If Eve sinned first, how come "death entered through one man"?

[Murmurs]

Adam does not blame his wife.

Adam blames God!
The woman, whom you gave me, she gave me the fruit, and so I ate it.

tee

Well obviously that’s even worse! (I’ve always read that as him blaming Eve but now you point it out - Adam is obviously implying it’s God’s fault for not making an Eve who could be trusted not to tempt him with delicious fruit…you’re right!)

In the story, even Eve is made from Adam. It’s not that she’s a woman, but that she’s not the original human who stands as representative of all to come after. (And yes, the story may not be intended literally, but St. Paul and the Church following after him do seem to depend on it for this piece of theology.)

Indeed, Mary’s role as new Eve comes out of this same idea. It was only Adam whose disobedience could cost the entire human race … but Eve’s earlier disobedience paved the way for his. As sort of a “bookend,” while only Jesus was qualified to be the second Adam and redeem humanity through his obedience unto death, God made sure to include a woman (Mary, Jesus’ mother) whose prior obedience to God’s plan would pave the way for the birth of the Redeemer.

While I’m sure some Christian writers have treated it as such in the past, I don’t think it’s useful to talk about Original Sin literally being passed down via sperm or egg or genetics in general. It’s a spiritual lack, not a physical condition. It does pass down to us from the beginning, but asking whether we “get it” from Dad or Mom is a mistake.

Usagi

Ahhhhhhhh. Gotchya.

Thank you!

(And I agree; I find Original Sin couched in literal terms of sperm or eggs to be a little…unnecessary, as well!)

 

[Harry123]

Eve committed a sin before Adam did, but if Adam had remained faithful to God we would not have inherited original sin since Adam alone was the representative of the human race. Eve’s sin was never “okay” since she committed a mortal sin the moment she ate the forbidden fruit, but it only affected her and had no effect on the human race. Once she successfully tempted Adam to fall with her, she shared in his transgression which has made women suffer subjection to their husbands among other things. Since woman had a share in the fall of man, she should also have a share in the redemption of man (the role that the Blessed Virgin fulfilled).

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut (and links). This is what i was thinking.

I’m trying to come to an understanding of Jesus as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve. I’ve watched some of Tim Staples material but i’d say his new book “Behold Your Mother” would be the best source for this.

Basically, my viewpoint is this:

1. 
   *]Eve was taken from Adams side (physically speaking) . Jesus was taken from Mary (physically speaking - at birth).
   
   *]Eve had a role in causing Adam to sin. Mary had a role in Making Jesus sinless (this is because Mary was born without original sin, therefore she passed this sinless state onto the physical body of Jesus, while his spiritual nature was sinless anyway seeing how He is God). So in effect, Mary “made up” for the mistake Eve made.
   
   *]Currently working on more comparisons like these. This is where I could use some help …though Staples book would probably be the best source for this. I still need to get it.
   

   I think some just like to stir up controversy. God Bless, Memaw

   I’m not trying to stir up controversy. The reason i’m doing this is because i’m trying to create a narrative i can give to Protestants. They don’t understand why Catholics venerate (or worship as they would say) Mary. They don’t see veneration of Mary as biblical. Explaining Mary as the new Eve, i believe, is the most effective way of allowing Protestants to see why Mary is so important. It brings Mary back into the biblical narrative in a key way …rather than simply being Jesus Mother (as they would see it).

 

[Memaw]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut (and links). This is what i was thinking.

I’m trying to come to an understanding of Jesus as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve. I’ve watched some of Tim Staples material but i’d say his new book “Behold Your Mother” would be the best source for this.

Basically, my viewpoint is this:

1. 
   *]Eve was taken from Adams side (physically speaking) . Jesus was taken from Mary (physically speaking - at birth).
   
   *]Eve had a role in causing Adam to sin. Mary had a role in Making Jesus sinless (this is because Mary was born without original sin, therefore she passed this sinless state onto the physical body of Jesus, while his spiritual nature was sinless anyway seeing how He is God). So in effect, Mary “made up” for the mistake Eve made.
   
   *]Currently working on more comparisons like these. This is where I could use some help …though Staples book would probably be the best source for this. I still need to get it.
   
