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

[OneSheep]

You’re conflating ‘experience’ and ‘consequence’ with ‘conscience’ and ‘rational introspection’.

They are all intricately tied together. The more a person knows about the consequences of an immoral act, the less likely they will perform it. Is this not your experience?

That doesn’t mean that my conscience is formed by pepperoni and my putter…

Your conscience would only be formed by these if you had experiences that enhanced your seeing of the importance of a particular moral act. For example, if a person has spent a gazillion dollars on golf, but never a dime on charity, then he would not experience the consequence of his act until he saw those people suffering that could have been diminished by giving up a few golf games.

Same if I don’t have negative consequences for doing evil – experience, in that case, teaches me that I can “get away with it.”

When we do experience a negative consequence for doing evil, such as the guilt we feel upon see starving people in the above example, we see the importance of the morality of charity.

Here’s an example: let’s suppose I go out tonight and murder someone in cold blood. If I’m not caught – that is, if there are no negative consequences – then the experience hasn’t taught me anything about morality, has it? So, experience doesn’t teach morality.

You’re right, that experience as described did not teach anything about morality. However, if the person sees the family of the person, sees that the person was loved, and found some new information by which they realized that the victim was a valuable person, just like oneself, then guilt is sure to follow. The person learns from the guilt. Guilt itself is a natural consequence, and forms the conscience.

“full knowledge” is “knowledge of the sinful character of the act”, not knowledge of all the possible consequences of the act.

The catechism does not exclude “knowledge of consequence” from “knowledge of sinful character”. “Knowledge of sinful character” is not the same as “knowing it is a sin”, and “knowing it is contrary to God’s law” is a matter of degrees, it is knowing the reason for such contrariness, for example. A person who has more experience will know much more about contrariness.

“Complete dominion of reason” means having the fullness of experience, all experience that a human could ever have to make the wisest decision.

 

[Gorgias]

The more a person knows about the consequences of an immoral act, the less likely they will perform it. Is this not your experience?

That’s not a question of ‘morality’, however, and morality of human acts is what conscience is all about!

I know I’m being quite picky here, but we are trying to get at the heart of doctrinal truths, so I think that precision is necessary!

So, when you conflate the two notions – consequence and conscience – you’re blurring the lines of the two in a way that inaccurately defines conscience.

Your conscience would only be formed by these if you had experiences that enhanced your seeing of the importance of a particular moral act.

Then that would mean that it’s not the experience that forms my conscience, but rather, it’s the process of introspection that does so!

When we do experience a negative consequence for doing evil, such as the guilt we feel upon see starving people in the above example, we see the importance of the morality of charity.

The ‘guilt’ we feel isn’t a consequence. (In fact, in the particular example you give, I would assert that it’s actually your conscience in operation!)

Guilt itself is a natural consequence

I would disagree. There are plenty of people who commit immoral acts and don’t feel a single twinge of guilt.

The catechism does not exclude “knowledge of consequence” from “knowledge of sinful character”.

Can you support that claim?

“Knowledge of sinful character” is not the same as “knowing it is a sin”

Huh? Perhaps you could expand on this assertion, 'cause on the face of it, it doesn’t hold water.

“Complete dominion of reason” means having the fullness of experience, all experience that a human could ever have to make the wisest decision.

You’re making up your own definitions again, @OneSheep…

 

[OneSheep]

So, when you conflate the two notions – consequence and conscience – you’re blurring the lines of the two in a way that inaccurately defines conscience.

I’m not conflating the two. Consequences are not the same as conscience, but consequences help inform the conscience. I’m not quite understanding the resistance to this, it is all in line with the CCC.

Then that would mean that it’s not the experience that forms my conscience, but rather, it’s the process of introspection that does so!

It’s both. The introspection itself is part of the experience, and is guided by experience.

The ‘guilt’ we feel isn’t a consequence . (In fact, in the particular example you give, I would assert that it’s actually your conscience in operation!)

Well, guilt hurts, does it not? So, it helps in the formation. Yes, the conscience is already there, given to us by God, but the experience of guilt, as a consequence, helps us to identify and clarify that which is given. There is no need for a “what comes first” discussion, though. The point is that experience, including experience of all consequences, helps form the conscience, helps form our “reason” also.

I would disagree. There are plenty of people who commit immoral acts and don’t feel a single twinge of guilt.

