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

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To actually address what I am saying, you might explain how a person with “dominion of reason” might “refuse to cooperate”. People who refuse to cooperate are only doing so with the important ingredients of lack of awareness, blindness, or both. I am not just asserting this, I can prove this, as you know.
To me it’s like someone who begins to take drugs. They know the bad effects they may have but are not addicted so could just not take them.
 
Vico, as soon as one starts asserting things like “they committed mortal sin”, then that in itself says that it is acceptable to judge other people, when such judging is explicitly forbidden by Jesus Himself. I don’t know where the Baltimore catechism got that, but the assertion is a serious contradiction to the call not to judge, and very well may be the reason why the term is not used in the CCC to describe Adam and Eve’s sin. Can we please drop all reference to “mortal sin”? This thread is not about blaming.
You wrote: “Pride”, if it involves any of the thinking I described in post 737 above, is demonstrably a lack of awareness or blindness.
A. Sin arising from pride may be mortal or venial.
Do you see again that you did not counter my point? If you would like to actually counter my point, then you could say how the thinking I described in post 737 is not a demonstration of lack or awareness or blindness. Or, you could come up with an example of “pride”, when leading to sin, that does not have the ingredient of lack of awareness or blindness.
 
Last edited:
To me it’s like someone who begins to take drugs. They know the bad effects they may have but are not addicted so could just not take them.
Well, “knowing the bad effects” is not a all-or-none phenomenon, right? Doesn’t the ex-addict (the person who now avoids using) know far more about the “bad effects” than the person who has never been addicted?

And then, which person has more “dominion of reason” on the topic of addiction?
 
Last edited:
If we can take an educated and reasonable look at the implied reality of creation and the fall. The Church stands by the teaching of the real existence of the devil and he would naturally be wanting to disrupt the loving creation of man and woman by God. In Love God created man and woman and the devil saw free will as a weakness he could use for his advantage. What the devil did not know in his limited knowledge and awareness that it was this free will that would in time cause his downfall and death, that all his power would be taken away from him and by the truth of Christ his deception is exposed for what it really is, an empty unfulfilling lie.
 
Last edited:
Well, “knowing the bad effects” is not a all-or-none phenomenon, right? Doesn’t the ex-addict (the person who now avoids using) know far more about the “bad effects” than the person who has never been addicted?

And then, which person has more “dominion of reason” on the topic of addiction?
Depends, you may know the effects but if you can’t be around the drug without being tempted I would not say you have dominion of reason.
 
Depends, you may know the effects but if you can’t be around the drug without being tempted I would not say you have dominion of reason.
Well, the person who is avoiding being around the drug is exercising his “dominion of reason”, right?

What I am saying is that the person who has experienced the addiction knows far more about the negative consequences, i.e. how rotten one feels being enslaved.

We make mistakes, and we learn from those mistakes. The more we learn, the more “dominion of reason” we have.
 
Well, the person who is avoiding being around the drug is exercising his “dominion of reason”, right?
They are exercising reason but if they can’t be around it the appetite has dominion, they are just not putting themselves in a situation where that will happen.
 
They are exercising reason but if they can’t be around it the appetite has dominion, they are just not putting themselves in a situation where that will happen.
The appetite does not have dominion if they are avoiding the circumstances. Did you see the rest of my post that I added?

I think I see what you are saying, though, that the addict may know more about how addiction is bad, but still not have a better “dominion of reason” over the appetite than the person who just sees it as bad and never uses. The latter person may simply not have the appetite for the drug; some people are more subject to addiction.

Can you see that for the individual addict, he has more “dominion of reason over appetite” when he has learned to avoid the circumstances than when he did before he gained such knowledge-from-experience?
 
Can you see that for the individual addict, he has more “dominion of reason over appetite” when he has learned to avoid the circumstances than when he did before he gained such knowledge-from-experience?
I disagree with that. I think that if you need to avoid something entirely to not be tempted the appetite has dominion, you just don’t put yourself in that situation. If you could be around the drug and not be tempted, I may agree with you.

