Before the fall were Adam and Eve able to have children?

[thedweh]

Before the fall God commanded Adam & Eve to multiply. They didn’t know they were naked untill after they ate the fruit. If they didn’t know they were naked how could they have joind together sexually to conceive children?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Before the fall God commanded Adam & Eve to multiply. They didn’t know they were naked until after they ate the fruit. If they didn’t know they were naked how could they have joined together sexually to conceive children?

I don’t understand your difficulty.
Why does absence of shame mean one does not know to procreate?

 

[GEddie]

They didn’t know they were naked, because naked means not wearing clothes, and clothes didn’t exist yet!

That doesn’t mean they didn’t know they had bodies, or how to use them!

ICXC NIKA

 

[Blue_Horizon]

They didn’t know they were naked, because naked means not wearing clothes, and clothes didn’t exist yet!

I don’t think so.
Unicorns don’t exist yet…yet I still know what one is and whether I would like one or need one or not

 

[mVitus]

The concept of a unicorn exists though. I’d liken it more to a medieval person noticing they lacked a cell phone and that their city didn’t have solar panels amd that their country’s navy was devoid of air craft carriers. Sure, they could conceive of those, but that doesn’t mean they would.

 

[thedweh]

I don’t understand your difficulty.

Why does absence of shame mean one does not know to procreate?

I don’t want to get too explicit on this forum, but sex can’t happen if the couple doesn’t get aroused sexually, this is especially important for the man whose parts just won’t work in that way without sexual arousal. what the biblical account seems to show is that they were innocent of any knowlege about sex or any sexual arousal, like a toddler walking around the house naked. In the early years before puberty, children don’t understand what what nudity is, they don’t know what their sexual organs are for or how to use them.

 

[Xystus]

Of course they could. God told them " Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." before the fall. How do you think they were supposed to do that without the ability to have children?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue_Horizon:

I don’t understand your difficulty.

Why does absence of shame mean one does not know to procreate?

sex can’t happen if the couple doesn’t get aroused sexually, this is especially important for the man whose parts just won’t work in that way without sexual arousal. what the biblical account seems to show is that they were innocent of any knowlege about sex or any sexual arousal, like a toddler walking around the house naked. In the early years before puberty, children don’t understand what what nudity is, they don’t know what their sexual organs are for or how to use them.

Not being ashamed of nakedness clearly has causes other than ignorance of sexuality!
A and E were not ignorant toddlers as you seem to automatically assume must be the case.

It is the very point of Genesis that the shame comes from perceived lack of control and that lack of control is due to personal sin…not ignorance of sexual function.

This is a very basic theological misunderstanding of Genesis, original sin and the human condition before the Fall.

The innocence of Eden was never ignorance of sex!

 

[thedweh]

Not being ashamed of nakedness clearly has causes other than ignorance of sexuality!

A and E were not ignorant toddlers as you seem to automatically assume must be the case.

It is the very point of Genesis that the shame comes from perceived lack of control and that lack of control is due to personal sin…not ignorance of sexual function.

I didn’t say Adam & Eve were toddlers, I was comparing their innocence and lack of knowlege to a toddler. Yes, Genesis says they were not ashamed of their nakedness. It also says that they didn’t know that they were naked. God asked them “who told you that you were naked?” having no shame is not the same thing as not knowing that you are naked.

 

[LittleWay16]

They could have procreated without committing sexual sin. The definition of innocence is lack of guilt. It is not sinful to procreate with one’s spouse, therefore procreating would not have made them guilty of sin. Innocence does not mean that you do not know anything about sex.

 

[Zaccheus]

Before the fall God commanded Adam & Eve to multiply. They didn’t know they were naked untill after they ate the fruit. If they didn’t know they were naked how could they have joind together sexually to conceive children?

“They knew they were naked” does not mean they suddenly became aware of their bodies. It means they became capable of shame.
Before that they were without covering but it didn’t matter. They were pure and without sin or shame. They were also perfectly capable of sexual intercourse.

 

[Zaccheus]

I didn’t say Adam & Eve were toddlers, I was comparing their innocence and lack of knowlege to a toddler. Yes, Genesis says they were not ashamed of their nakedness. It also says that they didn’t know that they were naked. God asked them “who told you that you were naked?” having no shame is not the same thing as not knowing that you are naked.

“Who told you that you were naked?”

“Who made you ashamed? Who made you able to be ashamed? What did you do that gave you shame?”

In this context “not knowing they were naked” is the same thing as having no shame because they had no sin.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t want to get too explicit on this forum, but sex can’t happen if the couple doesn’t get aroused sexually, this is especially important for the man whose parts just won’t work in that way without sexual arousal. what the biblical account seems to show is that they were innocent of any knowlege about sex or any sexual arousal,

I think I disagree. These days, with the wearing of clothing so deeply ingrained in the way we live our lives, the mere absence of clothes – that is, the mere visibility of the other gender’s exposed body – elicits a sexual response.

However, the phenomenon of ‘nude beaches’ provides an interesting contrast. For many, being in the presence of nude people of the opposite gender doesn’t create an instant sexual response. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that these folks’ equipment doesn’t work (or that they don’t know how to use the equipment). Rather, it simply means that the mere absence of clothing doesn’t automatically create a sexual response… just like back in the days of Adam and Eve.

