Knowing Good and Evil. How did they know it was evil so?

[fhansen]

In an un-fallen state, in the garden of eden, when we walked with God, how is it that we could choose something other than God, if we knew God was the most perfect Good, and was all that He is, how could we have made such a poor choice?

God must not have given us a full understanding of Him, otherwise we would not have been able to choose otherwise, who would choose anything other than God?

It’s harder to choose God now, whilst we are in exile from Him, but when he was right there, how could we choose to not love him? If we were aware of his perfection, why would we choose something less perfect?

That’s a great question. Virtually all theologians agree that Adam & Eve did* not* possess the Beatific Vision. While they knew God more immediately than we do, they nevertheless were not gifted with the direct, intuitive knowledge of Him that guarantees full captivation of a being’s will, complete fidelity. It’s as if they were being asked to recognize His goodness with the knowledge that they *did *have, to choose rightly without benefit of full sight, even then walking by faith without sight albeit to a lesser degree than we’re asked to do now. The advantage that humanity has now is that, having lived in a pigsty, relatively speaking, having tasted good alongside of evil (sin), we can be compelled to leave our otherwise neutral state and run like Prodigals back home to embrace the Good alone, having developed a hunger and thirst for it, for righteousness, and a distaste for sin. This is what we’re here to do; this is the reason for our exile from Eden where man had everything *except *for an appreciation of what he had-the goodness, beauty, and truth-the love- that he existed in the midst of.

When Jesus tells us that it’s more blessed to believe without seeing, He’s saying that it is more *just *to believe without proof-we should already in some way recognize and embrace God’s existence and goodness, we should already witness Him internally, as we’re a “part” of Him-His creation made in His image-without the need for extra, external demonstrations on His part. And we should be able to simply “see” or recognize in Jesus God’s very character or nature, as Jesus is His “express image”. Adam should also have seen this in Eden-and I’d bet He certainly does by now.

Adam’s act of disobedience was an anomaly of nature-it was the first act of disbelief; by denying God’s authority they denied His very godhood. To the extent that we do believe, without benefit of the Beatific Vision, we are “owning” our belief, our choice; our own justice/perfection is all the greater to the extent that we choose righteousness without first being overwhelmed by it. This is what God endeavors to *draw *out of us, without force and without creating automatons.

Man’s justice lies in his knowing God, as God, and freely entering into and remaining in a state of communion with Him.

 

[davidv]

In an un-fallen state, in the garden of eden, when we walked with God, how is it that we could choose something other than God, if we knew God was the most perfect Good, and was all that He is, how could we have made such a poor choice?

God must not have given us a full understanding of Him, otherwise we would not have been able to choose otherwise, who would choose anything other than God?

There appears to be an assumption here that all that is required for obedience is knowledge. There are many examples in life today the this is not the case. The true root of obedience is love. Only in love can one abandon their own desires on account of the other.

It’s harder to choose God now, whilst we are in exile from Him, but when he was right there, how could we choose to not love him?

Desires contrary to His will can always entice us to sin, whether He is present to us, or not.

If we were aware of his perfection, why would we choose something less perfect?

Lack of self mastery, selfishness.

 

[mikekle]

In an un-fallen state, in the garden of eden, when we walked with God, how is it that we could choose something other than God, if we knew God was the most perfect Good, and was all that He is, how could we have made such a poor choice?

God must not have given us a full understanding of Him, otherwise we would not have been able to choose otherwise, who would choose anything other than God?

It’s harder to choose God now, whilst we are in exile from Him, but when he was right there, how could we choose to not love him? If we were aware of his perfection, why would we choose something less perfect?

It sounds to me, from reading thru this thread, the same thing bothers us, the same question, WHY did satan rebel or fall. I have thought about this quite a bit and it makes sense that these 2 beings, God and Satan have intelligence we cannot even understand, so to even speculate his reasons for disobeying God and trying to take over heaven, using human terms or understanding, is more than likely wrong, probably very wrong actually.

I know this is not traditional catholic belief, but I have a hard time accepting Satan knowingly did what the bible says he did in a literal sense, its more like something a human would attempt, NO being as intelligent as satan is said to be, would believe for one second he had a chance of defeating God, The angels ‘know’ God much more than we do, they KNOW what he is and how all-powerful he is.