In either case I think we agree that a person who is not addicted to a drug and takes it anyway has more reason than someone who takes it because they are addicted.
 
Last edited:
You wrote: “Well, it does not address culpability (blame) because this thread is not about blame, it is about whether or not people with “dominion of reason” choose to sin. If you want to talk about blaming someone, we can, but please notice again that my last post again applies:” and “And there is nothing “scandalous” about what I wrote above.”
A. I am remarking that what you mendiioned is called (giving) scandal, it is not an accusation. That is all.

You wrote: "To actually address what I am saying, you might explain how a person with “dominion of reason” might “refuse to cooperate”. "
A. Yes, I addressed that with the post including Aquinas quotes, through pride. Also mentioning efficacious grace.
You wrote: “To counter the argument of this paragraph, you would have to make the case that people do not learn from their mistakes.”
A. No. It is a dogma of faith the Adam and Eve lost the state of sanctifying grace (their original justice was maintained by it). That means mortal sin. People can also repeat what Adam and Eve did.
You wrote: “Vico, as soon as one starts asserting things like “they committed mortal sin”, then that in itself says that it is acceptable to judge other people, when such judging is explicitly forbidden by Jesus Himself. I don’t know where the Baltimore catechism got that, …”
A. No, we are not to condemn and that dogmatic teaching is not saying one should condemn. If mortal sin is revealed in the scripture, as it was for Adam and Eve, it may be expressed as dogma.
 
Last edited:
A. Yes, I addressed that with the post including Aquinas quotes, through pride. Also mentioning efficacious grace.
And my counter was that when someone makes a choice out of malice, they are operating with lack of awareness or blindness, and you did not counter my point. “Malice” characterized an action or choice, it does not explain why the action or choice happened.
A. No. It is a dogma of faith the Adam and Eve lost the state of sanctifying grace (their original justice was maintained by it). That means mortal sin. People can also repeat what Adam and Eve did.
Again, this simply does not address the point I made, that people learn from their mistakes. And since people can learn from their mistakes, Adam and Eve would have been less likely to repeat their error and would have greater “dominion of reason” after their error. It is a matter of human nature, Vico.
revealed in the scripture, as it was for Adam and Eve,
Someone decided that it was so “revealed”. It is not explicitly stated in scripture. The judgment is unsupported by the narrative, and regardless of the rationale, it is judging people, which Jesus says subjects a person to judgment, so essentially forbidden.

To summarize, this was the point I made, which is congruent with Luke 23:34:
whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God, and/or may truly be in defiance of God, and/or may be making a choice of malice, that they are doing so because they are lacking in awareness or blinded by appetite, anger, resentment, etc.
Nothing you brought forth from St. Thomas A. provided a counterpoint. Indeed, nothing from Aquinas that I have read contests the observation I put forth.
 
Last edited:
What this does not address is that whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God, and/or may truly be in defiance of God, and/or may be making a choice of malice, that they are doing so because they are lacking in awareness or blinded by appetite, anger, resentment, etc.
A. That would be scandal
Did you mean “that (comment) would give scandal.”? If so, I think your answer may provide some very important underpinnings of your argument.
 

Did you mean “that (comment) would give scandal.”? If so, I think your answer may provide some very important underpinnings of your argument.
My answer was to what you wrote: “…whenever a person does something that appears to others to be in defiance of God…”

I am saying that a person doing something that appears to other to be in defiance of God is giving scandal. There is not implication of culpability for that depends upon the intention.

