Did Adam and Eve sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter honorspianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good/evil prior to eating of the tree, except they knew that they were not to eat from the tree. God gave them only one commandment, and their disobedience was done in full knowledge because God gave them that commandment (not to eat from the tree).
 
Uncle_Norbert said:
Here’s where I set myself up to be pummeled.

Personally, I don’t take the story of Adam and Eve at 100% literal interpretation. Yah, that really gets my Protestant friends going !

So, by accepting the story metaphorically, the question hasn’t been something that I’ve spent much of my life agonizing over anyway…sorry I can’t be more help.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if you think it is “entirely” metaphoric or not but if you believe that there is original sin, which the Catholic church teaches, I do wonder how you fit that in with a metaphoric reading or understanding of Adam and Eve.
 
That’s an entirely seperate thread for another day (or evening) Time for this old man to hit the bed 😛
 
Pwrlftr said:
Yes, Adam and Eve had free will and no original sin but what moved their will to sin if they were created in a completely innocent state?
Click to expand...
The desire to be like God - the lure put forth by the devil.
Gen 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

And in addition:
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, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Verse 6 gives Eve’s thoughts. We are not told anything about Adam’s thoughts; only that Eve gave it to him (presumably to eat) and he did.

By examining where each (Adam and Eve) erred, husbands and wives can still today learn some lessons - and hopefully not make the same mistakes in their marriages.

Nita
 
Please pardon my apparent dubiety but I have pondered this enigma since prior to dating beautiful Catholic Tashina in 1982.

I have questioned preachers, teachers, pastors, friends, even musicians (including John M. Talbot just prior to sharing a stage with him in Sacramento, Ca.) about this logical impass, but to no avail.

Where is logic and reason in this proposal of chosen sin?

Where would the Image and Likeness of the Almighty God ever find within himself the motivating desire for choosing the sinful suicide of the soul if, (as is clearly proffered within this Genesis story, myth, fable, etc.,) Adam was the sinless, Holy Spirit-filled, LIVING Image and Likeness of the Almighty God?

Adam must have contained the Holy Spirit (Ruah) who’s inner dwelling was required for Adam to be called a “Living soul”, for life is in the Spirit.

So, as believers, are we expected to simply accept without question that the man Adam, created by the Almighty God to be His Image, and created by God to be His Likeness and who was necessarily sinless (or could not have been referred to as a “Living” soul) and as a man sin-free and filled with the Holy Spirit (who leads and guides those whom He fills unto all knowledge, truth and righteousness as He empowers us to choose Love instead of self) - when given a choice chose spiritual suicide and death against his very essence, nature, wisdom, knowledge, and guidance from both God the Father with whom he walked daily in the garden, and the Holy Spirit whom indwelt him?

…and this unanswered question doesn’t strike you as apparently perhaps the most unbearably illogical and unreasonable of doctrines?

I do not see how this is not the all-consuming question upon the minds of every thinking believer on the face of this planet.
  • Nor have I yet, and in more than a quarter of a century of asking and seeking, heard anyone provide an answer worthy of consideration by those sporting an IQ above 70, for they are all based upon the false premise of Adam staring off as sinful within, dragging him down to our level rather than considering that he was sinless, and without a sin nature as created to be the Image and Likeness of the Almighty God.
This is not only the core of the asker’s question at the beginning of this thread, but the very core of the Biblical doctrines of sin & the following need for forgiveness, Jesus’ death and resurrection, etc.

I would truly enjoy reading an answer which at least considers the (il?)logical factors present at the time of this alleged original sin.

========

BTW, since Eve’s eyes were opened at the point of consuming the fruit, then, undeceived and with full knowledge of what she was now doing, if she offered the same temptation of death to Adam, how was this action of hers NOT the original sin?

========
 
honorspianist said:
If we define a criterion for sin as having full knowledge of doing wrong, then how can we say that Adam and Eve effectively sinned when they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Unless the tree was mislabeled, how could Adam and Eve had the knowledge of Evil? Thus, without that “full knowledge,” how did they sin?
Click to expand...
To sin one must first exist, and since neither Adam and Eve existsted neither was capable of sin.
 
