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

[OneSheep]

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.

I think you are saying that “moral character” and “full knowledge” and “gravity” for you are equal to the simple words “don’t do this”. The CCC doesn’t say “knowledge”; it says “full knowledge”, and there is an infinite difference.

You cannot make the case that this is supported in the CCC. Rather, it appears that you are using the literal example of what happened in Genesis 3 as an example of what “full knowledge”, “gravity” and “moral character” are. Using this literal example to demonstrate the definition of “mortal sin” is not in keeping with the CCC. In fact, what Adam and Eve did is not categorized as “mortal sin”.

It would be indeed sinful for a person to withhold information that would help the child have a fuller knowledge of the gravity of any action that could lead to harm.

Use of Genesis 3 as a guide to moral parenting or moral behavior is an enormous error, Vico.

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.

The choice not to sin for any person is enhanced by wisdom and experience. Let’s let this one rest, Vico. In the literal story God did not tell them all of the consequences, and knowing the consequences of harm to their own children would have definitely given normal humans pause.

The behavior of God or the couple are not to be taken literally.

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.

Are you saying that since God does not give “Beatific Vision” from the start, that it is moral or charitable to withhold information from a child that would help motivate the child to avoid a particular action?

Vico, the withholding of Beatific Vision is a mystery, not an example of charity, correct? We know that God is infinitely charitable, but for some reason He did not create us omniscient. It’s a mystery, we don’t have an answer. All we can do is be grateful that we are, in this life, coming closer to a “Beatific Vision” as humanity as a whole gains wisdom. It’s happening, but very slowly.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

However, we were talking about Genesis 3, and you were saying that God’s withholding of information was still in keeping with His benevolence. Adam and Eve did not know what information to seek. Once they ate the fruit, they realized the consequences and learned from their error.

If they were given “dominion of reason over appetite”, the least God could have done is given them the amount of experience to know exactly what would happen. The alcoholic who has suffered and finally given up drinking has much more “dominion of reason over appetite” than the person who is just beginning to escape despair by use of alcohol.

A. Adan and Eve has all that was necessary choice of charity or malice.

Except that they did not know that their action would harm their own children and grandchildren, lead to more suffering for all generations, etc. Your use of “necessary” makes no sense. The “necessary” amount of knowledge is no less than what it takes for a person to avoid making a bad decision.

Once Adam and Eve made the bad decision and suffered the consequences, then they had the “necessary information”. They would not have repeated the same act.

“…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.

The test makes no sense. God created Adam and Eve, complete with all the appetites, and in His omniscience knowing that they would fail. Why set up a “test” that He knew they would fail? A normal, loving parent would not do this to a child.

Here, let me provide a more charitable view of Genesis 3. The story is a metaphor for what happens in our own lives. We develop a conscience, and the conscience itself is the guide to self-judgment, a judgment that happens at the “gut level”. We at some point(s) in our lives fail our conscience, and we blame ourselves, feel guilt, and are convinced that we should have known better. The “test” is of the conscience itself, whether or not it can always control our own behavior. It cannot, because appetite overrides the conscience when we want something badly enough.

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.

And why does God want us to share in His divinity? What is it about this sharing, the motivation for morality, that pleases God? What makes the “good” good?

 

[OneSheep]

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

You’re welcome!

Since angels don’t enter into Genesis 3, I’m going to have to pass on that one as too far off topic. I would say to go ahead and message me the question, but I have done very little research on angels, fallen angels, etc., so my answer would be pretty worthless.

 

[hergratefulchild]

actually there are two references to angels in Genesis 3: the devil and “they have become like us…”

 

[Vico]

…

…

• You wrote: “Are you saying that since God does not give “Beatific Vision” from the start, that it is moral or charitable to withhold information from a child that would help motivate the child to avoid a particular action?”
  A. I am not addressing your parental questions of fallible human behavior but the acts of God. God and man have different natures.
• You wrote: “Vico, the withholding of Beatific Vision is a mystery, not an example of charity, correct?”
  A. No. It is clear that we are on a journey to perfection.

