The Fall of mankind: inevitable part of God’s plan or unexplainable mystery of faith?

[Giovonni]

To me, creating a man you know will obey is the same thing as creating one who must obey if he can’t do differently. It’s like God saying, “II will create a man who will love and obey me no matter what even though, should he want to disobey, he can. Though he won’t.” To me, that takes free will out of the equation.

Not trying to argue with you, just understand.

You are thinking of absolutes, I’m talking degrees of influence. We encounter desires every day that we resist and some we don’t resist. We don’t resist bad things because we are robots. We resist them because we have better desires (love, desire for happiness, loyalty to Church) and intellect which we use to outweigh the bad desires.

Think of it as a scale. All God would need to do is turn down the pride a little and increase the loyalty a little. The choice is still free but the outcome changes.

 

[Giovonni]

I wasn’t there, LOL, but I believe Satan tempted Eve and Eve tempted Adam.

And I believe it was a pear! LOL.

 

[Giovonni]

To me, creating a man you know will obey is the same thing as creating one who must obey if he can’t do differently. It’s like God saying, “II will create a man who will love and obey me no matter what even though, should he want to disobey, he can. Though he won’t.” To me, that takes free will out of the equation.

Not trying to argue with you, just understand.

Think of your argument but instead of saying “a man who you know will obey” and substitute it with “a man you know will not obey”.

Now you’ve just described what actually happened with God and Adam but you don’t say Adam’s free will was taken away.

 

[davidv]

Some people think Adam was with Eve the whole time which means they were both enticed.

A careful reading of Genesis 3 would not exclude this possibility.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

We had a thread on this once. It got to more than 1,000 posts with no clear answers.

I’'m not saying you shouldn’t pursue the question. You might be able to add something the other thread dd not touch on. But I think it’s something we can’t understand fully. Yet. Not until God chooses to reveal it to us in its entirety.

 

[Giovonni]

We had a thread on this once. It got to more than 1,000 posts with no clear answers.

I’'m not saying you shouldn’t pursue the question. You might be able to add something the other thread dd not touch on. But I think it’s something we can’t understand fully. Yet. Not until God chooses to reveal it to us in its entirety.

I can appreciate that. Sometimes we have to accept things we can’t know. It just leads me to suspect that the fall, the struggle, the salvation was all intended from the beginning.

 

[OneSheep]

According to the Catechism, the reason for the first sin is that (CCC 398) “man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God” but “without God, before God and not in accordance with God”.

My question is, why would pre-fallen man prefer himself to God? It seems Adam, while created very good, was easily susceptible to emotions of fear, mistrust of God’s promise, and possibly pride. God could have left out these traits and desires during his creation and still preserved Adam’s free will. So why didn’t God create a man of strong character who would have resisted temptation (while still preserving his ability to choose)? It seems to me there are two responses:

1. It was God’s divine plan for Adam to fall. Or…
2. It is beyond our ability to understand why Adam was created this way.

The first answer is problematic because it is contrary to the faith. Yet saying we can’t know is challenging, since our understanding of the fall is critical to everything that follows, from free will to salvation.

Hi Giovanni,

Great question, great thread, great participants, and friendly tone. Cool!

Here is a third response:

1. If Adam and Eve truly preferred themselves to God, they did so in blindness and/or ignorance. If we take the story literally, they were not ignorant, but if they were truly human, they could have easily been blinded by desire for the fruit. They saw that it was “good to eat” and by nature when we desire something, our value of it can override our value of anything else.

To me, the story is best viewed as an allegory of the formation of the human conscience. All of the elements of conscience are there, knowledge of good vs evil (our internal rulebooks), suspicion, shame, condemnation, punishment, etc. In the broadest sense, these are all aspects of the conscience, which is a specifically human trait, at least in the advanced form we have. The “gods” hesitance toward giving man the conscience demonstrates our own love/hate relationship with our own consciences. The conscience is our behavioral guide, but since our drive to punish often gets out of hand, we have a lot of problems. This is a bit of a simplistic explanation, but it is how I make the most sense out of the story.

Did God plan for Adam to fall? If Adam “fell”, then I look at it as God wanting to create an autonomous species (unlike the rest of the critters) and He knew that man would disobey Him. The part about man being “stained” by this in some way, (as punishment for him and his offspring) as well as the introduction of death makes little sense to me, and presents an image of a God who “gives and takes away” which to me is a bit of a ding on the benevolence aspect. Those punishments, along with increased pain in childbirth, for me make the story more of one to be read allegorically.

Note: What I wrote there is highly speculative, not doctrinal. The CCC version is a default, and is functional, even though it does present some contradictions.

