Did God really set up Adam and Eve for failure?

[mary77]

i think it means when our mind is not on Gods will its elsewhere and " the Lord is not walking in Eden". The story of adam and eve is for us to comprehend the act of original sin. God never changes , WE turn toward or toward away from listening to Him. Think of Christ praying and praying and praying, to pray is to think of God an nothing else, the best way to keep out the " serpent", the thoughts that move us away from God.

 

[JerryZ]

Hmmm! Atheists can’t possibly say this. Because they don’t believe in GOD and neither they believe in Adam and Eve.
We are the result of random chance and natural selection according to them.
Since it is obvious that the answer is NO.
HE created mankind fully aware they would not respect HIM by disobeying HIS command.
So HE provided the rescue mission that would accomplish the salvation of the human race. Or at least of those who chose to be saved.
Peace!

 

[hope]

We read in Gen. 3:8 Eve and Adam heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise, but the Serpent tempted Eve when the Lord was not walking in Eden. If God had been in Eden, Satan could not have been there. If Eve had invoked God, Satan would have fled.

It is false to say that God was not there. God allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted. He allowed the snake/devil to tempt them. It was a test that they failed. God was in Eden as He is everywhere. We do not know what Satan would have done as Eve fell for his tricks.

Eve was sentenced the burden and great pains of childbearing, as well as the sorrows that can come from being a mother.

I do not see childbearing as a burden but a great privilege nor do I see where it says that there are sorrows for being a mother. Men are greatly effected by their children also. It is again subjective to say that women are more effected. Peter I believe was greatly effected by his betrayal of Jesus especially after saying he would never betray him. Was is sorrow less than Mary’s that again would be a subjective opinion.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

It is false to say that God was not there. God allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted. He allowed the snake/devil to tempt them. It was a test that they failed. God was in Eden as He is everywhere.

I never said the Lord did not test Eve and Adam, or that He did not allow Satan to tempt them, or that He was not aware of their failing the test. And, if He were everywhere all the time, then, for example, He would be in Hell, but He is not. Anyway, I have yet to elaborate on what I mean by the Lord was not walking in Eden when Satan tempted Eve. Would you like me to continue?

Lunam_Meam:

She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman. Because of Eve man has become rebellious towards God, and has become acquainted with lewdness and death. Because of her, he was no longer capable of dominating his three reigns: the reign of the spirit, because he allowed the spirit to disobey God; the moral reign, because he allowed passions to master him; the reign of the flesh, because he lowered it down to the instinctive level of beasts. “The Serpent seduced me” says Eve. “The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it” says Adam. And, the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.

Eve was sentenced the burden and great pains of childbearing, as well as the sorrows that can come from being a mother. Children rebel and die and women are traditionally more affected by these things then men. This isn’t to say that the man do not suffer, but a mother’s heart and love for her children can be an incredible vector for pain, something we can see in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s own sorrow over the death and torture of her son, and so on (Gen. 3:16).

I do not see childbearing as a burden but a great privilege nor do I see where it says that there are sorrows for being a mother. Men are greatly effected by their children also. Peter I believe was greatly effected by his betrayal of Jesus especially after saying he would never betray him.

Childbearing is a great privilege, but Eve was to experience the burdens of sorrowful childbearing, i.e., painful pregnancy, etc. Other sorrows include a child’s rebellion, or falling to disease and death, etc. Again, this is not to say the father does not suffer, but they do not in all the same ways or degrees. And, there is a connection between a mother and child beginning at conception. Now, comparing Peter to the Blessed Virgin Mary is a poor comparison, as Peter was not a woman who conceived and carried in the womb, birthed, raised, and witnessed his innocent child be betrayed, tortured, and murdered. His own wife did not have any children. And, you can see where it speaks of motherhood and sorrow in Genesis:

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee” (Gen. 3:16)

 

[Inquiry]

I do not see childbearing as a burden but a great privilege nor do I see where it says that there are sorrows for being a mother. Men are greatly effected by their children also. It is again subjective to say that women are more effected. Peter I believe was greatly effected by his betrayal of Jesus especially after saying he would never betray him. Was is sorrow less than Mary’s that again would be a subjective opinion.

It sounds like you are assuming that childbearing itself was the sentence. I think it more likely that the pain and suffering of childbearing was the sentence.

