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

[Gorgias]

Excuse me, but I think that you really have to stretch to read a sin of pride into Genesis 3.

From the Catechism:

[397] Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

[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.

Do you know what you call the sin of “preferring self to God and scorning God”? Pride.

But then again, I can see the sin of pride in your post, so to each his own I guess.

Umm… if your definition of ‘pride’ is “paraphrasing authoritative sources”, then, umm… yeah.

(p.s., identifying the first sin committed by Adam and Eve as ‘pride’ is a pretty standard Christian interpretation. I’m surprised you haven’t encountered that interpretation yet… )

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve encountered a lot of things in Christian doctrine to which I take exception. But to be fair, shouldn’t we ask a Jew what their interpretation is? Meltzerboy where are you?

Well… we could, but Christian doctrine doesn’t depend on Jewish interpretation. Nevertheless, it is often interesting to learn what our ancestors in the faith thought about Scripture. (Not that this implies that we as Christians must defer to their interpretation, but nevertheless, it’s interesting.)

So, @meltzerboy, what say you? I know that Jewish theology typically doesn’t read “original sin” into this narrative, but what about the first sin of our first parents? Pride? Or some other sin?

 

[simpleas]

I’ve always considered the bible to be more of a mirror into the readers mind, than a window into God’s.

I like that

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve encountered a lot of things in Christian doctrine to which I take exception. But to be fair, shouldn’t we ask a Jew what their interpretation is? Meltzerboy where are you?

i love it. Get a second opinion!

 

[meltzerboy2]

As is so typical in Judaism, there are multiple interpretations. Sometimes the interpretations are complementary and can be linked; other times, they are so opposite that they cannot. In this case, I have found complementary interpretations that are connected.

First of all, the sins of Adam and Eve, according to Jewish interpretation, must be separated. It was Eve who was first tempted by the serpent and it was Eve who tempted Adam, rather than the other way around. This in itself, the rabbinical sages claim, reveals the differences between the genders.

Second, with regard to Eve, her sin can be divided into three possibilities, all of which are linked. First, Eve adds a further restriction to that which Gd, in prior verses in Genesis, imposes on her and on Adam. She says to the serpent that Gd forbids her not only to eat the fruit but also to touch it. This additional constraint is dangerous since the serpent uses it to his advantage by touching and shaking the tree and showing Eve that he is still alive. Therefore if she does the same, nothing harmful will happen to her either. Next, the serpent takes advantage of Eve’s desire to be like Gd and create new worlds, that is, have complete mastery over her own life. Finally, the serpent places doubt in Eve’s mind concerning whether Gd can be trusted as wanting only the best for her and Adam or whether He has a more selfish motive. Thus the interrelated lessons in the downfall of Eve, and consequently Adam as well, is that excessive and irrelevant restrictions such as that which Eve herself imposed, divert from remembering what really should be avoided; the desire to do only as one pleases without limitations can be harmful to oneself and others; and lack of trust in others, but instead only thinking the worst, is often not a good idea.

With regard to Adam’s sin, he is victim of Eve’s deception (one interpretation has him in a drunken state caused by imbibing wine), is rather easily persuaded by Eve’s intellectual argument, as well as her emotional appeal. Not too flattering a portrait of the wisdom of the male species!

 

[Vico]

…

Mercy as a quality is different than and instance of mercy.

The damned are not forgiven their guilt nor punishment, they suffer the lack of the Beatific Vision. Those in purgatory are bound with temporal punishments.

Catechism

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. 65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1472 … Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. …

You wrote: “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:”
A. The point was that it is forgoing punishment that is forgiveness of God, I wrote: “punishment or guilt” ἄφεσις.

Loading…

www.biblestudytools.com

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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?

I mean does not want to do the moral good, rather malice and inordinate passion.

 

[OneSheep]

God exists. Yes or No

Is there something in my posts that makes you think I do not? Read them, the answer is there friend.

The Devil exist (not just as a force). Yes or No

That is going to depend on the definition. If the devil is representative somehow of an “absence of Good”, or ignorance, then such a definition works, a symbol of non-existence. As a force, no, that would imply dualism, which I no longer believe in. I’m really with St. Augustine with his most clear and unemotional statements on non-dualism.

God loves all. Yes or No

Again, are you reading my posts, especially concerning unconditional love?