   I’m not trying to stir up controversy. The reason i’m doing this is because i’m trying to create a narrative i can give to Protestants. They don’t understand why Catholics venerate (or worship as they would say) Mary. They don’t see veneration of Mary as biblical. Explaining Mary as the new Eve, i believe, is the most effective way of allowing Protestants to see why Mary is so important. It brings Mary back into the biblical narrative in a key way …rather than simply being Jesus Mother (as they would see it).

1. 
   I doubt the path your going on will do it. What happened in the Garden of Eden was between God and Adam and Eve. They both knew they did wrong and so do we. As HE promised, God sent us a Savior thru a woman that didn’t do wrong. We all should be very thankful and NOT question God’s methods of dealing with us. Catholics do NOT worship Mary, never have and never will, but protestants want to believe otherwise, NO MATTER what we say. I know, I have tried to explain it to many protestants over my many years and they still come back to the same old accusations. I ask them if they believe in the 8th Commandment. We are very thankful to God for giving us such a Holy Mother to have as our intercessor. We love her but surely not as much as Her SON does. I often wonder how Jesus feels when so many of his people just simply ignore His Mother, or deny she had a very important role to play in our Salvation History. Prayers for all, especially I ask for Her prayers for them. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Adam should have died at the Tree protecting Eve from the serpent, Christ dies on a tree to save us from everlasting death, just as the bronze serpent that was lifted up in the desert by Moses healed physical wounds. . .

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ll give you my spin on this:

Scripture is a revelation of the Word of God describing how He created this world, how sin entered into and spread through the body of humankind, and how it has been saved and redeemed through the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Word, in Jesus Christ. It creates a dialogue whereby we individually and as a community come to know and grow in Love.

It may help to begin by considering how climbing a mountain, the person is elevated closer to the sun, above the clouds, gaining a view of the world, otherwise unseen in its expanse. Moses went up the mountain and returned with the Ten Commandments. From the Mount, Jesus gave us the Beatitudes.

A tree springs from the ground; alive it climbs upwards into the heavens. Jesus is the One True Vine. We who are made in the image of God, moulded from the dirt of the earth, journey along the Way, thereby becoming more Christ-like, towards the Light, the Truth, the beauty and joy of Life eternal.

In the Garden there were many trees, of whose fruit we could partake. These grow within the relationship that we have with the world, and include nature, camaraderie, art, music, dance, actual food and drink, philosophy, science, all that life has to offer, created by God, manifesting His glory, and for which we should give thanks.

At the Centre of the Garden, at the Centre of our being in the world when we are in right relation to God, are two trees. One whose fruit is the personal, true and living knowledge of good and evil, the other’s fruit is eternal life.

A living tree is cut down and from its remains, we construct an instrument of torture unto death - the cross. Sin destroys life. To that object of both horror and reverence, we nailed our saviour, the unblemished, innocent lamb, earlier revealed in Exodus. On the cross, one with the suffering and sin of humanity, dying to it and through His ressurection, He gives us all who are sinners the capacity to know God.

At the Centre of that primeval Garden, in time, and at the Centre of ourselves existing in right relation with God, ontologically in every age, is Christ. The two trees, are those of the cross, which belongs to God and that of Life eternal, which He gives to us. Their fruit: sin through the act of prideful betrayal and the Eucharist which transforms us. Only God can take on sin, and its reward, which is death, destroy it and bring about renewal. Only love can vanquish sin.

That’s some of the background.

Eve was tricked by the serpent, as we are when we believe the lies that surround sin. But she knew what God had told them and she made a choice that would doom her to death. She was not the first human person, Adam. Humanity was transformed with the creation of Eve from Adam’s body-spirit, into a new being, in relation to not only to God and the universe, but also to one another, as identical, but completely other persons, to be fully complete only when joined in love. From the moment that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, humanity became self-other, one body in Christ.

Adam, as the first person, is the only one through whom sin could be passed. While Eve was deceived, no reason is given as to why Adam ate the fruit. This would be because it does not matter. There are no reasons, excuses, explanations; he rejected God as we do when we sin.

Adam could have fought the serpent and he wouldn’t die. I’m not sure he would have succeeded as it would have taken away Eve’s free will to choose.Free will is a key revelation of God’s imperative to not eat of the fruit.