Pwrlftr said:
I’m not sure if you think it is “entirely” metaphoric or not but if you believe that there is original sin, which the Catholic church teaches, I do wonder how you fit that in with a metaphoric reading or understanding of Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
What’s one additional inconsitency?
 
Recognising that God who is love and hence trusts us to trust in Him ( ’ love always trusts ’ as St.Paul tells us ) could help us to understand better the nature of the fall .

Adam and Eve were to trust in God’s love for them and to show their own trust in that love by accepting and trusting what they were to do - to guard the Garden , to not eat of the forbidden fruit .

Instead , they put their trust in the enemy of trust itself and thus opened the way for all men to be distrustful of the goodness of God, of God’s love and trust in us to live as His children - until the New Eve came ; created immaculate (as was the first Eve ) , Bl.Mother chose to show trust in God’s promises , even if they seemed
’ impossible ’ and thus accepted that trust that The Father had shown in Her !

She kept up that trust , may be ever attentive to the gentle whisper of The Spirit of trustful love between The Father and The Son - there were the 30 years of ’ hidden life’ of The God Man who seemed to be not doing much in the midst of all the miseries of the fallen humanity : yet she was giving and recieving of the trust of love in place of many who could not / would not !

Our Lord , in His public life and Passion again showing that trust in The Father and accepting The Father’s trust in Him in turn - to help us His children too, to be able to hear the voice of The Spirit - ’ I trust that you can forgive … flee that tempation … be able to trust in the guidance of The Church …to trust in the Sacramental graces , to be faithful to the vocations and sate of life …’ and that trust given and recieved becomes the very breath of peace !

All praise and honor to the Father , Son and Holy Spirit !

May the prayers of our Bl.Mother strenghen us - to give and recieve of the trust of loving and being loved .
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
?

Adam and Eve had no original sin, thus they could not decide by internal temptation to sin.

When Eve took the Apple, she was tempted externally by the Serpent, aka Satan.

All by themselves Adam and Eve would not have disobeyed, that is why the serpent tempted them.

When we sin, we can be tempted internally, eg… “That ring looks nice, I think I’ll take it”

Or externally, “Don’t you like that ring, why don’t you just take it.”

For them to sin they needed the external temptation.

Hope I explained myself well.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that the snake was satan? The bible says no such thing. If the snake was actually satan, then why he did opt to curse all future snakes to a life crawling upon it’s belly? The bible clearly says it was a serpent that tempted Eve and that serpents were the most cleaver of all animals. It seems pretty clear that the author of Genesis really meant snake when he said snake. Why assume this to be the one part of the tale meant metaphorically?
 
Outside temptation is one explanation.

The other is simple curiosity - we all have an inbuilt desire to discover new things, and Adam and Eve possibly, not knowing the horrors of evil, thought it was just another ‘new thing’ to be discovered.
 
severntofall said:
Why do you believe that the snake was satan? The bible says no such thing. If the snake was actually satan, then why he did opt to curse all future snakes to a life crawling upon it’s belly? The bible clearly says it was a serpent that tempted Eve and that serpents were the most cleaver of all animals. It seems pretty clear that the author of Genesis really meant snake when he said snake. Why assume this to be the one part of the tale meant metaphorically?
Click to expand...
Because Satan is the liar and father of all lies - and the first lie ever was the serpent’s - ‘thou shalt surely not die!’. So if the serpent wasn’t ACTUALLY the devil it was his agent and no ordinary snake.

More importantly because neither Jesus nor any other human has claimed (or has been claimed) to fulfil the prophecy of Genesis by literally crushing the head of a snake, although many must have in fact literally killed snakes by crushing their heads over the centuries. But rather by conquering evil.
 
LilyM said:
Because Satan is the liar and father of all lies - and the first lie ever was the serpent’s - ‘thou shalt surely not die!’. So if the serpent wasn’t ACTUALLY the devil it was his agent and no ordinary snake.

