"Original Sin"

  • Thread starter Thread starter M31
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay…didn’t Adam and Eve actually know the consequences of disobeying God before eating the fruit? Did they even know what good and evil meant? Obviously they didn’t have a clue. Why didn’t God teach them BEFORE Eve made a mistake?

You say that God created the universe to be all good. Now I’m going to assume that means other galaxies - maybe other universes. If that’s the case, does that mean that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it affected the rest of the universe? Not just Earth?
You raise alot of points (and they’re all very good points), It’s just that it’s sometimes it’s difficult to understand what your main objection is. I’ll try my best, but for future reference, it might help my and others understanding more if you were shorter and clearer with your objections.

From what I gather from your statement, you find it objectionable that God seemingly placed alot of suffering on humanity without the possibility of removing said suffering. Furthermore, you find it objectionable that the disobedience of Adam and Eve “overcondemned” the planet. I’ll try and explain everything as best as I can according to Catholic teaching.

When God first created the universe, the universe was all-good, because “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” Genesis 1: 31 (NASB). So, when God first created man, man was all-good. He had no sin on him and he was in full grace with God (he was completely holy and good, and was, one could say, instantly sent to heaven because he had not sinned). Then, man chose, through his God-given free will, to disobey God. Because God is the standard of all Goodness, and man choose to disobey God’s Divine Goodness, he allowed sin and suffering to enter the world (how sin is linked to suffering I’ll explain in a bit). Thus, it was not God that placed suffering on humans, it was humans themselves who chose to sin, and thus to allow suffering into the world.

Evil has two different forms. There is moral evil and physical evil. Moral evil is sin. Physical evil is suffering. How are the two connected?

  1. *]The human person is a unity of soul and body (this is a concept known as psychosomatic unity).
    *]If we grant this principle, it makes sense that if the soul becomes alienated from God (through sin), the body will become alienated too.
    *]So, if the human body is a unity of soul and body, and the soul becomes damaged through moral evil (sin), then this will affect the body through the manifestation of physical evil (suffering).

    To give a visual, imagine three iron rings suspended from a magnet. The magnet symbolizes God; the first ring, the soul; the middle ring, the body; the bottom ring, nature. As long as the soul stays in touch with God, the magnetic “life” keeps flowing through the whole chain, from divine life to soul life, body life and nature life. The three rings are harmonized and united. But when the soul freely declares its independence from God, when the first iron ring separates from the magnet, the inevitable consequence is that the whole chain of rings is demagnetized and falls apart. When the soul is separated from God, the body is separated from the soul - that is, it dies - and also from nature - that is, it suffers. Thus, in this way, both suffering and sin are traced to man, not God.

    This is a short quotation and paraphrase from “The Problem of Evil” chapter of the book Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Robert Tacelli (I highly recommend this book as it explains (albeit very briefly) many Catholic teachings in a logical and rational manner).

    You also stated that you found it objectionable that God did not offer a way out of this sin and suffering. The answer to that is that he did: through His son, Jesus Christ. He sent His only Begotten Son to earth to show us the way to His Father (a way that is free of sin, and thus suffering), and through his own suffering, death, and Resurrection, we have been redeemed with God, and are able to live with Him in Heaven.
 
So why would there be a serpent with Adam and Eve in the first place? To test them? Why a serpent and not a butterfly?

Also, why put the tree in there with them in the first place? Couldn’t God have put that tree somewhere else or not let it exist at all?

I mean, to me that seems kind of dumb to put something there and you’re not suppose to touch or eat or whatever. It would make sense putting it elsewhere. And why put it with creatures that have free will?
I don’t tend to take the story literally myself, but if it were literal we’d have to know more (or at least more than I personally know) about the two trees and what God’s plan would have been had Adam not sinned to really be able to answer the second. But whether the tree is literal or not, the primary sin of Adam and Eve was not simply wanting to eat the fruit, but rather choosing to put their own wants above God’s. This option is always inherent in free will, no matter where the tree is.

