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

[Gorgias]

they may see no reason for an anthropology that involves a “fall”.

Can we accept the spirituality of those who come from each of these positions?

I think that the answer, from a Catholic perspective, must be “no”, right? After all, there’s a certain necessary logic that flows: First Sin of Adam → original sin transmitted to all humans → need for Savior → salvific act of Savior → possibility of salvation for each human. Without the ‘fall’, the chain has no grounds.

So… how could we admit of the need of a ‘savior’, if there’s no need to be ‘saved’?

 

[hergratefulchild]

all of these fit the theme, and do not exclude, his unconditional love and forgiveness.

If a child chooses to live in contradiction and separately from their parent, the parents only choice is to rebuke the contradiction and they are unable to show love by the distance the child chose to make. Do you agree with this?

Hebrews, Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline? 8 If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children. 9 Moreover, we had human parents to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not be even more willing to be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. 11 Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.**

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think you’ve nailed it here according to Catholic theology. The temptation of pride manifested by eating the fruit and then becoming like gods themselves was too much for them to resist. It was not disobedience on a small scale but a rather large one. They did use reason, but it was not RIGHT reason as you state.

EDIT: Yikes! Wrong poster. Should be response to o’mily.

 

[Vico]

They are indistinguishable. …

Not the same. Anxiety is a nervous disorder characterized by a state of excessive uneasiness and apprehension, typically with compulsive behavior or panic attacks.

The GIft of Fear is, from Modern Catholic Dictionary:

Infused gift of the Holy Spirit that confirms the virtue of hope and inspires a person with profound respect for the majesty of God. Its corresponding effects are protection from sin through dread of offending the Lord, and a strong confidence in the power of his help.

The fear of the Lord is not servile but filial. It is based on the selfless love of God, whom it shrinks from offending. Whereas in servile fear the evil dreaded is punishment; in filial fear it is the fear of doing anything contrary to the will of God.

 

[Vico]

…

No, the scripture does not specify who the subjects are. The Catholic Church teaches that we do not certainly know who is saved without divine revelation. I do not modify it.

I answered your question with 1037 I did not say anything about sentencing. However since sentencing means “declare the punishment decided for” we know that it will occur at the particular judgement.

You wrote: “Would God ever allow a person to perish who does not genuinely choose to be away from Him?”
A. No for God is just. However choosing to be away for God is what mortal sin is. Read from Catholic Encyclopedia:

As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of commission and omission. A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment (I-II:72:5). As regards their malice, sins are distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice; as regards the activities involved, into sins of thought, word, or deed (cordis, oris, operis); as regards their gravity, into mortal and venial. This last named division is indeed the most important of all and it calls for special treatment. But before taking up the details, it will be useful to indicate some further distinctions which occur in theology or in general usage.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm.

You wrote: “Would a loving parent interpret the defiance of their teenager to mean that the teen does not want to be with their parents?”
A. Some would, no doubt, and other would not. Mortal sin is different than your example.

 

[OneSheep]

If a child chooses to live in contradiction and separately from their parent, the parents only choice is to rebuke the contradiction and they are unable to show love by the distance the child chose to make. Do you agree with this?

Hmm. It depends on what you mean by “separately”. First of all, God shows His love to every person, every day, so the analogy ends there. Secondly, parents definitely have a choice in how they rebuke, right?

Hebrews

Not sure the point of this section. Is it from Hebrews?

 

[OneSheep]

I think that the answer, from a Catholic perspective, must be “no”, right? After all, there’s a certain necessary logic that flows: First Sin of Adam → original sin transmitted to all humans → need for Savior → salvific act of Savior → possibility of salvation for each human. Without the ‘fall’, the chain has no grounds.

So… how could we admit of the need of a ‘savior’, if there’s no need to be ‘saved’?

Scotus taught that the Enfleshment of God had to proceed from God’s perfect love and God’s perfect and absolute freedom (John 1:1-18), rather than from any mistake of ours. Did God intend no meaning or purpose for creation during the first 14.8 billion years? Was it all just empty, waiting for sinful humans to set the only real drama into motion? Did the sun, moon, and galaxies have no divine significance? The fish, the birds, the animals were just waiting for humans to appear? Was there no Divine Blueprint (“Logos”) from the beginning? Surely this is the extreme hubris and anthropomorphism of the human species!

The substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is) seems to imply that the Eternal Christ’s epiphany in Jesus is a mere afterthought when the first plan did not work out. I know there are many temple metaphors of atonement, satisfaction, ransom, “paying the price,” and “opening the gates”; but do know they are just that—metaphors of transformation and transitioning. Too many Christians understood these in a transactional way instead of a transformational way.

