Did God really set up Adam and Eve for failure?

[Lunam_Meam]

…we are each responsible for our own sins.

I never disagreed with that.

Lunam_Meam:

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.

Part of the sin of Adam and Eve is they failed to take responsibility of their own sin. So it is a false statement to state that because of Eve Adam was no longer capable of doing anything.

I never disagreed they failed to take responsibility. They did not even invoke God’s help or seek forgiveness. And, I did not say Eve and Adam were “no longer capable of doing anything”, rather I was specific.

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

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3: 6-7)

No indication Eve and Adam “ate of the tree” and had their eyes opened simultaneously, sorry. As I said, Eve “ate of the fruit”, meaning she listened to what Satan was relaying to her, and she “saw” and “understood” first, and afterward moved on to corrupt Adam, and convinced him to engage with her in the very evil Satan had shown her. So, she began the sin herself, and the sin was accomplished by Eve and Adam.

The sin actually started with Satan when he began to tempt Eve.

Temptation is temptation; it is not sin. Temptation conquered, is victory. Enduring that secret thorn, without the will consenting to its seductions, is heroic patience.

Where does the Church teach…

I’ll stop you there and say our living God speaks directly to anyone He chooses, not just leaders in the Catholic Church. He has ALL the knowledge. He is the eternal, ultimate arbiter of Truth. So, one must be careful to not become or stay so militant that they place the Catholic Church above the one who founded it. And, for anyone to think that every detail of the fall of Eve and Adam, even their life in general, or anything else is in the Bible is naive.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3: 6-7)

No indication Eve and Adam “ate of the tree” and had their eyes opened simultaneously, sorry.

It says that the eyes of BOTH not just Eve were opened and when this happened is specified that is after they ate of the fruit. Nothing in scripture indicates Eve took it and her eyes were open and she then gave it to Adam. It doesn’t say that it says that she ate gave to her husband and THEN their eyes were open.

I never said just Eve’s eyes were opened. Both of their eyes were opened after they “ate of the fruit”, but, again, there is no indication that Adam ate and had his eyes opened at the same time as Eve, as Gorgias was arguing for.

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

The sin actually started with Satan when he began to tempt Eve.

Temptation is temptation; it is not sin. God tempts mankind to do good. Satan tempts mankind to do evil. Temptation conquered, is victory. Enduring that secret thorn, without the will consenting to its seductions, is heroic patience.

Then, what was Satan’s sin? Why did God punish him?

Satan’s sin was deceiving Eve, and he did that in order to tempt her into sinning. And, it was for his deceptions that he was punished.

(1 of 2)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Where does the Church teach…

I’ll stop you there and say our living God speaks directly to anyone He chooses, not just leaders in the Catholic Church. He has ALL the knowledge. He is the eternal, ultimate arbiter of Truth. So, one must be careful to not become or stay so militant that they place the Catholic Church above the one who founded it. And, for anyone to think that every detail of the fall of Eve and Adam, even their life in general, or anything else is in the Bible is naive.

Let me stop you right there. Jesus established His Church to guide us. He chose the leaders of the Church to be His representatives. To place your own beliefs above what Jesus teaches through His Church is dangerous to the soul. To believe the Bible is the sole source of faith is to be a Protestant. (I am not saying that you hold this belief). What is presented in Scripture is all that we need to know. The guide to Scriptures is the Church to say otherwise is to be a Protestant.

I’m aware of why Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and chose leaders. I do not place my own beliefs above God’s teachings. And, I do not believe the Bible is the only sole source.

I stated facts: (i) God has ALL the knowledge. He is the eternal, ultimate arbiter of Truth. So, one must be careful to not become or stay so militant that they place the Catholic Church above the one who founded it. This is not to say the Catholic Church does not offer sound guidance, but there have been and are leaders within that are not infallible. Satan has been and is attacking those within. So, for one to deny these Truths is naive. And, because they are Truths we must use the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our intelligence, and reason when discerning the words and actions of our leaders, and pray for them often. (ii) The Bible does not contain every detail of everything. So, for one to think so is naive. Our living God speaks directly to anyone He chooses, not only to the leaders in the Catholic Church. And, what He speaks is gospel.

(2 of 2)

 

[Gorgias]

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.

We must be reading different Bibles:

The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was 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. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

(Gen 3:6-7)

• Eve ate
• Adam ate
• Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew.

I never said it was the sin of Eve.

Are you sure about that? Let’s take a look:

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

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.

Nope… sure looks like you said it, despite your recent claims to the contrary!

No indication Eve and Adam “ate of the tree” and had their eyes opened simultaneously, sorry.