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 43 Scandal >Article 1. Whether scandal is fittingly defined as being something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall?
Reply to Objection 4. Another’s words or deed may be the cause of another’s sin in two ways, directly and accidentally. Directly, when a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin: for instance, when a man publicly commits a sin or does something that has an appearance of sin. On this case he that does such an act does, properly speaking, afford an occasion of another’s spiritual downfall, wherefore his act is called “active scandal.” One man’s word or deed is the accidental cause of another’s sin, when he neither intends to lead him into sin, nor does what is of a nature to lead him into sin, and yet this other one, through being ill-disposed, is led into sin, for instance, into envy of another’s good, and then he who does this righteous act, does not, so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the other’s downfall, but it is this other one who takes the occasion according to Romans 7:8: “Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.” Wherefore this is “passive,” without “active scandal,” since he that acts rightly does not, for his own part, afford the occasion of the other’s downfall. Sometimes therefore it happens that there is active scandal in the one together with passive scandal in the other, as when one commits a sin being induced thereto by another; sometimes there is active without passive scandal, for instance when one, by word or deed, provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent; and sometimes there is passive without active scandal, as we have already said.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm#article1
 
You wrote: “Malice” characterized an action or choice, it does not explain why the action or choice happened.
A. That answer was in the post with Aquinas from the Summa.

You wrote: “…Adam and Eve would have been less likely to repeat their error and would have greater “dominion of reason” after their error. It is a matter of human nature, Vico.”
A. Once there fall occurred all was immediately much harder, so no, it would not be less likely in their situation. The dominon of reason is the result of supernatural grace not something that is an attibute of human nature.
revealed in the scripture, as it was for Adam and Eve,
You wrote: "Someone decided that it was so “revealed”. It is not explicitly stated in scripture. The judgment is unsupported by the narrative, and "
A. It is a Catholid dogma of faith. Also see Rom 3:23.
21 But now[g] the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24 They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation,[h] through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, 26 through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
You wrote: “regardless of the rationale, it is judging people, which Jesus says subjects a person to judgment, so essentially forbidden.”
A. No, it is not identifying what is sinful act or omission but comdemning that is not to be done. We are called to identify and avoid what is sinful, and also to point it out.

2 Peter 2
17 These people are waterless springs and mists driven by a gale; for them the gloom of darkness has been reserved.
18 For, talking empty bombast, they seduce with licentious desires of the flesh those who have barely escaped from people who live in error.
19 They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him.
20 For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down* to them.
1 Cor 5
11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.”
 
If you had read and understood S.T. of St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 163 The first man’s sin > Article 2, I think you would see the answer.
But the first man, at his creation, had not yet received this likeness actually but only in potentiality. Thirdly, as to the power of operation: and neither angel nor man received this likeness actually at the very outset of his creation, because to each there remained something to be done whereby to obtain happiness.

Accordingly, while both (namely the devil and the first man) coveted God’s likeness inordinately, neither of them sinned by coveting a likeness of nature. But the first man sinned chiefly by coveting God’s likeness as regards “knowledge of good and evil,” according to the serpent’s instigation, namely that by his own natural power he might decide what was good, and what was evil for him to do; or again that he should of himself foreknow what good and what evil would befall him. Secondarily he sinned by coveting God’s likeness as regards his own power of operation, namely that by his own natural power he might act so as to obtain happiness. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 30) that “the woman’s mind was filled with love of her own power.” On the other hand, the devil sinned by coveting God’s likeness, as regards power. Wherefore Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 13) that “he wished to enjoy his own power rather than God’s.” Nevertheless both coveted somewhat to be equal to God, in so far as each wished to rely on himself in contempt of the order of the Divine rule.
 
