Did God really set up Adam and Eve for failure?

[fhansen]

That distinction is only meaningful if you presume they couldn’t tell the difference in value between the

That’s a good point. And that value would still need to be learned. And presumably they did learn it -a long time ago by now.

That’s why we’re all here-to learn of the existence of God, first of all, along with His goodness and trustworthiness and the matchless nature of His wisdom, to learn what Adam missed IOW. For whatever reason, in Adam’s mind it was better-a greater good- to eat of the fruit, to mistrust and disobey God, than to not eat of it-to treat God as if he wasn’t God IOW. We carry on the family tradition to the extent that we remain in sin, to the extent the we prefer ourselves to God as the catechism teaches that Adam did, to the extent that we’d rather not know or believe in Him or take faith too seriously.

It could be said that Adam avoided knowing God. And so through him man lost the direct “knowledge of God” which Jesus came to reveal. But:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

The more we know Him the more we come to believe in, hope in, and, most importantly, love Him. Then obedience begins to flow naturally. And that’s why love of God is the Greatest Commandment. It just takes time, along with desire, which is what we’re here to develop.

 

[fhansen]

The serpent contradicted God and they believed it. Their “sin” is gullibility when they lacked the knowledge of good and evil in the first place.

They knew that it was wrong to eat of the fruit; that knowledge was given them just as the knowledge was give to me, internally, in my conscience, that murder is wrong. And yet, because God ‘left me in the hands of my own counsel’ as the Church teaches He’s done with all humans, I can override that conscience; I’m physically able to murder regardless of whether or not that act really opposes my own nature.

And this is why the Church also teaches that, by that first act of sin, man caused a rift between himself and God, himself and his fellow man, himself and the rest of creation, and even between himself and himself. He was no longer in a state of order or justice, aligned with the truth. The truth of who he is and who God is. And of the creature’s absolute need for communion with his Creator.

 

[Inquiry]

So if your best friend asks you to watch his dog and a stranger tells you to sell it to her instead, do you not have the tools to distinguish between them? Loyalty and trust are definitely good things, but we shouldn’t assume that Adam and Eve lacked them just because they didn’t have full knowledge of good and evil.

This is a part of the larger problem with how you are going about this. You are assuming that Adam and Eve were not capable of good prior to eating the fruit.

JPII spends quite a bit of time looking at Adam and Eve’s initial reactions after eating the fruit. Specifically he examines the sudden problem they have with their nakedness. Now nakedness itself couldn’t have been the sin or they would have been sinning before eating the fruit. What is instead going on, he indicates, is that they now had the capacity to imagine using one another. They were aware of the opportunity to sin. Before they ate of the fruit they knew nothing but good for each other. Afterwards they knew of doing good for each other but also of doing ill.

The dirtiest trick of the serpent is that it promised that they would know good and evil but neglected to mention that they already knew good and eating the fruit would only show them evil. I’ll grant that the good they knew was likely shallower than what God intended for them (and intends for us) but it was still there.

 

[fhansen]

I’ll grant that the good they knew was likely shallower than what God intended for them (and intends for us) but it was still there.

Yes, their appreciation for the good, over evil, hadn’t developed much yet, the Ultimate Good being God, Himself, the source of all goodness. And the only good that may come of knowing evil is that by contrast the difference may be identified, and the appreciation gained, so that good may be finally chosen over evil.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There’s no difference between those statements though.

Only if you assume they’d already developed some kind of divine command theory of morality.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So if your best friend asks you to watch his dog and a stranger tells you to sell it to her instead, do you not have the tools to distinguish between them?

I have the knowledge of good and evil. The thing that humanity got by eating the forbidden fruit. That is the tool for distinguishing between them.

This is a part of the larger problem with how you are going about this. You are assuming that Adam and Eve were not capable of good prior to eating the fruit.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

YourJPII point is precisely my own. If they could not imagine being used by someone, why do we blame them for being used by the serpent?

 

[fhansen]

Only if you assume they’d already developed some kind of divine command theory of morality.

They were simply granted that moral knowledge/truth from the get-go. There’s not really any difference between that and God telling/commanding them the correct course of action.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

They were simply granted that moral knowledge/truth from the get-go

That is a “solution” to the problem. But it is also clearly an ad-hoc defense not present in the bible text.

 

[mary77]

we are first of all free to make choices, and have given by god everything we need. but there are choices that are not a good combination. A sharp knife lays on a table but if a child can reach it it can become destructive. Our choices have to be made using our reason and our Trust in God. We do not choose something that is not going to cause harm hurt us or someone else. We choose that combination that only does good and is a choice made of love.

 

[swamidass]

The felix culpa tradition is what the OP is bringing us to.

Felix culpa - Wikipedia

As a theological concept, felix culpa is a way of understanding the Fall as having positive outcomes, such as the redemption of humankind through the Resurrection.[2] The concept is paradoxical in nature as it looks at the fortunate consequences of an unfortunate event, which would never have been possible without the unfortunate event in the first place.[3] In the philosophy of religion, felix culpa is considered as a category of theodicy in response to the problem of evil. As an interpretation of the Fall, the concept differs from orthodox interpretations which often emphasize negative aspects of the Fall, such as Original Sin. Although it is usually discussed historically, there are still contemporary philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, who defend the felix culpa theodicy.[4]

The earliest known use of the term appears in the Catholic Paschal Vigil Mass Exsultet: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem , “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer.”[5] In the 4th century, Saint Ambrose also speaks of the fortunate ruin of Adam in the Garden of Eden in that his sin brought more good to humanity than if he had stayed perfectly innocent.[6] This theology is continued in the writings of Ambrose’s student St. Augustine regarding the Fall of Man, the source of original sin: “For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” (in Latin: Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere. )[7] The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas[8] cited this line when he explained how the principle that “God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom” underlies the causal relation between original sin and the Divine Redeemer’s Incarnation, thus concluding that a higher state is not inhibited by sin.

