Did Adam and Eve sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter honorspianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The true goodness and potential of the God created human nature is reflected again in the New Adam and New Eve - our Lord , who in His human nature showed the fullness of trust in The Father ; our bl.Mother too , by her trust in all that God had deemd to bring about through her .

God rewarded her trust by allowing her the righteous power and share in the plan to overcome evil - our concerns becomes hers too, as revealed by the first miracle at Cana .

The love and trust of The Lord is what we are invited to offer up , in place of the often meagre and failed efforts of ours and others so that the pain , fear and shame about same would not overwhelm our relationship with The Father ; instead we can be filled with gratitude and hope - that He still trusts us and wants to help us to keep up our efforts to show that trust in Him .

God protects the freedom of our will ( 'love always protects ’ ) - to believe in His Goodness or not , as the demons still refuse to .

May we be blessed to recognise His love for us all , through and through the salvation history !

Our Lady of Fatima , pray for us !
 
RennoVattio,
Hey, thanks for the responses. I’ll try to speak to your ideas.** But first** I’m told by the ‘Reply to Thread’ window that I’m too long winded and have to shorten my post by 123 characters.
So I’ll split it in half and post twice. So the good news is there will be an intermission.

… 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?

God is not weak, but he is meek or humble. And this is very interesting and supported by the following idea. Honestly, if God is God - full and complete in His triune self, lacking in nothing at, immutable, perfect - then forget the ‘why is man evil’ question and ponder the question of ‘why does man exist at all in the first place!?’ The only reasonable answer is God desires to share himself, or to love. This is a love so unwarranted it earns God the descriptor ‘meek’ which is quite different from ‘weak’. God did not, in any way, need to bring us into existence.

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

No. But the ability to reject God** must **be a real option or one’s will is not totally free. And let’s clarify here that ‘evil’ is understood primarily as the rejection of God or his will. To start investigating particular evils, like rape, will remove us from the very general realm of the current inquiry.

to be continued…

Peter
 
[part two]

*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?

I guess it’s possible. The interesting thing touched on here is ‘their sinless condition’. I would add that this condition might also be equally called ‘virtue-less’ as they had not, of themselves, made a choice toward God or for God. Granted they possess some wonderful qualities as images-and-likenesses of God, but these qualities were not the result of their efforts or decisions, these qualities - which, so far, characterize their very selfs or persons - are gifts. So, what’s interesting about the story at this point to me is that gifted man is in a spot to decide what he wants to be or do. He hasn’t really chosen anything yet. God is still creating and here he is creating in man a conscience. But back to your statement, yes, I guess it’s possible, and might have even been probable had the agent provocateur not arrived on the scene. The mystery of evil, again, is the heart of the question.

*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.
*

As wonderful as these image-and-likeness characteristics are, man is not God’s clone and hardly his equal. I think the text attempts to add balance to man’s inherited image-and-likeness traits by declaring man was created from apar - ‘dust’. In Hebrew this is the word for the tiniest visible particle of matter. This is why I don’t favor translations that translate apar as ‘earth’ or ‘clay’, poetic as they may be. I think the ancient writer is driving home a not so subtle point to man. For the first time in our narrative man and God share the stage and we’re told man is derived from a ‘spec’. Interesting also are the ways the text tells us that man is not like God. In the narrative God is not created. Man is created, so man is not eternal like God. Man is ‘flesh and bone’, God is spirit or at least ‘flesh-and-bone’-less. God creates from nothing. Man creates nothing, so he lacks God’s creative power. Man is commanded by God regarding the trees, so, rules-wise, man is not on equal footing with God. These are the more pronounced differences and they make us wonder more what then is meant by ‘image and likeness’ for clearly there are some severe limitations in place. So then to what is ‘image and likeness’ referring? intelligence? free will? a capacity to love? And how deep do these severe limitations run? It would appear in the story that man’s intelligence is also somewhat limited as one of the points used by the snake was a promise of more knowledge. I don’t know if this speaks directly to your point, but when we consider the narrative’s other descriptions of man and his situation along with the description image-and-likeness perhaps now man doesn’t look so infallible and maybe his situation is a little precarious. Just some thoughts.

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.

