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

[johnjacob2004]

Let me ask you a question:
Did Angel Gabriel trick or coerce Virgin Mary?

 

[OneSheep]

Eating the fruit wasn’t by their complete control, rather it was under temptation by a fallen angel.

Yes, it does appear that they did not have complete control of reason over appetite.

The appetite is evidenced here, from Genesis 3 :

…that the tree was to be desired to make one wise…

and they gave into their appetite, against reason.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

OK – so, by ‘consequence’, you really mean ‘harm’. Got it.

Let me change my example accordingly, then:

The $100 you take from the bank will cause the bank to be out $100, but won’t cause any other ‘damage’, per se.

The $100 I take will cause a family to not be able to afford food for a week.

Does that make your $100 theft not immoral? Of course not…

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?

So, here’s the thing: in assessing a decision that has moral content, the “potential harm” does not come into play, per se. Oh, sure… that can figure in the extent to which a potential action is immoral, but it does not determine whether it’s immoral or not.

Therefore, although the scope of harm done by the Fall of man is great, it is not – by virtue of a ‘lack of knowledge of full scope of harm’ – a case in which Adam and Eve do not bear responsibility.

 

[Gorgias]

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

From the perspective of moral theology – or even the personal perspective of conscience – it is not important in the analysis.

the consequences to victims are actually more important than what happens to the individual sinner

Hmm… no, I don’t think that’s true. Victims harmed by a sin are not imputed with the guilt of the sin – the person who caused the sin is…!

What are you thinking I am implying?

It seemed that you were making claims about a lack of imputation of sin to Adam and Eve…

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.

OneSheep:

• Suspicion,
• knowing right from wrong,
• judging,
• the desire to punish wrongdoing,
• holding grudges

I’m not seeing these in the CCC’s description of conscience. Perhaps you can show me where?

Rather, I’m seeing this as the definition of conscience in the CCC:

Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. … It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law.

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”.

No, it doesn’t. “Thinking a person is bad” isn’t “knowledge of good and evil”, as it appears in the creation / Fall of Man stories.

Thinking a person is bad is part of judging, and judging itself, condemnation, is a punishment.

We are called to judge actions, not people. Not quite sure how you equate ‘judging’ with ‘punishment for sin’.

Do you see why it is so hard to separate these out?

No. But then again, I’m not conflating distinct notions…

 

[johnjacob2004]

That’s where your wrong, they gave into the lies of the devil and they put their trust in the devil… they were in a state of grace before the fall and were created in God’s image… they did not have concupiscience and their appetites were subject to their intellect… they listened/trusted in a lie with their hearing and intellect…

Only after the fall did they have concupiscience

 

[johnjacob2004]

III. ORIGINAL SIN

Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man’s first sin

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”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

 

[johnjacob2004]

All from Catechism of Catholic Church

There’s a difference between outside temptation (devil)

And inside the body temptation (concupiscience)

Jesus and Mary being the second Adam and Eve, they both lacked concupiscience and only could be tempted from outside their conscience…

 

[OneSheep]

Does that make your $100 theft not immoral? Of course not…

Yes, of course not. The question is not whether or not A & E did something immoral/unconscionable. The question is whether they had complete reason over appetite.

Do you find yourself defending the position that they had complete reason?

So, here’s the thing: in assessing a decision that has moral content, the “potential harm” does not come into play, per se. Oh, sure… that can figure in the extent to which a potential action is immoral, but it does not determine whether it’s immoral or not.

Yes, their actions were immoral, but if they had known that their own children would be harmed, it goes from immoral to unhuman. It is quite obvious that the two did not have enough information to make a reasonable decision, correct? There is a tremendous difference between risking your own life and the lives of your future children, and most certainly the whole human race.

Therefore, although the scope of harm done by the Fall of man is great, it is not – by virtue of a ‘lack of knowledge of full scope of harm’ – a case in which Adam and Eve do not bear responsibility.

Of course they bear responsibility. We are to take ownership of all the consequences of our actions whether they are intended or not.

The question is, do we blame them? Do we condemn them for what they did? If we assert that they had dominion of reason over appetite, then we are taking a position in which we can hang onto blame and condemnation of the pair. “They knew better!” is the claim.

If, instead, we seek to understand what was actually going on in their minds, (and what goes on in our own minds when we sin), we can truly see that there is/was no “dominion of reason”. Sin is irrational by definition.

But then, do we hang onto blame so that we can see that all the penalties they(we) received were just?

Or instead, can we see the story as an allegory, showing how the conscience itself treats us when we misbehave, and really has nothing to do with God’s image? The underlying image of God is one of understanding and forgiveness shown to us in Christ, correct?

 

[OneSheep]

Hmm… no, I don’t think that’s true. Victims harmed by a sin are not imputed with the guilt of the sin – the person who caused the sin is …!

Are you saying that a conviction of a person who has done harm is more important than the original harm done?

It seemed that you were making claims about a lack of imputation of sin to Adam and Eve…

All actions are to be imputed to the actor, if I may clarify.