 

[Inquiry]

I have the knowledge of good and evil. The thing that humanity got by eating the forbidden fruit. That is the tool for distinguishing between them.

You’re not hearing what I am saying. The fruit didn’t give them the capacity for good. You can see this because they were capable of living out marital intimacy in honest and profound ways. Adam and Eve did good things, things we strive to do in modern times, well before they ate of the fruit.

What the fruit gave them was the knowledge of all the evil they could do. After eating it they knew they could use each other, they knew they could manipulate and deceive. They knew all the ways they could sin.

However there is one sin they clearly knew they could do before eating the fruit, and that was eating the fruit. They knew they could do it because God told them not to do it. So they did know it was wrong.

YourJPII point is precisely my own. If they could not imagine being used by someone, why do we blame them for being used by the serpent?

If Adam and Eve weren’t capable of understanding the concept of deception, why did the serpent tell Eve that God was lying? Seems like a nonstarter if it would just confuse her.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’re not hearing what I am saying.

I’m hearing you agree with me. Look:

What the fruit gave them was the knowledge of all the evil they could do.

In other words, they could not know that eating the apple was evil.

However there is one sin they clearly knew they could do before eating the fruit, and that was eating the fruit. They knew they could do it because God told them not to do it. So they did know it was wrong.

Look, this is not some foregone conclusion. This requires they know that they can disobey God, and that disobeying God would be evil. But:

What the fruit gave them was the knowledge of all the evil they could do.

Seems like a nonstarter if it would just confuse her.

And it did! It confused her enough for her to eat the forbidden fruit! That is the whole point. The serpent didn’t convince them to do a thing they knew was wrong, the serpent convinced them there wasn’t anything wrong in the first place. The reasons given for not eating the forbidden fruit was never “God said so” it was “we’ll die.”

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Ahh, but that would’ve violated the devil’s free will, no?

No more than “not-being-able-to-fly-at-will” violates our free will.

Apples and oranges, though, wouldn’t you say? On one hand, you have an action which is not part of human nature – so, naturally, no matter how much you wish to do it, you cannot actualize it. On the other hand, you have the God-given ability to make free will decisions, and the liberty to do so without God’s interference. If God had thwarted anyone’s ability to do so – Satan, you, me, Hitler, Adam, Eve – then free will would not exist.

JapaneseKappa:

They did have knowledge of good and evil. The Church teaches that A&E had preternatural gifts, including infused knowledge.

Some Catholics believe this, but it is not an infallible church teaching.

Nevertheless, it is a teaching of the Church. Whether some believe it or not is on them.

They freely chose to listen to the devil and to believe that it was God who had lied to them.

And? It is a very human thing to believe the latest thing you’ve heard
[/quote]
Recency bias is nevertheless an error. Are you really arguing that we’re unable to reason, but instead are constrained to believe the last thing you’ve read? (OK, then: “you need to send @Gorgias the balance of your checking account.”).

 

[fhansen]

This was a double post- made in error.

 

[fhansen]

That is a “solution” to the problem. But it is also clearly an ad-hoc defense not present in the bible text.

Genesis is not particularly structured as a catechism or theological treatise. The point, however, is that when God speaks, it is the voice of nature among other things. He doesn’t command something which it is not natural and right for us in the absolute sense. He knows. And for all we know for that matter He spoke internally rather than audibly.

 

[ralfyman]

Related:

Was God unfair to Adam and Eve? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[hope]

It is said in Genesis that the Serpent tempted Eve when the Lord was not walking in Eden.

It is said by who? What is meant by “not walking”. God is ever present everywhere so He was there in the garden and saw the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman.

That is a subjective statement. Was there a heavier sentence? I believe that the sentences were equal.

 

[ralfyman]

Also,

Why God Made Us Though He Knew We Would Sin | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[BornInMarch]

I’ve heard that the real reason for their exile wasn’t that they ate the forbidden fruit, but because they persisted in their disobedience to God. They broke His one rule, then lied to Him about it, then when confronted decided to shift blame to each other rather than apologize and ask for forgiveness.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

You’re not hearing what I am saying.

I’m hearing you agree with me.

Then you definitely aren’t hearing what I am saying.

Inquiry:

What the fruit gave them was the knowledge of all the evil they could do.

In other words, they could not know that eating the apple was evil.

No. The point, in it’s entirety is: The fruit gave them the knowledge of all the evil they could do, before they ate of it they only knew one evil they could do. That second clause is the one you keep removing.

Look, this is not some foregone conclusion. This requires they know that they can disobey God, and that disobeying God would be evil.

They knew they were capable of disobeying Him because He actually told them not to eat the fruit. If they didn’t know they were physically capable of it before He told them they certainly knew afterwards.

And it did! It confused her enough for her to eat the forbidden fruit! That is the whole point. The serpent didn’t convince them to do a thing they knew was wrong, the serpent convinced them there wasn’t anything wrong in the first place. The reasons given for not eating the forbidden fruit was never “God said so” it was “we’ll die.”

Again, that only holds if Eve could not know she was doing something wrong.