Your comment: “Seems like there are different levels and natures of knowing present in the story to me.” is on the mark. The natures of Adam and God are certainly on different levels. And the difference in their knowledge is incomprehensible considering that God is infinite.

Adam does have sole ownership of Original Sin. However, the Original Sin is beyond eating the fruit. Disobeying God by eating the forbidden fruit is the way the Original Sin of scorning God is expressed. Adam stamped his foot and told God that he, Adam was in control. And he, Adam could set aside God’s commands. Setting aside God’s command is what separated humankind from our loving Creator. This is because the bond of sharing in God’s life is dependent on free obedience.

God called Adam to share in His life through knowledge and love during Adam’s time in the Garden of Eden and eventually in eternity in the Presence of the Beatific Vision. At some point, Adam had to make the ultimate choice of remaining with God. It was Satan, that snake in the grass, who seized a moment to tempt Adam. There are times when I wish I could slap Adam upside the head. Yet, we can understand that the idea of being like a god is appealing. Obviously, we should not cry over spilled milk; we should grab a towel and deal with it.

Genesis 3: 15 is seen as God’s promise that Original Sin would be dealt with. The promise is fulfilled in John 3: 16.