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

[johnjacob2004]

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

Do you realize that the one who tempted Adam and Eve was a fallen Angel (who had much higher intellect than them both).
Adam and Eve’s “trust/faith” con- fidelity (faith) in God was put to the test. True love is freely chosen by a person’s will. Love is a decision of the will not of the passions. At the time of the fall Adam and Eve believed in the serpent, not in God. No amount of intellect can substitute for TRUST in God. Trust is not found in the passions but is found in the will. They chose against God. Pride, this is the same reason the Angels fell. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God, which is not bad in itself since Jesus “became man so that man could become like God” but they did it in a way that was against the “will/command” of God

 

[johnjacob2004]

At the time of the fall Adam and Eve misplaced their trust in themselves and in the devil…
Matthew 6:21
“Where your treasure is, there also your heart will be”
Thus!, true love is a free choice, not a passionate feeling

 

[johnjacob2004]

After being tempted, Eve chose to desire herself over God!

 

[OneSheep]

At the time of the fall Adam and Eve believed in the serpent, not in God.

At the time of the fall Adam and Eve misplaced their trust in themselves and in the devil…

Okay, but why did they believe in the serpent instead of God? What was going on in their minds, what were they thinking?

After being tempted, Eve chose to desire herself over God!

This is another rationale to blame/condemn Eve and Adam for their actions, but we are trying to discern dominion of reason over appetite. Why did they find reason to desire themselves over God?

Do you see that an important point in the story is to condemn Adam and Eve, to have the reader point to them with words of blame? The reader is left saying, “you disobeyed!”, “you are guilty of disobedience!” This is an important point, correct?

Here is another important aspect: Does not God give all His creatures the desire to care for themselves, to survive? And then, is it not wisdom that teaches us that Our Creator has given us all we have, and that it is wise to be humble, to first remember that all we have comes from Him? Indeed, the Kingdom, the power, and the glory all belong to God.

Do you find yourself doing all you can to defend the catechism? If so, why?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Hmm… does that mean that now – in our present condition, in which our “will is weakened and intellect is darkened” – you would say that it doesn’t make sense that God punishes us for our sins?

In my own observation,then, there is not a logical answer to the question you pose above

I think I would say that the reason that Adam was able to sin – which is what the question gets at, right? – is that free will, exercised through the workings of our consciences, are always free to “get it wrong.” We “get it wrong” for slightly different reasons than our first human parents did – after all, we do have weakened wills and darkened intellects, and they didn’t! – but still, it’s the faculties we possess and the ways we utilize them that determine whether we act virtuously or not!

You are looking at the ramifications of your answer rather than answering the question outright

Nah. At least, I don’t think so. What I’m trying to do is to point out that the assertion is false, since it leads to absurdity / error.

To proclaim a sin as “mortal” is a condemnation, is it not?

Good point. So, yes – we can’t call a sin ‘mortal’. But, we can point out when serious (i.e., ‘grave’) sin exists, and try to turn people away from it. (However, we can’t take that next step and say “you committed a mortal sin” – after all, that’s for God to judge!

The story has more power if the reader sees God’s side and agrees with the punishment meted.

I’ve always perceived of them as not punishments, per se, but consequences.

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?

Neither – at least, not based on these criteria.

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

Offhand, I can’t think of what you’re referencing…

 

[OneSheep]

Hmm… does that mean that now – in our present condition, in which our “will is weakened and intellect is darkened” – you would say that it doesn’t make sense that God punishes us for our sins?

Does God punish us for our sins?

I think I would say that the reason that Adam was able to sin – which is what the question gets at, right? – is that free will, exercised through the workings of our consciences, are always free to “get it wrong.”

Why would a person, though, with complete dominion of reason over appetite, freely choose to do what is wrong?
This is where the freedom assertion does not hold up. A person does not choose wrong simply because he is free to do so. He chooses wrong because something about the wrong choice appears to outweigh, in the moment, what is right. This “outweighing” is the compromise of the conscience, which occurs when one does not have complete dominion of reason over appetite. Can you think of another example of when such compromise occurs?

Nah. At least, I don’t think so. What I’m trying to do is to point out that the assertion is false, since it leads to absurdity / error.

