The Fall, was it a good thing?

[catholic-rcia]

Please go here and read this:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#385

God told us not to eat of the fruit from the tree in the midddle of the garden.

The
Serpent

told us that we should
What the devil offered us in the garden, was it a good thing?

 

[MEP]

Good, bad, what does it really matter?

Mormons always paint the fall as a great thing because it makes God’s plan of salvation possible for us all. Most other Christians use the story of the fall to help explain original sin and concupiscence. Some of them make the fall out to be one of the most terrible events in human history. Others don’t really say one way or the other.

God knew we would fall. He had to. He gave us free will. He put the tree in the garden. He knew the devil would tempt us. He had to know we would fall. He is omniscient. God knows everything. It’s pretty obvious that he knew it would happen, yet he didn’t do anything to stop it… like say put a fence around the tree. So what does that mean?

Does it mean the fall was ultimately a good thing because it was part of his plan?

Well, is sin a good thing? When our sin leads us down the wrong path and we learn the hard way that it’s wrong, is it ultimately good because it led us toward the truth? Most people would say no. Sin is wrong. Even when our sins eventually lead us a realization of the truth, they’re still sin.

As is the fall.

Honestly though, who cares? That the book of Genesis is a story of truth is something we believe as Christians. Whether or not it’s historically factual is unimportant. What’s important is the lesson of the fall. That the knowledge of the difference between good and evil is what ultimately dooms humanity to original sin and is the source of the concupiscence we must overcome to serve God’s will. It’s about our loss of innocence. Whether that loss is good for us or bad for us in the end isn’t important because regardless, we have to lose our innocence. It’s part of human nature and it’s unavoidable.

The story of the fall is an attempt to define what it means to lose innocence, to have original sin. It doesn’t say anything about whether or not that’s good or bad (since it is both brought about by an act of human sin and obviously planned by God to happen).

 

[mormon_fool]

catholic-rcia:

Please go here and read this:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#385

God told us not to eat of the fruit from the tree in the midddle of the garden.

The
Serpent

told us that we should
What the devil offered us in the garden, was it a good thing?

Rich,

Good to see you posting. Do you remember our previous discussion on this subject? I will have to find a link to it when I have time as well as critique your article.

I notice that you refer to Adam or Eve as “us”. Are you interpretting the Genesis narrative as a mere allegory? If it is just an allegory, doesn’t this make it harder to portray the Fall in beneficial terms? This is something I need to think about as well.

later,
fool

 

[catholic-rcia]

I can believe that it happened just as it says in Genesis or I am free to believe it as an allegory. But either way it is very much real. Go ahead and finish reading at the link I gave and then we can talk.

God Bless

 

[Casen]

I vote the Fall was a good thing.

God knew it would happen; it was part of His plan for his children, thus it was a good thing.

 

[BJRumph]

Hi MFool;

Literally or allegorically, the Genesis account protrays the Fall as a negative (even calling it a “fall” in reinforcing its negative functional results).

It is only when the literal version has been “expanded upon” by additional material, such as provided by LDS sources, can the literal interpretation be redefined as being a “positive” or “necessary” (ie Required) event.

For instance, the addition of the belief that we literally coould not reproduce prior to the Fall, according to mormon doctrine, making the fall both necessary and ultimately good, as we could not even obey the first comandment given by God (to be procreatively fruitful and multiply) if we did not suffer the fully revealed consequenses of the “fall”. Another example is in certain gnostic teachings, who added the belief that the creator god was a lesser, evil, god who was trying to hold back the knowledge that would free us from our material bondage, and the serpent (sometimes Lucifer, “the Light bringer”) who is trying to liberate us with the gnosis of our true, “godlike”, natures.

In both these examples, one is literal, the other more allegorical by nature, an additional body of knowledge or doctrine is required to revision the Genesis account as to being a “positive” or “good” event. The source text of the Genesis account, itself, does not support the Fall as being a good event.

Additionally, it needs be recognized that considering it an “inevitable” event (as I believe many see it as) does not establish it as a “necessary” event. In what I see as traditional Christian veiw is that the Plan of Salvation is required as a consequence of the Fall; which is in a nuanced, but very real, distinction against the view that the Plan of Salvation requires the Fall, as is sometimes presented in mormon theology, particularly by the more “literalist” parties.