 

[hope]

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee” (Gen. 3:16)To the man he said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life.
Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.”

For Adam it is a punishment that last his whole life. For Eve it was only the time that she birthed the child. The on going punishment was that she would be under her husband’s authority. I don’t believe God intended to punish either one more than the other. To say one is “heavier” than the other is subjective but since Adam had the obligation to lead and failed I really see that his would be a greater punishment.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

I do not see childbearing as a burden but a great privilege, nor do I see where it says that there are sorrows for being a mother.

Childbearing is a great privilege, but, again, Eve was to experience sorrowful childbearing, i.e., painful birthing, etc. Other sorrows in relation include menstrating, a child’s rebellion, or falling to disease, or death, etc. And, you can see where it speaks of motherhood and sorrow in Genesis:

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee” (Gen. 3:16)

And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. (Gen. 3:17-19)

For Adam it is a punishment that last his whole life. For Eve it was only the time that she birthed the child. The on going punishment was that she would be under her husband’s authority. I don’t believe God intended to punish either one more than the other. To say one is “heavier” than the other is subjective, but since Adam had the obligation to lead and failed, I really see that his would be a greater punishment.

To say “all the days of thy life” doesn’t mean “whole life”, as Adam wasn’t sentenced with laboring and toiling from the moment he came into existence until death. While God specified to Adam hes to labor and toil for the remainder of his life, that doesn’t indicate Eve’s sentences did not last until her death, or that they weren’t heavier in terms of difficulty in proportion to Adam’s.

 

[hope]

To say “all the days of thy life” doesn’t mean “whole life”, as Adam wasn’t sentenced with laboring and toiling from the moment he came into existence until death.

I am not understanding why you wrote this. Of course it is understood that “all the days of thy Life” was from the point of his sin until his death. The punishment for Eve was two fold. One was that there would be an increase to childbearing. We don’t know how many children Eve had but it is doubtful that she had children every year for the remainder of her life. She would not endure pain everyday from childbirth but Adam would experience it for all the days of his life. I would also believe that a child rebellion would be felt by both parents as well as disease death. I reject the idea that menstruating is a sorrow. All in all you have failed to show that heavier sentence is laid on Eve. If anything it would have been laid on the man, since through one man sin entered the world Romans 5:12

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee” (Gen. 3:16)

And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. (Gen. 3:17-19)

For Adam it is a punishment that last his whole life. For Eve it was only the time that she birthed the child. The on going punishment was that she would be under her husband’s authority. I don’t believe God intended to punish either one more than the other. To say one is “heavier” than the other is subjective, but since Adam had the obligation to lead and failed, I really see that his would be a greater punishment.

While God specified to Adam hes to labor and toil for the remainder of his life, that doesn’t indicate Eve’s sentences did not last until her death, or that they weren’t heavier in terms of difficulty in proportion to Adam’s.

We don’t know how many children Eve had, but it is doubtful that she had children every year for the remainder of her life. She would not endure pain everyday from childbirth but Adam would experience it for all the days of his life. I would also believe that a child rebellion would be felt by both parents as well as disease death. I reject the idea that menstruating is a sorrow. All in all you have failed to show that heavier sentence is laid on Eve. If anything it would have been laid on the man, since through one man sin entered the world Romans 5:12

The word “man” in Rom. 5:12 wasn’t used to literally mean a male human, rather “individual, person”. See Gen. 3:1-6 to find out it was by a woman, Eve, that sin entered the world. And, the expression “all the days of your life” doesn’t literally mean “every day”, rather “for the rest of your life.”

Regardless of how often Eve and Adam suffered from their sentences for the remainder of their lives, Eve’s were heavier in terms of difficulty in proportion to Adam’s. Yes, a father can suffer from a child’s rebelliousness, or falling to disease, or death, but naturally its typically more difficult on the mother, as there is a unique bond beginning at conception. There’s evidence of this bond even in the animal kingdom, for example, an orca whale newborn died last year, and its mother, J35, mourned for weeks by refusing to let the body sink as it traveled thousands of miles, thus risking its own survival out of grief.

 

[hope]

See Gen. 3:1-6 to find out it was by a woman, Eve, that sin entered the world.