I didn’t say that it is automatic for everyone. A person with an undeveloped conscience may not feel a twinge of guilt. That same person, though, who becomes the victim of an immoral act is much more likely to develop that aspect of their conscience.

My wife is a Kindergarten teacher. Every day she is involved in helping the little darlings form their consciences. When someone hurts someone else, she asks the victim to tell the perpetrator how that felt. Over time, everyone gets a chance to be a victim and a perpetrator, and consciences are formed.

Can you support that claim?

Sure, read the CCC that applies. It does not exclude it.

on the face of it, it doesn’t hold water.

Well, let’s look at “the face of it”. For starters, the wording is “knowledge of sinful character”. A person who knows all the consequences of a sin is going to be much more in tune with sinful character of an act or attitude.

You’re making up your own definitions again

Okay, let’s look at your definition of “complete dominion of reason”.

Imagine if Adam and Eve said, “Eat this, and I’m going to die? I don’t even know what death is, but I’m sure to find out, it’s probably no big deal.” Is that complete dominion of reason? “God said not to, but he was just kidding”, is that complete dominion of reason?

Are you open to the possibility that the whole concept of “preternatural knowledge” was written assuming that God’s image presented in scripture is unchanged between the story of Adam and Eve and the Gospel?

 

[Gorgias]

Sure, read the CCC that applies. It does not exclude it.

It doesn’t address it, though, either. So, unless you can show support for it…

For starters, the wording is “knowledge of sinful character”. A person who knows all the consequences of a sin is going to be much more in tune with sinful character of an act or attitude.

Hitler knew the consequences – by your terminology, everything that should have made him feel ‘guilt’ – of killing the Jews. That, however, neither caused him to feel guilt nor did it form his conscience. More to the point, it did not help him “get in tune with the sinful character of his acts”.

So, no… I think your assertion doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. In general? Sure… good people who do bad things tend to self-regulate. However, that doesn’t support your case.

After all, a person who stops committing crimes because he wants to not be put in jail hasn’t developed a conscience – rather, he just wants to avoid negative consequences. The two are not the same.

Okay, let’s look at your definition of “complete dominion of reason”.

Imagine if Adam and Eve said, “Eat this, and I’m going to die? I don’t even know what death is, but I’m sure to find out, it’s probably no big deal.” Is that complete dominion of reason? “God said not to, but he was just kidding”, is that complete dominion of reason?

The case is much simpler than you’re making it out to be. God said “don’t do this thing”. The serpent (in the story) said, “do it… and it will be good.”

We’ve already gone over the reasons why this wasn’t a case of “appetite over reason”. Moreover, it’s pretty self-evident that – unless you assert that they were intellectually deficient – they knew what God had told them not to do, and they chose it anyway. Consequences don’t come into play. They disobeyed God, willingly and deliberately, knowing that they were acting against God’s will.

Are you open to the possibility that the whole concept of “preternatural knowledge” was written assuming that God’s image presented in scripture is unchanged between the story of Adam and Eve and the Gospel?

Not quite sure what you’re asking, based on the way you’ve phrased it. Are you asking whether human nature is unchanged? Or the human situation of life?

 

[OneSheep]

It doesn’t address it, though, either. So, unless you can show support for it…

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

Hitler knew the consequences – by your terminology, everything that should have made him feel ‘guilt’ – of killing the Jews.

Actually, he was blind to the consequences. He saw destruction of certain people as a good thing, or at worst inconsequential. By his own blind reasoning, he was “destroying an evil”. The word “should” does not change his actual perception of the world and blindness to the humanity he destroyed.

After all, a person who stops committing crimes because he wants to not be put in jail hasn’t developed a conscience – rather, he just wants to avoid negative consequences. The two are not the same.

Exactly, friend (and I mean that, it is great discussing with you), conscience can be informed by consequences, but that isn’t necessarily a given. And yes, the psychopath, for example, only cares about negative consequences, but has a completely malformed conscience. Empathy is a key ingredient in forming a good conscience. A kindergartner with an empathy deficit (who will grow up a psychopath) does not have a clue about how other kids feel when they are hurt, even if they tell him.

 

[OneSheep]

The case is much simpler than you’re making it out to be. God said “don’t do this thing”. The serpent (in the story) said, “do it… and it will be good.”

Which is still a demonstration of appetite over reason, right?

We’ve already gone over the reasons why this wasn’t a case of “appetite over reason”.