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Hi MFool;
Literally or allegorically, the Genesis account protrays the Fall as a negative (even calling it a “fall” in reinforcing its negative functional results).

Hey now don’t we get to debate this? :bounce:

I expressed some nuanced views in this thread a while back. I cited stuff from the Genesis account and the CCC that sees some positive benefits. I didn’t come in until post 45. I highly recommend everyone reviewing the exchange on that thread to minimize repetiiveness. I plan on limiting myself to new information provided by Rich.

later,
fool

edit: now I notice Rich’s link is to the CCC that I read earlier and selected quotes from it that seem to agree that net good was accomplished with the Fall and the Grace provided to overcome its negative effects.

 

[catholic-rcia]

I got to head off to work right now, will check back tonight and comment. Mormon Fool, can you first tell me what Gods Grace means to you? How it is applied in your life?

"O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, Which gained for us so great a Redeemer! The power of this holy night dispels all evil, washes guilt away, restores lost innocence, brings mourners joy.
Night truly blessed when heaven is wedded to earth And man is reconciled with God" –liturgy of Holy Saturday

 

[BJRumph]

Even while allowing, and desiring to a degree, the rejoicing of the reconciliation between God and man, I don’t think that it is the position of the Church that we should go out and sin, just so we can experience that reconciliation.

Otherwise I think, should the base principle being discussed, that the Fall is acceptible as a “good” thing, then we should historically see a proliferation of religious orders dedicated to commiting deliberate sin, so that they may enjoy and revel in the reconciliatory function of Grace. Obviously we don’t see such.

What I see in the position of the Church is the recognition of God’s hand in taking an evil (the fall), and making a good come of it.

Not knowing the direct source of the verses used in the Liturgy quote, the tenor of the entire suggests something akin to many exuberant proclaimations found in the Psalms. While often such are used in doctrine, they are always carefully used, as many literal interpretations of them would lead to many errors. While the content shows that this does not come from Psalms, the tenor of the whole is such that I would not be inclined to accept its words as being literal points of doctrine, especially upon the point of saying that the Fall was, in its own right, a good thing. The passage clearly is rejoicing in **the reconciliation ** made necessary by the fall.

It is not unlike Paul “rejoicing” in his weaknesses, because it is then that Christ is made strong. Is Christ, therefore, inherently “weak” until we come along and make Him strong in our weakness? Of course not. We can readily see that Paul is speaking in a hyperbolic style. I also see this in the liturgical quote above, and in much of the Psalms.

But, I will leave room for the possibility that I am mistaken on the Church’s literal teaching. However, my reading of the Catechism is such to cause me to believe that I am correct in my understanding (if not transmission of my understanding). See 414, 418, 420, and then finally 412 for how I approach the matter of sin, and the Fall.

Yes, God has made a greater good out of our evil, but just as the ends do not justify the means, nor do they define the means. That God is capable, and more importantly willing, of creating a good end to our evil means does not transform our evil into good, but rather creates good in spite of (or rather to replace) our evil.

Just my opinion; take from it what you will.

 

[amgid]

catholic-rcia:

Please go here and read this:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#385

God told us not to eat of the fruit from the tree in the midddle of the garden.

The Serpent told us that we should

What the devil offered us in the garden, was it a good thing?

There is another way to look at it. Here are some interesting questions for you to consider.

1 Why would God want to put the tree of good and evil in the garden in the first place, if He didn’t want Adam and Eve to partake of it? Would you put a loaded pistol into the hand of a 6 year old child, and then warn him not to play with it in case he got killed? What was the design of God in giving Adam that choice in the first place?

2 what is wrong with knowing good and evil in any case? I should have thought the ability of being able to distinguish between good and evil was a good thing, not a bad thing. Why would God want to make this obviously valuable knowledge “forbidden,”—and then give them the option of taking it anyway!

