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

[Gorgias]

The conscience is a guide to merciful behavior. Is that too much of a generalization?

I think it’s getting closer…

What is “pride”, though, if it is not the appetite for power, knowledge, autonomy, dominance, status, etc. ?

One definition I’ve seen is “the excessive love of one’s own excellence.” So, although other sins proceed from pride, it itself is simply that excessive “love of self”.

And, to use “appetite” here muddies the waters. As I’ve maintained, the phrase “dominion of reason over appetite” is using the word ‘appetite’ as a theological term of art. When we use it in a common or colloquial sense, we are no longer discussing the same issue as the theological term. So, no – to say pride is about an “appetite for power”, we are no longer talking about ‘appetite’ in the theological sense.

Is it the completely irrational thought that “I am more important than God”?

Again: everyday usage vs. theological usage…

Gorgias, I have never asserted that the conscience is the source of all in decision-making.

That’s a fair response. Perhaps I would be hitting closer to the mark if I merely say that you’re conflating conscience with other facets of the decision making process.

(I still disagree that empathy is part of conscience, however. Empathy does fit into the decision-making process, but not as part of conscience.)

 

[OneSheep]

wisdom and reason are not the same thing

I agree. What I meant to say was that the more wisdom we have, the more capacity we have for reason.
Think of a bunch of people in a meeting making decisions. The more information coming from different experiences, the more reasonable, the more reasoned, the final decision.

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

I completely understand and respect your point of view. There is plenty of room in the Church for some variations!

 

[hergratefulchild]

The more information coming from different experiences, the more reasonable, the more reasoned, the final decision.

or if one of the people at the meeting is the devil…

I completely understand and respect your point of view. There is plenty of room in the Church for some variations!

The existence of the devil is Church teaching, is it not?

 

[OneSheep]

One definition I’ve seen is “the excessive love of one’s own excellence.” So, although other sins proceed from pride, it itself is simply that excessive “love of self”.

Hmm. Could you clarify such “excessive love” by giving an example of the thinking that is going on in the individual’s mind when they are operating under “excessive love of self”?

As I’ve maintained, the phrase “dominion of reason over appetite” is using the word ‘appetite’ as a theological term of art

I’m completely happy with the definition here.

(I still disagree that empathy is part of conscience, however. Empathy does fit into the decision-making process, but not as part of conscience.)

Well, I never said that empathy is a part of conscience. What I said was that empathy aids in the formation of conscience.

 

[OneSheep]

or if one of the people at the meeting is the devil…

No one is saying that the devil is a source of wisdom, though. A person who is using the devil as a source of wisdom is not exhibiting “dominion of reason”.

The existence of the devil is Church teaching, is it not?

I am sticking with Aquinas on this, as he is fairly close to expressing my own experience of being human:

I answer that, It must be said that every evil in some way has a cause. For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing. But that anything fail from its natural and due disposition can come only from some cause, drawing it out of its proper disposition. For a heavy thing is not moved upwards except by some impelling force; nor does an agent fail in its action except from some impediment. But only good can be a cause; because nothing can be a cause except inasmuch as it is a being, and every being, as such, is good.

And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (I:48:3). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the, nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

 

[hergratefulchild]

No one is saying that the devil is a source of wisdom, though. A person who is using the devil as a source of wisdom is not exhibiting “dominion of reason”.

your example was of a meeting and a final choice, the devil was present at the tree with Eve and was offering counsel.

I am sticking with Aquinas on this

I read the excerpt, the language is very complex… does this say that the devil does not exist?

 

[OneSheep]

I read the excerpt, the language is very complex… does this say that the devil does not exist?

Absolutely not, but the language around “existence” is very vague, in my reading. What I have seen is a lot of room for interpretation. For example, if evil is an “absence of good” as Aquinas says, then evil is an absence, a non-existence. However, the language is very complicated. Mentioned in the article, for example, is what comes from imagination.

One can find that the majority of Catholic (and most Christian) spirituality does not reflect these words from Aquinas, and to some degree both Aquinas and Augustine have some contradictions in their theologies about satan. I know this may seem a little unsettling, but in my own experience ideas about satan in the Church tend to be looked at in an inclusive manner than an exclusive one. When a person attributes great power to a force in opposition to God, even though that is a dualistic, not monotheistic standpoint, it is generally accepted, as it should be. We all have different journeys, different ways of seeing the world.

your example was of a meeting and a final choice, the devil was present at the tree with Eve and was offering counsel.

Exactly. Does a person using the devil as a source of wisdom have “dominion of reason”?

