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

[hergratefulchild]

Have you heard about out natural “negativity bias”? That our minds tend to see and look for the worst?

Romans 7:8-11
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me” (vv. 9–11).​

This is how I see how minds under the law can look for the worst… If I do not do something I will be with God. Jesus goes beyond the law:

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.​

In this way he removes the negative bias and turns our focus to the positive.

 

[OneSheep]

No, but this reads to me that another’s live is not as valuable as the ones that follow all the rules. I know this probably isn’t what you meant, and of course Jesus taught that every human was as valuable to him, sinner or not.

I must admit that some of Jesus’ words may also give the impression that some lives are less valued, as hergratefulchild brought forth earlier in this thread, how Jesus would disown us if we disown Him, for example. The Gospel taken as a whole, though, communicates the value you are talking about. St. Peter did the most known disowning of Jesus, but we certainly cannot think of Jesus disowning him.

As you may remember, I look at Genesis 3 as a metaphor for humans acquiring a conscience. Isn’t “banishment” exactly what happens in our minds when we witness someone doing what our conscience finds bad? Our conscience says “this person is unacceptable, a jerk,of less value, bad, etc.”, this all comes very naturally, and serves our well-being (as a net effect). This is one of the reasons why I love Genesis 3 so much, that it covers so many elements of the way the conscience works.

Of course, the Gospel calls us to transcend this operation of the conscience and forgive. Jesus does not put down the conscience, quite the opposite, but He invites us to move beyond it, to love beyond it. Even when He eats with sinners, He communicates an acceptance, against the normal workings of the conscience.

 

[OneSheep]

This is how I see how minds under the law can look for the worst… If I do not do something I will be with God.

I’m interested in what you (and Paul!) are saying here, but not understanding. Could you clarify?

In this way he removes the negative bias and turns our focus to the positive.

Yes, this is an example of removing the bias, I think. What I was also thinking was that our own sense of “unworthiness” is a product of the negativity bias.

Could it be that Paul was referring to the same thing? That the law told him that he was unworthy, and the unworthiness itself was the “death” he refers to, but then he goes on, and the commentary for the following verse is this, from the USCCB site:

• [7:13–25] Far from improving the sinner, law encourages sin to expose itself in transgressions or violations of specific commandments . Thus persons who do not experience the justifying grace of God, and Christians who revert to dependence on law as the criterion for their relationship with God, will recognize a rift between their reasoned desire for the goodness of the law and their actual performance that is contrary to the law. Unable to free themselves from the slavery of sin and the power of death, they can only be rescued from defeat in the conflict by the power of God’s grace working through Jesus Christ.

I’m thinking that through relationship with Christ, we know that God always forgives. Is this part of the grace Paul was referring to?

 

[hergratefulchild]

thinking that through relationship with Christ, we know that God always forgives. Is this part of the grace Paul was referring to?

Romans 7:15-20
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

 

[simpleas]

St Peter disowned Jesus through fear of others. He then ended up being the rock on which the church was built.
But your statement was about a little blame in order to keep a tribe alive, that’s not how I would explain the teaching of Jesus.
Yes he said about disowning those who disowned him, but he clearly didn’t do that in the case of Peter, whether he does this to anyone will be known when we pass over, I’m hopeful he doesn’t! God to me isn’t anything like a human.

 

[Vico]

…

We are called not to discriminate unjustly. We can acknowledge and seek justice where it is justified.

You wrote: “This seems to give an “equal footing” to justice, and begs the question as to the purpose of justice itself. What is the purpose of justice?”
A. Justice is required for free will, which God gives mankind to exercise in cooperation with grace, that there may be expression of charity (love) and as a necessary opposite, malice.

You wrote; “Well you are right, it may mean that; but without actually knowing what the child is thinking, the thought of “he is defying my rule, therefore he must want to be away from me” is simply uncharitable.”
A. God does not have such doubts.

You wrote: “Are you saying that a person cannot make a wiser choice by knowing the probable outcomes of his choice, having a wisdom of experience?”
A. The knowledge of the moral character of the act alone is what is necessary to make the wisest moral choice.

 

[OneSheep]

God to me isn’t anything like a human.

We can be certain, yes, that He always forgives.

But your statement was about a little blame in order to keep a tribe alive, that’s not how I would explain the teaching of Jesus.

Me neither. But the whole dynamics was different too! The Jewish political leadership, rather than doing all they could to protect the tribe, were pawns of the Romans, and the religious leadership were sure to be part of the system. Many people were understandably resentful of the situation and the occupier. Jesus, I think, looked at the superficiality of the whole political issues and kept pushing the spirituality of love, transcending the entire justice-drive that was so forefront in the minds of so many.

They wanted an overthrow of the Romans, but what He delivered was a means toward an abundant life, not dependent on the current politics.

And isn’t the application of that amazingly similar today? So many people, Christians included, in our nation are totally engrossed in either the injustice of our leadership or the injustices that the leadership is addressing, and plenty of finger-pointing going on. People want a leader that will by dominance and power solve all the problems, but Jesus is again calling for forgiveness and mercy, which applies to everyone.