Suspicion

Suspicion is a sense that something may be going against the conscience. It is part of the working of the conscience, a sense of judgment.

knowing right from wrong,

CCC 1780:…Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed…

see also 1787.

judging,

using judgment is all over the section

the desire to punish wrongdoing,

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil

This “enjoining” comes in the form of self-condemnation or other-condemnation, which is a non-acceptance, fully functioning as a punishment. It is a very natural process.

holding grudges

Okay, this is a tough one to find there in the CCC, but it can be observed that holding grudges for a time helps form the conscience. Holding a grudge tells the conscience “don’t be like that”; the image of the wrongdoer stays with the conscience.

We are called to judge actions, not people. Not quite sure how you equate ‘judging’ with ‘punishment for sin’

Well, we are called not to judge people, but Jesus the realist spent plenty of breath calling us to forgive. We judge automatically, it is an action of the gut-level conscience. If we did not judge people, there would be no need for the call to forgive.

Judging (condemning) communicates non-acceptance, which is essentially a banishment. (notice that banishment is part of Genesis 3?) It is a punishment. This is not using judging as “discernment”. When Jesus asks us not to judge one another, which is an ideal that is extremely difficult to maintain but very possible to address through forgiveness, He was not talking about discernment of moral choice.

 

[OneSheep]

they gave into the lies of the devil and they put their trust in the devil

From Genesis 3:

the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom

What did Eve want that made her receptive to an untruth, and want to believe an untruth?

 

[Gorgias]

The question is whether they had complete reason over appetite.

Do you find yourself defending the position that they had complete reason?

Yes, because the Church teaches that they had preternatural gifts:
CCC 377:

The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

Yes, their actions were immoral, but if they had known that their own children would be harmed, it goes from immoral to unhuman.

And yet, it is a mortal sin even without the full knowledge of the scope of the consequences.

It is quite obvious that the two did not have enough information to make a reasonable decision, correct?

No, it’s not obvious. They knew what God had told them. They needed no further information – disobeying God was wrong. And yet, they chose it. That’s sufficient to make the case.

There is a tremendous difference between risking your own life and the lives of your future children, and most certainly the whole human race.

But the difference is not that one is not sinful and the others are. You’re letting the scope of the sin cloud your judgment of the sin itself, I’m afraid.

Do we condemn them for what they did?

As one saying goes, “that’s above my pay grade,” or as another goes, “judge not, lest you be judged.” I can discern the sinfulness of their actions, but whether they’re condemned is God’s decision, not ours.

Or instead, can we see the story as an allegory, showing how the conscience itself treats us when we misbehave

Actually, we do see the story as an allegory. You’re just making the wrong allegory here.

 

[johnjacob2004]

It’s as simple as this…

the faculty intellect was above and in control of the faculties if their appetite…

They let their intellect be persuaded by a fallen angel (one with a higher level of intellect).

Decisions and judgment are made in the faculty of the intellect not in the faculty of the passions or appetites. That is why animals are not judged by a court for commuting murder because they lack the capacity for intellect…

In other words:
Intellect is above passions and appetite…
Intellect is where decisions are made, they trusted in a lie and not in God…

Make sense?

 

[johnjacob2004]

Each time someone makes a conscience decision, he makes it with his conscience and intellect, although his conscience may be influenced by his passions, a true human decision is made with the conscience and intellect…

That is a reason why crazy people and children cannot be blamed for decisions they make because they don’t have the capacity to form a conscience decision…

 

[johnjacob2004]

Adam and Eve did not have a perfect and infinite intellect… even Angels have higher intellects

They did have an intellect that was in control of their passions and appetite and in harmony with their bodies

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning,

Yes, because the Church teaches that they had preternatural gifts

Well first of all, I commend you for your strict adherence to belief! The CCC is always a great starting point. Do you see, as I do, the benefit of the belief that Adam had complete dominion of reason over appetite?

And yet, it is a mortal sin even without the full knowledge of the scope of the consequences .

Do you also see, as I do, that there is a benefit for labeling the sin as “mortal” even though he did not have full knowledge of the scope of the consequences (which can be seen to be contrary to the definition of mortal sin)?

No, it’s not obvious. They knew what God had told them. They needed no further information – disobeying God was wrong. And yet, they chose it. That’s sufficient to make the case.

Actually, in the story God did not tell them it was wrong, He told them it was dangerous, and told them not to do it. He did not tell them the full consequence (harm) that would take place if they ate of the fruit. Do you see, as I do, that the more information people have about the consequences of a sin, the less likely they are to commit the sin? This is a very important question.

Do you also see the power of the conscience when one thinks “I/they should have known better!”? It is an immediate blame, which upholds condemnation of the act itself, right?

As one saying goes, “that’s above my pay grade,” or as another goes, “judge not, lest you be judged.” I can discern the sinfulness of their actions, but whether they’re condemned is God’s decision, not ours.

