Predestination of Adam and Eve? Metaphorical messages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drinkgasoline
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Drinkgasoline

Guest
On a facebook discussion group I frequent, one member asked:

“why did God commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? was it for a test to know whether Adam will obey or not? since God is all knowing, what is the point of testing when he already knows the result? did God wants Adam to eat from the tree(i mean did he predestined him to eat?)?” [sic]

What are people’s opinions on this?

Also what is the general consensus here about the story of Adam and Eve, metaphorical or literal?

Many thanks
 
Even though he knows the result it doesn’t mean that your choice had no relevance.
 
On a facebook discussion group I frequent, one member asked:

“why did God commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? was it for a test to know whether Adam will obey or not? since God is all knowing, what is the point of testing when he already knows the result? did God wants Adam to eat from the tree(i mean did he predestined him to eat?)?” [sic]

What are people’s opinions on this?

Also what is the general consensus here about the story of Adam and Eve, metaphorical or literal?

Many thanks
It is a mythological story using symbols to explore the question “if God is all good and loving, why is there so much suffering?”. The answer presented is that we suffer because we disobey God. This answer was too simplistic, of course, because it was obvious that many who disobeyed all the time never suffered at all. This theological reasoning was revised and rethought as the Jews continued to develop their understanding of God.

Note that “myth” and “symbolic” do not comment on the truth or falsehood of the story at all. The catechism says the story uses “figurative language” to describe the event.
 
I actually argued against him saying that the concepts of predestination and foreknowledge don’t matter in the case of Adam and Eve since I believe it’s a purely metaphorical story to illustrate the ideas of temptation… 🤷
 
DrinkGasoline is an inappropriate name for the forums. Children or the mentally unbalanced may be influenced negatively by that suggestive name. Please change it. Thanks. God bless.
 
I actually argued against him saying that the concepts of predestination and foreknowledge don’t matter in the case of Adam and Eve since I believe it’s a purely metaphorical story to illustrate the ideas of temptation… 🤷
It is Catholic Dogma however, that Adam and Eve are two real people from which all of us are descendants.

The book of Genesis and the story of creation speak of real events that actually took place, but use Hebrew storytelling to descibe those events. Genesis is not pure metaphor, nor is it to be taken literally.

Adam and Eve however, are two real people who actually existed. We can all trace our line of descent back to these two real people. This is God’s revaled truth.

-Tim-
 
On a facebook discussion group I frequent, one member asked:

“why did God commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? was it for a test to know whether Adam will obey or not? since God is all knowing, what is the point of testing when he already knows the result? did God wants Adam to eat from the tree(i mean did he predestined him to eat?)?” [sic]

What are people’s opinions on this?

Also what is the general consensus here about the story of Adam and Eve, metaphorical or literal?

Many thanks
First, God did not create robots. He could have created His angels without free will, and without the ability to disobey Him, but just like ordinary people, you can’t force anyone to love you. The same with Adam and Eve, if they could not choose between good and evil, and choose to be obedient, then God would have made them entirely good robots. You can’t love a being that is a slave to you, but you can love someone who chooses to love you as you love them - freely and mutually.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed
 
Adam and Eve had the free will, being unfallen, and created in a state of original grace, that they could have chosen - of their own will, unlike us fallen men who need the grace of God to do good works - to follow God’s commandments, and to draw closer to him.

Adam could have also repented instead of hiding and blaming everyone but himself when he sinned and got caught, and wouldn’t have fallen either. God gave him the chance to repent, but he was obstinate in pride.

The trickier question is, if they had no knowledge of good and evil, how did they know what they were doing was evil, or how is it just that God would punish them for what they had no knowledge of? (Disregarding that he gave Adam a chance to repent for his sin, after he had gained the knowledge of good and evil.)

As far as Adam and Eve being real people, that is taught by the catechism, although it states their story may be spoken in metaphorical language (which I take to mean, i.e., the fruit may not have been a literal apple), but that “first parents were real, extant people…and did sin and fall from grace”, “which we inherit as the stain of original sin” (someone less lazy than I can find the actual paragraphs). I certainly believe the first chapters of Genesis, including the creation of man, to be an accurate, literal, and historical account (but I am a creationist).
 
First, God did not create robots. He could have created His angels without free will, and without the ability to disobey Him, but just like ordinary people, you can’t force anyone to love you. The same with Adam and Eve, if they could not choose between good and evil, and choose to be obedient, then God would have made them entirely good robots. You can’t love a being that is a slave to you, but you can love someone who chooses to love you as you love them - freely and mutually.
I’d have to disagree. Due to the very nature of God, he/she/it can do whatever it wishes .

Just because we can not rationally resolve the idea of God creating a being which both has free will, but also lacks the ability to obey him in our human minds, does not mean it is not possible. Likewise, God could force beings to love him/she/it, and also be able to love a being which is a slave to him/her/it.

That is, unless you reject the definition of God as a being completely self-contained, all-powerful and with no restriction.

As a result, we’re left in a position in which God transcends all human understanding, and thus it’s extremely unlikely that we’ll ever truly be able to understand God’s first actions in the Universe.

As a result, we’re left in a situation in which we can interpret the creation story/myth/fable/historical document in any possible way, except those which suggest a limitation in God’s purely infinite control and power.

As the story’s whole basis rests on denying God’s ultimate, infinite power we can not reasonably take it for fact.

Also, other problems science presents against taking the creation story literally:

Inbreeding and the blunt extinction a lack of variety in the gene pool would cause.
Carbon dating, fossil evidence and the such which suggest the Earth being far older than stated in the Bible.
Evolution.
 