Good Morning Vico
Reply to Objection 4 . Another’s words or deed may be the cause of another’s sin in two ways
This is not only off-topic, but if we were to apply the modern use of the word “cause”, then it would be false. We are all responsible for our own actions. What I do or say may trigger something in another person, or it may give a false impression, but ultimately each one of us makes our own choices. We are the cause of our own choices, always, even when made in complete ignorance.
You wrote: “Malice” characterized an action or choice, it does not explain why the action or choice happened.
A. That answer was in the post with Aquinas from the Summa.
I believe that you are thinking it is here:
Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good.
Notice that it says “more than the order of reason”. This is in agreement with what I am saying, that the person is unreasonable (lacking awareness or blind). “Malice”, then, has blindness or lacking awareness as an essential ingredient.
You wrote: “…Adam and Eve would have been less likely to repeat their error and would have greater “dominion of reason” after their error. It is a matter of human nature, Vico.”
A. Once there fall occurred all was immediately much harder, so no, it would not be less likely in their situation. The dominon of reason is the result of supernatural grace not something that is an attibute of human nature.
You’ve again missed the point, Vico. The point was that people have a greater “dominion of reason” after their experiences. Since in the literal story Adam and Eve were human, they would have learned from their mistakes. While the words “dominion of reason” indicate a completeness, their error-laden choice shows that dominion was not there. After the error, they would have something closer to “dominion of reason”.
A. It is a Catholid dogma of faith
I can’t find anywhere in dogma that their sin was “mortal”. If it was dogma, why would it not be in the CCC?
We are called to identify and avoid what is sinful, and also to point it out.
True, but the Church with its more modern, charitable stance, never says any particular person committed a mortal sin. To do otherwise is judgment, which is forbidden. The Baltimore Catechism is outdated, and its validity is a subject of controversy among theologians. It is a pre-Vatican II document, and in some respects does not reflect the spirit of Vatican II. The CCC is used by the whole Catholic Church, the Baltimore catechism never was so.
 
But the first man, at his creation, had not yet received this likeness actually but only in potentiality. Thirdly, as to the power of operation: and neither angel nor man received this likeness actually at the very outset of his creation, because to each there remained something to be done whereby to obtain happiness.
None of this contests what I said, which was “It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”. We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc. There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin.”
Accordingly, while both (namely the devil and the first man) coveted God’s likeness inordinately
Yes, “inordinate” would parallel what I am saying, that there was an active ingredient of blindness or lack of awareness.
But the first man sinned chiefly by coveting God’s likeness as regards “knowledge of good and evil,” according to the serpent’s instigation, namely that by his own natural power he might decide what was good, and what was evil for him to do; or again that he should of himself foreknow what good and what evil would befall him
If Adam and Eve had “dominion of reason over appetite” then they would already know that doing evil already has natural consequences, and doing good does also. Also, they would already know that eating of the tree would not give them any foreknowledge. Indeed, what gives us a bit of foreknowledge is experience, which is one thing that the couple were sorely lacking.

In addition, it is quite natural for people to want foreknowledge and want to “call their own shots” on what is right or wrong. This is the way we are created, and these wants serve man, they are a gift, and yield good results when guided by the Spirit with the gift of wisdom. When “calling our own shots” is in sync with what God wants of us, then this is an optimal condition, the conscience is well-formed.
Secondarily he sinned by coveting God’s likeness as regards his own power of operation, namely that by his own natural power he might act so as to obtain happiness. Hence Augustine says “the woman’s mind was filled with love of her own power.”
Love of one’s own power, without the complete humility that all power comes from God, is a complete lack of awareness, not an indicator of “dominion of reason”.
Nevertheless both coveted somewhat to be equal to God, in so far as each wished to rely on himself
Yes, people desire autonomy and freedom. This again is part of our God-given nature. However, when we think that we can actually rely on our own power to gain what we want, we are lacking in awareness. It is a disordered thinking, not one that reflects dominion of reason.
in contempt of the order of the Divine rule.
Contempt means “disregard”. Their disregard of the order does not reflect “dominion of reason”, it shows a lack of awareness.
 
In addition, it is quite natural for people to want foreknowledge and want to “call their own shots” on what is right or wrong.
I see that as a fruit of original sin though. Adam and Eve’s experience was likely different.
 
Can you give us a clear statement of your understanding of “the fall”, why it happened and what the result was… And was it right?

From your original question. Are you implying that Adam and Eve did not have dominion of reason over appetite and the appetite was given to them by God and being greater in this instance than reason was the cause of their disobedience and thus the source of the fault lands on God?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top