Catechism

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection: …

• You wrote: “Once they ate the fruit, they realized the consequences and learned from their error.”
  A. They knew before acting that it was wrong. They fell through pride.
• You wrote: “If they were given “dominion of reason over appetite”, the least God could have done is given them the amount of experience to know exactly what would happen.” and You wrote: “The test makes no sense. … Why set up a “test” that He knew they would fail?”
  A. It is necessary that one have free will in order to express charity and that expression is necessary to share in divinity (adopted son) and attain to the Beatific Vision. God brings out something greater from the failure.
• You wrote: “The “necessary” amount of knowledge is no less than what it takes for a person to avoid making a bad decision.”
  A. The decision for bad was made for it was mortal sin – they had full knowledge and complete consent. (Note 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. … 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. …)
• You wrote: “They would not have repeated the same act.”
  A. No, then they encountered concupiesence since they lost the preternatural gifts.
• You wrote: “And why does God want us to share in His divinity? What is it about this sharing, the motivation for morality, that pleases God? What makes the “good”.”
  good?
  A. God created us in his image and likeness in keeping with the nature of His goodness.

 

[semper_catholicus]

how can it be said that they had "complete dominion of reason over appetite?

Because, through an act of free will, they succumbed to the temptations of the evil one. Just because they had complete dominion of reason over appetite does not mean that they didn’t have free will to go against it.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Are you saying that since God does not give “Beatific Vision” from the start, that it is moral or charitable to withhold information from a child that would help motivate the child to avoid a particular action?”
A. I am not addressing your parental questions of fallible human behavior but the acts of God. God and man have different natures.

This is the answer you give, Vico, but then we go back to the question of man being more benevolent than God. Then you assert that God is more benevolent, but when I ask about why God would withhold information that a normal parent would not, you either revert to the assertion of “different natures” or that man had all that “was necessary”. When I say that if man did have all “was necessary” to avoid sin, he would have avoided sin, then you simply reassert that man had all he needed to know to make a moral decision. When I explain that empathy is an enormous part of advising moral decisions, you simply reassert that Adam and Eve knew all they need to know.

This really isn’t a discussion of any sort. You just keep saying the same things over and over instead of actually supporting your point of view with rational arguments.

You are doing a great job of repeating assertions that have no support in what it actually means
to be benevolent or have dominion of reason.

Let me summarize your argument:
“Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite because the Encyclopedia says so.” “Withholding information is benevolent because God did so in Genesis 3, and God is benevolent.” “Empathy is not necessary to develop conscience or moral decision-making because Genesis 3 does not demonstrate this happening.”
“Adam and Eve would not have made a different decision if they knew more because God gave them all the information they needed to know.”

You wrote: “Vico, the withholding of Beatific Vision is a mystery, not an example of charity, correct?”
A. No. It is clear that we are on a journey to perfection.

Did your answer have something to do with my question? You had stated that God withholding Beatific Vision was an example of His charity.

Withholding important information from your children that would help them make the least harmful decision is immoral and uncharitable, period. If you want to contest this point, then support your stance with reasonable explanation, please, not assertions.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Once they ate the fruit, they realized the consequences and learned from their error.”
A. They knew before acting that it was wrong. They fell through pride.

More assertions that do not address the point I made.

I said that they would not have made the same mistake again, because through experience they would gain experiences bringing them much closer to “dominion of reason over appetite”. Again, if you would like to contest this point, you might try explaining why or when a person does not learn from experience and support your argument.

A. The decision for bad was made for it was mortal sin – they had full knowledge and complete consent.

Your assertion that it was mortal sin and that they had full knowledge and complete consent has absolutely no support in the CCC, including 1859 and 399.

To my recollection, the Church has never asserted that any specific person’s sin was “mortal”. Indeed, we are called to avoid judging one another, lest we be judged.

You wrote: “And why does God want us to share in His divinity? What is it about this sharing, the motivation for morality, that pleases God? What makes the “good”.”
good?
A. God created us in his image and likeness in keeping with the nature of His goodness.