3 The whole of the sacred writ is an exhortation to mankind to do good, and eschew evil. It looks like God kind of likes telling people to do good and avoid evil! Well, He couldn’t exactly tell them that if they didn’t know the difference!

amgid

 

[BJRumph]

The tree of “knowledge” is readily seen as an expression of the Choice inherent within granting freewill. In its uneaten state, it is representative of God’s teaching regarding free will: He presents us with His path (represented by “do not eat”), and the necessary alternate paths (represented by the “consumption”) that are the result of Freewill (which is simply the choice).

Unless I am grossly mistaken, both Churches recognize that God has deliberately given us “freewill” as part of the relationship that He wishes to establish with us. Anyway, back to my point…

As I have said in other forums, on other boards, by simply presenting the commandment to Adam not to eat of this particular tree, Adam was given his first, rational, knowledge of good and evil:
Do not eat of tree=Good
Eat of tree=Bad

What I find interesting is that Adam had what you or I consider “knowledge” of good and evil; but he had no experience of it. Obviously, the rational “knowledge” of Good and Evil is not the cause of sin, or problems; indeed, I assert that this was given to A&E directly from God.

“Knowing” something in the OT sense is often, and undisputedly, seen as an euphamism for experiential knowledge. Thus when Adam is said to “know” his wife Eve, it is an obvious reference to their physical, sexual, relations. In the case of the Tree, in my opinion this understanding of “knowing” and “knowledge” is also correctly applied when understanding it from this euphamism.

It was only after partaking of the fruit (and thereby enacting a “sin”), the literal physical “knowing” of the tree, that he commited a sin, and thereby eperientially caused himself to “know” sin, and become sinful himself. Adam already possesed a rational “knowledge” of the evil the tree represented, as his initial refusal to partake recognizes.

I also believe that it is the failure to understand these differences in the concept of “knowledge” that causes problems, and cause many to feel that, because “knowledge is Power/Good”, that they mistakenly believe that the “knowledge” offerend by the Serpent was also a “good” thing.

Simply put, the “knowledge” that the Serpent was offering was the experiential knowledge of Action, to “know” good and evil is to “be” good and evil. God, in granting us freewill, already taught us “knowledge” of good and evil as we understand the term in today’s language (ie, of rational knowing).

That He knew some would use His gift for sin **is not ** a support for suggesting that He desired that sin, as is logically suggested/implied by the belief that this knowledge offered by the Serpent was a good thing.

No, the deception of the Serpent was to suggest to them that this experiential knowledge of evil is a desireable, necessary, thing; that in only having a rational understanding is a weakness; that if they went beyond God’s teachings, they would become more than they were created to be, and become like God.
This not only blasphemes God (which is usually ignored in general discussion), but attempts to elevate the creation to the level of Creator, as most traditional Christians see it as (through the “false” promise of self-divinization).

For what it is worth…

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[BJRumph]

As I recognize that I can be obtuse in expression at times, here is my thoughts, as a more or less “answer” to amgid’s questions:

1 Why would God want to put the tree of good and evil in the garden in the first place, if He didn’t want Adam and Eve to partake of it?

Me: It, the Tree, is the “sum and symbol of all” of God’s teachings, which offer us Freewill (to use a turn of phrase from Kansas ).

He presents us with His path (represented by “do not eat”), and the necessary alternate paths (represented by the “consumption”) that are the result of Freewill (which is simply the choice).

. As amgid also states:

The whole of the sacred writ is an exhortation to mankind to do good, and eschew evil

Noting in any of these statements suggests that God "wanted " us to Sin.

amgid: What was the design of God in giving Adam that choice in the first place?

Well, according to both our theologies, God quite sternly insists on giving us Freewill. As I said;

Unless I am grossly mistaken, both Churches recognize that God has deliberately given us “freewill” as part of the relationship that He wishes to establish with us.

(yes, I removed the impertanent part of your question that, I feel, disparages both our Gods)

2 what is wrong with knowing good and evil in any case? I should have thought the ability of being able to distinguish between good and evil was a good thing, not a bad thing. Why would God want to make this obviously valuable knowledge “forbidden,”—and then give them the option of taking it anyway!