While this is true, the CCC is written in a way that a person of normal conscience would naturally condemn A&E for what they did, right? “They knew better” appeals to a part of the conscience that assigns blame. We do not find them innocent, we find them guilty of something. We are, by the action of the normal conscience, inclined to condemn them just as the story depicts God condemning them. As much as we talk about not judging, judging is an automatic, unstoppable response that is faster than our ability to reason. In fact, by saying that their sin was mortal, one is agreeing with the judgment and condemnation, right? (and motivates the sinner not to repeat the act, i.e. instead obey warnings)

 

[Gorgias]

Do you see, as I do, the benefit of the belief that Adam had complete dominion of reason over appetite?

Well, it does make the doctrine a bit harder to make sense of. There’s always the objection “if Adam had perfect mastery over his will, why did he still sin?” (There’s a reasonable answer, I think, but that still is a difficult question to address!)

even though he did not have full knowledge of the scope of the consequences (which can be seen to be contrary to the definition of mortal sin)

“full knowledge” – in the context of the definition of mortal sin – does not mean ‘full knowledge of the scope of the consequences’. It means ‘full knowledge of the gravity of the sin’. Perhaps that’s where you’re getting confused?

Do you see, as I do, that the more information people have about the consequences of a sin, the less likely they are to commit the sin? This is a very important question.

I’m not sure I agree. By that standard, only venial sins would be committed, no? Instead, I think we see that we commit serious sin even when we do know the consequences…!

the CCC is written in a way that a person of normal conscience would naturally condemn A&E for what they did, right?

Not ‘condemn’, but ‘recognize the sin committed.’

 

[OneSheep]

the faculty intellect was above and in control of the faculties if their appetite…

They let their intellect be persuaded by a fallen angel (one with a higher level of intellect).

Good Morning

Well, here was my question:

the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom

What did Eve want that made her receptive to an untruth, and want to believe an untruth?

What did they want, friend? What did they want that made them receptive to a lie?

Intellect is above passions and appetite…
Intellect is where decisions are made, they trusted in a lie and not in God

When you have greater intellect, do you trust in a lie? Or, through experience and reason, do you learn not to trust in a lie?

I know, these are very challenging questions. I do not intend to shake your faith, but I invite you to a deeper look at faith. This “deeper look” is not for children, though.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, it does make the doctrine a bit harder to make sense of. There’s always the objection “if Adam had perfect mastery over his will, why did he still sin?” (There’s a reasonable answer, I think, but that still is a difficult question to address!)

I see the benefit of the assertion, though, that A&E had perfect dominion of reason. If they were irrational, then it does not make sense that God punished them. The narrative that God punished them is crucial to the intent of the story (encouraging obedience) and supports the assertions of our own conscience when we sin, “I knew better!”, which motivates us to be more wary of circumstances that lead to sin.

In my own observation,then, there is not a logical answer to the question you pose above, but there is a logical reason for asserting that Adam and Eve had complete dominion of reason. The logical reason is in the benefit of the assertion itself, in upholding the objective of the story.

By that standard, only venial sins would be committed, no?

Do you see what you are doing? You are looking at the ramifications of your answer rather than answering the question outright (note: we all do this, I am not pointing a finger). Yes, we do commit serious sins even when we do know the consequences, but we are far less likely to commit a particular sin when we know all the harmful consequences, right? Isn’t this a function of wisdom and experience?

Not ‘condemn’, but ‘recognize the sin committed.’

To proclaim a sin as “mortal” is a condemnation, is it not? The story has more power if the reader sees God’s side and agrees with the punishment meted.

“full knowledge” – in the context of the definition of mortal sin – does not mean ‘full knowledge of the scope of the consequences’ . It means ‘full knowledge of the gravity of the sin’. Perhaps that’s where you’re getting confused?

Which person has a more “full knowledge of the gravity of a sin”, a person who knows that a particular sin is only dangerous to him personally, or a person who knows that a particular sin in reality is not only harmful to him personally, but harmful to his children and many others?

Do you know the Gospel verse that is the antithesis of the A&E story, especially concerning the “dominion of reason” assertion?

 

[johnjacob2004]

the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom

What did Eve want that made her receptive to an untruth, and want to believe an untruth?

Please read the Bible text closely… her desire came only after listening and to the serpent… she did see and know about the tree before the serpent said anything to her but she never saw the fruit as desireable until she listened to the serpents cunning …

Again I will reiterate, a decision is made with intellect and free will… the passions don’t make a decision, although passions affect a decision… church teaching is that Adam and Eve did not suffer concupiscience(bad desires) till after the fall… that is way an outside source had to tempt them, because within themselves they were not tempted and were in harmony… please read the catechism

 

[OneSheep]

Please read the Bible text closely… her desire came only after listening and to the serpent… she did see and know about the tree before the serpent said anything to her but she never saw the fruit as desireable until she listened to the serpents cunning …

Why was she receptive to the serpent’s cunning? Why would she trust a stranger when she had no reason to distrust God?

What did she want?

When you have greater intellect, do you trust in a lie? Or, through experience and reason, do you learn not to trust in a lie?

Do you see how this example of sin, that of Adam and Eve, is irrational, just as all sin is, by definition, irrational?

Do you see that one important point of the story is a demand that people be obedient?