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.
The rational soul has two functions, one theoretical, perceiving the universals, and another practical, making rational choices and deliberations that lead to actions. It is perfect in potentiality. The actualization of the rational soul is having the correct knowledge and performing the correct actions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Adam and Eve, having the preternatural gift of immortality would have been assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of their earthly existence. I do see why this implies that “lacked experience participating in their rational souls”.
 
Thinking that God increased childbirth pains, gave us concupiscence, made our work into toil, created sickness, death, etc as punishment for original sin is really looking at it backwards. In our created natural state, we would have all of these traits, just as we do today. But before the fall, God loved us so much he gave us supernatural gifts of lack of tendency to sin, immortality, no pain or suffering. These are what are called the preternatural gifts of God to man. These gifts were not part of our created, natural state. So when we turned away from God, He took away those gifts. But left us all of our natural conditions.

Did Adam and Eve know this would happen, it does not seem like they did.

Did He know we would defy Him when He gave us the those gifts: yes. Did he leave us with concupiscence as part of the punishment? Technically yes. He took the gift away.
 
I understand that they disobeyed. But if they did not have the knowledge of good and evil they wouldn’t have known that disobedience is wrong. If you put a bowl of meat down before a hungry dog and tell him “No! This is bad!” then walk out of the room what do you think will have happened to the bowl when you return?
 
According to the story, certainly they would have know that they disobeyed. But without the knowledge of good and evil they would not have known that disobedience was wrong.
 
tafan2 said:
Thinking that God increased childbirth pains, gave us concupiscence, made our work into toil, created sickness, death, etc as punishment for original sin is really looking at it backwards. In our created natural state, we would have all of these traits, just as we do today. But before the fall, God loved us so much he gave us supernatural gifts of lack of tendency to sin, immortality, no pain or suffering.
Click to expand...
Was the “lack of tendency to sin” an insulation from choosing sin?
tafan2 said:
Did Adam and Eve know this would happen, it does not seem like they did.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seems like if that bit of information had been added to their “preternatural state”, their ability to reason would have been enhanced. It doesn’t sound like “complete dominion” when we can come up with ways of making their reasoning ability “more complete”.
tafan2 said:
Did he leave us with concupiscence as part of the punishment? Technically yes. He took the gift away.
Click to expand...
Yes, and though one can truly see the benefit of believing God punished us and continued to hold something against us, such an image of God has its drawbacks. For example, His Mercy takes a bit of a hit, as well as His forgiveness.

I think that the image-hit is worth it. People need to have an extra push to behave, and though God’s image of unconditional love is compromised by the story, there seems to be a cost/benefit ratio in favor of humanity believing in such a God.

Not that I am implying that people consider the image they hold as one that is held for benefit. The conscience is there, it is real. It punishes us when we do wrong, it rewards us when we do right. Since the conscience is a “voice within” it sure seems like the voice of God Himself, and this is the means by which the image is effective. If the voice did not/does not seem real, there would be a problem with efficacy.
 
There are different levels of intellect…
In this descending order from highest to lowest:

God>>>>>>>>>>ad infinitum
Angels>>>>
Man

Although man’s intellect had complete control over his appetites, his intellect wasn’t as high as the angels… hence man couldn’t know everything like all future events… but man could know what God warned him about eating from the tree…
Because man’s intellect is not as high as the angels, this his blame is less than that of the angels and man didn’t fall into damnation instantly like the angels… also God has mercy on man because of man’s intellect not being as high as that of the angels
 
King Solomon was given wisdom to a high degree but no where near the infinite wisdom of God… yet he fell and used his freedom to make wrong decisions
 
SalamKhan said:
The rational soul has two functions, one theoretical, perceiving the universals, and another practical, making rational choices and deliberations that lead to actions. It is perfect in potentiality. The actualization of the rational soul is having the correct knowledge and performing the correct actions.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that perfection of the rational soul does not necessarily manifest in such actualization?
 
WileyC1949 said:
Yet according to the story this event took place BEFORE they had knowledge of good and evil, therefore no sin was present.
Click to expand...
No. That’s a misinterpretation of the story.

