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

[o_mlly]

Are you saying that they did not have complete dominion of reason over their “irascible” appetites?

Or they, blinded by pride, did not recognize the present evil.

We believe in the doctrine of Original Sin but we describe the act as an original fault and acknowledge that Adam and Eve are not historical but figurative persons.

CCC#390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

[OneSheep]

Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

And this “certainty” has a purpose, does it not? If A&E did not have dominion over reason, then it could be reasonably understood that they did not know what they were doing. And if they were lacking in awareness, then the fault would appear to lie with God, and who could have faith in a God who finds fault with the unaware? Who could have faith in a God who would not make it perfectly clear to humanity that disobedience leads to ruin before smiting humanity with all kinds of consequences?

Certainly, then, there is a time for finding fault with people, for hanging onto blame, because such “hanging on” helps form our individual consciences.

Doesn’t Jesus assert that we do not know what we are doing? Once our conscience is formed, is there not a time to let go of blaming humanity for its ills, and instead to understand and forgive?

 

[WileyC1949]

I think most people misinterpret the A & E story. In my thinking the “Original Sin” was not their disobedience of God, nor was it their pride for wanting to be like God. For something to be a sin we must have the knowledge that we were doing something wrong; we cannot commit a sin by accident. Yet according to the story this event took place BEFORE they had knowledge of good and evil, therefore no sin was present. The first sin according to the story was perhaps Adam’s blaming Eve for convincing him to eat the fruit and not accepting the responsibility for his own actions. I cannot reconcile with Christ’s teachings the concept that Original Sin was as was taught by my grade school nuns a “black mark on the soul” and that “we are born evil and in need of salvation”. Rather the current teaching that we are born good but can be led to evil is far more likely. We did not inherit Adam’s sin but rather we inherited from the first true humans their ability to commit sin because they possessed a conscience.

Likewise the “punishments” given them (pain, suffering, toil and death) were not punishments at all but rather realizations. I see the story as being about man becoming fully human when he developed a conscience (the knowledge of good and evil). When you think about it you will realize that it is the conscience which is responsible for ALL of the achievements and advances of man. Via the conscience we recognize that some things are more or less good than others. It creates in us the desire for the greater good (the greatest good being God Himself). It is this that has fired our imaginations seeking to always improve on what we have whether that be the greater good or the greater evil.

The story thus speaks about perhaps a God-designed evolutionary step away from other animals. A dog who loses his leg does not pine about its loss but rather learns to run on three legs because they know. He does not ponder his own death or his arthritis and think it would be better without them. He lives by the status quo. But not man because he knows that there is something better. And this realization also creates in us the ability to love others selflessly. Certainly a dog may love his master and be very concerned about him, but he never would consider the welfare of the guy who lives down the street. Man does because he is aware of evil, pain, suffering, toil and death. When we experience these in ourselves or a member of our social circle we can learn compassion and sympathy. Compassion and sympathy teaches us to care about those outside of our social circle. Caring about others leads us to selfless love.

I use to think to the Adam and Eve story as a simple ancient creation story. Now I see it as one of the most profound in all of literature because in it can be found the meaning of life… to learn to love selflessly.

 

[SalamKhan]

You’re talking about two different things; dominion of the rational soul over the spirited & appetitive souls, and the perfection of the rational soul. In my view, the perfection of Adam’s rational soul did not take place until after the fall, when he was made a Prophet.

Keep in mind, that the more perfect the rational soul is, the shallower the fall of the charioteer. As long as the soul is in union with the body, i.e. as long as the charioteer (rational soul) is not free of the noble winged horse (spirited soul) & ignoble winged horse (appetitive soul), it is always possible for the charioteer to fall.

 

[WileyC1949]

It is not a question about whether or not they had the freedom to choose. They did. The real question is did they know if their choice was wrong? I submit that they did not because before they ate the fruit they did not have the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[WileyC1949]

If you did not know that having pride was sinful would you be committing a sin if you were prideful? According to the story prior to eating the fruit they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. Knowing that an action is wrong is necessary for something to be sinful.

 

[tafan2]

This is wrong. The answer to the OP is yes. They had complete dominion of reason over appetite, they had no concupiscence (the tendency to sin). It had nothing to do with their experience. They chose to sin, despite this. It is really something, if one thinks about it. The temptation had to be completely from Satan, their desire was not part of it. Satan had to convince them it was ok to disobey God, that it would be better for them. The second book of CS Lewis’s Space Trilogy, Perelandra, deals with this extensively. It has to do with the first humans created by God on Venus and Satan appears as a man to tempt them to disobey God’s one command. It takes him weeks, and in this case he is not successful (somewhat due to a earthly human’s help). But the novel does a good job of portraying how difficult a temptation to sin would have been for Satan. Remember, Mary, also had not tendency to sin. I do not doubt she was tempted by Satan extensively, yet she never failed.

 

[tafan2]

Why would God take a away our “preternatural” gift, which would make it impossible to be disobedient, when disobedience is exactly what is not desired?

