V
Vico
Guest
They did not know good and evil, but knew not to eat of the tree that gave it. They did not trust in God but opposed God.
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
Yeah, God’s plan for them, seems they had a different plan…
When I first read the 1st part of your post I thought none of what happen in the garden affected God at all, God didn’t lose anything…
I don’t think we can compare the garden with the world we know, for one there was only two humans around.
S
simpleas
Guest
Having knowledge of Good and Evil doesn’t mean one has to act upon it, well maybe acting upon good and knowing it is good because one is aware of evil…My first idea of the forbidden tree was that the name meant knowing everything there is to know because there is no knowledge beyond good and evil. Thus, the forbidden tree would mean the “unlimited knowledge” of the Creator of the tree.
The tree could be seen as the Creator’s knowledge in that God knows that the evil of mortal sin will destroy the State of Sanctifying Grace. God did not create mortal sin. God knows the evil of disobedience because the creature could attempt to create the impossible second equally supreme Creator and therefore would lose the status of being in God’s friendship.
Again, it is the human problem that a human has to experience his own death before he can tell the difference between a dead cow and a live cow.
Satan’s temptation of Adam – to lose trust in God, Genesis 3: 4-5 – continues to work in this century. We cannot trust God because we do not know everything. We need to find our own tree of “unlimited knowledge” of good and evil and then life will be perfect. We will finally know the difference between a dead cow and a live cow.
Could Adam freely choose to live in obedience to God without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? (CCC 396–note words “freely recognize and respect with trust”)
Obviously, this post has only a toe in the water of knowledge and unlimited knowledge. While we are looking for Adam, why should we ignore the capacity of Adam’s mind?
But the O.S was in gaining this knowledge, so it was an evil on part of man before he gain the knowledge.
S
simpleas
Guest
I think that even if they had full knowledge, unlimited, they still could have sinned anyway, the temptation to become a god and have power could be overwhelming to some people. I don’t know how much they wanted to be gods.
F
fhansen
Guest
I don’t think they could’ve sinned if they possessed direct knowledge of Him, aka the BV. That knowledge is strictly a gift of grace, but it’s knowledge nonetheless. And I think the rejection of God’s authority, by their act of disobedience, was itself a bid for godhood for all practical purposes. Who could know better than God, unless another “god”? Who can rightfully determine morality for humans, except for God? And yet they created a morality of their own, so to speak, by denying His command. From then on morality would become relative for man, even as his conscience might continue to whisper quietly in the background. Without a King, man just does what’s right in his own eyes (Judges 17).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think it’s too easy to make too LITTLE of the Genesis accounts.
Take for example, the creation of the universe. Some physicists say there was some kind of super-energy “string” that somehow was generated through the intersection of two incredibly massive undulating “membranes” representing dimensions. Around the “string” there was nothing in this dimension; not matter, not radiation, not even space or time. The “string”, which theretofore did not radiate, massively expanded in a cataclysm of radiation of all kinds, some of it coalescing into matter, some remaining as energy, with the matter gradually congealing through the force of gravity into planets, stars, etc. As it expanded, so did “space” and “time” into the absolute void in which there was previously neither space nor time.
Now, here’s the Genesis account:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Is this talking about pre-string membranes here?)
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
(Is this talking about the intersection generating the “string”; its explosion into undifferentiated energy which “carried” space and time with it, then reconstitution into energy, matter and relative voids of space between?)
Interesting to think about how at least some modern physicists’ theories are much closer to the Genesis account that was the case even a hundred years ago when physicists believed in a “clockwork universe”.
All of us, including me, can make too much of a particular view of the creation story, but sometimes it’s uncanny how modern knowledge makes it fit better than it did before.
I have sometimes wondered whether Adam and Eve’s condition differed much from our own. Did they experience cold, heat, hunger and all of those things but, being in a state of acceptance of God’s will, did they simply accept those things? Even death. Did they know about it, but simply saw that as part of life, as we are supposed to to, without thinking of it as a truly different state the way we do?
And was the choice simply to MAKE choices; to decide for ourselves, subjectively, what we consider good and evil. And what would have triggered a change from perfect acceptance to non-acceptance? In other words, what was the “fruit” of the tree? We don’t know, but it might have been simply a conscious choice to make choices. Eve was promised the “fruit” would make her like God; a lie of course, but with enough truth in it (autonomy) to perhaps be persuasive.
