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

[OneSheep]

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.

I think I see what you are saying. You are saying that since, in the catechism, the criteria to make a sin “mortal” is “full knowledge” and since, in the story, Adam and Eve were punished, then they must have had “full knowledge”.

Thank God (npi) this reasoning would never stand up when a U.S. appellate court reviews a case!

I cannot argue, though, with the assertion that all of this true in your eyes because the literal interpretation of Genesis 3 is true for you, that it really reflects that a benevolent God and reasoning man would behave this way. I accept your stance.

However, please consider this:

By the same reasoning, since God is benevolent, and God did not provide additional information that would have helped Adam and Eve make a wiser choice, then withholding information from children and citizens that would help them make wiser moral choices is a model of benevolence.

By the same reasoning, since Adam and Eve had “preternatural knowledge” but did not make the wisest choice, then humans gain no reasoning benefit at all from wisdom and experience, so it is of no use to educate or relay our own experiences to children in helping them make the wisest moral decision.

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.

Are you saying that empathy, versus simply “not wanting to do evil (because the Church says not to)”, has no motivation for people?

Are you ever motivated by empathy Vico?

 

[OneSheep]

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.

There may be some “wiggle room” on the definition of “condemnation”. When it is a simple imputing, not an emotional rejection, then we can see God’s benevolence. You did not address the “forgives” part though. I’ll fill it in: God always forgives, just as He did from the cross, regardless of their state of mind and heart. I’m not talking about acquittal.

The wisest choice is to be free from mortal sin.

And the wisest choice on the part of a parent is to give all the possible knowledge to the child that will help him make the right choice. After all, a loving parent does not want harm to happen to his children. Would you, as a parent, not provide all relevant information concerning a sin to your own child? How would you feel if you did anything less than the most you could do, the most you could say, especially if great harm would come upon the child if they carry out a particular act? Would you feel completely satisfied with the parenting of first child in post 588?

Are you also saying that the “wisest choice” and the “wisest moral choice” are not one and the same?

 

[OneSheep]

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

I think we can model it for them. For starters, groups of people can profess that they have forgiven political leaders for the offenses they have done against the environment, etc. We can do this on the basis “they know not what they do”, and really express a genuine forgiveness from the heart. This does not mean that people refrain from activism or working for the causes important to them, but such public expression of forgiveness would go a long way in changing hearts and minds of leadership, I believe.

 

[simpleas]

I think we can model it for them

Jesus made a start, and here we are 2,000 years later…

But seriously, I know what you’re saying. And I do think people set off to do what is right but then get tangled up in the system.

 

[OneSheep]

It’s rather obvious that Adam and Eve lacked free will. The whole Genesis story only makes sense if you assume that Adam and Eve lacked self-awareness.

Well, your statement definitely reflects a view of people that is more accurate than that depicted in Genesis 3, especially considering the added layer of “preternatural state”.

Do you see that the Gospel says a completely different story about people, and about God?

 

[OneSheep]

The knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve gained was free will, it was the ability to make value judgments about things. To decide that one thing was good and another thing was bad. It wasn’t a knowledge of some pre-existing concept of good and evil, it was the ability to choose for themselves what was good and evil.

Would you say that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the conscience?

That’s what Adam and Eve gained when they ate of the fruit of the tree. And it wasn’t that they gained it by eating of the fruit of the tree, but rather, is was that their eating of the fruit of the tree was an indication to God that they had become self-aware. That’s why they put on fig leaves. And that’s why God asked them who told them that they were naked. They had decided for themselves that being naked was bad. They had become self-aware.

Well, they not only became self-aware, but they had gained a capacity for shame, right? Isn’t shame one of those “triggered” emotions?

 

[OneSheep]

Absolutely!

God desired to create a being that would love him. But to truly love, one must have free will. And to know whether or not they had free will, God placed something tempting before them and ordered them not to eat it. Their going against God’s command, and eating of the fruit of the tree showed God that they had become self-aware, and this manifested itself as a conscience. They could not only judge other things, but they could judge themselves

Interesting, and insightful.