And ultimately, it is reconciliation and compassion that will solve all the political issues; what do you think?

 

[OneSheep]

in cooperation with grace, that there may be expression of charity (love)

Yes! The purpose of justice itself is the expression of Mercy! It may naturally seem “unjust” to forgive the most unrepentant, defiant, and “vincibly ignorant” individual, but since justice itself is for the purpose of mercy,( love, charity), we are called to do that, to forgive. Forgiveness from the heart is an act of charity to oneself, as well as charity to one another. God calls us to forgive, not to blame, and He does no less than this.

You are so wonderfully resourceful, Vico. Where did that statement come from?

You wrote; “Well you are right, it may mean that; but without actually knowing what the child is thinking, the thought of “he is defying my rule, therefore he must want to be away from me” is simply uncharitable.”
A. God does not have such doubts.

Ah, so this is helpful in terms of what you are thinking. Are you thinking that God must have been totally sure that Adam and Eve wanted to be away from Him? That He was respecting their own wish to be away from Him?

You wrote: “Are you saying that a person cannot make a wiser choice by knowing the probable outcomes of his choice, having a wisdom of experience?”
A. The knowledge of the moral character of the act alone is what is necessary to make the wisest moral choice.

It is of course moral to give generously to those who are suffering poverty. The person is far more likely to do so after traveling to a poor nation and witnessing the starvation and health problems, right? Does not the person who has this experience know more about the “moral character of the act”, therefore, better equipped to make the wisest choice?

When we say “what is necessary to make the wisest choice”, are we not putting ourselves in place of judgment, saying that the person is somehow bad or immoral for not making the wisest choice? Does God completely disregard the importance of experience, the wisdom people gain from experience? Does He judge at all, or does He forgive? Does He not Himself have the omniscience to know that people make wiser choices, know more about “moral character” based on what they learn from experience?

Here is a final example: You tell one of your own children that stealing is wrong, because it is against the law. You tell another child that stealing is wrong, because it is against the law and people get hurt. In addition, the second child has experienced getting something stolen, and knows the grief of being robbed. The first child has not had these experiences. Are you saying that both of these children are equally equipped to make the wisest choice?

Can you see also that the second child knows far more about the “moral character of the act”? And then, speaking of “necessary”, since it is the theft (the harm) that we are most trying to avoid, have you as a parent taken all the necessary steps of completely informing the first child? In fact, have you behaved morally in withholding the information?

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Where did that statement come from?”
A. I made it up from what I know of the dogmas of the Church on cooperation with grace.

You wrote: “Are you thinking that God must have been totally sure that Adam and Eve wanted to be away from Him? That He was respecting their own wish to be away from Him?”
A. No, God upholding free will is not contingent on knowledge of intentions, rather it is necessary that there be expression of malice or charity.

You wrote: “The person is far more likely to do so after traveling to a poor nation and witnessing the starvation and health problems, right?”
A. No.

You wrote: “Does not the person who has this experience know more about the “moral character of the act””
A. No. The moral character of the act is not based upon experiences, but upon conscience, which in the case of Adam and Eve, was known, which relates to the topic: “Did Adam and Eve have complete domination of reason over appetite.”

You wrote: “When we say “what is necessary to make the wisest choice”, are we not putting ourselves in place of judgment, saying that the person is somehow bad or immoral for not making the wisest choice?”
A. No. There is no condemnation which would require knowledge that the person is culpable.

Does God completely disregard the importance of experience, the wisdom people gain from experience?

You wrote: “Does He judge at all, or does He forgive?” Does He not Himself have the omniscience to know .
A. Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, which will be a revelation to all.

You wrote: "Are you saying that both of these children are equally equipped to make the wisest choice? [knowing that stealing is wrong.]
A. Yes, as far as knowing the moral character goes. Culpability depends upon many factors.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Can you see also that the second child knows far more about the “moral character of the act”?

As with the first commandment; Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul. Adam and Eve made a singular choice to not be in communion with God and all other reasons to eat or not eat of the forbidden fruit are irrelevant in front of this primary choice.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Are you thinking that God must have been totally sure that Adam and Eve wanted to be away from Him? That He was respecting their own wish to be away from Him?”
A. No, God upholding free will is not contingent on knowledge of intentions, rather it is necessary that there be expression of malice or charity.

Hmmm. But you already said this:

You wrote; “Well you are right, it may mean that; but without actually knowing what the child is thinking, the thought of “he is defying my rule, therefore he must want to be away from me” is simply uncharitable.”
A. God does not have such doubts.

You said that God does not have doubts, so you are saying that He must have known that Adam and Eve truly wanted to be away from Him, as opposed to the parent who guesses at such conclusion.

What did God not have doubts about?

You wrote: “The person is far more likely to do so after traveling to a poor nation and witnessing the starvation and health problems, right?”
A. No.

What is the basis of your answer?

You wrote: “Does not the person who has this experience know more about the “moral character of the act””
A. No. The moral character of the act is not based upon experiences, but upon conscience, which in the case of Adam and Eve, was known, which relates to the topic: “Did Adam and Eve have complete domination of reason over appetite.”