We all do that. We are born innocent, but little by little we start deciding for ourselves what we think is desirable or undesirable, subjectively. And we convince ourselves that doing so somehow elevates us and we act on those things. When the choices are in accord with the will of God, it’s virtuous. When against it, it’s sin.
Worth thinking about all of that, but we don’t know, of course.
Take for example, the creation of the universe. Some physicists say there was some kind of super-energy “string” that somehow was generated through the intersection of two incredibly massive undulating “membranes” representing dimensions. Around the “string” there was nothing in this dimension; not matter, not radiation, not even space or time. The “string”, which theretofore did not radiate, massively expanded in a cataclysm of radiation of all kinds, some of it coalescing into matter, some remaining as energy, with the matter gradually congealing through the force of gravity into planets, stars, etc. As it expanded, so did “space” and “time” into the absolute void in which there was previously neither space nor time.
Now, here’s the Genesis account:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Is this talking about pre-string membranes here?)
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
(Is this talking about the intersection generating the “string”; its explosion into undifferentiated energy which “carried” space and time with it, then reconstitution into energy, matter and relative voids of space between?)
Interesting to think about how at least some modern physicists’ theories are much closer to the Genesis account that was the case even a hundred years ago when physicists believed in a “clockwork universe”.
All of us, including me, can make too much of a particular view of the creation story, but sometimes it’s uncanny how modern knowledge makes it fit better than it did before.
I have sometimes wondered whether Adam and Eve’s condition differed much from our own. Did they experience cold, heat, hunger and all of those things but, being in a state of acceptance of God’s will, did they simply accept those things? Even death. Did they know about it, but simply saw that as part of life, as we are supposed to to, without thinking of it as a truly different state the way we do?
And was the choice simply to MAKE choices; to decide for ourselves, subjectively, what we consider good and evil. And what would have triggered a change from perfect acceptance to non-acceptance? In other words, what was the “fruit” of the tree? We don’t know, but it might have been simply a conscious choice to make choices. Eve was promised the “fruit” would make her like God; a lie of course, but with enough truth in it (autonomy) to perhaps be persuasive.
We all do that. We are born innocent, but little by little we start deciding for ourselves what we think is desirable or undesirable, subjectively. And we convince ourselves that doing so somehow elevates us and we act on those things. When the choices are in accord with the will of God, it’s virtuous. When against it, it’s sin.
Worth thinking about all of that, but we don’t know, of course.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Nobody can have unlimited knowledge, but we can have more than we do at any point in time.
We need to remember that Satan’s knowledge was vastly greater than our own, and yet, knowing the consequence of his choosing spiritual autonomy, he chose it. Self-worship, in other words. We do the same thing, but in smaller doses and it isn’t irrevocable for us the way it was/is for Satan.
So, Satan is a self-worshiper for all eternity now. We can choose it “in time” because we live in time. But because we live in time, we can change our choice as long as we’re still in time.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, but their choice was the same as ours in essence.
G
grannymh
Guest
Catholic teaching does not say that Original Sin was “in gaining this knowledge.” That kind of misunderstanding is due to the fact that many readers of Sacred Scripture continue to ignore the real purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. CCC 355-357; CCC 396; CCC 1730-1732.
Please kindly refer to posts 136 & 139. Thank you.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Isn’t it possible that “knowledge” in the context is not necessarily intellectual knowledge, but experiential knowledge? Experiential knowledge, then, could mean actually disobeying God, which is exactly what Adam and Eve did. But I suppose one would have to delve into the meaning of the original Hebrew words used, which would probably also require considerable knowledge of the context given that a lot of Hebrew writings were capable of multiple meanings given the nature of the written language.
Not being a biblical scholar, I admit that I couldn’t say with authority what meaning or meanings the word “knowledge” is capable of in the context.
F
fhansen
Guest
The meaning of the Hebrew word used is often used to convey the concept of direct, experiential knowledge. To know one in the marital union, for example, is one place the word is used in Scripture. It can also refer to intellectual knowledge.
Aquinas offered two meanings for the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. One is that direct, experiential knowledge of good and evil would result from eating of the tree, while the other is that the act of eating of the tree was to take upon themselves the authority to determine good and evil-morality-for themselves, as if they knew right and wrong independent of God, putting themselves in His place.
And those are the only two ways of understanding the matter that are logically consistent with Scripture IMO. And they don’t necessarily conflict with each other.
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology.
I cannot formulate my questions regarding this point–“One is that direct, experiential knowledge of good and evil would result from eating of the tree,”-- attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas because I am not familiar with the context. I would think that the previous interactions with his Creator God would have given Adam the experiential knowledge of good.