I like to think that Adam ate the fruit because he did not want to be separated from Eve. However, once he had damaged his relationship with God, Goodness and Love, Adam falls ever deeper into sin, blaming God for having given him Eve, who blames the sepent. Without love, human relations become based on power and need. Without trust in God, life is filled with anxiety; it is too hard. Adam did not trust God. He favoured this dearest of all creation over God. That is why we see Abraham willingness to trust God and Isaac’s accepting of his sacrifice, a further revelation of the Word as humanity passes through time, until the final revelation of God’s sacrifice of His Son, to redeem us all.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut (and links). This is what i was thinking.

I’m trying to come to an understanding of Jesus as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve. I’ve watched some of Tim Staples material but i’d say his new book “Behold Your Mother” would be the best source for this.

Basically, my viewpoint is this:

1. 
   *]Eve was taken from Adams side (physically speaking) . Jesus was taken from Mary (physically speaking - at birth).
   
   *]Eve had a role in causing Adam to sin. Mary had a role in Making Jesus sinless (this is because Mary was born without original sin, therefore she passed this sinless state onto the physical body of Jesus, while his spiritual nature was sinless anyway seeing how He is God). So in effect, Mary “made up” for the mistake Eve made.
   
   *]Currently working on more comparisons like these. This is where I could use some help …though Staples book would probably be the best source for this. I still need to get it.

1. 
   The Blessed Virgin didn’t have a role in Our Lord being free from original sin since original sin is from the father and not the mother. Further on, St. Thomas says, “This prevenient purification in the Blessed Virgin was not needed to hinder the transmission of original sin, but because it behooved the Mother of God ‘to shine with the greatest purity’. For nothing is worthy to receive God unless it be pure, according to Psalm 92:5: ‘Holiness becometh Thy House, O Lord’”.
   
   Just as Eve had a role in the fall of mankind by her tempting Adam to sin, so Our Lady had a role in the redemption of mankind by becoming the way in which our Redeemer would enter in the world. The Blessed Mother’s obedience makes up for Eve’s disobedience (Eva to Ave). Here is a good YouTube video that you might enjoy.

 

[Wesrock]

Adam was the head of the human family. Eve was not. Adam also held the priestly role in the garden. Eve did not.

They also both had an opportuntity to repent, but Adam didn’t take responsibility and blamed Eve, and Eve similarly blamed the serpent.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I don’t quite understand…How is Adam alone representative of the human race? I mean he was half of the entire human race at this point in time (or the story anyway), but still “only” half.

Is the issue that once Adam ate as well, all of humanity had fallen so there was no way back (until Christ) - or that Eve (or woman, in general) is not regarded as being capable spiritually or physically in contributing much to going forth and multiplying? Why should Eve’s transgression only affect her, herself, and not any potential offspring?

I read the bit of Aquinas you linked to, C.D. - but while I follow it I don’t really get it!

Original sin cannot be transmitted from a mother to her child because original sin is transferred through the seed that man provides. St. Thomas also says,

Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): ‘In whom all have sinned’: whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child. …

Objection: …Now a man pre-exist in his mother as well as in his father. Therefore a man would have contracted original sin from his mother’s sin as well as from his father’s. Reply to Objection: The child pre-exists in its father as in its active principle, and in its mother, as in its material and passive principle. Consequently the comparison fails.

Usagi explained well why Adam was the sole representative of the human race even though Eve was there.

 

[e_c]

Adam’s sin is what matters the most. Eve sins, Adam resists, no need for a Christ for anyone but Eve (Fransiscan hypotheticals notwithstanding).

Humani Generis, paragraph 37:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

From the moment that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, humanity became self-other, one body in Christ.

You’ve lost me there. What does ‘self-other’ mean? And what is meant by ‘one body in Christ’?

Aloysium:

Adam could have fought the serpent and he wouldn’t die. I’m not sure he would have succeeded as it would have taken away Eve’s free will to choose. Free will is a key revelation of God’s imperative to not eat of the fruit.