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

Well, any relationship, any covenant, involves at least two. A person may “break” themselves off from covenant with God, but will only do so if they do not know what they are doing. This is a witness to the genuine goodness and compassion of people and human nature. God never “breaks” a covenant nor breaks Himself off from a covenant, not God as I know Him in prayer. His love and dedication is unconditional. His forgiveness is unconditional, as forgiveness from the heart is an act of mercy.

Thanks in advance.

Did that answer your questions? You’re welcome!

 

[hergratefulchild]

A person may “break” themselves off from covenant with God, but will only do so if they do not know what they are doing

This is not correct, a person who has knowledge of God (like Adam and Eve) chooses to break the covenant knowing their the outcome of their actions.

 

[OneSheep]

This is not correct, a person who has knowledge of God (like Adam and Eve) chooses to break the covenant knowing their the outcome of their actions.

Well, this brings us back to the topic.

First of all, let’s do a “charity check”. Is it more charitable to people to assume that they will generally choose to be with God, or choose to be away from God, if they truly know God?

 

[hergratefulchild]

of all, let’s do a “charity check”. Is it more charitable to people to assume that they will generally choose to be with God, or choose to be away from God, if they truly know God?

Its not a question of charity, its what someone in their free will chooses.

 

[simpleas]

Is the Knowledge Adam and Eve had the same as the knowledge we have?

Did Adam and Eve literally know God, they spoke to God, ‘walked’ with God, but didn’t SEE God.

 

[OneSheep]

Its not a question of charity, its what someone in their free will chooses.

Well, there is a question of charity involved. Thinking that a person will do the right thing when given all the relevant information is charitable, correct? This is an important point, for as Christians we are called to be charitable.

We can then look at all the actual possibilities of choices people make, but let’s get this clarified first, please. Isn’t it charitable to assume that people’s motivation is honest and good, before we actually investigate motives and awareness? In this thread are some of my responses from the CCC that talk about giving people the benefit of the doubt, which is to be charitable.

 

[OneSheep]

I mean does not want to do the moral good, rather malice and inordinate passion.

Vico, aren’t you making it sound like an “on/off” switch? Every person is motivated (deep down) to do what is morally good in all situations, but what comes into play is their own capacity for empathy and extent to which their own appetite supercedes (dominates) the conscience. Of course, there is the added layer of an undeveloped conscience, when the person is unaware of the precepts the conscience itself offers.

Are you saying that empathy does not play a role in motivating people to do what is good? Is motivation to do the moral good all about whether a person is wanting to follow the rules, behave in a way that ensures their salvation, looks good to the people of authority, finds their own behavior acceptable or unacceptable? Is this what you are saying, or something else?

their fall was a mortal sin is what I am saying, not simply about full knowledge

Again, you are saying that “full knowledge” did not include information by which they would know that they would have children, and those children would be harmed by their action. Am I expressing your position accurately that you are saying that both empathy and parental love of children would not have made a difference in their decision? IOW if God had told them about them having children, and God had told them that those children would be harmed, that they would have eaten the fruit anyway? This is assuming, of course, that they had “complete dominion of reason over appetite”.

Does not love itself play a role in human decisions?

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.

And you seem to keep insisting that “preternatural gift” does not include the wisdom of what harm would happen to their children, correct? And now are you insisting that a normal person, who wants to do what is morally right, is not more motivated to choose against a particular action that causes harm to the people they love?

 

[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?

 

[Vico]

…

…

You wrote: “Every person is motivated (deep down) to do what is morally good in all situations…”.
A. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

You wrote: “Are you saying that empathy does not play a role in motivating people to do what is good?”
A. No.

You wrote: “Is motivation to do the moral good all about whether a person is wanting to follow the rules, behave in a way that ensures their salvation, looks good to the people of authority, finds their own behavior acceptable or unacceptable?”
A. Yes, because obedience to moral precept is pleasing to God and expresses charity, and here other people is the authority of the teaching of the Church on faith and morals.

You wrote: "This is assuming, of course, that they had “complete dominion of reason over appetite”.
A. They did not have complete dominion of reason over appetite by the preternatural gifts for that was appetite is of two divisions: irascible (irascible appetite considers good as something that wards off and repels what is hurtful) and sensitive (sensitive appetite does not consider the common notion of good). The preternatural gift was over the sensitive appetite. The original sin is with regard to the irascible appetite.

You wrote: “Does not love itself play a role in human decisions?”
A. Yes. Mortal sin is uncharitable so we should express charity.