Nonetheless, the following information about Catholic protocol may be helpful.
In the Catholic Church, the major Ecumenical Church Councils did not automatically accept every “offered meaning” that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote as being Divine Revelation. Note: citations of Aquinas are found in the CCC Index of Citations, starting at page 751. With the wisdom and guidance of the promised Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John) these Councils were able to recognize and proclaim the actual Divine Revelation which Aquinas presented in his writings.
Going by what is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396 & 399, Adam and Eve experienced the results of Original Sin. A result is a real action. Adam’s free will choice includes his previous knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Obviously, Adam ignored this knowledge of difference which was explained in Genesis 2: 15-17 with his disobedient action in
Genesis 3: 8-12.
This second meaning of Original Sin makes more sense. “the other is that the act of eating of the tree was to take upon themselves the authority to determine good and evil-morality-for themselves, as if they knew right and wrong independent of God, putting themselves in His place.”
F
fhansen
Guest
Of course. The same can be said for even granny’s opinions.
According to both the Catechism and Scripture Adam and Eve experienced the results of OS. A real action/result, is that they then knew good and evil, as Scripture firmly attests to. The term “good” may not have even made sense to Adam prior to the Fall-because everything was good; they had no experience of its opposite. They probably wouldn’t even rate some things as good, some as better or worse. There was no need to judge or distinguish such things in terms of their relative value; it was literally all good. Good and evil become identifiable as separate realities only once evil is known. As Vico put it in an earlier post: “They did not know good and evil, but knew not to eat of the tree that gave it [the knowledge]. They did not trust in God but opposed God”. One could say that they were told what was sinful, but had not directly *experienced *sin. Their own sin would be the first, incidentally, which immediately opened their eyes, gave them the knowledge of good and evil, and placed them firmly outside of God’s will and grace. Shame instantly entered the scene as well.
They both make a great deal of sense, and aren’t necessarily incompatible with each other. Either way, competent theologians have considered both of these to be true.
F
fhansen
Guest
Would murder be a part of God’s perfectly ordered creation? If not, then why would a being, created in a good and just world, know anything of murder? How could murder be anything other than a shocking, totally foreign anomaly to such a being? Why and how should any of the many evils we know as all too common occurrences today, in this very un-edenic world, be a part of Paradise? Why/how would it even enter their minds?
We now, all of humanity along with Adam, have been exposed to evil daily beginning with the evil he saw or knew from the moment he sinned, along with all the other evil that followed that first act of disobedience. We have lost our innocence with and through him.
And if we equate innocence with being dumb, I think we mock God. Isn’t that really our *own *fallen natures speaking perhaps, the side of us that covets wisdom, thinking a being that knows evil is smarter/wiser?
We now, all of humanity along with Adam, have been exposed to evil daily beginning with the evil he saw or knew from the moment he sinned, along with all the other evil that followed that first act of disobedience. We have lost our innocence with and through him.
And if we equate innocence with being dumb, I think we mock God. Isn’t that really our *own *fallen natures speaking perhaps, the side of us that covets wisdom, thinking a being that knows evil is smarter/wiser?
V
Vico
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (has this answer):
ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, I certainly don’t disagree with the natural law doctrine. This is God’s voice in us. And now that we know evil in an intimate and direct sense, the call to shun it should become all the more pressing, all the more urgent as we come to witness and recognize its destruction. That’s the purpose of our exile here, in fact.
G
grannymh
Guest
Returning to Adam looking up at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we find that the significance of the name Good and Evil (CCC 396) can possibly refer to the judgments of Adam’s moral conscience “which enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil.” (CCC 1777) Please note that the name Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not limited to one interpretation. However, it is important that all interpretations comport with Catholic doctrines.
Footnote 48 from CCC 1777 is Romans 2: 14-16
14
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.k
15
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,* while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16
on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.l usccb.org/bible/romans/2
An interesting question is How evil is evil? Followed by the interesting question How could Adam choose evil in any shape?
Genesis 2: 17
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
Perhaps the real question is not “how” Adam could choose evil and die, but rather “why” the author of the first three chapters of Genesis omitted the nitty-gritty details of Adam’s motives. CCC 397-398 tells us the truth of what happened. Still, we are left with the nitty-gritty question – Where are the exact details which explain in concrete terms how Adam could choose himself “against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.” CCC 398 and CCC 396
So, why didn’t the author of the third chapter of Genesis give us the details of how Adam’s mind was working?