My opinion and I know I will catch flack about it being a catholic… Satan and all the demons are just doing exactly what God created them for…they are ‘the other choice’, without ‘another choice’ or a choice to begin with, what would free will be like? for there to be a choice, there must be at least 2 opposing ‘selections’.

What would Eden have been like if Satan had never been there to tempt them…what would our modern world be like if there was no temptation to sin, would free will even be possible in such a world when there is no other choice but God and what is good. God didnt want a world like this, he wanted us, as individuals to come to him willingly and CHOOSE him, NOT to have no other choice.

Of course the story of ‘the fall’ is just something to help us comprehend all of this, so we can get a better understanding of God, good and evil and free will in general, if the bible were to try to explain how God planned all this out, I doubt anyone could follow or understand, its much easier to tell ‘stories’ using things your audience understands like pride, disobedience, choices, etc., those are things we can relate to, but we certainly cannot relate to angelic intelligence or Gods master plan of creation.

 

[fhansen]

In my opinion the distance between Creator and created beings- whether men or angels-is vast, infinitely vast; hardly any comparisons can be made. An “ingredient” for the Fall was creation’s inherent, unavoidable imperfection vis a vis its Creator. God can never make an unwise or unreasonable or irrational or in any case *wrong *choice whereas that possibility is always present for a created being once the gift of free will is thrown in the mix as well.

 

[Vico]

…We don’t know why Lucifer would have chosen to reject God, seeing as an angels intellect is far superior to ours, …

The Mystery being essentially, why or how could an perfect angel created by God reject him? …

Pride explains it. Catechism: 1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. …

Angelology by Fr. Hardon, S.J.,

1. How did some of the angels sin?

The Church’s tradition tells us they sinned by pride and envy. This was the primary sin of the angels. It was the sin of a spiritual being, since the angels have no bodies. The angels sinned because they refused to God as their Creator.
However, the angels also sinned by envy. They coveted the Divine excellence. We may also say they envied human beings who, they understood, would also reach heavenly beatitude.

therealpresence.org/archives/Angelology/Angelology_027.htm

 

[mikekle]

Pride explains it. Catechism: 1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. …

Angelology by Fr. Hardon, S.J.,

1. How did some of the angels sin?

The Church’s tradition tells us they sinned by pride and envy. This was the primary sin of the angels. It was the sin of a spiritual being, since the angels have no bodies. The angels sinned because they refused to God as their Creator.
However, the angels also sinned by envy. They coveted the Divine excellence. We may also say they envied human beings who, they understood, would also reach heavenly beatitude.

therealpresence.org/archives/Angelology/Angelology_027.htm

Pride and envy are something humans suffer with, but even though this is true, I would venture to assume majority of us would be intelligent enough to still realize, trying to literally take over Gods position would not be possible, really even less than intelligent humans understand this, its just not something that is possible.

A good example would be people who rob banks and shops, they have pride and envy, thinking they can successfully get away with it and allude police, but even the most ignorant human criminal can recognize they can not successfully rob Fort Knox, its just a known fact, no matter how much pride one has, they still recognize when something is possible or impossible, and angels have much greater intelligence than us.

To claim it was pride/ envy, is trying to solve the problem using human weaknesses, the angels are above this.

Another fact no one has mentioned is the fact Satan managed to convince 1/3 of the other angels, he was correct and they should side with him…if this is accurate, then we either are misunderstanding the story, not given some of the details, or God is not as all-powerful as the bible makes him out to be ( I doubt its the latter).

 

[fhansen]

Pride and envy are something humans suffer with, but even though this is true, I would venture to assume majority of us would be intelligent enough to still realize, trying to literally take over Gods position would not be possible, really even less than intelligent humans understand this, its just not something that is possible.

A good example would be people who rob banks and shops, they have pride and envy, thinking they can successfully get away with it and allude police, but even the most ignorant human criminal can recognize they can not successfully rob Fort Knox, its just a known fact, no matter how much pride one has, they still recognize when something is possible or impossible, and angels have much greater intelligence than us.

To claim it was pride/ envy, is trying to solve the problem using human weaknesses, the angels are above this.

Another fact no one has mentioned is the fact Satan managed to convince 1/3 of the other angels, he was correct and they should side with him…if this is accurate, then we either are misunderstanding the story, not given some of the details, or God is not as all-powerful as the bible makes him out to be ( I doubt its the latter).