Loading…

cac.org

I look at the incarnation as “salvific” because humanity had a natural, but essentially limited image of both God and man. We needed to be saved from the idea that God is wrathful, judgmental, vengeful, etc., anything less than unconditionally loving and forgiving… We needed to be saved from the idea that humanity has anything less than infinite beauty and value. We suffered the illusions, and we still do. We are slow on the uptake, but it is truly happening over time. The latest revelations have to do with abolishing the death penalty (which is a topic on moratorium right now, so let’s not get into that.) Before that, the revelations had to do with civil rights.

So in this view, the incarnation did not depend on sin, but sin was certainly addressed.
.

 

[OneSheep]

Not the same. Anxiety is a nervous disorder characterized by a state of excessive uneasiness and apprehension, typically with compulsive behavior or panic attacks.

You might want to check that definition. All people experience some anxiety. What Christ calls us to is to see that God wants us to be free of it, not to remain suffering.

Do you fear for the souls of people around you, people who love God but do not go to church, for example?

No, the scripture does not specify who the subjects are. The Catholic Church teaches that we do not certainly know who is saved without divine revelation. I do not modify it.

There is a distinction to be made, Vico, between “forgivenen from the heart of the Father” and “saved”. The prodigal son had already been forgiven by his father, but he was not saved until he returned. Do you see the distinction? Forgiveness is what happens in our hearts.

Jesus did not say “all these people are saved”, what He expressed was unconditional forgiveness. not a statement of whether the people would ultimately choose Him.

That said, would you still say that God did not forgive the people from His heart? Would He leave a single one out? Would He hold onto “offense” or “grudge” or “anger” toward a single one of them?

Here’s another way of looking at it: Jesus does not even need to ask of the Father to forgive the repentant, because the angels in heaven had already taken joy in them. Indeed, the repentant truly “know what they are doing” in their repentance, the light of Love has opened their eyes.

Jesus in His statement was directly referring to the people who were blind, not those of vision!

Luke 23:34 New International Version (NIV)

34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[a] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Are you really thinking that Jesus was referring to the repentant? Is it they “who did not know what they were doing” in their state of repentance? There is nothing in the CCC anywhere to support that notion Vico. Please, do not change the significance of His words.

You wrote: “Would God ever allow a person to perish who does not genuinely choose to be away from Him?”
A. No for God is just. However choosing to be away for God is what mortal sin is. Read from Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Encyclopedia article did not address the question. Did God look upon Adam and Eve and say to Himself, “They choose to be away from me”?

You wrote: “Would a loving parent interpret the defiance of their teenager to mean that the teen does not want to be with their parents?”
A. Some would, no doubt, and other would not. Mortal sin is different than your example.

How is it different?

 

[OneSheep]

Now, back to the topic of the thread:

Okay, let’s think about it, and I appreciate your answer above. Since their nature was “preternatural”, then, can we assume that the couple knew that they would have children and grandchildren, and knew that those children would be harmed, and had this in mind at the moment of their choice? After all, one would have to distinguish “preternatural” from the risky behavior of teenagers who have no thinking at all of having children and grandchildren, the wisdom that comes from experience. Did Adam and Eve have this advantage of wisdom over the common teenager?

Assumption valid?

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “You might want to check that definition.”
A. That is the anxiety definition given by Oxford for the field of Psychiatry.

You wrote: “The Encyclopedia article did not address the question”
A. Yes it did. “It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.”

You wrote: “How is it different?”
A. It is different because a defiant teen may not be committing a mortal sin.

You wrote: " Forgiveness is what happens in our hearts."
A. Forgiveness from man and forgiveness from God are different.

You wrote: “Are you really thinking that Jesus was referring to the repentant?”
A. Truly, I think you are not reading what I write, because I addressed that much earlier. I mentioned those that are invincibly ignorant and those that are repentent.

 

[Vico]

… Since their nature was “preternatural”, then, …

Assumption valid?

A wise choice or even wisest choice was not dependent on knowing the future.

No. Their nature was their nature, they had been given three preternatural gifts which are beyond nature, natural extensions, but it is not know when thery were constituted with them. Same also with sanctifying grace, which is what established them in original justice.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

how could we admit of the need of a ‘savior’, if there’s no need to be ‘saved’?

Scotus taught that the Enfleshment of God had to proceed from God’s perfect love and God’s perfect and absolute freedom (John 1:1-18), rather than from any mistake of ours.