What makes the “goodness” good? What is it about this sharing, the motivation for morality, pleasing to God? Can you see that you are missing something very big here Vico?

Hint: Jesus told us what all the law, all morality is based upon. He gave us two commandments.

 

[OneSheep]

Because, through an act of free will, they succumbed to the temptations of the evil one. Just because they had complete dominion of reason over appetite does not mean that they didn’t have free will to go against it.

Problem is, if they had dominion of reason over appetite, then the temptations themselves would have not have the appealling quality to put aside reason. There would be no “succumbing” because the couple would be above and beyond their want, and through wisdom they would know that such succumbing was not reasonable.

Have you ever succumbed to temptation, learned from your mistake, and then had “dominion of reason” over repeating the same error? Sure, if the temptation is bad enough, we all can sin again, but the trend is that more wisdom makes for less chance of error.

 

[Vico]

…

*You wrote: “…we go back to the question of man being more benevolent than God”
A. What are you talking about. I see nothing about man being more benevolent than God in this thread. I can guess that you think man appears to be more benevolent than God.

• You wrote: " When I say that if man did have all “was necessary” to avoid sin, he would have avoided sin…".
  A. Adam and Eve did, per Church teaching, have original justice and fell in mortal sin through their own free will. Mortal sin requires full knowledge so that is what I am writing to you from the Catechism as all that was necessary.
• You wrote: “This really isn’t a discussion of any sort. You just keep saying the same things over and over instead of actually supporting your point of view with rational arguments.” and You wrote: “… instead of actually supporting your point of view with rational arguments.”
  A. You leave out the quotes from the Catechism that show that the Church teaches what I am writing to you. A discussion is “detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing.” so you must mean some other sense of the definition.
• You wrote: " When I explain that empathy is an enormous part of advising moral decisions, you simply reassert that Adam and Eve knew all they need to know."
  A. The grace of God is what is needed to avoid sin, for God makes it possible where it would not be so. If a person does not have full knowledge and it is not through their fault, then only a material sin could occur and not a formal sin (e.g., actual mortal sin). Sin is an offence to Tod – a disorder of the will:

John 12:43 For they preferred human praise to the glory of God.

• You wrote: " You are doing a great job of repeating assertions that have no support in what it actually means to be benevolent or have dominion of reason."

A. Catholic Encylopedia

The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: “Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh” (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty.

Ming, J. (1908). Concupiscence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “I said that they would not have made the same mistake again, because through experience they would gain experiences bringing them much closer to “dominion of reason over appetite”. Again, if you would like to contest this point, you might try explaining why or when a person does not learn from experience and support your argument.”
  A. Formal sin is not a matter of learning but of the will, as you can see clearly explained by the Church.
• You wrote: “Your assertion that it was mortal sin and that they had full knowledge and complete consent has absolutely no support in the CCC, including 1859 and 399.”
  A. That is false. The teaching of the Church is that it was mortal sin. You can also see it (in addition to the latest Catechism - addressing the loss of original justice) in the Baltimore Catechism and the Council of Trent on Justification:

Baltimore Catechism
Q. 258. But how did the loss of the gift of original justice leave our first parents and us in mortal sin?
A. The loss of the gift of original justice left our first parents and us in mortal sin because it deprived them of the Grace of God, and to be without this gift of Grace which they should have had was to be in mortal sin. As all their children are deprived of the same gift, they, too, come into the world in a state of mortal sin.

Council of Trent CHAPTER I. On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

Note also that the dogma of faith is that: Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in a state of grace. (De fide definita).

The loss of original justice is through the loss of sanctifying grace which only occurs through mortal sin.

You wrote: “Can you see that you are missing something very big here Vico?”
A. I am not missing the New Commandment, for it is charity. God is always charitable as I mentioned before. Mankind is not always charitable but can be always charitable with supernatural grace and the cooperation with it by free will.