They already knew what was good and what was not – God Himself told them! And then, having been told what was evil to do (i.e., eat from the trees at the center of the garden), they went and did it anyway.
WileyC1949 said:
Rather the current teaching that we are born good but can be led to evil is far more likely.
Click to expand...
Umm… who teaches that? Not the Church…!
WileyC1949 said:
I see the story as being about man becoming fully human when he developed a conscience (the knowledge of good and evil).
Click to expand...
You’re mischaracterizing what conscience is, too. 😉

Conscience isn’t “the knowledge of good and evil”. It’s the ability to apply knowledge of a particular situation against what one already knows about moral acts. So, man didn’t “develop a conscience” – he had it, as part of his human nature, from the beginning of his human life!
WileyC1949 said:
It creates in us the desire for the greater good (the greatest good being God Himself).
Click to expand...
Not according to the Church – conscience doesn’t create that desire… God’s grace does!
 
Gorgias said:
They already knew what was good and what was not – God Himself told them! And then, having been told what was evil to do (i.e., eat from the trees at the center of the garden), they went and did it anyway.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you answered this yet, but do you agree that it is important to uphold the narrative that Adam and Eve had perfect knowledge about the consequences of the act, and knew that doubts about God’s warnings were based on falsehood, in order that the reader can continue to blame the couple, to “hold something against them” so to speak?
Gorgias said:
Conscience isn’t “the knowledge of good and evil”. It’s the ability to apply knowledge of a particular situation against what one already knows about moral acts. So, man didn’t “develop a conscience” – he had it, as part of his human nature, from the beginning of his human life!
Click to expand...
It is all of the above, in my thinking. How do we tease out the internal rulebook from the motivation to have the rulebook, enforce the rulebook, form the rulebook, etc.? It’s a package deal, right?

Suspicion, knowing right from wrong, judging, the desire to punish wrongdoing, holding grudges, formation of the “shadow self”, all these are part of the workings of the conscience. How does one tease these apart when they are all so integrated and part of the entire “package” of behavioral control?
 
Last edited:
SalamKhan said:
Do you know the difference between potentiality and actuality?
Click to expand...
Well, I think so, looking at the words in a common definition. Are you using the words with a more precise terminology?

What I am asking about in this thread is “complete dominion of reason over appetite”. The Eden story appears to tell a story about a couple who did not have dominion of reason over appetite.

If the couple truly had such dominion, then not only is the potential there, but given the “completeness”, the actuality will unquestionably follow. In complete awareness, people do not sin, correct?
 
OneSheep said:
do you agree that it is important to uphold the narrative that Adam and Eve had perfect knowledge about the consequences of the act
Click to expand...
No. Knowledge of the particulars of the consequences are not part of the assessment of the moral character of an act.

Here’s your counter-example:
You’re standing in a bank, and there’s a $100 bill sitting on the counter. You know that the consequences of taking that money that’s not yours will include being arrested and charged with a crime.
I’m standing on the sidewalk, and I see a $100 bill sitting on a food truck counter. I know that I can take the money that’s not mine, and get away with it.

Is “knowledge of the consequences” part of the moral decision? Does the morality of the act differ, based on the consequences?

Of course not – it depends only on the act itself and my intention in doing it.
OneSheep said:
doubts about God’s warnings were based on falsehood, in order that the reader can continue to blame the couple, to “hold something against them” so to speak?
Click to expand...
“Doubts about God’s warnings” is an odd way to frame up the situation: God told them “don’t do this”, and they did it anyway.

And no, it’s not from a desire to look down on Adam and Eve. :roll_eyes:
OneSheep said:
How do we tease out the internal rulebook from the motivation to have the rulebook, enforce the rulebook, form the rulebook, etc.? It’s a package deal, right?
Click to expand...
That’s not how the Church frames it up, IIRC. Instead, we have the divine law “written in our hearts” and we possess a conscience through which we may understand the moral content of the choices we face in our daily life. Yes, we must form our consciences and learn what God wishes of us, but that doesn’t mean what you seem to be implying…
OneSheep said:
Suspicion, knowing right from wrong, judging, the desire to punish wrongdoing, holding grudges, formation of the “shadow self”, all these are part of the workings of the conscience.
Click to expand...
No. This is not what’s meant by ‘conscience’! I suspect that you’re conflating the secular meaning of “conscience” with the theological meaning. They’re two distinct concepts. 😉

(Edited to add:
Here are two references in the Catechism to help you see what the Church means by conscience (CCC 1776 and following), and how to discern the morality of an act (CCC 1749). )
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
No. Knowledge of the particulars of the consequences are not part of the assessment of the moral character of an act.