But I’m not sure that the conscience itself has something to do with self-awareness or human freedom. For example, I am thinking that the gut-level reactions we have to things, when we judge (condemn) is rather an automatic phenomenon. We don’t will that the thinking that that guy who pulled out in front of me is a “jerk”, it is more of an automatic reaction, and has been proven to happen faster than our thinking prefrontal lobes can work. Thoughts?

Would you say that humans not only exhibited free will, but also an innate (God-given) desire for autonomy?

To me, the conscience has to do with giving human innate impulses that will make him desire cooperation and justice. Have you seen the studies of chimpanzees?

 

[hergratefulchild]

Hi OneSheep, me again. From this very lengthly conversation with multiple people on here, I would like for you to answer your own thoughts on one such outcome from the debate:

If we agree that God either created Adam and Eve with a known or accidental flaw, with the intention of autonomy and that humans can live by conscience alone, as can drive the soul, as a gift from God. Also if we accept that Jesus changed God, or our perception of God to be forgiving of all, without the need for counsel by the Holy Spirit or communion and obedience…

Have we not deconstructed God and proven that man, however he was created is complete and can continue as is?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

If we agree that God either created Adam and Eve with a known or accidental flaw

This works if the “flaw” is simple lack of awareness, which we are all born with.

intention of autonomy

Yes, but I describe it more like the “desire for autonomy”. People, all creatures, want to be free, unconfined, not slaves.

humans can live by conscience alone,

Not quite understanding that line. To me, the conscience is a guide, and takes a lifetime to form. The conscience to me is limited to a lot of important dos and don’ts, but Jesus’ commandments call us to go beyond the list and behave with love and compassion, not having to rely completely on the workings of the list and the rewards/punishment reaction of the conscience itself.

Also if we accept that Jesus changed God

While I could possibly accept this from someone, I don’t believe it. I don’t think of God as changing, only our image of God changes.

or our perception of God to be forgiving of all, without the need for counsel by the Holy Spirit or communion and obedience…

I’m talking about “forgiveness from the heart”, though, not acquittal. What the Gospel tells us is that He forgives us even when we behave at our worst, while actively destroying (trying to) destroy God Himself. Obedience comes from the conscience, and “dominion of reason”, and empathy can come into that also.

I am totally getting the “need for counsel” by the Holy Spirit and communion. These are the necessary parts of reconciliation. However, forgiveness from the heart is a separate issue.

Have we not deconstructed God

Not in the way I see it. We are seeing God, His mercy, His benevolence more clearly, we are seeing a more clear image. God Himself remains unchanged, but through the Gospel we can see Him more for Who He Is, unconditionally loving and forgiving. Don’t get me wrong, though, designation of punishment is merciful and “medicinal”.

that man, however he was created is complete

Well, we’re not “complete” in terms of awareness. There is plenty of room to grow!

and can continue as is?

If you mean “can” in terms of “God allows it”, yes He gives us free will.
If you mean “can” in terms of saying that bad behavior is okay, no, it is never okay, it is hurtful.
If you mean “can continue” in terms of what is already happening, that we are not stagnant at all, but are truly growing in awareness, compassion, mercy, etc: yes, we can continue this way, as we truly are.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “When it is a simple imputing, not an emotional rejection, then we can see God’s benevolence. You did not address the “forgives” part though.”

A. The forgive of God, is to cancel punishment or guilt which in Greek (New Testament) aphesis is used in Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4, Luke 1:77, 3:3, 24:47, Acts 2:38, 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, Hebrews 9:22 and 10:18. Acts 13:38 states that Jesus Christ gives this forgiveness or remission of sin.

Acts 13

38 Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you: and from all the things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Isaiah 55

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive.

Micah 7

18 Who is a God like to thee, who takest away iniquity, and passest by the sin of the remnant of thy inheritance? he will send his fury in no more, because he delighteth in mercy.

You wrote: “Would you, as a parent, not provide all relevant information concerning a sin to your own child?”
A. Yes, ideally. What is relevant is not everything regarding it however.