It’s literally there, as a sequence of events!

I never said just Eve’s eyes were opened.

Really?

Eve “ate of the fruit”, " saw", and “understood” first.

Yep. Pretty much said that, very literally, too!

 

[Lunam_Meam]

We must be reading different Bibles:

(Gen 3:6-7)

• Eve ate
• Adam ate
• Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew.

It is stating both of their eyes were opened after they “ate of the fruit”, which is true, but, again, there is no indication that Adam ate and had his eyes opened at the same time as Eve.

Lunam_Meam:

I never said it was the sin of Eve.

Are you sure about that? Let’s take a look:

Lunam_Meam:

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

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.

Nope… sure looks like you said it, despite your recent claims to the contrary!

Those are other ways of saying what I have been saying all along: Eve began the sin by herself. This is not to say Adam had no involvement at any point.

Lunam_Meam:

I never said just Eve’s eyes were opened.

Really?

Eve “ate of the fruit”, " saw", and “understood” first.

Yep. Pretty much said that , very literally, too!

Again, I said she was the “first”, as in out of her and Adam, to begin the sin. This is not to say Adam had no involvement at any point.

 

[Lucretius]

God didn’t set up Adam and Eve for failure, because he always intended for humanity to partake in the knowledge of Good and Evil. Just not yet, for, in order for humans to be able to handle the knowledge of their own vulnerability (…and their eyes were opened and they saw they were naked…) and ability to die (…you will surely die…), they first needed to assert their faith.

In other words, they needed to prove that they believed in One God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, that is, that God is their Father and therefore authentically wants them to live even to the point of being willing to resurrect them from the dead, and that God is almighty and therefore can raise them from the dead.

You see, as St. Athanasius and St. Thomas point out, humans by nature are vulnerable to harm. They stand upright, and when they stand naked, unlike all the other beasts, their vulnerable parts are left exposed, to claw, to knife, to wondering eyes…that they, by nature, could even be killed.

Knowledge of our vulnerability is called knowledge of Good and Evil because it is by understanding how we are vulnerable that we know where others are vulnerable, where we could exploit them. By knowing where we can be stabbed and hurt, we know where to stab and hurt others. We can’t merely just accidentally hurt others, we can actually intent to do it too. By knowledge of our own vulnerability, we are capable of hurting others the way we can be hurt. But that also means we know where to protect others. How to help others. How to use our strengths to counter other’s weaknesses, so that together we build each other up and become perfect together as one body. Not just by chance, but intentionally as well. By knowledge of our own vulnerability, we are also capable of treating others the way we know we want to be treated. In other words, love. God always intended for us to partake in the knowledge of Good and Evil so that we may be like him and intent to do good for others. To love them as we love ourselves.

But Adam and Eve were not yet ready to become aware of their vulnerability, because they had not yet developed faith in the one who would clothe and protect them from death, that even if something or someone exploited their weakness and killed them, they did not yet believe that God was willing and powerful enough to raise them even from the dead. They need to have faith that God would be their savior, so that the fear of death and the inherent vanity of the goodness of creatures would not lead them to use the knowledge of their vulnerability to exploit others and lead them to love creatures unconditionally, to love them as idols.

Continued below…

 

[Lucretius]

So, God tested them, forbidding consuming the knowledge of Good and Evil, not because God didn’t want us to partake in it, but because God wanted us to develop faith and believe that God is our Father and will not hold back anything he has from us, that he would even, through himself, make us like him, like gods. For Fatherhood means for the parent to beget his child, not to be his slave, but to be equal to himself. And this is enshrined in the doctrine of the Trinity itself. But Adam and Eve failed the test, doubting God and did not have the faith in God that would have gotten them through the revelation of their weakness that came from consuming the information of Good and Evil.

If they had passed the test, they would have been like Abraham: they would have been justified by their faith, even to the sacrifice of what they wanted most. For just as Abraham believed that God would even raise Isaac from the dead, they could have believed that God would raise them from the dead. And so they would have moved passed their fears and any principle of concupiscence, and would have been free to love God and one another forever without any temptation to evil. Adam and Eve would have been justified by faith, and they would have received the knowledge they wanted, just as Abraham was justified by faith and still got to keep his son Isaac. God doesn’t want sacrifice, but our hearts, purified by faith.

And because they failed the test, they saw that they could die, and were sentenced to have to work all their lives in order to keep death at bay, ultimately in vain. They would generate in sorrow and in pain, and watch as their own children suffer and eventually die.