I think you give angels too much credit. They *can *be foolish-and all sin, as in the case of their rebellion, is said to oppose reason. They may be much more knowledgeable than humans, and therefore more culpable, but they aren’t immune from coveting something so much that they’ll believe what they prefer to believe. Pride, itself, is unreasonable to begin with. Aquinas says that’s it consists of an inordinate self-love, a desire for and a conception of oneself as being more (supra) than they actually are. I think Satan still believes he can win, so deceptive is pride especially to the degree that he’s infected with it. The very fact that created beings are not God, are less-than-God, provides for the inherent imperfection, however slight, that, ironically, may allow them to think they can be God.

 

[mikekle]

I think you give angels too much credit. They *can *be foolish-and all sin, as in the case of their rebellion, is said to oppose reason. They may be much more knowledgeable than humans, and therefore more culpable, but they aren’t immune from coveting something so much that they’ll believe what they prefer to believe. Pride, itself, is unreasonable to begin with. Aquinas says that’s it consists of an inordinate self-love, a desire for and a conception of oneself as being more (supra) than they actually are. I think Satan still believes he can win, so deceptive is pride especially to the degree that he’s infected with it. The very fact that created beings are not God, are less-than-God, provides for the inherent imperfection, however slight, that, ironically, may allow them to think they can be God.

Well, in a way, satan IS winning…the current state of the world shows many people are choosing him rather than God, whether they recognize it or not,the bible even says most people will not enter heaven.

We know God will ultimately triumph in the end, but still left with the fact majority of humans chose the other guy and did so willingly and will spend eternity alongside him.

If satan was truly Gods ‘enemy’, why is he permitted to have so much interaction with our world, its said he will be restrained in chains for a 1000yrs, but then must be released again for a short time…why must he be released, God can do anything? I dont understand why God didnt turn him to dust right when he rebelled, or send him directly to the lake of fire, humans are there, they cannot come and go, have any interaction with the physical world…why is he so special that he deserves privileges human souls do not get.

the story of the fall and the relationship between God and satan does not make logical sense to me.

 

[Vico]

Pride and envy are something humans suffer with, but even though this is true, I would venture to assume majority of us would be intelligent enough to still realize, trying to literally take over Gods position would not be possible, really even less than intelligent humans understand this, its just not something that is possible.

A good example would be people who rob banks and shops, they have pride and envy, thinking they can successfully get away with it and allude police, but even the most ignorant human criminal can recognize they can not successfully rob Fort Knox, its just a known fact, no matter how much pride one has, they still recognize when something is possible or impossible, and angels have much greater intelligence than us.

To claim it was pride/ envy, is trying to solve the problem using human weaknesses, the angels are above this.

Another fact no one has mentioned is the fact Satan managed to convince 1/3 of the other angels, he was correct and they should side with him…if this is accurate, then we either are misunderstanding the story, not given some of the details, or God is not as all-powerful as the bible makes him out to be ( I doubt its the latter).

No, pride (and envy) is not an exclusive human weakness that angels are above. Pride does not require a physical form. The** cherub** king of Tyre was cast to the ground through pride. And “Day Star, son of Dawn” had the prideful intent “I will make myself like the Most High”.

Ezekiel 28
11 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyre:
12 And say to him: Thus saith the Lord God: Thou wast the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God: every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, the topaz, and the jasper, the chrysolite, and the onyx, and the beryl, the sapphire, and the carbuncle, and the emerald: gold the work of thy beauty: and thy pipes were prepared in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set thee in the holy mountain of God, thou hast walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise, thy inner parts were filled with iniquity, and thou hast sinned: and I cast thee out from the mountain of God, and destroyed thee, O covering cherub, out of the midst of the stones of fire.
17 And thy heart was lifted up with thy beauty: thou hast lost thy wisdom in thy beauty, I have cast thee to the ground: I have set thee before the face of kings, that they might behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thy iniquities, and by the iniquity of thy traffic: therefore I will bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, to devour thee, and I will make thee as ashes upon the earth in the sight of all that see thee.
19 All that shall see thee among the nations, shall be astonished at thee: thou art brought to nothing, and thou shalt never be any more

Isaiah 14
12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.

Luke 10
18 And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightening falling from heaven.

 

[fhansen]

Well, in a way, satan IS winning…the current state of the world shows many people are choosing him rather than God, whether they recognize it or not,the bible even says most people will not enter heaven.