More importantly because neither Jesus nor any other human has claimed (or has been claimed) to fulfil the prophecy of Genesis by literally crushing the head of a snake, although many must have in fact literally killed snakes by crushing their heads over the centuries. But rather by conquering evil.
Click to expand...
Then why didn’t the bible just call him satan? Of course, you realize that the entire tale is fiction right?
 
severntofall said:
Then why didn’t the bible just call him satan? Of course, you realize that the entire tale is fiction right?
Click to expand...
Firstly I didn’t say it WAS Satan - just that it wasn’t an ordinary serpent (after all, it COULD speak, unlike the rest of 'em!) Rather one who was at the service of evil as not all snakes, assuredly, are.

Secondly - by your logic it’s not enough for me to write about ‘the first President of the United States’? Or my father? Unless I actually NAME him as George Washington or my father by his name, I could be writing about some other man? Definitely not.

Thirdly - if it’s all fiction then why do you care what he’s called or not called, or who he is or is not?
 
severntofall said:
Why do you believe that the snake was satan? The bible says no such thing. If the snake was actually satan, then why he did opt to curse all future snakes to a life crawling upon it’s belly? The bible clearly says it was a serpent that tempted Eve and that serpents were the most cleaver of all animals. It seems pretty clear that the author of Genesis really meant snake when he said snake. Why assume this to be the one part of the tale meant metaphorically?
Click to expand...
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

The only “ancient” serpent in Scripture is the one in Genesis.

It is not meant metaphorically. Satan (a spirit) assumed a visible form and Scripture tells us it was serpentine.
 
RennoVattio said:
Where would the Image and Likeness of the Almighty God ever find within himself the motivating desire for choosing the sinful suicide of the soul if, (as is clearly proffered within this Genesis story, myth, fable, etc.,) Adam was the sinless, Holy Spirit-filled, LIVING Image and Likeness of the Almighty God?

Adam must have contained the Holy Spirit (Ruah) who’s inner dwelling was required for Adam to be called a “Living soul”, for life is in the Spirit.

So, as believers, are we expected to simply accept without question that the man Adam, created by the Almighty God to be His Image, and created by God to be His Likeness and who was necessarily sinless (or could not have been referred to as a “Living” soul) and as a man sin-free and filled with the Holy Spirit (who leads and guides those whom He fills unto all knowledge, truth and righteousness as He empowers us to choose Love instead of self) - when given a choice chose spiritual suicide and death against his very essence, nature, wisdom, knowledge, and guidance from both God the Father with whom he walked daily in the garden, and the Holy Spirit whom indwelt him?

…and this unanswered question doesn’t strike you as apparently perhaps the most unbearably illogical and unreasonable of doctrines?

I do not see how this is not the all-consuming question upon the minds of every thinking believer on the face of this planet.
  • Nor have I yet, and in more than a quarter of a century of asking and seeking, heard anyone provide an answer worthy of consideration by those sporting an IQ above 70, for they are all based upon the false premise of Adam staring off as sinful within, dragging him down to our level rather than considering that he was sinless, and without a sin nature as created to be the Image and Likeness of the Almighty God.
==
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that altho in the “image and likeness of God”, what God created was a human, not another god - not even another angel. (Angels are superior to humans in intellect – way above our IQ.)

Perhaps if you ever come face to face with satan, using all his subtlety to get you to believe and accept a lie he was proposing, you’d understand better the power of the temptation in the garden.
 
RennoVattio said:
========

BTW, since Eve’s eyes were opened at the point of consuming the fruit, then, undeceived and with full knowledge of what she was now doing, if she offered the same temptation of death to Adam, how was this action of hers NOT the original sin?

========
Click to expand...
But it was still Adam’s fault. Here’s a little info perhaps you were not aware of:
*One day, in the Garden of Eden, Adam calls out to God, “Lord, I have a problem.”

“What is thy problem, Adam?” God asks.

“Lord, I know thou created me and hast provided for me and surrounded me with this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals. All this is great, but something seems to be missing. I’m just not happy”.

“Why is that, Adam?” comes the reply from the heavens.

“Lord, I am lonely.”

“Well Adam, in that case, I have the perfect solution. I shall create a ‘woman’ for thee.”

“What manner of creature is a ‘woman,’ Lord?”

