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

[hergratefulchild]

) to conclude that a person who “breaks” himself off from covenant with God does not know what he is doing

No, if you break from God you know what you are doing, otherwise it is not a break of covenant.

 

[hergratefulchild]

They are blinded by despair, desire to escape suffering. Do you see another way of looking at this?

Desire to escape… Something similar going through Eve’s mind?

 

[Vico]

…

Q. So, are you saying that Adam and Eve’s knowing that their action would harm their own children is irrelevant information?
A. Yes, the more general death was what they knew.

Q. 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?
A. No, details are not necessary for understanding the moral character.

Q. Would you not tell them that such action would increase pains in childbirth, etc.? Make it harder to avoid sin?
A. No, the Church teaches that we are tried and that grace makes it possible to avoid sin.

Q. Aren’t all these things relevant?
A. Relevant but not required for charity.

Q. 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?
A. Yes, per the dogma on original sin.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. Evidence? All of us are endowed with a conscience, right?
A. We are not motivated to do the moral good in all situations but inclined to the immoral good.

ou wrote: "Why does it [morality] “please God”?
A. Because God is all good and has made man in His image and likeness to share in his divinity.

You wrote: “You never answered the question as to why a benevolent God…”
A. Yes, earlier post.

You wrote: "Adam and Eve had an enormous deficiency in terms of “dominion of reason over appetite”.
A. Not for the sensible appetite. For the iracible appetite, God did not give preternatural gift for that, but rather supernatural grace, so it is not by nature, but works with our cooperation to provide dominion, should we choose it.

Q. 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?
A. It was always figurative to me, and no change for my view. God does not seem less benevolent to me.

Galatians 1:8-10
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed![a] 9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
[a] 1:8 Accursed: in Greek, anathema; cf. Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22.

John 2 Cleansing of the Temple.
13 [j]Since the Passover[k] of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 [l]He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves,[m] as well as the money-changers seated there. 15 He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, 16 and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”

 

[Gorgias]

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

The existence of a conscience doesn’t imply that it’s properly formed. Nor does it imply that it motivates us; in fact, its role is to inform, not motivate.

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.

The logical implication of this train of thought is that parents necessarily make better moral decisions than those who are childless. Plenty of counter-examples to disprove that theory…

The original sin is with regard to the irascible appetite.

I disagree with Vico on this one – I wouldn’t claim that it was the irascible appetite that was in play here (and therefore, we are in a situation of ‘dominion of reason over appetite’).

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.

You continue to misunderstand the conscience, I’m afraid. Conscience doesn’t truck in “reasons for charity”, but rather, “applying known facts about moral rules to concrete situations.” Whether or not you are empathetic doesn’t come into play in the conscience. (It may come into play in other ways… but not in terms of conscience. You might be making a good argument, but you’re barking up the wrong tree, here… )

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico,

I was away on retreat. I feel a little more equipped to answer some of the questions here, to engage in a conversation that hopefully communicates that I am fully respecting your POV. If what I write appears to depart from that intent, please let me know.

Q. So, are you saying that Adam and Eve’s knowing that their action would harm their own children is irrelevant information?
A. Yes, the more general death was what they knew.

I think you misunderstood my question. I did not ask what they knew. But seeing that this is going back to an earlier statement of yours, let me go back to your earlier answer, and respond to that.

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.

So, I think you are saying that the assumption cannot be made whether or not they actually knew and had in mind the relevant information about their children and grandchildren being negatively effected by their decision, is that correct?

Q. 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?
A. No, details are not necessary for understanding the moral character.

Is it obvious, then, that knowing “moral character” by your definition (not mine) falls far short of giving your own child all the information that would help avoid harm your own grandchildren. Would you actually refrain from telling your own children that drinking a certain substance would mutate their gametes? Would you also not do all you possibly can to eliminate this substance from the world?

Q. Would you not tell them that such action would increase pains in childbirth, etc.? Make it harder to avoid sin?
A. No, the Church teaches that we are tried and that grace makes it possible to avoid sin.