We know God will ultimately triumph in the end, but still left with the fact majority of humans chose the other guy and did so willingly and will spend eternity alongside him.

If satan was truly Gods ‘enemy’, why is he permitted to have so much interaction with our world, its said he will be restrained in chains for a 1000yrs, but then must be released again for a short time…why must he be released, God can do anything? I dont understand why God didnt turn him to dust right when he rebelled, or send him directly to the lake of fire, humans are there, they cannot come and go, have any interaction with the physical world…why is he so special that he deserves privileges human souls do not get.

the story of the fall and the relationship between God and satan does not make logical sense to me.

Looking at it from the larger perspective, I think we could say that there’d always be a risk involved in giving free will to a rational, created being. Temptations would eventually arise; presumably no external voice tempted satan. And satan doesn’t have to do much anyway. Whether God, satan, or any other being is accused of tempting I think the italicized portion of this verse from James 1 applies equally to Adam & Eve as it does to us now:

"When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

Humankind will test the limits of its freedom, with satan’s sanctioning and encouragement-and there may well be more intense periods of such “experimentation” at different historical times depending on such things as man’s overall knowledge, self-assurance, desire, anger, cynicism, perhaps, at any point in time- maybe we’re entering such a time now.

 

[Sephero]

Thanks Fhansan for you replies, to a degree they make some sense to me. However I will just pick up on this one thing again, since I haven’t gotten a direct answer for it.

It’s as if they were being asked to recognize His goodness with the knowledge that they did have, to choose rightly without benefit of full sight, even then walking by faith without sight albeit to a lesser degree than we’re asked to do now.

Can you ‘choose rightly’ (the good), if we had no understanding of Good and Evil?

Were not Adam and Eve being asked to choose the Good, before they had understanding of what Good was (having not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil?)

Or did they have an understanding of the Good before they ate of it? (But how can we know what Good is without its opposite?)

There is a problem here for sure, unless we knew what Good and Evil was before we ate of the tree of Good and Evil, did we really have a choice?

If I don’t know what it means to make the good choice, having no knowledge of good, how can I be expected to make the right/good choice when I am asked to do so?

 

[Vico]

Thanks Fhansan for you replies, to a degree they make some sense to me. However I will just pick up on this one thing again, since I haven’t gotten a direct answer for it.

Can you ‘choose rightly’ (the good), if we had no understanding of Good and Evil?

Were not Adam and Eve being asked to choose the Good, before they had understanding of what Good was (having not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil?)

Or did they have an understanding of the Good before they ate of it? (But how can we know what Good is without its opposite?)

There is a problem here for sure, unless we knew what Good and Evil was before we ate of the tree of Good and Evil, did we really have a choice?

If I don’t know what it means to make the good choice, having no knowledge of good, how can I be expected to make the right/good choice when I am asked to do so?

Understanding good and evil is not required for choice, rather the choice is between obedience and disobedience to God. (Gen. 2:16-17 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. , ).

 

[fhansen]

Thanks Fhansan for you replies, to a degree they make some sense to me. However I will just pick up on this one thing again, since I haven’t gotten a direct answer for it.

Can you ‘choose rightly’ (the good), if we had no understanding of Good and Evil?

Were not Adam and Eve being asked to choose the Good, before they had understanding of what Good was (having not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil?)

Or did they have an understanding of the Good before they ate of it? (But how can we know what Good is without its opposite?)

There is a problem here for sure, unless we knew what Good and Evil was before we ate of the tree of Good and Evil, did we really have a choice?

If I don’t know what it means to make the good choice, having no knowledge of good, how can I be expected to make the right/good choice when I am asked to do so?

Yes, this question is inevitable-and I tried to address it in that same post. They knew good-without necessarily identifying it as such because they had nothing to contrast it with; it was literally all good at that time. Was it absolutely necessary for them to know evil as well, in order to distinguish between the two and make the right choice?

The right choice had already been programmed into them, the natural law inscribed in their hearts, their consciences in place, God’s voice audible within. There are degrees of culpability depending on one’s level of knowledge and presumably they had at least sufficient knowledge to make the right choice, to remain in God’s grace, subjugated to Him, so that the consequences of their action was deserved. And yet the consequences can be looked upon as simply the natural result of going against nature, against Reality. Disobeying God was to sin against themselves, to rebel against their own natures. They defied an interior, programmed command as well as any exterior one they may have heard. ‘Do not eat of the fruit’ was a command similar to ‘Do not jump off that cliff over there’. We don’t question whether gravity has the right to produce great bodily injury or death when it’s laws are defied.