Okay, then take another shot at the question without jumping to the ramifications (which we all do at times). Is it true that the more information people have about the harmful consequences of a sin, the less likely they are to commit the sin?

– after all, that’s for God to judge!

Well, in the story God did judge! He judged, and He banished. All the reader has to do is agree with God, and the reader joins with the judgment. Wouldn’t most readers feel compelled to agree with God, given the consequences of disobedience?

I’ve always perceived of them as not punishments , per se, but consequences .

euphemism. It walks and talks like a duck, its a duck. Certainly this is the case in the human mind, right? God blamed, and he meted consequences/punishment. This is exactly what our conscience does when we sin. We sin, we realize we sin, the conscience gives us a shot of guilt feelings as punishment. It’s a beautiful system. Again, to me the story is a wonderful allegory for receiving the gift of conscience.

Neither – at least, not based on these criteria.

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments,… The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Is not the sin against ones own children and a multitude of people graver than a sin against oneself? And then, does not one now have a fuller knowledge of the gravity of a sin if one knows that a sin once thought to only effect oneself actually effects many?

 

[OneSheep]

Offhand, I can’t think of what you’re referencing…

Okay, lets compare and contrast Genesis with the crucifixion.

In Genesis,

1. Humanity believes a lie, thinks God is not telling the truth.
2. God punishes man, banishing him from being in a place close to Him (among other punishments.)
3. Humanity sins, according to the Church, even with complete dominion of reason

At the crucifixion,

1. Humanity accuses and convicts God of lying (blasphemy).
2. Humanity punishes God by killing Him (or trying to).
3. God forgives humanity seeing that “they do not know what they are doing”.

And then, we can look at the context of each story and see the reason for the difference of image, the difference in presentation of both theology and anthropology.

The story of Genesis was presented to a tribe. The objective of the story, to promote obedience, is far more important than the cost of God’s image. God appears to give and take away, He appears to be vengeful, but the cost is worth getting people to comply to tribal needs determined by leadership. It is a matter of survival. Also, Genesis points to our first encounter (developmentally speaking) with a “voice within”, the voice of the conscience (right and wrong, punishment for wrongness, etc).

The incarnation takes place when societies are now multi-tribal. Obedience to leadership is not as much an issue because the leadership is essentially foreign. What is more important is that there is great enmity (especially against the occupier, but certainly not limited to this) and discord among people, and what is needed is for people to forgive. It is the enmity itself that leads to disaster, and simple obedience to leadership (when disobedience is punishable by banishment, which is death in a desert) is no longer an effective means of control given the structure of society. Jesus guides us to a “Abba” (daddy) who loves completely. The image of constant, unconditional love and forgiveness is an enormous contrast to the mercurial image presented by the natural conscience. Our Abba who loves us this way is found with a deeper look into our hearts, deeper than the workings of the conscience.

Humanity was not only ready for a different image, but needed an image this image of God who does not hang onto judging, but forgives immediately and without condition.

 

[Gorgias]

Why would a person, though, with complete dominion of reason over appetite, freely choose to do what is wrong?

Because, although not due to appetite, he could nevertheless make an error of judgement. “Dominion of reason” doesn’t mean that he is inerrant.

This is where the freedom assertion does not hold up. A person does not choose wrong simply because he is free to do so. He chooses wrong because something about the wrong choice appears to outweigh, in the moment, what is right. This “outweighing” is the compromise of the conscience, which occurs when one does not have complete dominion of reason over appetite. Can you think of another example of when such compromise occurs?

I think you’re conflating ‘conscience’ with ‘dominion over appetite’. These two are distinct. Here’s what I have in mind:
Let’s suppose I’m looking at a huge chocolate cake. If I don’t have dominion over appetite, then I might think “I know that eating that whole cake isn’t good for me, but I really want to do it.” If I eat it, then, that’s a case of appetite trumping reason.

However, let’s suppose I look at a huge chocolate cake and think “it’s not going to hurt me to eat it – in fact, it looks like it’s good! So, I’m gonna do it!” Now… this is an error. Possibly an error of conscience (not recognizing gluttony). Possibly an error of objective reason (after all, I’m not recognizing that eating the whole cake is gonna put me in sugar shock).