“This ‘woman’ will be the most intelligent, sensitive, caring, and beautiful creature I have ever created. She will be so intelligent that she can figure out what thou wantest before thou wantest it. She will be sensitive and caring that she will know thy every mood and how to make thee happy. Her beauty will rival that of the heavens and earth. She will unquestioningly care for thy every need and desire and will never nag or complain. She will be the perfect companion”, replies the Creator.

“Truly, she soundeth wonderful”, Adam responds.

“Indeed she will be… but this is going to cost thee, Adam.”

“How much will this ‘woman’ cost me Lord?” Adam asks.

“She will cost thee thy right arm, thy right leg, an eye, and an ear.”

Adam hangs his head and asks for 24 hours to think about it, to which God agrees.

The following day Adam appoaches God and says…

"God, I have been thinking about this ‘woman’ and she seemeth wonderful - just what I need - but giving up an arm and a leg is quite a sacrifice. I have one question…

Yes Adam, replies God…

What can I get for a rib?*
Very reliable source — the Joke thread on the Back Fence CAF Forum.
 
severntofall said:
Of course, you realize that the entire tale is fiction right?
Click to expand...
No. The Church holds mankind stems from an original pair of parents. These parents, in some way, rejected God by some actual historical act collectively undertaken. This much is held as historical fact by the Church. Some would add more facts but I’ll hold at these two. I like how John Paul II in his Theology of the Body explains that this* historical reality* was reflected upon by the ancients using mythological language or in mythological terms. We are taught by the Church that, yes, all mankind stems from an original pair of parents - one man and one woman. We do not have to believe it to be a historical fact that these two people actually referred to each using the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. The mythological language of the original hebrew texts attempts some interesting reflections with these names. The name Adam is short for adama which is the hebrew term used for ‘ground’ in the Genesis narrative. Adam is the ‘groundling’ or ‘earthling’ or ‘earth-bound one’ - in other words something quite different from the creator. The name Eve is closely related to the Hebrew term havva which means ‘life’ or ‘living’ - obviously all human life will stem from her the ‘eve’ of humanity personified.

Likewise for the fall. The first man and woman rejected God in some manner - true. This historical fact is wrapped in mythological language in the Genesis narrative. We do not have to believe the actual act of disobedience was eating from a tree. We do not have to believe there was an actual snake involved. But we are taught to believe there really is an evil spirit in existence. And like the mythological snake’s origin the origin of that real evil is also mysterious.

So because a happening or event is related to us using mythological language does not mean it is an all out fiction. Mythological language and historical truth are not mutually exclusive.

So, no, the Genesis narratives are not an entire fiction.

To speak to RennoVattio’s earlier post, your inquiry does not seem to be concerned with all the details of the Genesis narrative but the concept of man’s free will and the situation that results due to this free will. How could the ‘living’, perfect, unadulterated, Spirit-filled, image and likeness of God, that is man, ever sin against God? Or how could perfect God make something flawed or capable of erring? These are big theological and philosophical questions which attempt to ponder the bigger question* ‘If God is good then why does evil exist at all?’* by looking at the origins of man’s fall described in Genesis.
  • ‘If God is good then why does evil exist at all?’*
    The standard response is - God allows evil to happen to bring about a greater good.
    *Nice, but what does that mean, particularly in regard to the Genesis narrative? *
    God wants us to know him and to love him.
    OK, that’s nice, now why does evil exist?
    To know and to love God is the best situation for us collectively and as individuals. But it’s a childish, untested or fantasy love if there is not the real possibility for us to not love God or reject God. God allows us to fall so he can manifest in our lives the depths of his love which is named Mercy. He calls us to His Mercy. He could not do this if we never turned away. And it is we who must turn from God, if he just pushes us away it wouldn’t be real Mercy because there would not be a real fault. In the Easter liturgy original sin is celebrated, yes celebrated, as the ‘happy fault of Adam’ because it brought to us so great a savior - Jesus.
    For us to be truly free in our wills we have to be able to reject God. Otherwise we’re autobots or just so much molecular and genetic math playing itself out to some random end. *We are spirits in the material world… * know the refrain?
    It seems God ‘risks’ endowing us with free will to have the opportunity of extending the fullness of his love which is mercy.
    Well let’s just keep God happy and sin all the time, right?
    No, to accept this mercy is to turn from sin, conform our will to his to the best of our ability. We must reject our rejection of God, in this is conversion. And we can’t do it alone, in this is the heart of salvation history.
What a ramble!
I hope it helped.