Continued below…

 

[Lucretius]

But God shows us that we are not doomed to eternal death, but that, despite the suffering loving others will bring to us due to our vulnerability, there is no need to fear even death, because God himself is our resurrection. We need not be anxious of our needs and wants, because God himself has become our food. Christ himself has become our food, and so we are free from all concupiscence. Christ himself has become our resurrection, and so we need not fear even death. We can love one another despite our vulnerabilities and needs, we can love one another without limits, we are free to love one another even over the limits of our own life, for God is a God of resurrection. In Adam we know how to love, but in Christ we are freed by faith to love without condition, without limit, without end…just as Christ himself loved us. In Adam we became sinners, but in Christ we love just as God loves.

Anyway, to answer your question, I don’t think God didn’t set up Adam and Eve to fail, but wanted them to be like Abraham: to sacrifice what they wanted most in obedience to God, trusting that God was our loving Father who will raise us even from the dead. And in the end, despite their willingness to sacrifice it, they would have received what they wanted, just as Abraham, despite his willingness to sacrifice him, received back what he wanted, his beloved son Isaac.

Or something like that, I think. Does that make any sense?

 

[Yosef]

Falling is not necessarily failure. The path they are given is part of the wise plan, the ongoing realization process.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Where does the Church teach three reigns?

According to God, there are three reigns: (i) the reign of the spirit, (ii) the moral reign, and (iii) the reign of the flesh. “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.

Where do you document that this is according to God? Just because you write this doesn’t make it true.

So, do you not agree mankind has a spirit, morals, and flesh, and that we struggle in these areas?

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Everything has been revealed.

Everything has been revealed? So, for example, do you not agree the apostle, John the Beloved, was correct when he said “…there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21:25)?

Everything we need for salvation.

Whew! It sounded as if you were speaking generally. And, I agree with you. Do you agree the Bible is not a compilation of information on everything there is to know, nor contains every detail of all that is already known, generally speaking?

God can do anything.

So, do you agree God can elaborate on known Truths, and reveal new unknown Truths, which would not contradict what is already known Truth, rather further enlighten and enrich the soul?

God does speak to who He wishes, but He doesn’t go against His own word.

Did you intend to say God does speak as in the present-tense? Or, did you mean to say the past-tense? And, do you mean to who He wishes as in to those within or within and outside the Church?

If someone came along with an addition to the faith claiming God told them then we know that is false.

God can speak to whomever, whenever He wishes. And, Him elaborating on or clarifying what is already known Truth, or revealing new unknown Truth is not the same as “adding” anything completely new or contradictory to what has already been revealed in scripture.

(1 of 2)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

…your not going to get through to a zealot who disregards the Church.

There have been and are leaders in the Church who do and do not always speak or act in accordance with God, of their own free will. Do you agree? I do not embrace what is not of God, only what is of God. Do you do the same?

Who judges what is “of God”? The Church does. I trust the Church and embrace it. Do you do the same?

So, if only leaders in the Church can judge what is of God, then prior to Jesus establishing the Church, how was it possible for anyone to know what was of God? Divine luck? And, do I trust the Church and embrace it? I have already answered this before you even asked. See bolded above and, again, do you agree and do the same?

Lunam_Meam:

Gorgias’s points were poor as they are based on a misunderstanding of my statements, but I clarified for him.

You did not clarify, but just repeated your same mistakes.

They are perceived as mistakes based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

(2 of 2)

 

[tomo_pomo]

nice, did u read that somewhere or your thoughts?

Why did God give us a choice knowing we are gonna fail and some will go to hell? That’s the question atheists ask very often. Do you know why?

They say God is evil because of that. How can we comprehend the reasons behind God’s decision! We cannot. God cannot be evil, but He sure made that those who love Him will love Him tremendously, instead of having no choice at all.

 

[tomo_pomo]

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

did she know to full extent? In Bible Gen 3:13 she said:

Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.”

the word beguiled means: charm or enchant (someone), sometimes in a deceptive way.

It would seem like the serpent presented her as she would do good, but also she knew she would disobey God. As humans are from beginning attracted and inclined to do good, but serpent, already knowing good and evil knew how to present evil in a package of goodness. Nonetheless, Eve still knew she would disobey God even though she thought she was doing good. Sounds like sins today. They look like good, but they are evil. Which means first and foremost we need to obey God no matter what we think. So that means first sin is not even the eating of the fruit, but of disobedience. Trusting the serpent more than trusting God. And from that all the evil came.

Am I going in right direction? Can you elaborate?

 

[tomo_pomo]

Very nice, I especially loved part Christ is our food fulfilling all our needs, and our resurrection so we may not fear death. How profound His salvation is.
Are all these your thoughts or you read?