You haven’t made your case, sorry. It is the assertion that they had “dominion of reason over appetite”, but their behavior showed the opposite.

unless you assert that they were intellectually deficient

They were deficient in wisdom. The more wisdom people have, the less likely they are to choose evil. Is it your experience that this is not the case?

They disobeyed God, willingly and deliberately, knowing that they were acting against God’s will.

You are reading and interpreting the story exactly the way that it was meant to be interpreted. The reader’s mind is supposed to go to blame, feeling negatively about Adam and Eve, so that the reader can see them as the antagonist and join with God’s motion of punishing mankind. God is to be seen as “just” and mankind as “deserving the worst”.

However, the message falls apart under modern scrutiny, especially in light of the Gospel.

Not quite sure what you’re asking, based on the way you’ve phrased it. Are you asking whether human nature is unchanged? Or the human situation of life?

What I am saying is that when the teaching of “preternatural knowledge” came about, the author of such teaching was especially concerned about someone thinking that Adam and Eve did not deserve what they got, or that God was not completely justified in any punishment He put forth.

Since God created man with all the appetites and desires, including desire for freedom/autonomy. Applying the modern understanding of our God to the story, He is omniscient, therefore He knew that man would defy Him yet put man through the steps of giving man something, then taking it away, and enticing man to self-blame for his own condition. However, this story, then, is a huge hit on God’s benevolence. We would not treat our own children this way, and God is certainly more benevolent than we are. Through the Gospel, we know God’s omnibenevolence.

And through the Gospel, we can see human innocence.

The Gospel changes both images.

 

[Gorgias]

Which is still a demonstration of appetite over reason, right?

No. I’m saying that it wasn’t appetite that was disordered – it was will! The Church teaches that the first sin was the sin of pride – that is, it wasn’t that Eve said “I know these are bad for me, but I’ve just got to have some applesauce! Mmm!”, but rather, that Adam and Eve said, “I know that God said not to eat of them, but I want to be like God Himself”. There’s a critical difference there, and that’s what makes the “appetite over reason” argument so important to refute! Sin happened because they believed in themselves over God – not because their disordered appetites made them want it!

In other words, the first sin wasn’t a Flip-Wilsonesque “the devil made me do it!”, but rather, “I made me do it!”

OneSheep:

They were deficient in wisdom

They were sufficient in knowledge, however.

OneSheep:

The more wisdom people have, the less likely they are to choose evil. Is it your experience that this is not the case?

Nope. I know plenty of folks who are wise but wicked.

OneSheep:

You are reading and interpreting the story exactly the way that it was meant to be interpreted. The reader’s mind is supposed to go to blame, feeling negatively about Adam and Eve, so that the reader can see them as the antagonist

I don’t know why this notion is so strongly entrenched in your mind, but I’d appreciate it if you stopped projecting your own ideas as if they were mine.

Here’s my take on it, if you want to know how I feel about Adam and Eve: there’s absolutely no way possible for us to look at them and ‘blame’ them… without also looking at ourselves and realizing that we, too, are to ‘blame’. They are no more sinners than I myself am. They’re not ‘antagonists’ – they’re you and me!

 

[Gorgias]

OneSheep:

However, the message falls apart under modern scrutiny

I agree. No one wants to share in the blame. (“I mean, I can’t possibly be a big old sinner… so neither can Adam and Eve!” ) .

Yes, ‘modern scrutiny’ does a disservice to Adam and Eve, and thereby, to each one of us!

OneSheep:

when the teaching of “preternatural knowledge” came about, the author of such teaching was especially concerned about someone thinking that Adam and Eve did not deserve what they got

In all charity, @OneSheep, if your Scriptural hermeneutic is “human psychology and personal whim are what gave rise to (and dictate the content of) doctrine”, you’re gonna have lots of problems with Christian teaching! Essentially, what you’re saying is that doctrine comes not from God, but from man!

OneSheep:

However, this story, then, is a huge hit on God’s benevolence. We would not treat our own children this way

You’re projecting, again.

Are you really certain that good parents don’t sometimes let their children make their own mistakes – and learn from them! – but still provide the means by which their children will recover from their mistakes and thrive nevertheless? That’s the real message of the Fall of Adam – even when we say ‘no’ to God, He comes back with new possibilities for us!

 

[simpleas]

I don’t read the account as them believing in themselves, I read it as they trusted the serpents word over Gods.
Then Eve blames the serpent for tempting her, and Adam in a way blames God because the woman God put with him gave him some and he ate.