So, I might make an error, which is nevertheless not an instance of appetite over reason, and this error is the cause of my failure to avoid sin.

So, I still think you’re conflating the two. Perhaps since the word ‘reason’ is part of the discussion, you’re thinking that every failure of reason is an instance of "lack of dominion of reason over appetite’? I still say that, if this is what you’re thinking, then this is an inaccurate assessment.

Is it true that the more information people have about the harmful consequences of a sin, the less likely they are to commit the sin?

That would depend on a number of factors, wouldn’t it? At the very least, the degree to which their conscience is properly formed!

OneSheep:

Well, in the story God did judge! He judged, and He banished.

No – judgment is “you’re going to hell, dude”. God didn’t do that. There were consequences – including banishment from the garden – but in the narrative, God didn’t condemn them to hell.

OneSheep:

Is not the sin against ones own children and a multitude of people graver than a sin against oneself?

In the end, it’s a distinction that doesn’t matter: a grave sin is a grave sin, whether or not it’s “lighter” in weight than any other grave sin. Even one – one that is considered “not as grave” – is sufficient to condemn us, if God judges is mortal.

So… no. I don’t think that knowledge of the extent of the gravity is in play in the definition – only the knowledge that it is a grave sin, objectively speaking.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Friend. Gonna be away for awhile, maybe 4-7 days. I’ll get back to you!

 

[OneSheep]

Because, although not due to appetite , he could nevertheless make an error of judgement. “Dominion of reason” doesn’t mean that he is inerrant.

Good morning, Gorgias

But see then, that puts us in the position that Eve’s desire for the fruit had nothing to do with appetite, which is a tough case to make. Eve saw the fruit as good to eat and wanted the wisdom it offered. Humans have an appetite for knowledge, for the truth. Why do we have an appetite for knowledge? Does not knowledge give us an advantage, aid our survival? Like all the other appetites, desire for knowledge has to do with survival.

Even if desire for knowledge is not to be considered “appetite”, the question remains why God would give A&E dominion of reason over appetite and not give them dominion of reason over falsehood. They clearly believed an untruth, that a stranger’s word is to be trusted over One Who Cares for us. And it is A&E believing this falsehood (or distraction from truth) that brings us back to appetite. It is appetite, desire, that compromises the workings of the conscience; if the desire was not there, a strong desire, then their consciences would not have been compromised.

I think you’re conflating ‘conscience’ with ‘dominion over appetite’. These two are distinct. Here’s what I have in mind:
Let’s suppose I’m looking at a huge chocolate cake. If I don’t have dominion over appetite, then I might think “I know that eating that whole cake isn’t good for me, but I really want to do it .” If I eat it, then, that’s a case of appetite trumping reason.

I’m not sure the cake scenario is applicable. Where the conscience comes into play is “I know that disobeying God’s command not to eat the cake is forbidden, but I really want to eat it.” If that morphs into “I know that God forbade eating the cake, but He must have been kidding, because He certainly wouldn’t have put such a tasty-looking thing here unless He thought it was good for us.”, then the conscience has been compromised.

What is the person is actually thinking before eating the cake? They are thinking that there is something good about eating it that outweighs the bad, which is a compromise of the conscience.

 

[OneSheep]

However, let’s suppose I look at a huge chocolate cake and think “it’s not going to hurt me to eat it – in fact, it looks like it’s good ! So, I’m gonna do it!” Now… this is an error. Possibly an error of conscience (not recognizing gluttony). Possibly an error of objective reason (after all, I’m not recognizing that eating the whole cake is gonna put me in sugar shock).

Are you saying that this is not what happened in the minds of the couple? Their knowing of the wrongness was trumped.

That would depend on a number of factors, wouldn’t it? At the very least, the degree to which their conscience is properly formed!

Yes, and conscience is formed through knowing the harmful consequences of sin, so I think you can see that the more information people have about the harmful consequences, the less likely they are to commit the sin.