 

[GEddie]

Toddlers have bodies that do not yet function sexually, but A&E were created with fully-grown human bodies.

They would have known how to use them, as any other animal being does.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was comparing their innocence and lack of knowledge to a toddler.

Which is mistaken re knowledge of sex…

It also says that they didn’t know that they were naked.

Everybody agrees on this.

That does not mean they did not know what is needed to have babies.
That only holds for people who think their innocence was the same as that of toddlers.

Clearly there are other types of innocence (where one understands what the genitals are for) but you do not seem to accept this.

How you can conclude that “they did not know they were naked” must mean they were ignorant of what the genitals were for I do not know. No Doctor, Father, bishop or Church leader has in 2000 years of Church history ever interpreted Genesis as you have on this matter as far as I am aware.

 

[thedweh]

How you can conclude that “they did not know they were naked” must mean they were ignorant of what the genitals were for I do not know. No Doctor, Father, bishop or Church leader has in 2000 years of Church history ever interpreted Genesis as you have on this matter as far as I am aware.

Yes, you are unaware. The words of Irenaeus oppose your position on this matter. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html

“But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward)”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiv.html

" For [Adam] showed his repentance by his conduct, through means of the girdle [which he used], covering himself with fig-leaves, while there were many other leaves, which would have irritated his body in a less degree. He, however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things)"

Do you know better than Irenaeus?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Do you know better than Irenaeus?

Thanks for that, but do observe a single swallow does not Spring make.
So yes, we do know better than Irenaeus - just as we know better than Aquinas and Augustine on particular topics of which they were plainly mistaken.
Some ancient views were never accepted by the Magisterium or even contemporaries and were in time consigned to the theological trashbins of history.

Nor is it now accepted that Adam and Eve were mentally but children in terms of knowledge.
Aquinas explicitly rejects this view.

Regardless your conclusion did not come from Irenaeus, but from your somewhat personal and dogmatic stance that freedom from the shame of nakedness is due to naiivity over the role of the genitals.

Clearly there are other explanations for freedom from shame over nakedness and Irenaeus’s was never adopted by mainstream theology.

You do not today have any of the excuses that Irenaeus had for his sincere position some 1800 years ago.

You appear to have assumed there is only one self-evident view on this matter - yours.

There are not only other views on the matter - there are better ones and the Magisterium and tradition has clearly rejected the view espoused by yourself and Irenaeus.

Adam and Eve were mature adults with full infused knowledge.
They knew what their genitals were for and had no shame about it because they controlled their sexual motions fully.
After the Fall the body “had a law of its own” which embarrassed our Parents. Thus they sought to hide their nakedness.

 

[thedweh]

You are Catholic, the foundation of your church is “apostolic succecssion” and “traditions handed down by the apostles”. You can’t get much closer to the apostles and their original teachings than Irenaeus, he was a deciple of Polycarp who was a deciple of John the apostle. For you to assume that Irenaeus was the only one during his time period to believe this is naive, would he really have published it in his writings if it was an uncommon view? Irenaeus was very respected, he is one of the most prominent and revered among the early church fathers.

consigned to the theological trashbins of history

Thats a terrible shame. This was the tradition handed down from the apostles in Irenaeus’s day. Why did the tradition change several centuries later?

 

[Gorgias]

Do you know better than Irenaeus?

Do you know better than St John Paul II, who wrote on the nuptial meaning of original innocence and taught it as pope, saying:

We can understand that original innocence as a particular “purity of heart,” which preserves an interior faithfulness to the gift according to the nuptial meaning of the body. Consequently, original innocence, conceived in this way, is manifested as a tranquil testimony of conscience … It can be said that awareness of the nuptial meaning of the body, in its masculinity and femininity, becomes humanly beatifying only by means of this testimony.

Are you saying that (Bishop) Irenaeus knows better than (Pope) John Paul II, or that he speaks more authoritatively than a pope?

 

[thedweh]

Do you know better than St John Paul II, who wrote on the nuptial meaning of original innocence and taught it as pope, saying:

We can understand that original innocence as a particular “purity of heart,” which preserves an interior faithfulness to the gift according to the nuptial meaning of the body. Consequently, original innocence, conceived in this way, is manifested as a tranquil testimony of conscience … It can be said that awareness of the nuptial meaning of the body, in its masculinity and femininity, becomes humanly beatifying only by means of this testimony.

Are you saying that (Bishop) Irenaeus knows better than (Pope) John Paul II, or that he speaks more authoritatively than a pope?

Do you know what else John Paul II taught as pope?
That Marcial Maciel was a good and decent man, worthy of the highest acclaims and offices of the Catholic church. Obvously, he was wrong about that.
Over the centuries the definition of papal and magesterial infallibility has become extremely limited. The quote you provided is not defined as infallible/ dogmatic, nither are the quotes from Irenaeus. however, in this case since you asked the question, yes, I do believe Irenaeus had a more accurate answer to this question as he was far closer to the original source.