Keep asking questions. The root of the word question is ‘quest’. If you are asking questions you are still on a quest for the truth. Which is a very good thing.

Peter*
 
40.png
Nita:
Keep in mind that altho in the “image and likeness of God”, what God created was a human, not another god - not even another angel. (Angels are superior to humans in intellect – way above our IQ.)

Perhaps if you ever come face to face with satan, using all his subtlety to get you to believe and accept a lie he was proposing, you’d understand better the power of the temptation in the garden.
Click to expand...
Again, here’s an example of complete disregard for most of the truths and facts necessarily present within this original sin scenario.
Adam being God’s created Image and Likeness must be like God, and as His image, reflect God’s mind.
This, of course, must be discounted and Adam brought down to the lowest possible level by ‘damning him with faint praise’ saying he is not God because God did not create another God.
OH! WOW, OK, well then he must be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT then, right?
Great, now it makes perfect sense, Adam, being a scumbag low-life mere human would naturally desire evil, sin, death, spilling of blood, errant sexual behavior with animals, etc., and anything else we can bring him down to so we do not have to deal with the other side of this impossible presumption, namely, that Adam reflected God’s mind as God’s Image, and Adam was of an essence LIKE God, as he was created in God’s LIKEness and therein would NOT have the sinful desires of any type within him as is required to choose sin, and as Jesus so clearly pointed out is from whence sin comes forth, the inner blackened heart, not from the outside influences.
As far as the coming face to face statement, again, this is simply a way to compare Adam to us, an attempt to move the logical premise from sinless and pure to foolish, weak and stupid.
I, for one, find it hard to believe that God’s own image would not posses wisdom instead of stupidity naivety and foolishness.

Again, I find unanswered the question:
From whence came forth any conceivable motivation to desire sin, evil, godlessness, etc., from within the one who was God’s own Image and likeness, sinless and pure as God’s creative power and Holy Spirit infusion can provide, so that he would then act on that evil desire by choosing his own death?

Are you so blind? Can you not see that this concept demands and requires Adam to already be an evil sinner and of inclination toward disobedience, foolishness and suicide before he could ever have chosen sin?
This contradicts the concept of him being in any way like God, or God’s Image.

And regarding:
40.png
PeterK:
…To know and to love God is the best situation for us collectively and as individuals. But it’s a childish, untested or fantasy love if there is not the real possibility for us to not love God or reject God. God allows us to fall so he can manifest in our lives the depths of his love which is named Mercy. He calls us to His Mercy. He could not do this if we never turned away…

…For us to be truly free in our wills we have to be able to reject God. Otherwise we’re autobots or just so much molecular and genetic math playing itself out to some random end. We are spirits in the material world… know the refrain?
Click to expand...
Regarding the first half of the quote, what about the other side of this presumed logic? Is God so weak he cannot create true lovers without stooping to a level so far beneath himself that he must defer to evil to do his bidding?

Does the existence or application of “Free will” necessitate the choosing of evil?

Is it not possible that free will could have been fully exercised by God’s Image choosing righteousness, obedience and life, as per the expectation of their **sinless **condition at the time of their choosing?

Again, all positive aspects of God’s righteousness which His created Image must have mirrored in order to be God’s Image, (if we are to attribute to God any true love, goodness, truth, wisdom and purity) should have caused him to have chosen the right.

Adam is first described as God’s Image and Likeness, or like God, then we are told that he acts in a way diametrically opposed to who and what he is described as being in essence and existence.

How can one who so desperately desires to believe see past these contradictory aspects of reasonable logic and sanity?

This offends my reason and sense of balance between sane and ridiculous as it should any rational, thinking person.

…but I DO believe, and know there must be a sensible answer to this apparently contradictory conceptual conundrum.

Such is my continuing “Quest” for the basis of a reasonable Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top