:twocents:

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hi Giovanni,

Great question, great thread, great participants, and friendly tone. Cool!

Here is a third response:

1. If Adam and Eve truly preferred themselves to God, they did so in blindness and/or ignorance. If we take the story literally, they were not ignorant, but if they were truly human, they could have easily been blinded by desire for the fruit. They saw that it was “good to eat” and by nature when we desire something, our value of it can override our value of anything else.

To me, the story is best viewed as an allegory of the formation of the human conscience. All of the elements of conscience are there, knowledge of good vs evil (our internal rulebooks), suspicion, shame, condemnation, punishment, etc. In the broadest sense, these are all aspects of the conscience, which is a specifically human trait, at least in the advanced form we have. The “gods” hesitance toward giving man the conscience demonstrates our own love/hate relationship with our own consciences. The conscience is our behavioral guide, but since our drive to punish often gets out of hand, we have a lot of problems. This is a bit of a simplistic explanation, but it is how I make the most sense out of the story.

Did God plan for Adam to fall? If Adam “fell”, then I look at it as God wanting to create an autonomous species (unlike the rest of the critters) and He knew that man would disobey Him. The part about man being “stained” by this in some way, (as punishment for him and his offspring) as well as the introduction of death makes little sense to me, and presents an image of a God who “gives and takes away” which to me is a bit of a ding on the benevolence aspect. Those punishments, along with increased pain in childbirth, for me make the story more of one to be read allegorically.

Note: What I wrote there is highly speculative, not doctrinal. The CCC version is a default, and is functional, even though it does present some contradictions.

:twocents:

My moral theology students are studying conscience right now.

I don’t think Adam and Eve were at all ignorant. I think they were very intelligent. Remember, before the fall, they were fully human. I think they chose themselves and their wants over God. There is much about the fall we cannot understand as yet, Ihink, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

 

[Abu]

OneSheep #47
If Adam “fell”, then I look at it as God wanting to create an autonomous species (unlike the rest of the critters) and He knew that man would disobey Him. The part about man being “stained” by this in some way, (as punishment for him and his offspring) as well as the introduction of death makes little sense to me, and presents an image of a God who “gives and takes away” which to me is a bit of a ding on the benevolence aspect. Those punishments, along with increased pain in childbirth, for me make the story more of one to be read allegorically.

False, since an allegory is “a long or complicated story with an underlying meaning that differs from the literal or surface meaning. The greatest biblical allegory is the Canticle of Canticles. (Etym. Latin allegoria; from Greek allegoria, a description of one thing under the image of another.)”
Modern Catholic Dictionary, by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Further, the Dogma of Trent on Original Sin teaches the personal guilt of Adam & Eve for Original Sin, but the Magisterium does not teach a personal or actual sin or guilt in Adam’s descendants. What is present in our fallen human nature is the stain of that sin in each of us – we all born sinners (St Paul, Rom 5:19) – Adam transmitted his guilt to our nature – left in a state of sin. That is why the CCC #403 teaches that Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted….”
Our fallen state lies in our human nature received sinful from Adam’s nature.

God made Adam and Eve perfect human beings with free-will, with conditions. They chose to disobey those conditions and became imperfect – thus all of their descendants of the Original Sin are afflicted.

God told Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:1-24 that because of their sin they would have to work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die. Paul explains original sin in great detail in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

The consequences of Adam’s sin and our state of sin are the loss of: sanctifying grace, of integrity, of immortality and happiness (therefore suffering), and of enlightenment.

 

[Bahman]

According to the Catechism, the reason for the first sin is that (CCC 398) “man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God” but “without God, before God and not in accordance with God”.

My question is, why would pre-fallen man prefer himself to God? It seems Adam, while created very good, was easily susceptible to emotions of fear, mistrust of God’s promise, and possibly pride. God could have left out these traits and desires during his creation and still preserved Adam’s free will. So why didn’t God create a man of strong character who would have resisted temptation (while still preserving his ability to choose)? It seems to me there are two responses:

1. It was God’s divine plan for Adam to fall. Or…
2. It is beyond our ability to understand why Adam was created this way.

The first answer is problematic because it is contrary to the faith. Yet saying we can’t know is challenging, since our understanding of the fall is critical to everything that follows, from free will to salvation.

Oh well, there are several issues here: The fall of Adam has happened after fall of angels. Why should Satan has access to Adam and Eve after his fall in order to seduce them to eat the apple? Why God created the tree in the Garden knowing the consequence? To me this sounds like a plan so I go with the first option.