Here’s your counter-example:
You’re standing in a bank, and there’s a $100 bill sitting on the counter. You know that the consequences of taking that money that’s not yours will include being arrested and charged with a crime.
I’m standing on the sidewalk, and I see a $100 bill sitting on a food truck counter. I know that I can take the money that’s not mine, and get away with it.

Is “knowledge of the consequences” part of the moral decision? Does the morality of the act differ, based on the consequences?

Of course not – it depends only on the act itself and my intention in doing it.
Click to expand...
Well, in both cases you gave, there was clearly a victim of the crimes. In the first case, the victim was the bank, and in the second, the victim was the store owner. For a person of mature conscience, it is the harm done to the victim that is far more important than the possibility of punishment.

And what was the consequence told to Adam? That he would “surely die”. Did God tell him that all of his children would have increased pain in childbirth, and all of his children would painfully toil for food? This increases the consequence billions-fold. Did Adam and Eve know this as part of their “preternatural” state?

But the more underlying question remains: Why is it important to followers that the couple knew everything about the consequences of their actions?

I am still thinking that the story serves a very important purpose for people who do not have the maturity of conscience to see that the consequences to victims are actually more important than what happens to the individual sinner (i.e. “being charged with a crime” as you stated)
 
Gorgias said:
“Doubts about God’s warnings” is an odd way to frame up the situation: God told them “don’t do this”, and they did it anyway.
Click to expand...
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise…
Click to expand...
She was seeing something contrary to what God said. She doubted God’s characterization, which was that the food was dangerous (if she knew what “death” meant).
Gorgias said:
And no, it’s not from a desire to look down on Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Well, why not? I am not implying that the need to look down on them has no purpose. Adam and Eve are assigned the blame for human suffering. Since it is human to want to blame something for suffering, is it not better to blame humanity than to blame something else? That way, the human remains vigilant in watching their own behaviors, that they remain obedient to leaders, for example, which is beneficial to the tribe as a whole.
Gorgias said:
That’s not how the Church frames it up, IIRC. Instead, we have the divine law “written in our hearts” and we possess a conscience through which we may understand the moral content of the choices we face in our daily life. Yes, we must form our consciences and learn what God wishes of us, but that doesn’t mean what you seem to be implying…
Click to expand...
Yes, the law is “written in our hearts”, but conscience formation is a “life-long process” according to the CCC. These two descriptions may appear to conflict, but when one considers the role of empathy, experience, and awareness, and observation of children who are learning what it means to be victimized, it can all be put together.

What are you thinking I am implying?
Gorgias said:
No. This is not what’s meant by ‘conscience’! I suspect that you’re conflating the secular meaning of “conscience” with the theological meaning. They’re two distinct concepts.
Click to expand...
While I admit that I did use one secular term (shadow self), there is definitely a reference to the shadow in Genesis 3, and actually all the other elements I described are in CCC 1776 ff.

I admit to being a “lumper” in the definition of the conscience, but like I said, it is very difficult to tease out “desire to punish”, for example, from thinking a person is bad, which can fall under “knowledge of good and evil”. Thinking a person is bad is part of judging, and judging itself, condemnation, is a punishment. Do you see why it is so hard to separate these out?
 
Eating the fruit wasn’t by their complete control, rather it was under temptation by a fallen angel. That’s why they weren’t fully damned after they ate from the tree. But their intellect( lower than even fallen angels ) had dominion over their passions before the fall
 
Trust/pride is different from intellect… the fallen angels and King Solomon shows that
 
The Virgin Mary trusted although she wasn’t a genius… her limited intellect had complete control of her passions… and she chose to trust the angel Gabriel’s message
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top