 

[hergratefulchild]

We all have different journeys, different ways of seeing the world.

So in your view, does the Devil exist in the real sense?

Does a person using the devil as a source of wisdom have “dominion of reason”?

in my view, The Devil offered a lie clothed in enough truth to decieve.

 

[OneSheep]

So in your view, does the Devil exist in the real sense?

To the degree that a symbol that represents some aspect of reality, then to me the devil exists. Is there a force in the world that is by intent opposed to God? No, not in my observation. Do you see how my answer sort of “hedges” a bit? I do not want to say that belief in a devil is “wrong” in some way. I take complete ownership of my POV, and in humility I do not want to say that any doctrine is wrong either.

in my view, The Devil offered a lie clothed in enough truth to decieve.

Okay, but now its your turn to hedge a little, right?

Does a person who believes a lie have “dominion of reason”? You see, such dominion would mean having the insight to recognize a lie as soon as it is presented. None of us normal people have “dominion of reason”.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Does a person who believes a lie have “dominion of reason”?

Yes, if deceived by adding a slight truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, if deceived by adding a slight truth.

Let’s put it this way. If God said, “Hmm. Let’s try that again. Everything is going to happen exactly as it did last time, up to and including the point that Eve hears the serpent speak the same words that he had before.”

Would Eve make the same hurtful choice?

 

[hergratefulchild]

Let’s put it this way. If God said, “Hmm. Let’s try that again.

God could haven chosen to start again, after all it was only two humans…but chose another way.

 

[hergratefulchild]

And as the devil points out “you will surely not die”.

 

[OneSheep]

And as the devil points out “you will surely not die”.

Would Eve fall for the same untruth (including everything else stated and not stated) again?

 

[hergratefulchild]

Would Eve fall for the same untruth (including everything else stated and not stated ) again?

We can estimate that her heart was inclined to be suseptable to the devils deception and that she would fall again.

 

[OneSheep]

We can estimate that her heart was inclined to be suseptable to the devils deception and that she would fall again.

Yes, we could if she was insane, had a desire for suicide, or was completely engrossed (overcome by appetite) to achieve the knowledge she sought. Can you think of any other way she would make the same mistake twice? After all, they regretted what they had done, so it makes no sense that they would choose increased pain in childbirth, a lessened ability to avoid temptation, harm to their own children (if that came out) etc.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Why the first fall? Lack of knowledge?

 

[OneSheep]

Why the first fall? Lack of knowledge?

I think that humans can relate to lack of awareness, desire for autonomy and dominance compromising ability to reason and compromising the conscience itself, etc. leading to a poor decision.

 

[Vico]

…

…

…

• You wrote: “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?”
  You wrote: “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.”
  A. No. They committed mortal sin, which requires full knowledge. The full knowledge is of the gravity and moral character, the command which God gave them and they choose freely not to obey. That is the teaching of the Church.
• You wrote: “Isn’t freedom itself having the freedom to make the wisest decision possible?” and Did God “not want them to be able to make a completely free choice?”
  A. Free will allows for either the unsinful or sinful. The wisest choice is choosing not to sin.
• You wrote: “…withholding of information is charitable?”
  A. Yes, for God is always charitable and yet still did not give mankind the Beatific Vision from the start.
• You wrote: “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?”
  A. The dogma of the Church is that a person can choose good but it inclined to choose sin due to the influence of consupiesence. That is why we need the grace of God.
• You wrote: “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.”
  A. It is not possible for God to be less benevolent: God is all good. God provides the necessary knowledge, but people must seek it.
• You wrote: "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”.
  A. Adan and Eve has all that was necessary choice of charity or malice. They knew that their action was contrary to the command of God and that it was grave.
• “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.” and Why would God “not eliminate all the possibilities of blindness.”
  A. There are supposed to be able to share in the divinity, which requires a free will choice of charity. The test is necessary.
• 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.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Good response, clear and to the point. Thank you.

Do you believe in angels? Who is God referencing in this narrative? the devil was a fallen angel and was present in the garden of Eden, decieved Eve and was the cause of her disordered thinking on the tree they were commanded not to eat. the devil was the most crafty of all living creatures and sought to gain the throne of God. the devil needed Adam and Eve to achieve his plan, as they were in the image of God and above the angels in the order of things…

I also see that God’s plan is outside of our understanding and suffering is part of it. the devil is his creation and we must accept that everything that happens is according to his will. We are very much his children and if we are to live eternally in heaven then he knows that we must be made suitable during our life on Earth or in Purgatrory.

I will say this lastly, that to be perfect one must be imperfect, because beauty is in the imperfection.