Welcome to the humble encounter with ‘mystery’. To believe God exists and seek to approach the living God is to accept with humility that his ways are far beyond ours. God in his essence is ‘mystery’ (I think I’m quoting JPII). I personally wouldn’t be very impressed with a god I could understand totally. So I’m OK with the understanding that we or I simply will not figure it all out, at least not in the here and now. ‘Mystery’, as ambiguous as it is, has to be part of the equation. We must humbly admit God is superior to us beyond our understanding and implore him to bring us along. And this realization brings us to an interesting threshold - our contemplation of the living God and his creation has brought us to ask him for guidance - or in other words - to pray. Prayer then is an essential part of the quest for truth!

I do believe God will bring us along collectively and individually to where we need to be, he will satisfy our longings what ever they may be, and this is a faith statement. The best one word synonym I find for ‘faith’ is ‘trust’. Faith seeking understanding is the definition of theology. *( that is I think that was how Augustine referred to it - some will correct me if I’m amiss.)
*

I know I haven’t erased all doubt, these are just the thoughts that your responses brought out.
Hope this helped.
Peter
 
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...
‘Did Adam and Eve sin’? yea
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but **the woman **being deceived was in the transgression

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not **sinned **after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

‘how did they sin’. I don’t know for sure 🤷 but has to do with the deception by the serpent and the formula in James 1 below

James 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death
 
Peter, Thank you.

I will have to assimilate that for a day or two before a further posting, but again I say thank you for giving the time and effort to offer so kind and thoughtful a reply.

I feel I owe you dinner, at least. When is your next visit to California? 😉
 
RennoVattio,
You are entirely welcome. I really appreciate these forums when I have a vexing question. It’s nice to get some one else’s POV - at least I know it has helped me with my mental meanderings. Thanks for the offer, I wish I could take you up on it but I’m stuck out here in fly-over country. Tell ya what, next time I dine I’ll face west and lift my glass in your general direction and wish you the best. 👍

Peter
 
Remember also that the angles were created without original sin AND with free will. With great intellects. They have no bodies, but they have minds, as we do. Yet according to revelation 1/3 of them chose sin and the rejection of God’s will.

In Adam and Eve… there is original innocence, but it does not imply good. Nor bad. It implies balance. When a choice is made using free will, then the balance is broken and one begins to grow in the direction one started.

Via original sin, we begin with a leaning toward sin.
Via grace, we can be brought back to the Good, the Beautiful, the Truth and the One…God.
 
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...
**I think it could be said that man, in the act of sinning or disobeying God, came from that point to know or experience good and evil-where God had originally intended for man to know only good (Himself and all that He created)-in order to be able to recognize for himself the value or perfection of His will, or IOW to learn the value and wisdom of obedience to God. Through the grace of the New Covenant a door is opened-we’re given access again to the Tree of Life, beginning with the Faith and Hope to believe and trust in the truths God’s revealed about Himself and proceeding to full restoration as He writes His law of Love in our hearts and on our minds.
**
 
Having utilized well over a year to ponder this enigma I find it’s simply an unanswerable question due to far too much detailed information having been left out of Scripture for a reasonable explanation to be offered.

‘No virtue due to not having made a choice yet’ is presuming that everyday prior to sin wasn’t full of obedient choices, which of course then forces the question, why weren’t Adam & Eve then already judged as righteous forever instead of waiting until sin transpired to use that as the bar for judgment, not to mention being filled with God’s Spirit (Ruah) in my estimation constitutes the quality of virtue.

So we are left with the same as all other religions, each of which demands full acceptance of it as the only truth, though none have proof except the Bible’s Christian faith which contains much fulfilled prophecy.

Still I wonder; prior to sinning how is it they, called “Living Souls” and thus Holy Spirit filled, weren’t able to better choose when confronted with temptation?
Is God’s indwelling Spirit so weak it can be easily overcome by evil?

Was God so bereft in his responsibility to His beloved creation & His foreknowledge that he couldn’t have better educated them as we lowly sinners do our children so they may be well prepared to meet life’s many challenges & deny it’s multitude of temptations?

All this in Genesis presupposes us to be somehow already a study in failure, (both prior to, and after the sin-choice) in the midst of a perfect God’s creation which emanated from His perfect mind replete with full loving foreknowledge.