No – judgment is “you’re going to hell, dude”. God didn’t do that. There were consequences – including banishment from the garden – but in the narrative, God didn’t condemn them to hell

In the story, God condemns A&E, and punishes them for their bad decision. When Jesus calls us not to judge, do you think He was limiting his statement to condemnation to hell? Jesus said, “If you hold anything against anyone, forgive that person”. It is the “holding against” that is a judgment. A judgment involves a desire to punish, and a sentiment of non-acceptance toward a person.

In the end, it’s a distinction that doesn’t matter: a grave sin is a grave sin, whether or not it’s “lighter” in weight than any other grave sin. Even one – one that is considered “not as grave” – is sufficient to condemn us, if God judges is mortal.

Even if God does “condemn”, which will depend on one’s image of God, the distinction does matter in terms of dominion of reason over appetite. Again, if Adam and Eve completely knew the gravity of their sin, they would not have committed the sin, it would have been inhuman for them to put their desire for the fruit over the well being of their own children and the rest of humanity. When “reason” is not informed, it suffers in ability to dominate desire. Can an uninformed capacity to reason truly be considered “complete”?

Do you see the contrasting image of God I describe in post 107? Do you see the contrasting image of Humanity presented in the Gospel, and God’s completely different response to a far greater sin against Him?

 

[STT]

You can either resist sin or fail. I don’t know why we should be blamed.

 

[Gorgias]

But see then, that puts us in the position that Eve’s desire for the fruit had nothing to do with appetite, which is a tough case to make. Eve saw the fruit as good to eat and wanted the wisdom it offered. Humans have an appetite for knowledge, for the truth. Why do we have an appetite for knowledge?

OK… hang on a second.

I only got as far as these sentences, and stopped dead. Maybe the issue here is that we are talking about different things altogether! When you see the phrase “reason over appetite”, what does the word appetite mean to you, in that context? How would you define it?

I think that, once you give your definition (and I reply with mine), we’ll find we’re talking about distinct issues, and the debate will go away…

 

[Gorgias]

You can either resist sin or fail. I don’t know why we should be blamed.

If you have the power to resist, but do not… is there not guilt there?

 

[OneSheep]

OK… hang on a second.

I only got as far as these sentences, and stopped dead. Maybe the issue here is that we are talking about different things altogether! When you see the phrase “reason over appetite”, what does the word appetite mean to you, in that context? How would you define it?

I think that, once you give your definition (and I reply with mine), we’ll find we’re talking about distinct issues, and the debate will go away…

From the encyclopedia:

Appetite includes all forms of internal inclination (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. viii, a. 1; Quæst. disputatæ, De veritate, Q. xxii, a. 1). It is found in all beings, even in those that are unconscious.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656a.htm

To be more pertinent to the thread and more specific, it would be those internal inclinations that can effect reason, which would include many internal inclinations.

I hope you read the rest of the posts…

Is this a debate? I am thinking that it is more of an investigation. The more interesting question is “why do we find A&E’s complete dominion of reason over appetite so important?”

Many acceptable answers…

 

[STT]

If you have the power to resist, but do not… is there not guilt there?

We won’t do sin if we have power to resist it. Ahan, you are talking about free will. Is the only use of free will is do wrong and stupid things? We are rationally and naturally inclined to do right. To be honest I don’t understand what is the use of free will. Do you know?

 

[OneSheep]

We are rationally and naturally inclined to do right. To be honest I don’t understand what is the use of free will. Do you know?

Well, we are rationally and naturally inclined to do what we think is right, but awareness plays a very important role, correct?

“Free will” is an explanation for why God allows evil to occur in the world. It is not God’s will that people do bad things to each other; it is people choosing to do hurtful acts (which are chosen based on what they think is right or “good”.).

 

[STT]

“Free will” is an explanation for why God allows evil to occur in the world. It is not God’s will that people do bad things to each other; it is people choosing to do hurtful acts (which are chosen based on what they think is right or “good”.).

What is the God’s purpose? That is not rational to me.

 

[OneSheep]

What is the God’s purpose? That is not rational to me.

God’s purpose for creating us, or God’s purpose for creating people free to make choices within the limits of their awareness?

 

[STT]

God’s purpose for creating us, or God’s purpose for creating people free to make choices within the limits of their awareness?

God’s purpose for creating people with free will.