Not according to Church teaching
Catechism of the Catholic Church

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. the Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”, by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

All in all you have failed to show that heavier sentence is laid on Eve. If anything it would have been laid on the man, since through one man sin entered the world Romans 5:12

The word “man” in Rom. 5:12 wasn’t used to literally mean a male human, rather “individual, person." See Gen. 3:1-6 to learn it was by a woman, Eve, that sin entered the world.

Not according to Church teaching

Catechism of the Catholic Church

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. the Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”, by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

There’s Eve’s companion named “Adam”, but that word can also be used as a pronoun, individually as “a human”, and in a collective sense as “mankind.” If the word “Adam” was being used there as you are interpreting it, then that would contradict what we read in Gen. 3:1-6, which is Eve was the first to sin.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s Eve’s companion named “Adam”, but that word can also be used as a pronoun, individually as “a human”, and in a collective sense as “mankind.” If the word “Adam” was being used there as you are interpreting it

No. Although the word in the original Hebrew can take on a range of meanings, that’s not how the word is used here. In this case, it cannot mean an “[arbitrary] human” or “in the collective sense as ‘mankind’.” It is not the teaching of the Church that “an arbitrary human is the source of sin” and certainly not that “collectively, all of mankind is the source of sin.” It appears that @hope isn’t the one who is engaging in a particular non-standard interpretation here…

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

All in all you have failed to show that heavier sentence is laid on Eve. If anything it would have been laid on the man, since through one man sin entered the world Romans 5:12

The word “man” in Rom. 5:12 wasn’t used to literally mean a male human, rather “individual, person." See Gen. 3:1-6 to learn it was by a woman, Eve, that sin entered the world.

Not according to Church teaching

Catechism of the Catholic Church

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. the Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”, by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

There’s Eve’s companion named “Adam”, but that word can also be used as a pronoun, individually as “a human”, or in a collective sense as “mankind.” If the word “Adam” was being used there as you are interpreting it, then that would contradict what we read in Gen. 3:1-6, which is Eve was the first to sin.

No. Although the word in the original Hebrew can take on a range of meanings, that’s not how the word is used here. In this case, it cannot mean an “[arbitrary] human” or “in the collective sense as ‘mankind’.” It is not the teaching of the Church that “ an arbitrary human is the source of sin” and certainly not that “ collectively, all of mankind is the source of sin.” It appears that @hope isn’t the one who is engaging in a particular non-standard interpretation here…

I did not say it is being used to mean “arbitrary human” nor “mankind”. I was saying the word “Adam” is not only used as a noun, but can also be used as a pronoun, individually as “a human”, or in a collective sense as “mankind.” And, the way @hope interprets the word “Adam” to be used in the Catechism contradicts what we read in Gen. 3:1-6, which is Eve was the first to sin.

 

[hope]

Something needs to be cleared up.
First I do not dispute that she sinned first.
The statement was made

She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman. Because of her, man has become rebellious towards God, and has become acquainted with lewdness and death.

She didn’t begin it by herself Satan was with her.
She did not accomplish it with her companion. She had already eaten it. She enticed her husband to commit the same sin.
A heavier sentence is a matter of opinion.
She was not the first to sin. Satan and his fellow angels sinned first. When they actually rebelled against God is speculation since scripture does not say. But it is obvious that they were the first to sin.
Scripture lays the rebellion on Adam not her. It is because he sinned that there is original sin. Yes Eve sinned first but it doe not follow that Adam has a minor part in it. What would have happened if Adam had refused Eve? That was answered here
Ask a Priest

Third, if Adam had not sinned, there wouldn’t be the original sin that he passed on to others. This doesn’t rule out the possibility, however, that his descendants could have chosen to sin, since they too would have free will. But those offenses would be actual sins, not original sin that they would pass on to others.

Look again at those scriptures and the Catechism. They are not talking about a pronoun Adam but Adam himself. They don’t contradict scripture as they are talking about Original Sin not just the sin of Eve but the sin of Adam. They are talking about Adam’s sin not in the context of a general meaning. The catechism speaks of Adams sin, it does not deny Eve’s sin but as the priest above points out there would be no Original Sin without Adam sinning also. His sin was greater because he should have led not followed. That is why Scripture says

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,

 

[MNathaniel]

Beautifully put. I actually screenshotted your answer so I can refer back again.