I’d have to disagree. Due to the very nature of God, he/she/it can do whatever it wishes .

Just because we can not rationally resolve the idea of God creating a being which both has free will, but also lacks the ability to obey him in our human minds, does not mean it is not possible. Likewise, God could force beings to love him/she/it, and also be able to love a being which is a slave to him/her/it.

That is, unless you reject the definition of God as a being completely self-contained, all-powerful and with no restriction.

As a result, we’re left in a position in which God transcends all human understanding, and thus it’s extremely unlikely that we’ll ever truly be able to understand God’s first actions in the Universe.

As a result, we’re left in a situation in which we can interpret the creation story/myth/fable/historical document in any possible way, except those which suggest a limitation in God’s purely infinite control and power.

As the story’s whole basis rests on denying God’s ultimate, infinite power we can not reasonably take it for fact.

Also, other problems science presents against taking the creation story literally:

Inbreeding and the blunt extinction a lack of variety in the gene pool would cause.
Carbon dating, fossil evidence and the such which suggest the Earth being far older than stated in the Bible.
Evolution.
Your last sentence - why does that concern you at all? I mean, why post on a Catholic forum and put science above the power of God? All I keep seeing, over and over again, is the same “you can’t take it literally” line. That makes me think there is one reason for this - Science discards and deprives God of any power over His creation. And that “thinking” encourages me to hold fast to all I was taught in Catholic school.

usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

But I suspect the dead horse will be brought out for another beating very shortly 🙂

Peace,
Ed
 
Science discards and deprives God of any power over His creation.

Peace,
Ed
Oh absolutely not, my friend. Science is not explaining God, it’s explaining His creation, it can’t discard or deprive God of His power. Science affirms God.
 
Science cannot study God/gods or affirm it/them. I am developing growing doubts, partly based on posts here, that science explains very little as regards creation.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed
I see God through the things studied in science, through the incredible processes, mechanisms and complexity of intelligible life. This is what I mean by science affirming my belief, many scientists say the same for example John Lennox, “The existence of an intelligible (able to be understood) world points to the existence of an intelligible (able to be understood, but only through intellect and reason), reasonable creator”.

I acknowledge that the ACTUAL study of God or rather attempt to study God is through what Boethius described as “divine science” - theology, metaphysics, philosophy and the like.

Aquinas himself wrote about the importance of science and understanding of the God-created world. He wrote that science is based on reason as is philosophy and theology, so both must be important.

Science explains what has been created rather than how it was created.

Sorry to go so off-topic, but it does distress me how some religious people view science as such a negative or even anti-religious thing. Science and religion are not at conflict at all.
 
Some versions of the Kabbalah say that the serpent was actually working for God so that the humans could advance spiritually.
 
I see God through the things studied in science, through the incredible processes, mechanisms and complexity of intelligible life. This is what I mean by science affirming my belief, many scientists say the same for example John Lennox, “The existence of an intelligible (able to be understood) world points to the existence of an intelligible (able to be understood, but only through intellect and reason), reasonable creator”.

I acknowledge that the ACTUAL study of God or rather attempt to study God is through what Boethius described as “divine science” - theology, metaphysics, philosophy and the like.

Aquinas himself wrote about the importance of science and understanding of the God-created world. He wrote that science is based on reason as is philosophy and theology, so both must be important.

Science explains what has been created rather than how it was created.

Sorry to go so off-topic, but it does distress me how some religious people view science as such a negative or even anti-religious thing. Science and religion are not at conflict at all.
Science explains what? Have you looked at a biology textbook? The whole process is there: from very simple organisms to very complex organisms. Science claims that very gradual processes gradually produced changes that gave rise to our supposed ancestors - lemur-lilke creatures and then apes/hominids and us. Science regarding this subject is a big negative.

There’s your ancestor on the left and you on the right:

images.google.com/imgres?q=evolution+tree+of+humans&num=10&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=905&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ngmo_K4chcy0JM:&imgrefurl=http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/early_primates_evolution.html&docid=Ea0Tx1i5VlkNiM&imgurl=http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/eosimias_human_origins.jpg&w=600&h=492&ei=tP4NUOvHAsXEqQGt-IC4CQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=585&sig=106091372161517899937&page=1&tbnh=173&tbnw=229&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:113&tx=113&ty=60

It’s all carved in stone by the way 🙂

Peace,
Ed
 
Science explains what? Have you looked at a biology textbook? The whole process is there: from very simple organisms to very complex organisms. Science claims that very gradual processes gradually produced changes that gave rise to our supposed ancestors - lemur-lilke creatures and then apes/hominids and us. Science regarding this subject is a big negative.

There’s your ancestor on the left and you on the right:

images.google.com/imgres?q=evolution+tree+of+humans&num=10&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=905&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ngmo_K4chcy0JM:&imgrefurl=http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/early_primates_evolution.html&docid=Ea0Tx1i5VlkNiM&imgurl=http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/eosimias_human_origins.jpg&w=600&h=492&ei=tP4NUOvHAsXEqQGt-IC4CQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=585&sig=106091372161517899937&page=1&tbnh=173&tbnw=229&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:113&tx=113&ty=60

It’s all carved in stone by the way 🙂

Peace,
Ed
What are you babbling about, nothing you said challenges God at all - what are you trying to prove?

I’m sorry that you’re incorrigible, I suggest you read more Polkinghorne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top