 

[semper_catholicus]

The devil is crafty, he’s much more intelligent than us and can make up really good temptations. Just because they were created perfectly and had complete dominion of reason, doesn’t mean they could have fallen from that state by n act of free will. When we get in a state of sanctifying grace, we do it all the time.

 

[OneSheep]

I can guess that you think man appears to be more benevolent than God.

Actually, I don’t think this, but when you present that God withheld any information that would have helped Adam and Eve make a wiser choice, one that would not hurt their children, then yes, you are presenting an image of God who is less benevolent than an ordinary parent.

This is only one of the problems with taking Genesis 3 literally.

You wrote: “I said that they would not have made the same mistake again, because through experience they would gain experiences bringing them much closer to “dominion of reason over appetite”. Again, if you would like to contest this point, you might try explaining why or when a person does not learn from experience and support your argument.”
A. Formal sin is not a matter of learning but of the will, as you can see clearly explained by the Church.

1. It would be uncharitable to assume that Adam and Eve actually willed to oppose God. Their will was completely engrossed in having the fruit, not for the purpose of opposing God. We can all relate to Adam and Eve’s natural, God-given desire for autonomy, for power, and capacity to question rules from authority. All of these can occur in the human without any will to oppose God.
2. The will is guided by our awareness. Once the two knew the consequences of their sin, truly experienced them, then they could have greater “dominion of reason”. Your assertion saying that people’s will does not change with learning is unsupported in your statement.

Baltimore Catechism…

The Baltimore Catechism is not the CCC. Saying that someone else committed a mortal sin is contrary to Jesus’ call for us not to judge.

Council of Trent CHAPTER I. On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The whole concept of “what justifies man” may be against the theme of God’s unconditional love of His creation. God has carved every one of us into the palm of His hand. Nothing, absolutely nothing, separates us from the love of God, Vico. Even when a person is in a state of sin, God’s love is still with him, it is the person who is alienated from his own love of God.

The Gospel clearly shows us that Jesus forgave the crowd who hung Him, regardless of their state of mind or repentance. We are called to do no less.

 

[OneSheep]

A. I am not missing the New Commandment, for it is charity. God is always charitable as I mentioned before. Mankind is not always charitable but can be always charitable with supernatural grace and the cooperation with it by free will.

What you are still missing is the enormous word, “Love”. Indeed, God is charitable, a virtuous characteristic, but why is He charitable? He is charitable, Vico, because He loves us. Can you admit that God loves us, just as we are? He gives us morality because He loves us, and morality itself is for the purpose of guiding one another in a loving, charitable manner in our natural love for one another. Empathy plays a huge role in the development of moral, charitable behavior and in the conscience itself, and I can bring in a truckload of real-world examples to support this.

Therefore, despite your assertions otherwise, if Adam and Eve knew that their actions would negatively impact their own children and grandchildren, and had “dominion of reason” over their appetites (i.e. did not have the crazed state of the character Gollum), then they simply would not have chosen to eat the fruit. They would not even need a special “state of grace” to have made this decision. Indeed, the simple knowledge that their act would negatively impact their own children and grandchildren, that they were sure to have, would have given them, and any normal human, dominion of reason over appetite. When a person chooses appetite over life, he is insane, he simply does not know what he is doing.

People naturally love others. All people are graced with His love. Yes, Genesis 3 depicts a different image of both man and God, but the Gospel is what opens our eyes.

 

[OneSheep]

The devil is crafty, he’s much more intelligent than us and can make up really good temptations. Just because they were created perfectly and had complete dominion of reason, doesn’t mean they could have fallen from that state by n act of free will. When we get in a state of sanctifying grace, we do it all the time.

Okay, in your scenario God gave Adam and Eve “dominion of reason over appetite” but did not give them dominion of reason over untruth, knowing full well that they would be fooled, that they would fail the test, and He would respond by banishing them from the garden, making childbirth more painful, and adding “concupiscence”, which would make it even harder for them to avoid sin, correct?

Does this sound as loving as an ordinary human parent? Does this sound like the loving Father we learn about in the Gospel?