 

[OneSheep]

Sin happened because they believed in themselves over God – not because their disordered appetites made them want it!

Gorgias, I did not write that their appetite was disordered. They had normal human appetites for power, status, autonomy, etc. These are good in themselves. The appetites, however, cause concupiscence in the mind.

it wasn’t that Eve said “I know these are bad for me, but I’ve just got to have some applesauce! Mmm!”, but rather, that Adam and Eve said, “I know that God said not to eat of them, but I want to be like God Himself”.

Yes, the “want to be like God” stems from appetite. People want to have power, autonomy, status, freedom to do whatever they want. These are appetites. Since knowledge leads to power and freedom, it is desired by the appetite.

Sin happened because they believed in themselves over God – not because their disordered appetites made them want it!

If they believe in themselves over God, this is already a disorder. It does not exhibit dominion of reason over appetite. The desire for power and autonomy are the biggest factors here, and these desires are in conflict with obedience to authority in every human society. These desires, these appetites, in themselves are not “disordered”. The thinking of themselves that they (Adam and Eve) are “over God” (which is not evident in the literal story) would be irrational.

Were you thinking that the idea of “believing in themselves over God” was reasonable, not disordered?

Flip-Wilsonesque

thanks for reminding me of that character

There’s a critical difference there

Our different ways of looking at this stem from your insistence that desire for power and autonomy are not appetites that effect reason. Have you never had your own desire for power and autonomy affect your reason? I certainly have.

They were sufficient in knowledge, however.

This brings us back to, “did they know that their choice would harm their own children?” Yes, ad nauseum, sorry. For a human to simply know that “it is law” is insufficient to motivate people, they have to see the reason behind law in order to follow it, or it seems simply random or an impingement for no or inadequate reason. For example, I never make a complete stop at a 4-way stop sign if I see no people or other vehicles, there is no harm in my breaking the law. This is the way people are, and it is okay. The story of Adam and Eve, however, calls for unquestioning submission to authority, which is exactly what was needed for tribal function when the story was written.

Things are different today. A little challenge of existing laws is healthy in society. Authoritarianism is no longer needed.

 

[OneSheep]

Nope. I know plenty of folks who are wise but wicked.

I think by “wicked” you mean “evil-doing”. Would you agree that the evil-doing represents a deficiency in wisdom, and not a product of the wisdom they have? A wisdom that is not grounded in love and mercy is already extremely deficient.

I don’t know why this notion is so strongly entrenched in your mind, but I’d appreciate it if you stopped projecting your own ideas as if they were mine.

My bad, sorry. It is where the story takes the reader, not necessarily where you were going.

Here’s my take on it, if you want to know how I feel about Adam and Eve: there’s absolutely no way possible for us to look at them and ‘blame’ them… without also looking at ourselves and realizing that we, too, are to ‘blame’. They are no more sinners than I myself am. They’re not ‘antagonists’ – they’re you and me!

Gorgias, you do not cease to amaze me. You are right, and you are coming from a place of true humility. We have no cause to point, because we are “all the antagonists”. We all have posts in our eyes, those of us who point.

However, let’s take the next step. Do you see how the blame of all humanity is also what the story intends? We are to have a stance of self-blame, which serves a purpose (tribal obedience), but is inevitably a hit on human dignity. It is a devaluation of human kind- a group devaluation.

So, back to the Gospel. Jesus did not blame the crowd, nor humanity. He understood humanity, He understood us even at the time of our worst behavior, and forgave. He understood that our blindness was not intentional.

Essentially, what you’re saying is that doctrine comes not from God, but from man!

Well, doctrine is written by man, but is inspired by God. It is not an either/or matter. As revelation unfolds, we learn more about God’s true benevolence. This is not contrary to modern Christian teaching.

Are you really certain that good parents don’t sometimes let their children make their own mistakes

I’m quite positive that no human parent would subject their children to danger that would tempt them to do something that would ultimately lead to their grandchildren’s harm and every generation thereafter. I take that back. A psychopathic parent might do this, but psychopaths truly have a disability, a harm that needs healing.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t read the account as them believing in themselves

Well, maybe they did “believe in themselves” but if the story was about real humans, then they would not be “believing in themselves over God” unless they were having a serious compromise of their reason and knowledge and were “carefully” considering their options but with the irrational problems intact. If I were in their shoes, I would not be thinking “I believe in myself” or “I believe in satan over God” or anything like that. My own mind would be doing something more like the character Gollum, “Must have the pretty!”, completely ignoring, and inadvertently shutting out all semblance of reason.