 

[fhansen]

Those were my thoughts-but informed and contained within the range allowed by Church teachings as I see it.

At the end of the day your question simply involves whether or not God can make man free enough to be responsible for his own choices to begin with. And secondly whether or not He’s just in doing so. Does His foreknoweldge really matter if, with or without His foreknoweldge man is nevertheless a morally responsible being?

 

[hope]

Eve was making excuses as to why she disobeyed. She is not accepting resonsibility but putting the blame on the snake as Adam put the blame on her. Other bible translations use the word trick. Eve saying it is not my fault I was tricked. God knows their hearts and knows that there is no excuse that they disobeyed Him with full knowledge that what they did was wrong. I don’t believe that she thought she was doing any good. She thought she would gain something from it as you said “Sounds like sins today”

 

[tomo_pomo]

I think we have to start with purpose of God’s creation. Why did God create humans in the first place? Is it the real reason to give glory to God, to grow in Love, to glorify God’s Love?

God who is Love knows best how Love grows. And I would say that he created humans and angels already with tears in His eyes knowing that some will be doomed, but there was simply no other way. We simply have to make a choice.

I would say that first, tree had to be there. Then, it was just of Him to say to Adam and Eve not to eat of it, because it’s unjust to keep it secret from them and then they eat by accident.

What atheists fail to see is how self giving God really is. And that if he didn’t put tree in the garden He would be exactly what they say He is by putting the tree: evil and selfish.

There is simply no way out by any discussion or reasoning because it’s two different viewpoint: one self giving, the other self centric. First one sees act of Love, second act of trickery and manipulation.

We will never understand truly God’s ways and that’s the beauty of it. If God could be completely understood He wouldn’t be a God. But we have the great gift of infinite pondering and knowing God by which Love between has no limits. It’s an eternal source of boundless Love.

 

[hope]

I would say that first, tree had to be there. Then, it was just of Him to say to Adam and Eve not to eat of it, because it’s unjust to keep it secret from them and then they eat by accident.

What atheists fail to see is how self giving God really is. And that if he didn’t put tree in the garden He would be exactly what they say He is by putting the tree: evil and selfish.

I don’t understand how the tree had to be there in order for God not to be evil and selfish. If Adam and Eve had not been told not to eat of the tree, I think you discribed it as a secret there would have been no sin for eating it. It wasn’t the tree itself that it was wrong to eat of but the fact that God told them not to that was the sin.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

According to God, there are three reigns : (i) the reign of the spirit , (ii) the moral reign , and (iii) the reign of the flesh . “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.

Where do you document that this is according to God? Just because you write this doesn’t make it true.

So, you do not agree mankind has a spirit, morals, and flesh, and that we struggle in these areas?

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Everything has been revealed.

Everything has been revealed? So, for example, do you not agree the apostle, John the Beloved, was correct when he said “…there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21:25)?

Everything we need for salvation.

Whew! It sounded as if you were speaking generally. Do you agree the Bible is not a compilation of information on everything there is to know, nor contains every detail of all that is already known, generally speaking?

God can do anything.

So, do you agree God can elaborate on known Truths, and reveal new unknown Truths, which would not contradict what is already known Truth, rather further enlighten and enrich the soul?

God does speak to who He wishes, but He doesn’t go against His own word.

Did you intend to say God does speak as in the present-tense? Or, did you mean to say the past-tense? And, do you mean to who He wishes as in to those within or within and outside the Church?

(1 of 3)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

If someone came along with an addition to the faith claiming God told them then we know that is false.

God can speak to whomever, whenever He wishes. And, Him elaborating on or clarifying what is already known Truth, or revealing new unknown Truth is not the same as “adding” anything completely new or contradictory to what has already been revealed in scripture.

Perhaps this article can explain it better than I have been.

Christian Revelation
It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or “deposit of faith” from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favor chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit—”the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 3)—for which the Church was to “contend” but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicaea, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition.

To be brief, that is irrelevant to what I am talking about.

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

…your not going to get through to a zealot who disregards the Church.

There have been and are leaders in the Church who do and do not always speak or act in accordance with God, of their own free will . Do you agree? I do not embrace what is not of God, only what is of God. Do you do the same?

Who judges what is “of God”? The Church does. I trust the Church and embrace it. Do you do the same?

So, if only leaders in the Church can judge what is of God, then prior to Jesus establishing the Church, how was it possible for anyone to know what was of God? Divine luck? And, do I trust the Church and embrace it? I have already answered this before you even asked. See bolded above and, again, do you agree and do the same?

(2 of 3)