I think that you misunderstood the question. Of course we were “tried”, but are you saying that God was ambivalent about the outcome, that He did not want them to be able to make a completely free choice? If a person does not have a full cognition all the ramifications of a certain choice, how can we possibly call their choice “free”? For example, the crowd who hung Jesus did not make a free choice, they were blinded by anger and desire for justice (in their eyes), and they did not know of Jesus’ intent, nor His value.

Isn’t freedom itself having the freedom to make the wisest decision possible?

 

[OneSheep]

Q. Aren’t all these things relevant?
A. Relevant but not required for charity.

This answer greatly confuses me as to what you are saying about charity. Are you saying that the withholding of information is charitable? Are you saying that there is some rubric by which some giving of information is charitable, but the same rubric says that it is charitable to intentionally withhold relevant information? From what basis are you using the word “required”?

Q. 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?
A. Yes, per the dogma on original sin.

If this is the case, this is saying that the Church’s dogma presents an image of God that is less benevolent than an ordinary parent. Do you see that this is a conflict with the image of God whose benevolence and mercy far surpasses that of any human? Or, are you saying that God is actually less benevolent than people are?

Q. Evidence? All of us are endowed with a conscience, right?
A. We are not motivated to do the moral good in all situations but inclined to the immoral good.

What I said was that “deep down” every person is motivated to do good (including the moral good) in all situations. The conscience itself is not the “deepest” down, but it does indeed motivate us to do the moral good. Could we at least agree that everyone who has an aware access to their own well-formed conscience, and is not subjected to some kind of blindness due to anger or want, will be motivated to do the moral good?

You wrote: “You never answered the question as to why a benevolent God…”
A. Yes, earlier post.

Your answers, if I recall, only answered “what”, never why. They were restatements of assertions about what God did, rather than explaining why God would not eliminate all the possibilities of blindness. When people are wanting something, the “want” often blinds them, compromising both conscience and empathy. It does not matter how the appetites are categorized, Vico_, it is what happens._ A benevolent God choosing to eliminate the influence of some appetites and not others does not make sense to me.

God does not seem less benevolent to me.

If God does less information-sharing than an ordinary parent would, for a decision that has negative consequences for a child, then God is less benevolent than an ordinary parent.

Is your conclusion, based on the dogma of original sin, possibly limiting your own ability to see that God is far more benevolent and loving than any person?

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: "Why does it [morality] “please God”?

A. Because God is all good and has made man in His image and likeness to share in his divinity.

Yes, but His divinity is Love.

Do you see an empathy connection between “Love thy neighbor as thy self” and morality? The commandment is to love, and empathy itself informs a person’s ability to love.

This goes right to the heart of the question of this thread. If a person does not have all the information necessary to inform them in such a way that empathy is involved, then reason itself is falling far short in a very human way. Without information about that which informs what guides our decisions to love, and I mean all relevant information including harm to children and grandchildren, then what Adam and Eve falls far short of having "dominion of reason over appetite".

So, if we are assuming that man had “dominion of reason” then he was fully knowing and had in mind that his/her choice would hurt his own children, children that he would have. If his/her ability to reason did not have access to this very important information, then there was certainly not “dominion”, but merely some limited ability to reason.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Gorgias, I was away for a bit, sorry for the delay.

The existence of a conscience doesn’t imply that it’s properly formed. Nor does it imply that it motivates us; in fact, its role is to inform , not motivate .

Perhaps, but given that people are drawn to Love and to love others, as we are made in His image, the information itself is motivating, stimulating the motivation from within.

The logical implication of this train of thought is that parents necessarily make better moral decisions than those who are childless. Plenty of counter-examples to disprove that theory…

That was not the implication. Yes, there are plenty of counter-examples. Generally speaking, empathy guides conscience and informs the wisdom of choices. That was what I was saying.

I disagree with Vico on this one – I wouldn’t claim that it was the irascible appetite that was in play here (and therefore, we are in a situation of ‘dominion of reason over appetite’).

It’s been a long time and I don’t remember our conversation about this, but it is obvious to me that their desire for the fruit (and its perceived benefit) effected their ability to reason.