However, conscience itself is affirmed and developed through experience. The more relevant the experience, the more developed the person’s knowing of the moral character of an act. The fewer relevant experiences, the lesser the “dominion” of reason. There is simply less information from where to draw reason.

I don’t know how to bridge this one, Vico. You are insisting that “dominion of reason” does not depend on wisdom at all, which begs a multitude of questions. “Do people learn?” “Does wisdom enter into our choices?” “Does a wiser person make better choices?” The answers to me seem very intuitive, but are you closed-minded to reason itself?

You wrote: “When we say “what is necessary to make the wisest choice”, are we not putting ourselves in place of judgment, saying that the person is somehow bad or immoral for not making the wisest choice?”
A. No. There is no condemnation which would require knowledge that the person is culpable.

Please clarify.

You wrote: “ Does He judge at all, or does He forgive? ” Does He not Himself have the omniscience to know .
A. Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, which will be a revelation to all.

We already have the revelation for the answer to that question. He forgave, He did not condemn, nor did He come to condemn. Are you thinking that He condemns, rather than forgives?

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: "Are you saying that both of these children are equally equipped to make the wisest choice? [knowing that stealing is wrong.]
A. Yes, as far as knowing the moral character goes.

What is the basis of your answer?

Culpability depends upon many factors.

Yes, it depends on the mindset of the person blaming. We are called to forgive, not blame.

 

[OneSheep]

Adam and Eve made a singular choice to not be in communion with God

You know that they made this choice?

 

[Vico]

therefore he must want to be away from me

That is human logic drawing a conclusion that “therefore he must want to be away from me”. I wrote:

“No, God upholding free will is not contingent on knowledge of intentions, rather it [having free will] is necessary that there be expression of malice or charity.”

You wrote: “What is the basis of your answer?”" about “more likely to do so”.
A. No, I think a person that does not want to do evil is not more likely to do good after seeing poverty.

You wrote: “However, conscience itself is affirmed and developed through experience.” and ““Does a wiser person make better choices?””
A. Yes, formed conscience, in harmony with the teaching of the Church. When there is involuntary error it does not bring culpability. I answer with regard to moral choice and culpability.

You wrote: Are you thinking that He condemns, rather than forgives?"
A. There is condemnation, and the Just Judge pronounces it and is also merciful in giving sentence.

I wrote: “No, There is no condemnation which would require knowledge that the person is culpable.” Which is to answer your idea: “the person is somehow bad or immoral for not making the wisest choice”. The wisest choice is to be free from mortal sin. We still sin due to imperfections, even when our sin is not mortal.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “What is the basis of your answer?” to “A. Yes, as far as knowing the moral character goes.” See: “sinful character” in Catechism:

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[hergratefulchild]

You know that they made this choice?

Did they not hide from God when he was walking in the cool wind of the garden?

 

[OneSheep]

Did they not hide from God when he was walking in the cool wind of the garden?

Are you thinking that their hiding was making the statement “we want to be away from you”? Did they want to be away, or were they merely ashamed?

 

[OneSheep]

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

But this is the statement you made:

You wrote: "Are you saying that both of these children are equally equipped to make the wisest choice? [knowing that stealing is wrong.]
A. Yes, as far as knowing the moral character goes.

Where does it say in the catechism that “knowing the moral character” is not in degrees, where does it say that a wiser more experienced person does not have more knowledge of “moral character”?

I’ll get to the rest of the post tomorrow…

 

[Vico]

…

Where does it say in the catechism that “knowing the moral character” is not in degrees, where does it say that a wiser more experienced person does not have more knowledge of “moral character”?

I’ll get to the rest of the post tomorrow…

The Catechism is clear on full knowledge [what the act or omission is and that it is a serious matter] as a requirement for mortal sin. Less than that is not mortal sin.

Since Adam and Eve had sanctifying grace an lost it their sins were mortal sins and fulfilled the threefold requirements for mortal sin.

 

[simpleas]

Me neither. But the whole dynamics was different too! The Jewish political leadership, rather than doing all they could to protect the tribe, were pawns of the Romans, and the religious leadership were sure to be part of the system. Many people were understandably resentful of the situation and the occupier.

And isn’t the application of that amazingly similar today? So many people, Christians included, in our nation are totally engrossed in either the injustice of our leadership or the injustices that the leadership is addressing, and plenty of finger-pointing going on. People want a leader that will by dominance and power solve all the problems,

Yes, I don’t think we are all that far removed from how people acted, thought etc in the pre-christian era. (a part from secular laws protecting certain actions)
People do look for someone else to lead them, make life better etc, but I thought that when a leader is elected they acted for the people, listened to the majority and acted on it. We get little changes here and there, but nothing on the scale of real change.
Are people just not looking within?
Are they looking outside them selves for someone else to do it?
Probably, I’ve done this many times too.
Hope I’m waking up now!

And ultimately, it is reconciliation and compassion that will solve all the political issues; what do you think?

Yes, but until we have leaders that would think like this I doubt it can happen.