V
Vico
Guest
The topic takes a turn to Eve: St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica (Question 163. The first man’s sin, Article 4) writes:
On the contrary, Punishment corresponds to guilt. Now the woman was more grievously punished than the man, as appears from Genesis 3. Therefore she sinned more grievously than the man.
Reply to Objection 1. The woman was deceived because she was first of all puffed up with pride. Wherefore her ignorance did not excuse, but aggravated her sin, in so far as it was the cause of her being puffed up with still greater pride.
Reply to Objection 3. The man’s reliance on God’s mercy did not reach to contempt of God’s justice, wherein consists the sin against the Holy Ghost, but as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi [De Civ. Dei xiv, 11), it was due to the fact that, “having had no experience of God’s severity, he thought the sin to be venial,” i.e. easily forgiven [Cf. I-II, 89, 3, ad 1].
newadvent.org/summa/3163.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de malo, 4,1 is an essential element of the doctrines on Original Sin. (CCC 404, footnote 293) On the other hand, the above quotes appear to be probable or possibly secondary to the actual doctrines on Original Sin.
For example.
“On the contrary, Punishment corresponds to guilt. Now the woman was more grievously punished than the man, as appears from Genesis 3. Therefore she sinned more grievously than the man.”
Here we need to turn to the basic essential point that Adam and Eve were equally grievously punished with the loss of their individual State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC 399)
What is often forgotten is the obvious fact that every word written by great saints does not automatically become a Catholic doctrine. In addition, the role of the Holy Spirit as seen in Catholic protocol is diminished simply because Catholic protocol is rarely considered when speaking about familiar Catholic doctrines.
Another problem is that some, not all, Catholics do not see the seriousness of
CCC 66 and the fact that CCC 66 refers to the promised Holy Spirit guiding the major Ecumenical Church Councils.
**66 **“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Brief comments on the quote of St. Augustine who lived in the early centuries of the Catholic Church – Therefore, CCC 66 must be considered. In addition, the protocol of the Catholic Church does not automatically turn every word written by great saints into official duly defined and properly declared Catholic doctrines.
“…but as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi [De Civ. Dei xiv, 11), it was due to the fact that, “having had no experience of God’s severity, he thought the sin to be venial,” i.e. easily forgiven [Cf. I-II, 89, 3, ad 1].”
When the above is read in the light of CCC 1730, one discovers that “experience of God’s severity” is not a necessary requirement for a true human person to seek his Creator. Did Adam really think that the sin was venial, i.e., easily forgiven. So far, I have not seen an official duly defined and properly declared Catholic doctrine on the subject of Adam’s exact thinking in Genesis 3: 6 If there is a doctrine, please advise.
Note: Genesis 3: 6 is referenced in CCC 2541 & CCC 2847.
The Holy Spirit is a tad precise when it comes to Divine Revelation.
A very important point. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* has supportive material for Catholic teachings. This is why it is important to first read CCC 20-21 on the use of small print.
F
fhansen
Guest
I read this recently in the Summa but couldn’t quite agree with Eve’s guilt being greater, even tho I rarely find myself disagreeing with Mr Aquinas. If anything her guilt may’ve been* less* because she was deceived, while Adam simply* ate.* OTOH, I like the way STA acknowledged that there was a willfulness in her being deceived; she played a role by preferring a lie over the truth. Either way, pride was a motivator for both. Here’s more from the Summa, from the same part, ques 162:
**Whether pride was the first man’s first sin?
On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 10:15): “Pride is the beginning of all sin.” Now man’s first sin is the beginning of all sin, according to Romans 5:12, “By one man sin entered into this world.” Therefore man’s first sin was pride.
I answer that, Many movements may concur towards one sin, and the character of sin attaches to that one in which inordinateness is first found. And it is evident that inordinateness is in the inward movement of the soul before being in the outward act of the body; since, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 18), the sanctity of the body is not forfeited so long as the sanctity of the soul remains. Also, among the inward movements, the appetite is moved towards the end before being moved towards that which is desired for the sake of the end; and consequently man’s first sin was where it was possible for his appetite to be directed to an inordinate end. Now man was so appointed in the state of innocence, that there was no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Wherefore it was not possible for the first inordinateness in the human appetite to result from his coveting a sensible good, to which the concupiscence of the flesh tends against the order of reason. It remains therefore that the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it inordinately, by desiring it according to his measure as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man’s first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man’s first sin was pride.**
Aquinas also goes on to state that pride is the most grievous of all sins.
- Status