You wrote: “Are you also saying that the “wisest choice” and the “wisest moral choice” are not one and the same?”
A. They are different because not all choices are regarding something that is sinful.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: "I think I see what you are saying. You are saying that since, in the catechism, the criteria to make a sin “mortal” is “full knowledge” and since, in the story, Adam and Eve were punished, then they must have had “full knowledge”. "
A. Ttheir fall was a mortal sin is what I am saying, not simply about full knowledge, Catechism

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives. 281 …

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. 282 …

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”. 279

You wrote: “By the same reasoning, since Adam and Eve had “preternatural knowledge” but did not make the wisest choice, then humans gain no reasoning benefit at all from wisdom and experience, so it is of no use to educate or relay our own experiences to children in helping them make the wisest moral decision.”
A. No, that does not make any sense. You continue to ignore the effect of sanctifying grace in which Adam and Eve were constituted – and for us, it is not about preternatural gifts which we do not have.

You wrote: "Are you saying that empathy, versus simply “not wanting to do evil (because the Church says not to)”, has no motivation for people? "
A. I have to correct my previous sentence to: “No, I think a person that does not want to do good is not more likely to do good after seeing poverty.”

 

[OneSheep]

A. The forgive of God, is to cancel punishment or guilt which in Greek (New Testament) aphesis is used in Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4, Luke 1:77, 3:3, 24:47, Acts 2:38, 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, Hebrews 9:22 and 10:18. Acts 13:38 states that Jesus Christ gives this forgiveness or remission of sin.

Thank you so much! You are not saying that God “cancels punishment” if such punishment might be helpful, might be medicinal to the sinner, right? I loved this one especially:

Acts 13:38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

This clearly shows that Jesus presents a different image of God than Moses did. And since Jesus calls for forgiveness from the heart of one another, we are to know that He forgives us Notice that none of this says that God’s forgiveness depends on our repentance. Here is one that clarifies:

Luke 1:77
to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
78
because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
79
to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.”

We know salvation through the forgiveness of our sins. We know His love because He forgives us. We know his forgiveness through forgiving others. We know His unconditional forgiveness through our own unconditional forgiveness of others. All of this knowing depends on our repentance, through our change of heart, through our openness to His love and through following His ways.

Our own actions do not create His mercy toward us, His nature is already infinitely merciful.

And though the Greek may mean “cancel punishment”, it actually implies that there was a punishment due that was not medicinal or helpful to the sinner. The Greek falls far short of expressing God’s love and mercy!

 

[Gorgias]

The knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve gained was free will, it was the ability to make value judgments about things. To decide that one thing was good and another thing was bad. It wasn’t a knowledge of some pre-existing concept of good and evil, it was the ability to choose for themselves what was good and evil.

Strictly speaking, from the perspective of theology, you’re all over the place – you’re not discussing one particular issue, but many! Namely:

• free will
• the ability to make value judgments – that’s rationality, not free will
• to decide what is good/evil – that’s moral theology, not rationality or free will!
• ability to choose for themselves – again, free will.

And in a later post, you call this “conscience.”

Just to help with definitions, so that you can point to the one you’re really talking about:

• free will is the ability to choose to do what is good (or to fail to do so)
• rationality is the ability to think through and make value judgments
• Natural Moral Law is the objective morality which is written in our hearts, which tells us what is good and what is evil
• conscience is the faculty to look at a particular situation, apply the dictates of moral law, and know what is virtuous and what is not

(And, if you’re still reading, the notion of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is a metaphor for a human desire to reject the Natural Moral Law and substitute a moral law of one’s own devising. That act, which is an instance of the sin of pride, is what the story is talking about. )

 

[Gorgias]

This clearly shows that Jesus presents a different image of God than Moses did.

sigh

@OneSheep, do you hear yourself when you say things like this? It really sounds like you’re enamored of a latter-day Marcionism…

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Would you, as a parent, not provide all relevant information concerning a sin to your own child?”
A. Yes, ideally. What is relevant is not everything regarding it however.

Yes, and God certainly exists in accordance with all the highest ideals of love and mercy. So, are you saying that Adam and Eve’s knowing that their action would harm their own children is irrelevant information?

If so, would you not tell your own child that a certain substance is forbidden to drink, that it would cause death and mutate all of their gametes, causing great harm upon the children they will have? Would you not tell them that such action would increase pains in childbirth, etc.? Make it harder to avoid sin? Aren’t all these things relevant?