You continue to misunderstand the conscience, I’m afraid. Conscience doesn’t truck in “reasons for charity”, but rather, “applying known facts about moral rules to concrete situations.” Whether or not you are empathetic doesn’t come into play in the conscience. (It may come into play in other ways… but not in terms of conscience. You might be making a good argument, but you’re barking up the wrong tree, here… )

**[1787]Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

It would be impossible, I think, to make the case that what is “good” is not one and the same as what is merciful. The knowing of mercy is what develops from the heart, and begins with the heart, for the commandment to love is what underlies all commandments and law. Empathy plays an enormous role in knowing how to love one another, and which actions are merciful and unmerciful.

**[1789]Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”

The Golden Rule, stated this way, is directly related to human ability to empathize, and inherently depends on human ability to empathize. It involves a person thinking about what another person wants and needs in a given situation, and it involves actually caring about the other.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Friend,

No, if you break from God you know what you are doing, otherwise it is not a break of covenant.

If A has broken a covenant, then is it because of sin (alienation)
If A sins, He does not know what he is doing
If A has broken a covenant, then he does not know what he is doing.

Is the first premise unfounded? I cannot think of a person breaking a covenant as not being a sin (alienation).

No doubt, the broken covenant is not specifically intended. In addition, I do not believe the Father ever breaks covenants with us. It only comes from “our side”.

Desire to escape… Something similar going through Eve’s mind?

I don’t see it, but I’m certainly open-minded about it.

Thanks for your response!

 

[johnjacob2004]

Hi Onesheep what is confusing you so much about Adam and Eve’s sin?

 

[hergratefulchild]

Onesheep put the question to the forum, the question actually implies a fact which is not entirely true. I have answered it several times in a clear way, but first Onesheep needs to understand the question is flawed and we need to look at “The Fall” without any implied appetie or reason.

here is my anwser again

Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite but they also had free will and that also means freedom of thought. Your argument about a parent not wanting to harm their child… It is clear Eve thought that this was the better choice for her and that would also mean her children. The Devil was not entirely wrong when he said “you will surely not die”. Because God in his mercy saved them from extinction and gave their children salvation through his only begotten Son Jesus Christ.

 

[johnjacob2004]

Very confusing how this topic has gone on this long

 

[hergratefulchild]

What Onesheep is argueing is “If God made Adam and Eve perfect then why did they fall, Did he not give them full knowledge that their decision to eat of the forbidden fruit would result in their fall?” and because Onesheep does not believe in dualism of Good and Evil or God and the Devil in their physical sense and more on the spiritual sense. Then is seems that Onesheep is having a hard time that the devil could cause the event.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Onesheep what is confusing you so much about Adam and Eve’s sin?

Great question, but actually I found their actions quite normal and human for people’s whose thinking and consciences are compromised by desire. The sin was in their alienation from what is holy, from the source of holiness itself, which occurred as soon as their desire took hold.

This thread is about the anthropology and theology of Genesis 3. The questions are "What does Genesis 3 (and especially the additional layer, “dominion of reason”) say about God: His infinite love and mercy, and humanity: the beauty and goodness of our nature?

These are not light topics, of course.

Very confusing how this topic has gone on this long

Does it annoy you?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning hgc,

and we need to look at “The Fall” without any implied appetie or reason.

My starting point was the Catholic encyclopedia, which addressed appetite and reason.

Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite but they also had free will and that also means freedom of thought.

Well, to me it works this way: If they had dominion of reason over appetite, then they would have had freedom of thought. However, because Eve was overcome by desire, she did not have such freedom, and engaged in an irrational behavior. Any normal human knowing all the consequences, for example, would not have eaten the fruit.

Your argument about a parent not wanting to harm their child… It is clear Eve thought that this was the better choice for her and that would also mean her children.

These are some great points to look into. Does a teenager, for example, think of their future children when he engages in risky behavior? Does anyone think of their future children, children they have not a clue about, when they engage in risky behavior? I think not. However a super-human with “dominion of reason” would have to be so informed in order to know all the relevant consequences of their actions.