No; my understanding is that Scotus taught that the Incarnation would have happened anyway, as an expression of perfection. However, he wasn’t claiming that this alternative was true, but merely logical.

OneSheep:

Did God intend no meaning or purpose for creation during the first 14.8 billion years? Was it all just empty, waiting for sinful humans to set the only real drama into motion? >Was there no Divine Blueprint (“Logos”) from the beginning? Surely this is the extreme hubris and anthropomorphism of the human species!

Silly and anachronistic. Rohr is claiming that God had to wait for history to unfold before making His plan? Either he figures you for a rube, who doesn’t understand the nuances of God being outside time, or he doesn’t understand it himself.

Incarnation instead of Atonement — Center for Action and Contemplation

Rohr? “Alternative orthodoxy”? I’ll pass, thank you very much.

We needed to be saved from the idea that God is wrathful, judgmental, vengeful, etc., anything less than unconditionally loving and forgiving… We needed to be saved from the idea that humanity has anything less than infinite beauty and value.

Umm… one doesn’t need “saved” from mere ideas. ‘Educated’, perhaps. ‘Enlightened’, possibly. But saved? No… if that is your concept of salvation, then it’s a concept whose paucity is manifest.

 

[hergratefulchild]

We can, without denying God’s eternal Love for all mankind look at the logic using the reasonable idea of a king:

A kind, generous and loving king who did nothing to wrong his people, had two children. The first child listened to his fathers words and practiced them. The second also did the same but one day was approached by a foreigner who wanted the kings crown and so deceived the child to go against the father and use the birthright to kill the king and give away the throne, convincing the child that this was actually the fathers will, for them to be like God. An attempt was made but the king knew of the foreigner and had laid a trap for him, to tie him up and take him away. Knowing that the foreigner would not give up until he knew that winning a child’s favour would get him nowhere. Only a pure heart and a clean spirit would inherit eternal life and live in peace with God.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “You might want to check that definition.”
A. That is the anxiety definition given by Oxford for the field of Psychiatry.

Anxiety itself is not a “disorder” in the psychiatric definition. You are talking about anxiety disorder, which is a different concept altogether. People believing in a conditionally loving and forgiving God causes anxiety, but not necessarily anxiety disorder.

I asked:
“Would a loving parent interpret the defiance of their teenager to mean that the teen does not want to be with their parents?”

A. It is different because a defiant teen may not be committing a mortal sin.

Vico, Vico. Would a loving parent interpret any defiance on the part of a teen to be saying “I don’t want to be with my parents?”

You wrote: " Forgiveness is what happens in our hearts. "
A. Forgiveness from man and forgiveness from God are different.

Yes, forgiveness from God is more immediate, more complete, and more merciful. Is that what you were going to say?

You wrote: “Are you really thinking that Jesus was referring to the repentant?”
A. Truly, I think you are not reading what I write, because I addressed that much earlier. I mentioned those that are invincibly ignorant and those that are repentent.

A. Truly, I think you are not reading what I write, because I addressed that much earlier. I mentioned those that are invincibly ignorant and those that are repentent.

So, the repentant and the invincibly ignorant “did not know what they were doing”, but the vincibly ignorant knew what they were doing?

I am reading what you write, but my question was missing the word “only”. It should have been “Jesus only forgave the repentant?” And it looks like your answer is that Jesus only forgave the repentant and the invincibly ignorant.

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to forgive a person who is “vincibly ignorant”, even though a parent could forgive their own child for such ignorance? Again, I am not talking about a person who refuses to be with God, I am talking about a person who is stubbornly ignorant, even when given all the infofrmation that we judge should be adequate.

You see, Vico, there can be no proof whatsoever that “vincible ignorance” ever occurs at all. There is far more to wisdom than information, correct? We cannot teach a person about Love by merely talking about it. We cannot frame God as merely a book of laws to follow because that is idolatry, correct?

 

[OneSheep]

Now, back again to the topic:

A wise choice or even wisest choice was not dependent on knowing the future.

Are you saying that a person cannot make a wiser choice by knowing the probable outcomes of his choice, having a wisdom of experience?

but it is not know when thery were constituted with them.

Would God have banished the pair from the Garden, caused harm upon their children and grandchildren, (and all generations) if the couple had made the bad choice but when doing so did not know they would have children and grandchildren, did not know that these people would be harmed, and did not have these things in mind at the moment of their choice?

Again, the bottom-line question we are dealing with is “Who is God, our Father who loves us?” and “Who is man, His beautiful creation?” I thought we were finally getting somewhere with your latest comment about what Adam and Eve knew, but now we seem to be doing a bit of back-pedaling.