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

This is an extremely important section of the CCC. It is our nature itself that presents a distorted image of God. For example, it is very natural to avoid forgiving a person who shows no remorse, so we have the distorted image of believing in a Father who does not forgive those (not talking about a cancelled merciful punishment) who do not show remorse.

Jesus turns this image completely upside down:

Luke 6:32-36 New International Version (NIV)

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

God calls us to be merciful, to forgive regardless of the state of mind or heart of those we forgive.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.

If this section, taken by itself, leads a person to believe that it is merciful to construe a simple act of defiance as a choice intending separation from God or self or intending insult to God or self, then the section is advocating an uncharitable example and depicts an uncharitable God.

 

[OneSheep]

do you hear yourself when you say things like this? It really sounds like you’re enamored of a latter-day Marcionism…

Then you have not been reading my posts. First of all, I do not advocate dualism. Secondly, I never say that the Old Testament gives account of a different God, only that their presentation gives a clouded view of God, one that is fraught with anthropomorphisms, such as God ever being “wrathful”.

It is really cool, though, that you have such a knowledge of this stuff to draw from!

 

[Gorgias]

their presentation gives a clouded view of God, one that is fraught with anthropomorphisms, such as God ever being “wrathful”

Well, to be fair, Jesus talks about God’s anger, too, and also refers to God in anthropomorphic ways…

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: "Are you saying that empathy, versus simply “not wanting to do evil (because the Church says not to)”, has no motivation for people? "
A. I have to correct my previous sentence to: “No, I think a person that does not want to do good is not more likely to do good after seeing poverty.”

But now you are addressing a case that simply does not exist. Every person wants to do something that results in a “good”, however perverse that perception of good is. So, given that every person wants to do good, and most people do not have a perverse/disordered understanding of what is good, is it true that empathy motivates people, that when seeing poverty the normal human is motivated to do something merciful?

 

[OneSheep]

Well, to be fair, Jesus talks about God’s anger, too, and also refers to God in anthropomorphic ways…

Well, the Gospel itself upholds both images of God, that of Genesis 3 and that of Jesus’ ministry. Genesis 3 honors our nature, and the image of God presented by our own nature is to be respected.

It can be concluded that when Jesus spoke to people about “the wrath of God”, He was addressing them with an acceptance, a redress to the image that they held. It is an error to think of a God capable of wrath as “wrong” in itself. The image is natural, and we can speak in the language of “God’s wrath” to motivate people to see that He is in actuality not wrathful, at least not in the human sense.

Here is a very important verse on the topic:

[Numbers 11:1-2]

Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. The people therefore cried out to Moses, and Moses prayed to the LORD and the fire died out.

Notice the words “when the Lord heard it, His anger was kindled”. This is exactly how our anger works, it is triggered when we hear or witness something bad caused by another. After a few thousand years, we have been revealed enough to know that God is omniscient, that He knew before He even created, He knew every single act we were going to do, and He know all of the lack of awareness that went into the worst of our choices, but created us anyway.

So, is our image of God such that He is like us, yanked around by what new things we hear that pop up, or is His love and mercy, His feeling of love and mercy constant and unchanging, ever-present and unconditional? Do we do something awful and He says to Himself “Oh yeah, I remember that that kid was going to do that, and now I am supposed to be angry about it”?

The image of a wrathful God does good when it motivates people to behave, but is conceptually compromising of His omniscience and benevolence. God as I know Him never angers at me, nor anyone else. And when I am at my most aware, I don’t get angry either. It’s rare, for me, but reachable. Most of the time all the triggers get pulled just as what happened in the Numbers reading above.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Hi OneSheep, can you answer these questions for me to better understand your standpoint on God:

God exists. Yes or No
The Devil exist (not just as a force). Yes or No
God loves all. Yes or No
By sinning, people break the coevenant with God and can only return to communion by the forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ and remain in comunion through the word of God, The Sacraments, loving God and with the intercession of The Holy Spirit. Yes/No/please redefine how you think people who have sinned have a relationship with God.

Thanks in advance.