I simply do not know how I am going to be able to bring myself to buy whatever weird, bizarre & avantgarde justifying twist of logic argument required for me so I may choose the willful insanity of amputating logic from my faith challenged heart, mind & soul to the point I can simply accept that the perfect universe creator God somehow created junk in his image, an image which, when offered life or death would choose the antithesis of it’s very own sinless, Spirit-filled essence, that being the choice for death over life… http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif
 
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...
Wow. You can certainly not believe the account but you cannot call it fiction if you’re Catholic. This account is an actual event in history. Whatever anyone might think of the tree or the reference to it being “good for food,” the point is foundational for all Catholics. And innocence or curiosity are not involved. God commanded Adam, all trees but not this one. Knowledge of sin is not the issue, God was very specific.

God does not lie, but the snake in the garden did. And some men today believe: “ye shall be as gods.”

God bless,
Ed
 
RennoVattio said:
I simply do not know how I am going to be able to bring myself to buy whatever weird, bizarre & avantgarde justifying twist of logic argument required for me so I may choose the willful insanity of amputating logic from my faith challenged heart, mind & soul to the point I can simply accept that the perfect universe creator God somehow created junk in his image, an image which, when offered life or death would choose the antithesis of it’s very own sinless, Spirit-filled essence, that being the choice for death over life… http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif
Click to expand...
Just as you cannot understand by your human reason, so they made a choice by their human reason.
 
Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam & Eve and Sin
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»
 
JM3 said:
Just as you cannot understand by your human reason, so they made a choice by their human reason.
Click to expand...
Since God has chosen to unite the soul / will with(in) the mind where logic and reason are operatives (as well as emotion) and it is the will which operates as the essence of free choice, (or as many have written ‘Free Will’) it seems completely & ‘rationally’ Biblical to me that reason is required “Come let us REASON together” Isaiah 1:18 ] for the choosing of all correct decisions for faith, dismissing emotion as a basis for choice due to emotion being simply a responder to what we, each of us, accepts as reasonable fact within any given circumstance or issue, and is typically quite fickle, even capricious.

Therefore JM3 I must completely disagree. Here’s why:

Those of us who have chosen to accept Jesus as Messiah and His blood-purchased forgiveness as the open door into the Holy of Holies where God’s offer of the free gift of Eternal life is found, cannot ever presume His Spirit so languishes as to deny us (whom have chosen to believe) His promised filling, guidance, power unto righteousness, deliverance from sin, etc., operating within that interactive framework of humanity, mind-will-emotion-soul, which God has chosen to assemble and fill with His Spirit, and such is each of us, we / they who reason together.

So therein is the rub, this beginning/ basis of all Christ-ian faith (Genesis) which demands the acceptance of it’s logical implausibility as the standard of reference for the description and entrance of sin, (a reference which it demands be believed and accepted as absolutely applicable to each of us) thus requiring the choice for willful insanity, that being the defecation of logic in lieu of faith in it’s own demands for our acceptance of the fact the God-created, God filled, sinless God image chose sin and death due to his operation of choice, as if he would not ‘naturally’ have been Spirit enlightened to have chosen righteousness even in the face of the deceiver’s best lie.

This initial sinful exercise of choice requires motivation and here you have either a God of full foreknowledge of his creation’s tendencies who did not design / educate well enough for that creation to choose correctly, or a creation emanating from the mind of God which when exercising that which the mind of God has created within it, free will, is motivated / interested enough in evil, sin & death that the choice made is against that very God, and therefore against it’s own essence - the image of God, not self, evil, sin.

Without our logic & mind, a choice of the will has no function nor expression of itself and is therefore invalid, as is any choice without the understanding of the choice being made, especially when by design the chooser is given a mind as that which is intended to be used as that through which free will is implemented.

Without reason we are no different than animals which function based upon instinct or temporal desires.

To me it seems perfectly reasonable that true simple clear reason & logic would point to the reasonable expectation that a ‘God-created image of self’ would certainly exercise his free will in the choosing of good not evil, regardless of the temptation or deception present.
  • Herein is the essence of my frustration; the apparent implausibility of the basis for our faith. :ouch:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top