The serpent is typically understood to be the devil. As another creature with free will, the devil has some freedom to do as he will. It is my understanding that God shields us from the full force of the devil’s power (or what the devil’s power would have been had he not fallen - I really don’t know much about angels so am not sure how to best phrase this), but that he (the devil) is still able to exercise his will to our detriment in some limited ways. But in the end, while the devil can tempt and perhaps harm to some degree, he cannot make our choices for us. His presence may make things more difficult, but, as far as I understand, it does not really change the nature of what is going on.

If there was a butterfly, the snake probably ate it.

As a side note, it is occasionally asked why God does not make it extremely obvious to all of us that He exists (burning bush or voice from the sky style). The angels (and demons) demonstrate that He did do that, just for a different part of creation - so He actually tried it both ways, so to speak. Free will being what it is, there were similar results both times.
 
Okay…didn’t Adam and Eve actually know the consequences of disobeying God before eating the fruit? Did they even know what good and evil meant? Obviously they didn’t have a clue. Why didn’t God teach them BEFORE Eve made a mistake?

You say that God created the universe to be all good. Now I’m going to assume that means other galaxies - maybe other universes. If that’s the case, does that mean that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it affected the rest of the universe? Not just Earth?
When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, He told them they couldn’t eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil “for in the day that you eat it, you will surely die.” Genesis 2:17 (NASB)

So yes, they did know the consequences. And while they might not have known the full ramifications of their actions or a full knowledge of good and evil, they knew enough. God told them not to eat of the fruit. It’s as simple as that. If you choose to disobey that, there will be consequences. And there were.

In theory, when man first brought evil into the world, it would seem likely that this would affect the whole universe. However… we cannot know this for sure. For all we know, the effect of the first sin might only have made Humans and not other alien species Fall from God’s grace.

I’d like to point something out. You appear to be using the Adam and Eve story a bit literally. While there is nothing wrong with taking the Fall story to be historical truth (and it indeed is necessary), it is also extremely unlikely that there was an actual Adam and Eve (We can know this from evolution, science, etc.). So the story is historical, but it is also most likely non-literal.
 
It’s always about free will. That’s what it’s all about. Free will and nothing else.

So if the story is not meant to be taken literally, then it probably didn’t happen.
I don’t tend to take the story literally myself, but if it were literal we’d have to know more (or at least more than I personally know) about the two trees and what God’s plan would have been had Adam not sinned to really be able to answer the second. But whether the tree is literal or not, the primary sin of Adam and Eve was not simply wanting to eat the fruit, but rather choosing to put their own wants above God’s. This option is always inherent in free will, no matter where the tree is.

The serpent is typically understood to be the devil. As another creature with free will, the devil has some freedom to do as he will. It is my understanding that God shields us from the full force of the devil’s power (or what the devil’s power would have been had he not fallen - I really don’t know much about angels so am not sure how to best phrase this), but that he (the devil) is still able to exercise his will to our detriment in some limited ways. But in the end, while the devil can tempt and perhaps harm to some degree, he cannot make our choices for us. His presence may make things more difficult, but, as far as I understand, it does not really change the nature of what is going on.

If there was a butterfly, the snake probably ate it.

As a side note, it is occasionally asked why God does not make it extremely obvious to all of us that He exists (burning bush or voice from the sky style). The angels (and demons) demonstrate that He did do that, just for a different part of creation - so He actually tried it both ways, so to speak. Free will being what it is, there were similar results both times.
 
It’s always about free will. That’s what it’s all about. Free will and nothing else.
What else do you propose there is? Are you trying to blame God for suffering? Because as we have shown here, God is clearly not to blame.
So if the story is not meant to be taken literally, then it probably didn’t happen.
Not true. Just because a story is not literal doesn’t mean it’s not historical. For example, there are many, many war movies out there that talk about what happened during (most popularly) World War II. Windtalkers is just one of these movies. The story follows Cpl. Joe Enders (played by Nicholas Cage) as he tries to protect a Native American battlefield radio operator (played by Adam Beach) from falling into enemy hands and thus revealing the secret code the Marines use to community. Now, I’m pretty sure there was no one named Cpl. Joe Enders (if there was, someone let me know and I will happily rectify my statement) serving during the war. However, does that mean that there was no such thing as a group of Navajo Native Americans that were used by the U.S. military to create a secret code by which to communicate? No. In the case of this movie (and in Genesis) a (most likely) story was used in a non-literal sense to reveal a historical truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top