 

[MT1926]

That’s a pretty big whoops. And 50 years for them at the time would’ve been a drop in the pond considering they had eternity. Seems like they tripped right out of the gate.

I am not really sure of the answer you are looking for. I personally don’t think we will know the answer in this lifetime.

I just wanted to clear up that I was trying to make the point of length of time in our current mindset. Which is why I used a literal 50 years and was trying not to compare it to an immortal eternity. As I stated I personally don’t take the Genesis story literally and believe they could have been there for much, much longer. I don’t want to argue this point, I just wanted to say I don’t agree that they “tripped right out of the gate”.

On a side note you mentioned later:
“Think of it as a scale. All God would need to do is turn down the pride a little and increase the loyalty a little. The choice is still free but the outcome changes.”

I think once you ad the dials that can be turned up or down you take away free will. However, even if we allow the dials to be installed, unless God turns the pride dial down to zero the fall still would have occurred. Wouldn’t you agree it is still just a mater of time? 50 million years is a long time to go without getting bored.

God Bless,

Matthew19:26

 

[simpleas]

Right now I’d go with unexplainable mystery of faith…

 

[OneSheep]

My moral theology students are studying conscience right now.

I don’t think Adam and Eve were at all ignorant. I think they were very intelligent. Remember, before the fall, they were fully human. I think they chose themselves and their wants over God. There is much about the fall we cannot understand as yet, Ihink, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

Good Morning, Lily!

Okay, now I am officially a fan of yours. Study of the conscience in a moral theology class? I want to take your class. I wish they had these kinds of things online, and what are my chances of getting to study from a person as gracious as you are?

What is taught is that A&E had an “infused knowledge”, right? The problem is, we don’t know the limits of that knowledge, other than that they did not know good and evil. So, we really don’t know how ignorant or knowledgeable they were, and perhaps the amount of knowing they had distracts from the point of the story, methinks.

What we do know is that as humans, when we desire something greatly we are blinded of the value of almost everything else (think of Gollum in Lord of the Rings as symbolic of this). We are especially blinded of the value of anything that stands in the way of what we desire. This is part of our nature, our good nature, our God-given nature. To me, it is a part of our nature to be transcended, just as our capacity for anger is to be transcended, i.e. looked at prayerfully. As was such of those who crucified Jesus, A&E’s affective knowledge was compromised.

So, our conscience, (specifically our compulsion to judge what we see as harmful) looks at our capacity for blindness stemming from desire, and condemns these parts of ourselves. These parts of ourselves, the desire, the blindness capacity, or both, become part of our “shadow”, they become part of the “darkness” within referred to by Jesus. Such placement operates as a guide to our subsequent behaviors. It is functionally beautiful, is it not? This is part of how I make sense of it all.

Are you thinking that A&E intended to choose themselves over God, despite the fruit? Or, that in breaking a rule we intend to put ourselves over the rule-makers? That is not how my mind operates. I usually see really good reasons for local ordinances, for example, but when they don’t make any sense I violate them without any intent to put myself over the City. They mean well, but sometimes their rules are counterproductive or conflicting. In the moment, the prohibition of eating the fruit did not make sense to A&E, on top of the blindness aspect. “If God put it here and made it look so good, how could it possibly be bad for us?” All of this is a great subject to develop. Indeed, the “knowledge of good and evil” if equated to the conscience has been very good for the human, it is vital to our tribal functioning .

Sorry for the long response. I try not to get carried away, but I did it again.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

False, since an allegory is “a long or complicated story with an underlying meaning that differs from the literal or surface meaning. The greatest biblical allegory is the Canticle of Canticles. (Etym. Latin allegoria; from Greek allegoria, a description of one thing under the image of another.)”
Modern Catholic Dictionary, by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Further, the Dogma of Trent on Original Sin teaches the personal guilt of Adam & Eve for Original Sin, but the Magisterium does not teach a personal or actual sin or guilt in Adam’s descendants. What is present in our fallen human nature is the stain of that sin in each of us – we all born sinners (St Paul, Rom 5:19) – Adam transmitted his guilt to our nature – left in a state of sin. That is why the CCC #403 teaches that Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted….”
Our fallen state lies in our human nature received sinful from Adam’s nature.

God made Adam and Eve perfect human beings with free-will, with conditions. They chose to disobey those conditions and became imperfect – thus all of their descendants of the Original Sin are afflicted.

God told Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:1-24 that because of their sin they would have to work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die. Paul explains original sin in great detail in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

The consequences of Adam’s sin and our state of sin are the loss of: sanctifying grace, of integrity, of immortality and happiness (therefore suffering), and of enlightenment.

Hello, Abu!