Adam in a way blames God because the woman God put with him gave him some and he ate.

Well, isn’t that a positive spin on Adam’s blame of Eve!

 

[simpleas]

I couldn’t say what I’d be thinking, because I’d be a completely different person than I am today

 

[Vico]

… They knew that they were making a choice that would hurt their children? …
…God is always waiting for us - Pope Francis…

• If is not and was not necessary to know all the ramifications in order to sin mortally. What is needed fo knowledge is to know the moral character of the act or omission. In this case that was known.
• God is waiting for our repentance.

Matthew 12

30 Whoever is not with me, is against me. And whoever does not gather with me, scatters.
31 For this reason, I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32 And anyone who will have spoken a word against the Son of man shall be forgiven. But whoever will have spoken against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the future age.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, I did not write that their appetite was disordered.

I know you didn’t. And that, it seems, might be the source of your misunderstanding. If we were to say that they did not have “complete dominion of reason over appetite”, then what we’re really saying is that they did have appetites that were disordered – that is, their appetites swamped their reason. To have an appetite that defies reason and conscience is precisely the definition of a disordered appetite!

They had normal human appetites for power, status, autonomy, etc. These are good in themselves. The appetites, however, cause concupiscence in the mind.

No. Appetites do not cause concupiscence, and A&E did not have concupiscence prior to the fall. To the former assertion, I’d point out that there are appetites that do not lead to sin, and therefore, you cannot assert that it is the mere presence of appetites that cause concupiscence. To the latter assertion, I just point you to Catholic doctrine.

Yes, the “want to be like God” stems from appetite. People want to have power, autonomy, status, freedom to do whatever they want. These are appetites.

I think we’re back to the question of definitions, then. You’re expanding the definition of ‘appetite’ beyond what the statement “complete dominion of reason over appetite” is claiming.

these desires are in conflict

Fair enough. These desires are not ‘appetite’, however.

thanks for reminding me of that character

LOL! I can still picture Geraldine whipping her purse around like a weapon!

Our different ways of looking at this stem from your insistence that desire for power and autonomy are not appetites that effect reason.

Agreed. I maintain that you’re taking the definition of ‘appetite’ too far afield.

Have you never had your own desire for power and autonomy affect your reason?

That wouldn’t be an ‘appetite’ problem, though.

This brings us back to, “did they know that their choice would harm their own children?” Yes, ad nauseum, sorry.

Right.

For a human to simply know that “it is law” is insufficient to motivate people

True… but can’t you see you’ve just moved the goal posts? You’ve taken the question from “do you know?” and moved it to “are you motivated?”. The two are completely distinct questions!!!

 

[Gorgias]

However, let’s take the next step. Do you see how the blame of all humanity is also what the story intends?

Yes… but I don’t go beyond it, in the particular direction you do.

We are to have a stance of self-blame, which serves a purpose (tribal obedience)

I would assert that the stance is humility. The purpose of humility isn’t “tribal obedience”, but rather, hesed towards God.

, but is inevitably a hit on human dignity. It is a devaluation of human kind- a group devaluation.

Nope. “Human dignity” proceeds from our identity with God – as persons made in the imago Dei. To say that we are sinners doesn’t devalue the imago Dei; rather, it merely admits that He is God and we are not.

When we admit that we are all sinners, it does not say something terminal about us… and you know why? Because the point of Genesis 3 isn’t that we’re fatally flawed, but that we’re ultimately redeemable.

 

[OneSheep]

If is not and was not necessary to know all the ramifications in order to sin mortally. What is needed fo knowledge is to know the moral character of the act or omission. In this case that was known.

Vico, the question was not about whether or not what Adam and Eve did quaified as “sin” under some rubric. The question i asked was this:

“If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make the wisest choice?"

I did not ask "why was it counted as “mortal sin”. Do you have a theological answer to this question?

God is waiting for our repentance.

This would be a passive image of God. Pope Benedict’s image was more active, and so is Pope Francis’. If you are turning Pope Francis’ words to mean something other than “God always forgives us”, you’d better have something more than your own opinion to support it.

30 Whoever is not with me, is against me. And whoever does not gather with me, scatters.
31 For this reason, I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32 And anyone who will have spoken a word against the Son of man shall be forgiven. But whoever will have spoken against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the future age.