You wrote: “Again, you are saying that “full knowledge” did not include information by which they would know that they would have children, and those children would be harmed by their action. … would have eaten the fruit anyway?” AND “And you seem to keep insisting that “preternatural gift” does not include the wisdom of what harm would happen to their children, correct?”
A. No, it is that it is not necessary to have all details of knowledge in order to have full knowledge sufficient to sin mortally.

You wrote: "Aren’t all these things relevant?
A. No, all repercussions are not necessary knowledge. Adam and Eve knew of death, which is what the authors of Genesis communicated.

The Fall was mortal sin.

 

[hergratefulchild]

talk about giving people the benefit of the doubt, which is to be charitable.

If we look at all mortal sin, had we had complete knowledge, which God is only capable of having not only because we as humans live within time and cannot look deep into our future clearly when assessing what one action may do to change our life. This is not an unfair disadvantage that God created us with, it’s just simply not possible to create more than one God without having to change the fabric of everything.

Does a heroin addict think about the possible child they may have years later after coming off the drug… They are in a state of mind that doesn’t see these changes that are only determined by God.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

You wrote: “Every person is motivated (deep down) to do what is morally good in all situations…”.
A. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Evidence? All of us are endowed with a conscience, right?

You wrote: “Are you saying that empathy does not play a role in motivating people to do what is good?”
A. No.

Please elaborate, then, what you are trying to say. I am saying that if Adam and Eve knew that they would have children, and that their choice would negatively effect their children, then parental love and empathy would have helped them make the wisest (moral) choice.

It is through empathy that we see and understand morality itself.

You wrote: “Is motivation to do the moral good all about whether a person is wanting to follow the rules, behave in a way that ensures their salvation, looks good to the people of authority, finds their own behavior acceptable or unacceptable?”
A. Yes, because obedience to moral precept is pleasing to God and expresses charity, and here other people is the authority of the teaching of the Church on faith and morals.

Are you saying that morality itself is all about “pleasing God and expressing charity”?

Vico, what is is the purpose of morality itself? Why does it “please God”?

Do you see an empathy connection between “Love thy neighbor as thy self” and morality?

The original sin is with regard to the irascible appetite.

You never answered the question as to why a benevolent God, wanting His children to make the wisest moral choice, would give A&E “dominion of reason” over some appetites and not others.

You wrote: “Does not love itself play a role in human decisions?”
A. Yes. Mortal sin is uncharitable so we should express charity.

Exactly, thank you. And since empathy is a means by which we can learn and understand the reasons for what is charitable and what is uncharitable, empathy plays an enormous role in the development of the conscience.

All the more important that in lacking such experience, Adam and Eve had an enormous deficiency in terms of “dominion of reason over appetite”.

Are you starting to get the picture here? Are you open to the possibility that Genesis 3 is far more “figurative”, that the literal story is a depicts a God who is far less than benevolent, a human who is far less than reasonable, or both?

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: "Aren’t all these things relevant?
A. No, all repercussions are not necessary knowledge. Adam and Eve knew of death, which is what the authors of Genesis communicated.

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

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?

Are you saying that God would provide less information than an ordinary parent would (i.e. than you and I would), given the negative consequences of a bad decision?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

This is where our latest run started:

I stated:

A person may “break” themselves off from covenant with God, but will only do so if they do not know what they are doing.

This is not correct, a person who has knowledge of God (like Adam and Eve) chooses to break the covenant knowing their the outcome of their actions.

And then I said/asked:

Well, this brings us back to the topic.

First of all, let’s do a “charity check”. Is it more charitable to people to assume that they will generally choose to be with God, or choose to be away from God, if they truly know God?

Your latest response:

If we look at all mortal sin, had we had complete knowledge, which God is only capable of having not only because we as humans live within time and cannot look deep into our future clearly when assessing what one action may do to change our life. This is not an unfair disadvantage that God created us with, it’s just simply not possible to create more than one God without having to change the fabric of everything.

While it is true that we are not capable of omniscience, it is factual that the more wisdom and experience a person has, the wiser choices they will make.

So first of all, do you agree that it is more charitable (if not most charitable) to conclude that a person who “breaks” himself off from covenant with God does not know what he is doing?

Once we establish this, we can investigate the less charitable options.

Does a heroin addict think about the possible child they may have years later after coming off the drug… They are in a state of mind that doesn’t see these changes that are only determined by God.

The heroin addict is enslaved by appetite. Addicts even steal from people they love in order to get their drug. So, yes, as you state, their state of mind is compromised; they do not know what they are doing. They are blinded by despair, desire to escape suffering. Do you see another way of looking at this?