But, again, in the overall big picture God knew they would jump, and had already planned for a means to save humanity. A greater good would come as humanity learned a valuable lesson-over time-in conjunction with grace being patiently and judiciously meted out as necessary to ultimately draw man back to justice, to Himself.

The catechism teaches that God created His world “in statu viae”, in a “state of journeying” to perfection. The primary lesson man must learn is of his need for God. By being exiled from the Father-and experiencing sin/evil in the meanwhile- we can learn to run like Prodigals from the pigsty, having come to recognize and value the true good. In the end man is meant to learn the value of love, the “value of God”. Adam didn’t quite yet get it in Eden. But it’s good; we come out wiser; we can recognize and say “yes” to our Redeemer when He comes, knowing better why we never should have said “no” in the first place. Our justice is all the greater as we choose it, as we come to own it. This is how man’s perfection is arrived at. Man is intended to be transformed into beings who love.

It could be said I suppose that man needed the dimension of time, temporality-sort of a reprieve or pause in a sense from eternity in which his decision would’ve been irrevocable- in order to work this all out with his Maker. This world is meant to teach us of our* creatureliness*, of our utter dependency on God for our existence and continued existence, of our ultimate fragility as we also, contrarily, experiment with the pitiful pride which seeks to exalt itself above all else including God, thinking that it can do whatever it will, thinking that it will certainly never die.

Authentic obedience can come only by love. Bishop Fulton Sheen understood Jesus words in exactly that manner, “If you love Me you* will* keep My commandments.”

 

[Sephero]

Understanding good and evil is not required for choice, rather the choice is between obedience and disobedience to God. (Gen. 2:16-17 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. , ).

Is not disobedience to God an evil action in itself?

This is my exact point. Before we ate of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil we must have had some knowledge, or some seed, or propensity towards evil already, if we had the capability to disobey God. No?

In other words the potential to do evil by disobeying God was already with us. But this is problematic since we did not yet know what evil was, having not eaten yet of the tree that would give us knowledge of what exactly evil was.

There are degrees of culpability depending on one’s level of knowledge and presumably they had at least sufficient knowledge to make the right choice, to remain in God’s grace, subjugated to Him, so that the consequences of their action was deserved.

Again this is my point, they all ready had knowledge to make the right choice, and yet somehow didn’t, they chose whatever was contrary to the Good, yet they did not know what that was? Because they had no conception of evil?

Was it absolutely necessary for them to know evil as well, in order to distinguish between the two and make the right choice?

This is absurd. By saying that “… in order to distinguish between the two and make the right choice” you are saying that there was a distinction to make, but that there actually was none, because what was there to distinguish the Good from? You even say that Good itself was not identifiable.

In other words in order to distinguish the Good from ‘X’ (Evil), they would have had to have known what was the difference between the both of them. That is the definition of distinguish - the difference. Further more you say that it was ‘all-good’ in their original state in Eden, although they were not able to identify it as such, it was just their state, like a fish in water, so they could not even distinguish that to anything at all.

The right choice had already been programmed into them, the natural law inscribed in their hearts, their consciences in place, God’s voice audible within.

If the right choice was programmed into us, where did the ability to make an evil choice (disobey God) come from?

Thanks for your patience, and time.

God bless.

 

[Vico]

Is not disobedience to God an evil action in itself?

This is my exact point. Before we ate of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil we must have had some knowledge, or some seed, or propensity towards evil already, if we had the capability to disobey God. No?

In other words the potential to do evil by disobeying God was already with us. But this is problematic since we did not yet know what evil was, having not eaten yet of the tree that would give us knowledge of what exactly evil was.

Again this is my point, they all ready had knowledge to make the right choice, and yet somehow didn’t, they chose whatever was contrary to the Good, yet they did not know what that was? Because they had no conception of evil?

This is absurd. By saying that “… in order to distinguish between the two and make the right choice” you are saying that there was a distinction to make, but that there actually was none, because what was there to distinguish the Good from? You even say that Good itself was not identifiable.