That’s not a convincing argument. Every time either Adam or Eve did anything it potentially infringed the free will of the other. If Adam ate the first fruit from the pear tree, it prevented Eve from doing so. If Adam killed the serpent in mid-sentence, it infringed Eve’s free will to act or not to act upon the serpent’s words. If Eve stopped Adam from killing the serpent with a rock, it infringed on Adam’s free will to do what he likes.

Adam could have used his own free will to suggest that they both pick all of the forbidden fruit and dispose of them, thus removing temptation from reach. Eve could have used her free will to agree or refuse. It’s all conjecture and gets us nowhere.

 

[Nixbits]

Permit me to attempt to summarise some of the opinions expressed so far by Catholic contributors.

On the topic of how Original sin is passed down, e_c, Confiteor Deo and St Thomas Aquinas believe(d) that it is passed on from father to child via semen. On the other hand, Usagi believes that it’s not appropriate to consider the physical means of transmission of a spiritual lack.

On the topic of how to interpret the Garden of Eden story, 1ke, revert_jen, pianist clare and the Catechism maintain that the story is figurative. LordHaveMercy, along with Popes Leo XIII and Pius X, argue for a literal interpretation.

This makes me feel a lot better about being confused by both topics.

 

[SnoopSword]

I still maintain sin entered the world through Cain (enoch being taken up as an proof).

But im finding that people here really dont know the true interpretation of the garden story. When you know what it is, the WHOLE Bible becomes clear and you will have the answers to why God ordered killing of babies, Why Judas couldnt help himself, why Jesus was persacuted and killed etc.

The Authentic understandig:

-Eve beholds fruit from the serpent, eats from it, then gives it to Adam and he eats from it.
-Adam and Eve are now covering their private parts with fig leaves? suspicious.
-God punishes Eve with increased pain in child bearing - why that?
-Eve gives birth to twins - one evil, one good, and Eve makes a very curious statement that she got Cain from the lord? Why? hmmmmmmmm
-Later on we find Seth born to the ‘Image and likeness’ of Adam. Why mention this?
-Cain is excluded from any lineage of Adam. Why? A Cain was the son of Adam right??.. err… right??!

 

[grannymh]

Permit me to attempt to summarise some of the opinions expressed so far by Catholic contributors.

On the topic of how Original sin is passed down, e_c, Confiteor Deo and St Thomas Aquinas believe(d) that it is passed on from father to child via semen. On the other hand, Usagi believes that it’s not appropriate to consider the physical means of transmission of a spiritual lack.

On the topic of how to interpret the Garden of Eden story, 1ke, revert_jen, pianist clare and the Catechism maintain that the story is figurative. LordHaveMercy, along with Popes Leo XIII and Pius X, argue for a literal interpretation.

This makes me feel a lot better about being confused by both topics.

Please note that in the Catholic Church, the major ecumenical church councils did not
accept every word of St. Thomas Aquinas as true Divine Revelation. In some obvious cases, his biology was turned down.

Also, one better know the meaning of figurative language before claiming that the Catholic Church cannot discern Divine Revelation in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Harry123]

I still maintain sin entered the world through Cain (enoch being taken up as an proof).

But im finding that people here really dont know the true interpretation of the garden story. When you know what it is, the WHOLE Bible becomes clear and you will have the answers to why God ordered killing of babies, Why Judas couldnt help himself, why Jesus was persacuted and killed etc.

The Authentic understandig:

-Eve beholds fruit from the serpent, eats from it, then gives it to Adam and he eats from it.
-Adam and Eve are now covering their private parts with fig leaves? suspicious.
-God punishes Eve with increased pain in child bearing - why that?
-Eve gives birth to twins - one evil, one good, and Eve makes a very curious statement that she got Cain from the lord? Why? hmmmmmmmm
-Later on we find Seth born to the ‘Image and likeness’ of Adam. Why mention this?
-Cain is excluded from any lineage of Adam. Why? A Cain was the son of Adam right??.. err… right??!

You say you have the answer as to why God ordered the killing of babies. Can you give the answer here? I didn’t understand from your explanation.

 

[SnoopSword]

You say you have the answer as to why God ordered the killing of babies. Can you give the answer here? I didn’t understand from your explanation.