First of all, I do not mean to contradict the CCC or church teachings as they stand, so know that I appreciate any protection of such.

Can you describe a specific imperfection in the human? Your answer would be helpful in explaining my seeming defiance. Yes, we have the capacity to do very hurtful things to each other. Can you nail down one of the causes, one of the parts of our nature that indicates a “fallen state”.

For example, the fact that we humans “work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die” is hardly unique; don’t all the rest of God’s loved creatures have the same fate? So what I am looking for is an example of a specific “stain” in our “state”, i.e. our capacity for anger, or our capacity to defy, our capacity for addiction, etc.

Thanks!

P.S. Not to be disrespectful, but I recently viewed Disney’s “Alladin”, and there was an “Abu” in the story. Coincidence? Great character.

 

[Abu]

OneSheep #54
First of all, I do not mean to contradict the CCC or church teachings as they stand, so know that I appreciate any protection of such.

In reality we don’t have the licence to pick and choose to discredit the Church’s teaching – such a mindset would point to dissent which is strictly forbidden.

Can you describe a specific imperfection in the human? Your answer would be helpful in explaining my seeming defiance. Yes, we have the capacity to do very hurtful things to each other. Can you nail down one of the causes, one of the parts of our nature that indicates a “fallen state”.

For example, the fact that we humans “work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die” is hardly unique; don’t all the rest of God’s loved creatures have the same fate? So what I am looking for is an example of a specific “stain” in our “state”, i.e. our capacity for anger, or our capacity to defy, our capacity for addiction, etc.

We cannot place the “rest of God’s creatures” on a par with “we humans” – they do not have the same created soul and the intelligence of mankind, while realising that some of us are mentally or physically incapacitated seriously – a consequence of the Fall.
**
PRETERNATURAL GIFTS.** Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title --** infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall**. [My emphasis]. [Fr John A Hardon, S.J.]

FALLEN NATURE. Human nature since the fall of Adam. It is a nature that lacks the right balance it had originally. It is a wounded but not perverted nature. Since the fall, man has a built-in bias away from what is morally good and toward what is wrong. He is weakened in his ability to know the truth and to want the truly good. With the help of grace, however, he can overcome these natural tendencies and become sanctified in the process. [My emphasis]. [Fr John A Hardon, S.J.]

This fallen state is the reason for all of the consequent natural tendencies you cite, as Fr Hardon has explained.

 

[OneSheep]

In reality we don’t have the licence to pick and choose to discredit the Church’s teaching – such a mindset would point to dissent which is strictly forbidden.
We cannot place the “rest of God’s creatures” on a par with “we humans” – they do not have the same created soul and the intelligence of mankind, while realising that some of us are mentally or physically incapacitated seriously – a consequence of the Fall.
**
PRETERNATURAL GIFTS.** Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title --** infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall**. [My emphasis]. [Fr John A Hardon, S.J.]

FALLEN NATURE. Human nature since the fall of Adam. It is a nature that lacks the right balance it had originally. It is a wounded but not perverted nature. Since the fall, man has a built-in bias away from what is morally good and toward what is wrong. He is weakened in his ability to know the truth and to want the truly good. With the help of grace, however, he can overcome these natural tendencies and become sanctified in the process. [My emphasis]. [Fr John A Hardon, S.J.]

This fallen state is the reason for all of the consequent natural tendencies you cite, as Fr Hardon has explained.

Hi Abu,

The problem with what Fr. Hardon wrote, which as far as I know is Catholic doctrine, is that there are several contradictions with what we also know about God and man. However, before you read these please know that the CCC and Catholic doctrine as it stands has its merits and represents something Good about God and man. I am not arguing against it, because as it stands it represents revelation.

As revelation unfolds, contradictions in doctrine and theology are erased; such “unfolding” happens very, very slowly. So, here are some of the contradictions to be addressed:

1. God made man and all of creation, and He said it was good. Man does not have the power to create his own nature, nor is there any other power capable of doing so. St. Augustine said, “whatsoever exists in any way is good”. So, if man by nature has a tendency against wanting the truly good, then such tendency is good. The fact is, the general “tendency against wanting the truly good” is not there. The human is born ignorant and capable of blindness, but the “wanting the good” is already there, we already have such grace. With additional grace, in the form of awareness, the “good” becomes become more “true”.
2. We know from the cross that Jesus understands and forgives the unrepentant. In the story of Adam and Eve, God (one of the gods) punishes Adam and Eve in a way that distorts the meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness is not punishing someone and their offspring for their lifetimes.
3. We also know that we are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”. If we are to use the story of Adam and Eve as a guide, perfect love in the form of discipline means to banish people essentially forever from a better life, to install a “stain” permanently into fellow man and his offspring, and increase the pain of those same offspring.
4. Other creatures do not have a created soul, but there are no “tendencies” found in man that do not exist in other creatures, all of the created “tendencies” are beautiful. As awareness (grace) is added, man only continues to exemplify his tendency toward doing good. Why would God ever “weaken” us in any way in terms of wanting the good or ability to know the truth? Such “weakening” would most certainly be counter-productive in terms of creating the Kingdom.