He took it away as a result for original sin. He took away all of our preternatural gifts, and left us in our natural state. That is all we deserved.
But this preternatural gift obviously did not make it impossible to be disobedient. He created us with a free will.

 

[SalamKhan]

You’re telling me I’m wrong based on the doctrine of original sin, which I don’t believe in. Besides, I said they had the possibility to sin, not that they had the tendency to sin.

 

[po18guy]

Even when your Creator tells you directly not to eat it?

Hmmm…

 

[tafan2]

That’s fair. One of us has to be wrong, might as well be you Seriously, I fully admit to saying you were stating Catholic doctrine wrong. Sorry, I didn’t know were you were coming from. I think its great to have a muslim on this forum. I hope we bump into each other in the future on some discussions (even if one of us has to be wrong).

 

[o_mlly]

We believe Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. God made the law known to them; there was no need for right reason to instruct them. Sin is first in the will. They willed to disobey.

 

[SalamKhan]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Augustine of Hippo believe that Adam and Eve prior to sin could have been glorified without the medium of death? Doesn’t that imply that they lacked experience participating in their rational souls?

 

[tafan2]

I can’t really comment as I am not familiar with Augustine’s statement which you refer. If there is one thing I know about St Augustine’s writings (often they were his sermons which someone ttansscribed)) is that context is very important. You can select statements out of context to show that Augustine had all sorts of positions.

 

[o_mlly]

Knowing that an action is wrong is necessary for something to be sinful.

“It is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die” (Gen 3:3).

 

[OneSheep]

They willed to disobey.

If so, was such a will coming from a place of reason?

 

[SalamKhan]

Augustine continues the discussion of this point, noting that these same people interpret Genesis 2:17 in a questionable fashion. The passage reads, "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die,’’ and is interpreted by these people to refer to the death of the soul, rather than the death of the body. Augustine refutes this position by turning to Genesis 3:19, which reads, "you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return,’’ to show that death is distinctly post-lapsarian (Ibid.; Fathers of the Church). For this reason, Augustine writes that "if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption’’ (Ibid.; Fathers of the Church).
But does this make Adam immortal by nature? Augustine’s answer is a decisive no. He points out the difference between being mortal, or capable of dying, and being destined to die. He does this by analogy, noting that "our body in its present state can…be capable of sickness, although not destined to be sick’’ (Ibid. I.5; Fathers of the Church). In the same way, Adam was capable of dying, as he did after the fall, but was not destined to do so as humans now are. Had Adam not sinned, he would have grown "full of years without decrepitude, and, whenever God pleased, pass from mortality to immortality without the medium of death’’ (Ibid. I.4; Fathers of the Church). According to Augustine, mortality was part of the state of original justice, but this mortality would have become immortality had Adam refrained from sin. So man was mortal, but he did not have to die.

Source: http://www.memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html

 

[OneSheep]

He took it away as a result for original sin. He took away all of our preternatural gifts, and left us in our natural state. That is all we deserved.

Well, he “increased our pains in childbirth” among other things, and banished them from the garden. Did A&E know this would happen? Was that knowledge part of their preternatural gift?

Did God create us knowing that we would defy Him, and knowing He would take away what He had given them? Did he leave us with concupiscence as part of a punishment?

 

[OneSheep]

…perfection of the rational soul…

How would you characterize such perfection?

 

[OneSheep]

I think most people misinterpret the A & E story. In my thinking the “Original Sin” was not their disobedience of God, nor was it their pride for wanting to be like God. For something to be a sin we must have the knowledge that we were doing something wrong; we cannot commit a sin by accident. Yet according to the story this event took place BEFORE they had knowledge of good and evil, therefore no sin was present.

I understand your approach here.

he first sin according to the story was perhaps Adam’s blaming Eve for convincing him to eat the fruit and not accepting the responsibility for his own actions.

Is blame a sin?

I cannot reconcile with Christ’s teachings the concept that Original Sin was as was taught by my grade school nuns a “black mark on the soul” and that “we are born evil and in need of salvation”.

The teaching does have a contradiction with Genesis 1.

born good but can be led to evil

is “evil” a behavior, or a state of being?

ability to commit sin because they possessed a conscience.

Having a conscience gives us the ability to commit sin?

I see the story as being about man becoming fully human when he developed a conscience (the knowledge of good and evil).

Me too!

The story thus speaks about perhaps a God-designed evolutionary step away from other animals.

You and I are very much thinking alike on part of the motivation to write the story. People looked at the animal world and noticed that they don’t care about being naked, and the species they saw were not punishing one another.

And this realization also creates in us the ability to love others selflessly.

And empathy helps?

I use to think to the Adam and Eve story as a simple ancient creation story. Now I see it as one of the most profound in all of literature because in it can be found the meaning of life… to learn to love selflessly.

We share an appreciation of the complexity of the story.

Is there such thing as “selfless love”? How can we separate the joy we get from helping others from ourselves?