Sorry I fell asleep while posting the above. I was trying to avoid stating the abvious meaning of the garden which i believe literally happened. When the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve is understood, you’ll fully understand why Jesus came, why God had to wipe out whole groups, and all the odd explanations in the ccc that dont make sense. This is also the traditional understanding worlwide in all ancient cultures, and religions like Islam. Yes this can even soften your view of Islam once the garden story is understood and the pre-flood narrative is taken literally.

Ok. I’m still too shy to state the obvious that Im sure many on the site are already ‘in the know of’.

Ok… lets just say theres a realist based, ADULT understanding of the story. Remember, ‘Serpent’ in Hebrew translates to ‘Shinning’. Was the serpent a snake? Of course not. He was cast down as a snake. So what was he before?

Let me put it this way - There was 1 woman in the garden. There were 2 others in the garden with her. Eve had twins, one good, one bad. With the birth of Cain she makes a very curious statement about the baby specifically. Later we know that Cain is never in the lineage of Adam. That pretty much says it all of what happened in the garden.

Fast forward, God declares all the mankind corrupted and calls Noah the perfect (spotless) in his generations (lineage) and sees fit to have a flood to wipe away all other life on earth. Noah is the last of his kind unfotunately his kids are not fully as Canaan (Cain) demonstraites. He was righteous and the last of Adam on earth. We know God is righteous, just and with purpose.

Im really biting my tongue of saying the obvious and would love spill the beans. Lets just say God is just and would not kill those who are born with his own spirit/breath of life in them. The evil souls before the flood are running hell and are demonc spirits on the earth. After the flood up until Jesus almost no one made it to heaven.

Only those who followed Christ (Noah, Abraham etc) made it to heaven. This is why Christiany is the one, true religion and always has been. Judaism is a self professed claim for a small group in recent time and has absolutely no claim to anything in the old testement whatsoever. They have always tried to take and control Gods Word going back to the garden. Jesus saya red letter in John 8:44 the summary of everything I have written above. He cant be more clear. Mat 13 Jesus red letter actually EXPLAINS the parable of wheat and tares. He explains the litteral meaning so readers will have no doubt all of this is true.

 

[Harry123]

Sorry I fell asleep while posting the above. I was trying to avoid stating the abvious meaning of the garden which i believe literally happened. When the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve is understood, you’ll fully understand why Jesus came, why God had to wipe out whole groups, and all the odd explanations in the ccc that dont make sense. This is also the traditional understanding worlwide in all ancient cultures, and religions like Islam. Yes this can even soften your view of Islam once the garden story is understood and the pre-flood narrative is taken literally.

Ok. I’m still too shy to state the obvious that Im sure many on the site are already ‘in the know of’.

Ok… lets just say theres a realist based, ADULT understanding of the story. Remember, ‘Serpent’ in Hebrew translates to ‘Shinning’. Was the serpent a snake? Of course not. He was cast down as a snake. So what was he before?

Let me put it this way - There was 1 woman in the garden. There were 2 others in the garden with her. Eve had twins, one good, one bad. With the birth of Cain she makes a very curious statement about the baby specifically. Later we know that Cain is never in the lineage of Adam. That pretty much says it all of what happened in the garden.

Fast forward, God declares all the mankind corrupted and calls Noah the perfect (spotless) in his generations (lineage) and sees fit to have a flood to wipe away all other life on earth. Noah is the last of his kind unfotunately his kids are not fully as Canaan (Cain) demonstraites. He was righteous and the last of Adam on earth. We know God is righteous, just and with purpose.

Im really biting my tongue of saying the obvious and would love spill the beans. Lets just say God is just and would not kill those who are born with his own spirit/breath of life in them. The evil souls before the flood are running hell and are demonc spirits on the earth. After the flood up until Jesus almost no one made it to heaven.

Only those who followed Christ (Noah, Abraham etc) made it to heaven. This is why Christiany is the one, true religion and always has been. Judaism is a self professed claim for a small group in recent time and has absolutely no claim to anything in the old testement whatsoever. They have always tried to take and control Gods Word going back to the garden. Jesus saya red letter in John 8:44 the summary of everything I have written above. He cant be more clear. Mat 13 Jesus red letter actually EXPLAINS the parable of wheat and tares. He explains the litteral meaning so readers will have no doubt all of this is true.