 

[semper_catholicus]

It is not God’s fault that they fell from grace. It is no ones fault but their own. God does not stop us from exercising our free will, even if it means abandoning him, though it angers and saddens him very much.

 

[OneSheep]

It is not God’s fault that they fell from grace. It is no ones fault but their own.

Well, this discussion is not about who is at “fault” really, but I think you are quite in line with the purpose of the story, the impact it is supposed to have on the reader.

The general plot leads the reader to see that disobedience is bad, and has consequences we may not even anticipate. The intent of the story is quite good, as it upholds that God is not at fault, that man should be obedient regardless of temptation. In the tribal context of when the story was written, cooperation was a matter of survival. In addition, while agricultural life was hard and caused a great deal of suffering, the story guides us to the reasoning that we are not to blame God for the suffering, that it is our own fault.

What this thread is about, generally speaking, is whether or not Genesis 3 accurately depicts either God or man. In my opinion, it does not accurately depict God, but it does accurately depict man when man’s reason is dominated by appetite, which truly happens.

God does not stop us from exercising our free will, even if it means abandoning him, though it angers and saddens him very much.

I’m not sure about the anger part. After all, He knew exactly what Adam and Eve would do even before He created them, so a choice to create would mean a choice to be angry, which does not make sense from a human standpoint. … especially considering the fact that if He had given them a bit more information, they would not have chosen to eat the fruit.

Your response does not address why God would have not given them dominion of reason over untruth if he had given them dominion of reason over appetite.

After all, from where comes untruth? Much of it comes from simple lack of awareness, but when the mind is affected by appetite, the imagination generates ideas that compromise the conscience itself i.e. “God was kidding us, being over-protective, he did not mean that we would really get hurt.” This is the kind of thought generated from a person driven by want.

 

[hergratefulchild]

OneSheep, We need to talk about the devil and his influence. I can extend my understanding to include why God made us with domion over reason but also added our desire to question, automate and grow… it was these desries that the devil twisted that lead to the fall. We can also see the God in his all knowing knew this would happen and it is a very important lesson for all mankind to learn that our questioning must always be humbled in front of our creator, who only wants to give us everything out of love.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “What you are still missing is the enormous word, “Love”.”
A. No, I mean the virtue, which is love. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost” (Romans 5:5).

You wrote: “… had “dominion of reason” over their appetites (i.e. did not have the crazed state of the character Gollum), then they simply would not have chosen to eat the fruit.”
A. As mentioned before, they had dominion over the sensuous appetites due to a preternatural gift. They fell through the irascible appetite, but could have avoided their mortal sin by cooperating with the supernatural grace that they had (they had a state of original justice).

You wrote: “People naturally love others.”
A. Matthew 5: 46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this?

You wrote: “All people are graced with His love”.
A. Yes, God gives actual graces even before conversion.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “… when you present that God withheld any information that would have helped Adam and Eve make a wiser choice,…”
A. I did not say that. I said that they could make the wisest choice by obeying God.

You wrote: “It would be uncharitable to assume that Adam and Eve actually willed to oppose God.”
A. The Catholic Church teaches that they did by not obeying. 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.278 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. 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”.279416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

You wrote: “The Baltimore Catechism is not the CCC.”
A. Irrelevant since both the Baltimore Catechism and the current Catechism are authorized teaching of the Catholic Church.

You wrote: " Saying that someone else committed a mortal sin is contrary to Jesus’ call for us not to judge."
A. The fall of Adam and Eve by mortal sin is a divine revelation and the Church teaches it.

You wrote: “Your assertion saying that people’s will does not change with learning is unsupported in your statement.”
A. I said that those that will to do evil are not moved.

You wrote: “Even when a person is in a state of sin, God’s love is still with him, it is the person who is alienated from his own love of God.”
A. Yes.

You wrote: “The Gospel clearly shows us that Jesus forgave the crowd who hung Him, regardless of their state of mind or repentance. We are called to do no less.”
A. The scripture you refer to does not specify that they who Jesus asked his Father to forgive were culpable. It does show the spirit of generosity to not punish the invincibly ignorant.