In other words in order to distinguish the Good from ‘X’ (Evil), they would have had to have known what was the difference between the both of them. That is the definition of distinguish - the difference. Further more you say that it was ‘all-good’ in their original state in Eden, although they were not able to identify it as such, it was just their state, like a fish in water, so they could not even distinguish that to anything at all.

If the right choice was programmed into us, where did the ability to make an evil choice (disobey God) come from?

Thanks for your patience, and time.

God bless.

Adam and Eve had the irascible appetite of spirits and the excesses of the natural concupiscible appetite was blocked by the preternatural gift of integrity. Adam and Eve, had the gifts given to them by God, namely:
supernatural grace
preternatural gift of bodily immortality
preternatural gift of integrity: subordination of man’s lower passions to his reason
preternatural gift of infused knowledge:

• regarding God and His attributes,
• the moral law or man’s relations to God, and
• the physical universe both material and spiritual.

Disobedience is neglect or refusal to obey. The disobedience is sin for Adam and Eve, since they had infused knowledge, and it had to be related to the irascible appetite since they had the gift of integrity (so there was no excess of concupiscence). Since God gave free will it means the potential for sin was present, but also there are different levels of responsibility for disobedience. Now the fallen angels fell through the irascible intellectual appetite, through pride. With inordinate self love a being can presume his superiority over others, and this is pride. Similarly, so did Adam and Eve.

 

[fhansen]

So I’m going round in circles with this one.

I want to back up a bit first, to the question of the origin of Evil.

The Catholic teaching as I understand it, seems to say that evil became a ontological phenomenon when Lucifer chose ‘not-God’. I say ‘not-God’ rather than evil, because evil was the manifest result of choosing not-God it didn’t exist in reality proper, only in potential. We don’t know why Lucifer would have chosen to reject God, seeing as an angels intellect is far superior to ours, Lucifer must have known how futile it was to reject God, yet did it anyway.

I am happy in my own self to simply agree here that, evil was not something God created, and is essentially a Mystery that we cannot comprehend. The Mystery being essentially, why or how could an perfect angel created by God reject him?

We can’t say he was created imperfectly, because then God would be at fault, nor can we say there was some potential for evil in Lucifer, because evil did not exist yet. So how did it happen that Lucifer chose to reject God?

But lets leave that aside for a moment.

I just don’t get the Garden story.

Simply put, if Adam and Eve had not yet knowledge of evil, how did they know what death was? Death is the result of sin, which is the choice to do evil no?

‘You shall surely die’.

But God what is death?
Death is the result of sin.

What is sin God?
Sin is to choice to do evil.

What is evil God?
You don’t know yet because you haven’t eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If they had no knowledge of evil, surely they had no idea who and what it was that was speaking to Eve (evil) - and therefore would be blameless for following Satan’s instructions.

They didn’t know what they were about to do was evil surely, since they had no knowledge of such a thing?

Apparently they had no knowledge of Good either, which is very confusing, wouldn’t it be the same as saying they had no knowledge of God? The very one who was speaking to them.

What kind of understanding, knowledge, or vision did they have in fact?

Many thanks,
Mark.

I think it’s interesting to consider that the created beings involved not only chose “not-God”, but they also were “not-God”. Is there an unavoidable imperfection-an* evil*-in that very fact, even as creation was created good? Can only God be truly, 100%, perfect/good? In this case the inherent imperfection would be irrelevant so long as no part of creation possessed free will. But the imperfection, of simply not being God, could manifest itself once free will was granted to rational creatures. With that same free will, created beings could either continue to recognize their need for and dependency on God and remain in subjugation to Him, or they could fail to do so and rebel against Him.

We’re designed to desire and seek the good-any other orientation would be absurd anyway, I’d think. The ultimate good, however, is to be God. Perhaps the second greatest good then would be to be like God. God actually wanted that for humans according to our faith but that state would always necessarily involve relationship; man’s enjoyment of divinity would be totally dependent on God’s granting it, totally dependent on Him-on our union with Him, rather than on ourselves. But Adam effectively denied God’s very existence by denying His godhood, as he scorned and denied God’s authority/believability. Adam preferred himself to God according to the catechism. In the brave new world that Adam had created for himself and his posterity, there* was* no God above and before them, or God was rendered an optional side note at best.

As the catechism teaches, the sin was to want to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”. This is to aspire to being God for all practical purposes. Just some more thoughts FWIW.