Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[STT]

It is rational to be disobedient to God…

That is called irrational. In fact that is snake who is responsible for convincing that they wouldn’t suffer the consequence.

 

[Gorgias]

I said act rather than choice.

Good distinction!

If an act does not proceed from a free choice of options with distinct moral implications, then it does not bear the mark of “morality”. If it does, then the act itself can be described as a moral act.

You need to put yourself inside their shoes. They just believe differently.

So… personal belief dictates objective moral content? Again… no. middle. ground.

That is not correct.

How so?

 

[PetraG]

That is called irrational. In fact that is snake who is responsible for convincing that they wouldn’t suffer the consequence.

Well, we can agree they made a foolish choice. I don’t think we’re going to agree on the responsibility of someone who makes a foolish choice at the behest of someone with no authority to teach them. Adam and Eve? They were justly held responsible.

 

[STT]

So… personal belief dictates objective moral content? Again… no. middle. ground.

No, personal belief dictates subjective moral content. It appears to them that what they were doing is correct. They are therefore not guilty.

How so?

You need the ability to understand that an act is moral rather than ability to exercise the situation in order to know that an act is moral.

 

[sevenswords]

If Christ is the tree of life
is it not more likely the tree of knowing good and evil was satan himself?
meaning Eve never eat but she swallowed a lie and allowed it into her heart.
just thinking out load.

 

[OneSheep]

If you cannot find sin in the figurative story of Adam and Eve then perhaps you should consider developing your own analogy in such as way that the sin of our parents is inescapable. To deny the existence of sin is heresy.

If sin is alienation, then for sure we are all born alienated from God and others to certain degrees. Do you have a negative view towards mankind, such that the alienation is something bad about people? Or, is it something we can understand as part of the human condition, that it is nobody’s “fault”, but somehow part of the creative process?

 

[runningdude]

They had complete use of reason, yet engaged in the irrational act of disobedience that introduced death into our world. This is why the consequences were so severe - they truly knew better, but sinned anyways!

Sin is any act that contradicts our rational nature.

 

[OneSheep]

The complete dominion of reason over appetite means that there was no concupiscence then

Their reason was definitely compromised by something, correct? Their action was irrational.

 

[OneSheep]

I think we need to evolve and learn more. We are still in tribe mentality, nationality, etc.

Okay, we need to evolve and learn more. I certainly need to evolve and learn more!

Do you find yourself participating in a positive way to such goal, or do you find yourself constantly frustrated?

 

[OneSheep]

I am not angry with Adam and Eve, which is what you seem to be implying.

Well, it wasn’t what I was implying. Can you relate to God’s decision to punish the two? Do you find their decision as contrary to a good conscience?

insofar as that word can be applied to people with a wounded nature

Are you saying that there is something negative about our nature, and that the story accurately places the blame for such negativity on humanity? Would you say that it is helpful in conscience formation to think negatively about our nature?

They intended to break their union with God. They intended to disobey God.

Does the ascribing of bad intent help people be more keenly aware of those times when we might not be paying attention to the consequences of actions?

 

[OneSheep]

Attempts to psychoanalyze Adam and Eve do not clarify but serve to obfuscate the simple truth in the story

Observation and introspection is not psychoanalysis, is it? Would you say that the simple truth is “Adam and Eve disobeyed, and they were punished.”?

If so, do you find it disobedient to question the image of God that the story presents?

Which verse in the Genesis story records that Adam and Eve doubted God’s word.

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

She had just said that the fruit would cause death, but she ate it anyway. What good is wisdom if one is dead? So, the doubt was there, and it was irrational.

Is irrational doubt evidence of dominion of reason? If God gave them dominion of reason over appetite, why did he not also give them dominion of reason over untruth or irrational thinking?

 

[Vico]

…
Their reason was definitely compromised by something, correct? Their action was irrational.

Same as with the angels. Their choice was not a temptation from the lower appetites is what it means. Catechism

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

1873 The root of all sins lies in man’s heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[OneSheep]

They got one version from God and one version from elsewhere. They chose to depart from the version they knew with 100% certainty was given by God, they decided that it was God who lied to them, not the snake who was saying more what they wanted to hear , and followed the version from elsewhere.