Lack of wisdom = less capacity for reason

Then is seems that Onesheep is having a hard time that the devil could cause the event.

This actually has not entered into the topic. If satan in the story represents our own desire for autonomy, dominance, and knowledge that leads to power, he (it) represents a true aspect of our nature. What I find fascinating in the story is that what happens to satan is what happens in our own minds when we make poor choices.

Our mind searches for the source(s) of the poor choice, which in the case of Adam and Eve was their curiosity, their desire for power, their desire for autonomy from authority figures and perhaps some other human motives also. We shun these sources, we condemn them as “coming from satan”.

In doing so, we pay attention to when these desires are leading us to choices to disobey, and (hopefully) embrace cooperation and obedience. This is the way that the normal conscience is formed and operates when the desires themselves do not compromise the conscience.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi Gorgias, I was away for a bit, sorry for the delay.

No problems! Retreats are always awesome sauce!

The existence of a conscience doesn’t imply that it’s properly formed. Nor does it imply that it motivates us; in fact, its role is to inform , not motivate .

Perhaps, but given that people are drawn to Love and to love others, as we are made in His image, the information itself is motivating, stimulating the motivation from within.
[/quote]
I’d agree that the information itself is potentially motivating. To say more goes too far, I think – it leaves the realm of abstract reasoning and enters the arena of analyzing a particular person in a particular situation.

Generally speaking, empathy guides conscience and informs the wisdom of choices. That was what I was saying.

I still disagree. Empathy does have the potential to guide a person in ultimately making a decision. The operation of the conscience is but a part of that decision, and not the entire act of deciding.

It’s been a long time and I don’t remember our conversation about this, but it is obvious to me that their desire for the fruit (and its perceived benefit) effected their ability to reason.

And I still maintain that it wasn’t an issue of “appetite over reason”, but springs from another source – and the Church identifies that source as pride.

You continue to misunderstand the conscience, I’m afraid. Conscience doesn’t truck in “reasons for charity”, but rather, “applying known facts about moral rules to concrete situations.” Whether or not you are empathetic doesn’t come into play in the conscience. (It may come into play in other ways… but not in terms of conscience. You might be making a good argument, but you’re barking up the wrong tree, here… )

**[1787]Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

This is correct. But, please note what it’s talking about – look at the heading for your citation. It’s not “the conscience”, but rather “to choose in accord with conscience”!

What you’re saying here is good, but it’s not about conscience. You’re still, I think, conflating ‘conscience’ with the entire decision making process.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning!

I’d agree that the information itself is potentially motivating. To say more goes too far, I think – it leaves the realm of abstract reasoning and enters the arena of analyzing a particular person in a particular situation.

Given that we are made in God’s image, and that His image is Love, we are already motivated, deep down, to give and receive mercy. The conscience is a guide to merciful behavior. Is that too much of a generalization?

I still disagree. Empathy does have the potential to guide a person in ultimately making a decision. The operation of the conscience is but a part of that decision, and not the entire act of deciding.

Hmmm. I don’t see a disagreement on that. Maybe I miscommunicated.

And I still maintain that it wasn’t an issue of “appetite over reason”, but springs from another source – and the Church identifies that source as pride .

What is “pride”, though, if it is not the appetite for power, knowledge, autonomy, dominance, status, etc. ?
Is it the completely irrational thought that “I am more important than God”?
What is it?

What you’re saying here is good , but it’s not about conscience . You’re still, I think, conflating ‘conscience’ with the entire decision making process.

Gorgias, I have never asserted that the conscience is the source of all in decision-making. It seems that your main objection has been against my observation that empathy both helps form the conscience and enters, in a very big way, into human decision-making. Is that an accurate summary?

 

[hergratefulchild]

Lack of wisdom = less capacity for reason

wisdom and reason are not the same thing

 

[hergratefulchild]

If satan in the story represents our own desire for autonomy, dominance, and knowledge that leads to power

The devil may have some mysterious link to our desires but we must accept his real existence and influence on all souls.