How ironic that you posted this very verse that was the core of the latest thread I posted!

attributing to satan

That verse is not to be taken out of context. The previous verses are these:

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

What the priest taught us was that what Jesus was saying here is that it is dangerous to ascribe to satan what comes from God.

What happens is that if a person looks upon some act with condemnation, but it is actually an act that comes from His goodness, the person may well be closing himself off to seeing and accepting God the Father. “Blasphemy against the Spirit” is attributing to satan what comes from God.

The priest went on to say that this verse tells us that we are absolutely always to give people the benefit of the doubt in whatever they say or do. This is a very good practice, agreed?

 

[OneSheep]

To have an appetite that defies reason and conscience is precisely the definition of a disordered appetite!

Sounds like we are in agreement on this. But why, then, is not any innate human want that defies reason and conscience an “appetite” over which God gives Adam and Eve dominion?

Appetites do not cause concupiscence

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

I think we’re back to the question of definitions, then. You’re expanding the definition of ‘appetite’ beyond what the statement “complete dominion of reason over appetite” is claiming.

I maintain that you’re taking the definition of ‘appetite’ too far afield.

Let’s put it this way. Even if desire for power, autonomy, and status do not fit the definition of “appetite” for some reason, those innate human wants do indeed affect human ability to accurately reason. So, then, if God gave man a “preternatural knowledge”, giving man dominion over the effects of lower appetites on reason, why would He not give man the same dominion of reason over these other innate desires that also effect the mind? This is the question that I posed Vico.

I would assert that the stance is humility. The purpose of humility isn’t “tribal obedience”, but rather, hesed towards God.

Chesed (Hebrew: חֶסֶד‬, also Romanized ḥesed) is a Hebrew word. In its positive sense, the word is used of kindness or love between men, of piety of men towards God as well as of love or mercy of God towards men.

Do you see, then, that ultimately the Adam and Eve story depicts the image of a manipulative God, a God who gives and takes away?

Hesed in the Gospel comes from a place of awareness! Every person is drawn to God when we know His unconditional love, the love shown to us by Jesus Christ. While manipulation is in itself somewhat fruitful, the God we can know through relationship is He who loves and forgives us regardless of what we do, no matter what we “eat”, and even when we defy Him.

Nope. “Human dignity” proceeds from our identity with God – as persons made in the imago Dei . To say that we are sinners doesn’t devalue the imago Dei ; rather, it merely admits that He is God and we are not.

There is a difference between saying that we are sinners and blaming humankind. Yes, we are all sinners, we all do evil. Blaming humankind is a different stance, it is “we all sin, and that says something negative about what it means to be human.” It is a hit on human dignity.

 

[OneSheep]

Because the point of Genesis 3 isn’t that we’re fatally flawed, but that we’re ultimately redeemable.

Regardless, it supports the natural, negative human bias that we are flawed, and have a diminished value. Ironically, a big part of human redemption is in our seeing that God can be seen in everyone, that each of us has infinite value in His eyes.

The Gospel does not show us that man is something negative but God loves us anyway. The Gospel shows us a pathway to a different anthropology, an anthropology of human innocence and beauty, the whole of man created by an infinitely loving and merciful God. Indeed, we can participate in God’s love for us by seeing our own beauty and innocence.

 

[Gorgias]

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.

I think I’d prefer to go with a magisterial source over an out-of-date non-magisterial source. (Nevertheless, it does stand in agreement with what we’re talking about here – not the ‘general’ definition, but the ‘theological’ one!
CCC #405:

is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”

CCC #2515:

Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

So, if you want to talk about a definition in terms of its use in other contexts, be my guest. However, in the context of theology, I’m gonna stick with the definition that the catechism gives us “the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason.”

And you know what? That’s precisely what the subject of this thread is! That is, the fact that concupiscence did not exist for Adam and Eve until they sinned. It wasn’t until after their sin that their sensitive appetite was subject to being contrary to the operation of reason. So… QED.

Do you see, then, that ultimately the Adam and Eve story depicts the image of a manipulative God, a God who gives and takes away?

Job 1:21 – “Job said, ‘The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!’”

I’m gonna assert that this is not ‘manipulative’. Parents give and take; it’s part of responsible parenting.

If God only gave, but didn’t take when it was appropriate to do so, then I would say that He wouldn’t be exhibiting characteristics of a good parent. His love is unconditional – but his graces are conditional upon our acceptance and use of them! So, yes – giving and taking are good dynamics, both of them!