 

[OneSheep]

No; my understanding is that Scotus taught that the Incarnation would have happened anyway , as an expression of perfection. However, he wasn’t claiming that this alternative was true, but merely logical.

Well, it is more than logical. It is in keeping with the image of the Father presented by the Gospel. Your statement is pretty much what Rohr explained about Duns Scotus.

Silly and anachronistic. Rohr is claiming that God had to wait for history to unfold before making His plan?

That would be a misread of the article.

Rohr? “Alternative orthodoxy”? I’ll pass, thank you very much.

Thank you very much? Hey, the guy has a bit of a 'tude, and I think that Pope Francis had at least Rohr in mind when the Holy Father criticized “alternativism”, but “alternative” is a great word. “Orthodoxy” is going to depend on the historians, and there is some support for that. But I do respect the “pass”, he’s just one commentator.

Umm… one doesn’t need “saved” from mere ideas . ‘Educated’, perhaps. ‘Enlightened’, possibly. But saved ? No… if that is your concept of salvation, then it’s a concept whose paucity is manifest.

Really? Paucity? Imagine if the Incas and Aztecs had a different image of God, would they sacrifice people to appease him? Imagine if people who had done the worst atrocities of ages truly knew that God loves, values, and forgives all the people they persecuted. Imagine if “terrorists” today were able to see His Loving image in the people they slaughter. What about the Catholic believer who lives in anxiety because he is completely unsure about whether God forgives him even though every priest has told him He does. A change in God’s image spells salvation in all these cases, correct?

To me, this shows no paucity at all. Change of image is nothing less than supernatural.

What do you find most meaningful in terms of salvation?

 

[OneSheep]

We can, without denying God’s eternal Love for all mankind look at the logic using the reasonable idea of a king:

I really appreciate the effort you made in the story, but the story does not mirror in any way what happened with Adam and Eve, not does it address my original question, which was this:

But does He actually disown us, like we humans do to one another? This goes against the theme of His unconditional love and forgiveness, so there is something amiss, a translation error, a misunderstanding, something is missing.

A kind, generous and loving king who did nothing to wrong his people, had two children. The first child listened to his fathers words and practiced them. The second also did the same but one day was approached by a foreigner who wanted the kings crown and so deceived the child to go against the father and use the birthright to kill the king and give away the throne, convincing the child that this was actually the fathers will, for them to be like God.

Interesting story, but it does not address the question about God the Father disowning His children, that such a depiction is “something amiss”. The disowning appears to show a Father who loves us less than the person who loves me most.…

 

[hergratefulchild]

But does He actually disown us, like we humans do to one another?

God does not disown us, we disown him. As a Father of a family, would it be right for him to accept the behaviour (note I am talking about behaviour and not the person) of a rebelious child and risk his other children getting the idea that how one behaves is not important to live life according to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Are you saying that it is impossible for God to forgive a person who is “vincibly ignorant””.
A. What God can do and what God chooses to do are different. When culpable for a grave matter, then there must be reparation. The Church teaches about vincible ignorance, Catechism

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” 59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

You wrote: “Scrupulosity is a symptom of the anxiety, Vico.”
A. So I answered with the Psychiatry meaning of anxiety. There is a psychological condition of scrupulosity. It it good to be careful to avoid sin which would not create anxiety in a person which has confidence of the state of sanctifying grace. Worry could be a problem for those that have improper contrition however, which is insufficient without the sacrament of confession.

You wrote: “…God as merely a book of laws to follow because that is idolatry, correct?”
A. God is both just and merciful, so that includes the “book of laws” and is not merely.

You wrote: “Would a loving parent interpret any defiance on the part of a teen to be saying “I don’t want to be with my parents?””
A. It may actually mean that.

You wrote: “Yes, forgiveness from God is more immediate, more complete, and more merciful. Is that what you were going to say?”
A. No. I mentioned it before, God is always just and forgives us of the guilt of sin, which man cannot do.

 

[simpleas]

But does He actually disown us, like we humans do to one another? This goes against the theme of His unconditional love and forgiveness, so there is something amiss, a translation error, a misunderstanding, something is missing.

I don’t think God disowned us, more like he left us weak until Jesus came to teach us anew.

Your question about something missing…
I’ll probably be laughed off the thread…

But I have been reading up on the Sumerian texts (and there is tons of writings) and am finding that the ‘story’ of creation of man and being excluded from the garden of eden seems to make a little more sense.
Being as the Sumerian texts were written before Genesis’ and by a different culture of people who knew God/gods very differently from the Jews.