Uh, i kinda wish i didn’t read this. Though for some reason, i’ve always felt this was a possibility i just didn’t assume there was a biblical basis for it. Is there a name for this theology? I’d like to read more about it and see how it is generally received in the Catholic community.

 

[Aloysium]

You’ve lost me there. What does ‘self-other’ mean? . . .

Sorry, one question at a time. I know you realize that you are asking the opinion of a random idiot on the internet.

There are three mysteries: myself, everything else and the connection between myself and everything else.

Let’s take as an example that hopefully won’t confuse things further, the colour white.
It is an element/part/whatever of my mind. At the same time, it is out there on the monitor; well, actually off-white. As a colour out there and as part of me, it is made up of every other colour. I know this because there exists reason/thought/whatever that can examine, dissect and formulate understandings.

Who I am is an ongoing discovery, as is the context in which I am, and the process by which it is known. This process, btw reveals but is not revealed except by its existence.

I exist as a whole. My attention is directed or flits around to various aspects of this whole that is me. That attention may be understood as being the core of who I am; it contains the unity that is the thought, the thinker and what is being thought.

I am self-other because I exist, not in isolation, not as a living ball bounced about on a cosmic billiard table; rather, I am intimately connected to everything, of whose nature I share - the physical, mental, spiritual. Those of us who suffer from mental illness, delirious or delusional, those spiritually isolated in a dark night of the soul all remain participants in the world through their particualr relationship. A person may feel all alone, or live in their private fantasy; especially in such cases, one can recognize how that person is part of a greater world, to which they have formed their brand of relating.

There is no “thing” that is “Aloysium”. The name ultimately relates back to a person. That person, as mundane and disposable as he is like any other aspect of this world, he is unique and irreplaceable within himself and to those who love him. Sure they can love someone else, but that other person would not be him. If I did not exist, someone else might be breathing this air, but it would not be me. So I am, but as a person my existence is in relation to what is about me.

I exist as some guy writing to you on the internet. That is the totality of what is happening here: me, you and the perceptual/cognitive contact.

To go further, since I am not sitting at the Centre of existence, bringing myself and all this forward, and since I know it to be happening, I know there to be God, with whom I have a relationship that allows my personal existence and experience to happen. That relationship is one of love. One way or two, we decide.

In the end this is what it is and therein is the Truth.

Hoping the trip was worth the fare.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

From the moment that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, humanity became self-other, one body in Christ.

Thank you for attempting to clarify the meaning of ‘self-other’, although I’m not sure that I really understand. Do you mean simply that, once Eve was created, each human had another human to relate to? This interpretation doesn’t seem to quite fit your explanation in post #37. Before Eve was created, Adam (at that point the whole of humanity) still had himself, everything else and the relationship between the two. When Eve appeared, the only thing that changed was that there was one more thing for Adam to relate to and that thing was in one of the same categories (human) as Adam himself.

Maybe I’m over-thinking this. I recognise that I frequently struggle with the language and concepts that you use, Aloysium. Please don’t feel obliged to spend time trying to explain this to me. I would like to understand it but, like a slippery eel, the concept seems difficult for me to grasp.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Do you mean simply that, once Eve was created, each human had another human to relate to? This interpretation doesn’t seem to quite fit your explanation in post #37. Before Eve was created, Adam (at that point the whole of humanity) still had himself, everything else and the relationship between the two. When Eve appeared, the only thing that changed was that there was one more thing for Adam to relate to and that thing was in one of the same categories (human) as Adam himself. . . .

:twocents:

We are in relation to everything.

Primarily we exist in relation to God who is our Father - loving Creator.

We are participants in the world and,
although the physical interaction occurs on that level of being,
we being continuous with and within the material universe,
the tiniest fraction of the infinite number of billiard balls bouncing into one another,
we also exist in ourselves and connect with what is other.

According to Genesis, this is not enough,
to be individuals with no spiritual need for one another.
It is not enough to meditate and get in touch with one’s inner self.
We need to connect with others.
We need to come together as a community, and as a church in relation to God.
I do not believe we can ever be truly complete in ourselves only.
We must love each other in order to be who we are.

It’s something like that.
Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.