To which, I say:

Adam was given his first, rational, knowledge of good and evil…

from God, Himself. Adam already has what is needed to “distinguish between good and evil”. Therfore there is nothing wrong in rationally “knowing”; it is the experiential knowlegde that is the problem, as it can only come about by practicing sin. Therefore, I say:

{I}also believe that it is the failure to understand these differences in the concept of “knowledge” that causes problems, and cause many to feel that, because “knowledge is Power/Good”, that they mistakenly believe that the “knowledge” offered by the Serpent was also a “good” thing.

In short, to respond to your concluding question (of part 2), it was not the rational “knowledge” that was forbidden, it was the act of sin that was forbidden!

3 The whole of the sacred writ is an exhortation to mankind to do good, and eschew evil. It looks like God kind of likes telling people to do good and avoid evil! Well, He couldn’t exactly tell them that if they didn’t know the difference!

I heartily agree with your premise in this question. It is only your concluding statement; “Well, He couldn’t exactly tell them that if they didn’t know the difference!”, to which I necessarily disagree. But I will not belabor a point I think I have already made to sufficient rationalization and understanding.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[catholic-rcia]

“What I see in the position of the Church is the recognition of God’s hand in taking an evil (the fall), and making a good come of it.”

That is how it is. The line was severed. When we choose ourself over God we die, because God is what gives creation life. When we choose our families over God our innocence and our hearts can be fooled. We are the lost lambs stuck in a very dangerouse fence because as creatures we decided to venture out on our own in a quest for glory… Like a 3 year old who climbs a fence and walks towards a pool. It is in understanding this that we long to be back in the garden, back into the grace of God for good. The only progression I am aware of is to God, to share in what Christ has always had. The fall was very bad and the only good that comes out of it is Jesus gets us out of that fence and then he places us on his back and carries us home. We are the cross you know.

We come to understand what we have done and what we have failed to do. And yes, this is a very good thing.

I once had a dream that I died and was standing on a small hill. I looked to my left and I saw my mother whom I had lost at eight years old to suicide. I saw my brother Michael whom I had lost at sixteen to a terrible car accident in which 3 kids perished. I Saw my Grandmother and my Grand father as well. They were calling me to come to them and I was overwhelmed with excitement filled with love and joy. But something was not right with them, I could see it in thier eyes.

Then I glanced to my right and I saw my Savior down in a meadow releasing a lost Lamb that was stuck in a barbed wire fence. He looked up at me and gestured to come to him. In a moment of awe, and without hesitation I looked at all those that I had come to love and then proceeded to Walk to my Christ. In Him I was reunited to the one who has always loved me most, in Him I found my family. But love was no longer measured, as I came to love all as God loves all. I received a Holy family and I now loved them all.

 

[amgid]

Thank you for sharing with us your thoughts. In response, you might find interesting what the Book of Mormon teaches on the subject. I have highlighted some significant phrases so you can get the point I want to emphasize more clearly:

2 Nephi:

11 For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness; neither holiness nor misery; neither good nor bad. Wherefore all things must needs be a compound in one. Wherefore, if it should be one body, it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes; and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

---

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created; it must needs be that there was an opposition, even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet, and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore man could not act for himself, save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

---

22 And now behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden; and all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence—having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall, they have become free forever, knowing good from evil, to act for themselves and not to be acted upon–save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
Does that make matters any clearer?

amgid

 

[BJRumph]

Yes, it makes the LDS position rather clear.

However, this is not a positon that I can find any biblical support for, nor does it agree with anyone outside of lds thought. It is not something that I can believe if I am to believe God. I find verses 23 & 25 (but particularly 23) to be ample evidence to the difference between the “pro-fall” belief of the lds church, versus the “anti-fall” beliefs of Christianity.

God bless.

 

[BJRumph]

Wow! In rereading all of the BoM quotes given by Amgid, verse twelve has really jumped out at me:

12 Wherefore it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes; and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

Amazing the things you miss. Had I registered this teaching when I was first reading the BoM, I would never have converted to the CoJCoLDS to begin with.

Something that can destroy the Wisdom, Will (“his eternal purposes”), Power, Mercy, and Justice of GOD??

And before you try the “hyperbole” tact, was it not God’s purpose to supply us with freewill; how then can it, even in excessive speech, be truly said that freewill can destroy His purposes (as it was His purpose)?

God forgive my former defense and acceptance of the source of such blasphemy