Would you add this to the evidence that Adam and Eve had complete dominion of reason over appetite?

This is different, for instance, than if the snake had convinced them that his voice was actually the voice of God and that God’s law had changed. That’s not what happened. They still knew God’s law had not changed.

So, in so affirming, the reader can rationally continue to blame Adam and Eve, i.e. “they should have known better!” Is this blame helpful to faith, to belief in God?

Rational people make stupid decisions all of the time, because they convince themselves they are in some special class of people who won’t suffer the natural consequences that afflict other people.

A person who thinks that he is in a special class of people who won’t suffer consequences is at that moment rational?

Adam and Eve? They were justly held responsible.

Yes, they were justly held responsible, because they obviously did the acts. The question is, what is the character of such “holding”? For example, did God actually forgive them, immediately?

Did He see that they did not know what they were doing? No, not in this story, because if God did see such, then He would forgive them, just as He did when we crucified Him. Would you agree that it is important to the purpose of the story that A&E are not only blamed, but punished for disobeying, even punishing their children?

 

[OneSheep]

They didn’t choose not to believe.

Does the idea that they chose not to believe compromise what you know of humanity’s goodness?

Yes, they are not guilty.

This depends on the definition of “guilt”, does it not? For example, perhaps we can find the perpetrators of mass murder forgivable “because they know not what they do”, but Hitler and Pol Pot are still imputable for their crimes. They chose the crimes, but they were ignorant. They were guilty of the crimes, that is, imputed to the origin of the crime, but we can understand their poor choices in light of their blindness. Does this accurately restate your position?

What is required is understanding rather than exercising free will.

Do you find your own choices something less than “free”? Sort of “destined”?

 

[OneSheep]

They had complete use of reason, yet engaged in the irrational act of disobedience that introduced death into our world. This is why the consequences were so severe - they truly knew better, but sinned anyways!

Is an irrational person one who can be described as having complete dominion of reason over appetite?

 

[OneSheep]

Their choice was not a temptation from the lower appetites is what it means.

So, why does the story not show God giving Adam and Eve complete dominion of reason over irrationality?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Their choice was not a temptation from the lower appetites is what it means.

So, why does the story not show God giving Adam and Eve complete dominion of reason over irrationality?

Mankind have human nature not divine nature. Only the gift of grace from the Most Holy Trinity makes is possible for the rational soul to triumph. Adam and Eve were constituted with that, but due to the will to fulfill desire, were uncharitable.

The Church gives this comment in the Catechism:

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.” 272
272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.

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.” 307 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 Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’” 308
307 St. Leo the Great, Sermo 73,4: PL 54,396.
308 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,1,3, ad 3; cf. Rom 5:20.

 

[runningdude]

Their sin was freely choosing the irrational choice. They had the same grace as the Blessed Mother, yet choose death anyways.

The first sin was not trivial disobedience or succumbing to disordered appetites. They had full order over their faculties, but desired knowledge that belonged to God alone, and deliberately disobeyed God to steal that knowledge.

They failed, and felt deep shame. They hid from God, and taught their children this habit, and cut humanity off from perfect communion with God.

 

[STT]

Do you find yourself participating in a positive way to such goal, or do you find yourself constantly frustrated?

Yes, I am participating. I need to find the truth first. Of course it is not simple to convince people but I enjoy discussing.

 

[STT]

Does the idea that they chose not to believe compromise what you know of humanity’s goodness?

Yes, one cannot fool himself.

This depends on the definition of “guilt”, does it not? For example, perhaps we can find the perpetrators of mass murder forgivable “because they know not what they do”, but Hitler and Pol Pot are still imputable for their crimes. They chose the crimes, but they were ignorant. They were guilty of the crimes, that is, imputed to the origin of the crime, but we can understand their poor choices in light of their blindness. Does this accurately restate your position?

I think that they believed what they were doing is not a crime. They were blind and made a poor choice.

Do you find your own choices something less than “free”? Sort of “destined”?

I think that my choice is free. I have an argument in favor of that: Thought proceeds act. This means that you cannot have thought and act together. This means that there exists a point between that it is neither thought nor act. This point cannot be affected by thought otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore this point is free decision point.