The sentence:

free will is a necessary to confirm a person in charity, which enables one to experience the Beatific Vision in heaven

is so elegant.

I’m thinking now off so many other sentences one could form (somebody stop me if I’m getting theologically incorrect):

Struggles are a necessity to confirm a person in perseverance.

Danger is a necessity to confirm a person in courage.

Burdens are a necessity to confirm a person in strength.

Etc etc. I guess I’m thinking here of ‘confirmed’ as being ‘made’, co-creatively, into the best image of ourselves that God preferentially wills for us.

 

[Aulef]

If I could I would like this post everyday. Heh

 

[Gorgias]

I did not say it is being used to mean “arbitrary human” nor “mankind”. I was saying the word “Adam” is not only used as a noun, but can also be used as a pronoun, individually as “a human”, or in a collective sense as “mankind.” And, the way @hope interprets the word “Adam” to be used in the Catechism

You’re insinuating that the reference to “Adam” in the catechism does not refer to that particular first human being in creation. Therefore, if the only other choices are “arbitrary human” or “collective reference to humanity”, then you really are saying that this is what the catechism means at that reference. Right?

In any case, I’m compelled to ask: are you saying that the word may be used in these ways in English or in Hebrew? I’d agree with the latter – but not the former. If it’s your case that it’s used this way in Hebrew (and it is, at least with variations in orthography!), then it doesn’t follow that English usage is the same.

So please, help me out – are you claiming that “Adam” is used in these ways, normatively, in English?

the way @hope interprets the word “Adam” to be used in the Catechism contradicts what we read in Gen. 3:1-6, which is Eve was the first to sin.

It really doesn’t. The citation there really is talking about a single individual – the one that the Bible describes as being created in Genesis.

she is the one who had a will to know what they were forbidden not to, and chose to “eat of the fruit”, then “saw” and “understood”.

No. You’re misquoting the narrative.

• Eve chooses to pick and eat the fruit.
• Her husband, who was there with her, also eats, at her suggestion.
• Only after both have eaten, were their eyes opened.

In other words, the effect happens to them both, and simultaneously. This is a figurative narrative, and attempting too literalistic an interpretation will never lead to understanding. However, getting the flow of the narrative wrong will definitely lead to misunderstanding!

I know you currently do not understand this, but it is Truth

The Church does not teach that it was the “sin of Eve”. I’ll pray that you come to an understanding of this Truth.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

In other words, the effect happens to them both , and simultaneously .

It is not said Eve and Adam “ate of the fruit” and both their eyes opened simultaneously, though they both did “eat of the fruit”, and had their eyes opened, but Eve “ate of the fruit”, " saw", and “understood” first. Then, she convinced Adam to engage with her in the very evil Satan had shown her.

Lunam_Meam:

To be brief, by “began the sin by herself” I mean she is the one who had a will to know what they were forbidden not to, and chose to “eat of the fruit”, then “saw” and “understood”. And, did she invoke God for help after this? No. Instead she chose to move on to corrupt Adam, so what I mean by “accomplished it with her companion” is she convinced Adam to engage with her in the very evil Satan had shown her. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman.

Because of Eve man has become rebellious towards God, and has become acquainted with lewdness and death. Because of her, he was no longer capable of dominating his three reigns: the reign of the spirit, because he allowed the spirit to disobey God; the moral reign, because he allowed passions to master him; the reign of the flesh, because he lowered it down to the instinctive level of beasts. “The Serpent seduced me” says Eve. “The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it” says Adam. And, the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.

I know you currently do not understand this, but it is Truth, and you are not the first, nor the last who was given Truth and rejected it, but that does not mean you are incapable of understanding and accepting it.

The Church does not teach that it was the “sin of Eve”.

I never said it was the sin of Eve. I said the sin began with her and it did.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Gorgias is correct…

On certain things, yes, as are you, and there are certain things you both are not.

 

[hope]

He is correct in pointing out that Adam was with Eve when she ate the fruit and Adam saw her and did nothing nor did he protest when she gave it to him. It was then after he ate that they gained knowledge of good and evil.

The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Notice the following verse

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

Then means at that time. what time was that? After they had both eaten.