We can have faith that the above, through the unfolding of revelation, will be addressed and the contradictions erased. In the mean time, I can offer some suggestions that remain true to the Gospel and erase all of the contradictions I presented.

How about you, Abu? How do you suggest we deal with the contradictions?

Thanks for your response, your points are all relevant and support doctrine, which is to be commended!

 

[OneSheep]

This fallen state is the reason for all of the consequent natural tendencies you cite, as Fr Hardon has explained.

I initially overlooked this conclusion, which goes to the crux of the matter. Those “natural tendencies” I cite only add to the human ability to survive in the world, which means that they are gifts.

Our natural tendencies are all gifts from God. Yes, they can enslave us, but that does not change the fact that all natural tendencies are beautiful and functional. Grace gives us the ability to transcend our nature.

 

[fisherman_carl]

In terms of God’s plan we would have to know what the final result is that God has in mind. For instance, what is the difference between man in the garden and man in his ressurected body in the new Jerusalem or heavenly city? If one talks about creating man in such a way with free will yet having the moral certitude such that he doesn’t sin, isn’t that the final product of man in heaven? In other words in heaven nobody sins, yet they still have free will. So perhaps God is still in the process of doing just that with us.

---

Imagine if every day you always had two pies in front of you. One was red and the other blue. However, your master said you can only have the blue pie. Everyday you would eat the blue pie always wondering about the red pie sitting there. So finally, one day, when your master wasn’t looking you had a taste of the red pie. It was really good and you gobbled it up. About an hour later you started to feel sick and your stomach hurt. The master came back and looked at you and said "You ate the red pie didn’t you? And you replied, “Yes I did, but never again. That stuff is awful. Tastes good,but makes you sick. How come you put that out in front of me everyday , something that tastes so good, but makes me sick? Are you trying to test me?” The master replied, “Heck, I thought you would have eaten it a long time ago. It must have gone bad.”



Ok, so that turned into a joke.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In terms of God’s plan we would have to know what the final result is that God has in mind. For instance, what is the difference between man in the garden and man in his ressurected body in the new Jerusalem or heavenly city? If one talks about creating man in such a way with free will yet having the moral certitude such that he doesn’t sin, isn’t that the final product of man in heaven? In other words in heaven nobody sins, yet they still have free will. So perhaps God is still in the process of doing just that with us.

---

Imagine if every day you always had two pies in front of you. One was red and the other blue. However, your master said you can only have the blue pie. Everyday you would eat the blue pie always wondering about the red pie sitting there. So finally, one day, when your master wasn’t looking you had a taste of the red pie. It was really good and you gobbled it up. About an hour later you started to feel sick and your stomach hurt. The master came back and looked at you and said "You ate the red pie didn’t you? And you replied, “Yes I did, but never again. That stuff is awful. Tastes good,but makes you sick. How come you put that out in front of me everyday , something that tastes so good, but makes me sick? Are you trying to test me?” The master replied, “Heck, I thought you would have eaten it a long time ago. It must have gone bad.”



Ok, so that turned into a joke.

I understand what all of you are saying, it’s just hard when I read about elementary school girls in Africa being kidnapped by Boko Haram and sold into slavery or some other atrocity. I do believe God has a plan, but when those things happen, it’s hard to believe he always has our best interests at heart. Still, I do have faith that all will be put right in the end.

I don’t think God wants the atrocities to happen, but why he allows them, what good can come of them, especially for the victims, it’s just hard.

And the joke with the pies was funny! Thanks!

 

[davidv]

I understand what all of you are saying, it’s just hard when I read about elementary school girls in Africa being kidnapped by Boko Haram and sold into slavery or some other atrocity. I do believe God has a plan, but when those things happen, it’s hard to believe he always has our best interests at heart. Still, I do have faith that all will be put right in the end.

I don’t think God wants the atrocities to happen, but why he allows them, what good can come of them, especially for the victims, it’s just hard.

And the joke with the pies was funny! Thanks!

No good can come from these atrocities unless people of faith make it happen. God put us in charge of our own destiny. Our destiny will be secure in complete happiness in heaven if we choose to love God and neighbor.