The myth of Adam and Eve

[Bahman]

Greater good comes from it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308

Are you trying to say the current state of creation could grant better result than what I suggested? How it could? Some people will end up in Hell!

 

[Vico]

Are you trying to say the current state of creation could grant better result than what I suggested? How it could? Some people will end up in Hell!

Yes, which allows for each person to love one another, becoming Christlike. A double value is seen in every good work: the meritorious and the satisfactory value.

Each has a distinctive character, by the difference in concepts, so that the value of merit (which is the increase of grace and of heavenly glory) is personal and not applicable to others, but the satisfactory value may be applied to others.

 

[clem456]

Are you trying to say the current state of creation could grant better result than what I suggested? How it could? Some people will end up in Hell!

Let’s assume you have been in a loving relationship with someone.
Is that a fair assumption?
If not let us know. Please stop me at any point as I am making some common assumptions about common human experiences.

When you decided to love that person, you made a commitment, right?
When you made that commitment, were you aware of the possibility of rejection by that person?
They might do things that hurt you or hurt themselves.
These negative possibilities might make this love very difficult. Right?
Were you also aware of the possibility of severe hardship? For instance, were you aware that if you commit to love this person, they may become handicapped, or disabled, in some way, and then you are forced out of the “garden” and into severe hardship with thgis person?

So let’s assume

1. you do love or have loved someone, and
2. were also aware of these negative possibilities beforehand…

If you aware of the risks, why did you enter the relationship?

By your own insistent thinking, you should have not gone forward with this relationship, because you knew you would encounter rejection or other hardships (or what we might call "evils).

If you had the power to prevent these negative consequences in you relationship and “force” this person to love you without rejection, isn’t that what we call “rape”?

This is the kind of God you are insisting on. A God of force who counts the costs of love on a calculator before he commits.
Nothing in your human experience should point you to this kind of God. If I am wrong, I am sorry for your losses.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning

I slightly change your question. Existence of any unresolvable anomaly in a world view indicates that our world view is wrong. We don’t know the truth. What we call the truth is only real when it is anomaly free.

There are stories with underlying teaching value. I don’t think that the myth of Adam and Eve is one of them. What do you think?

Good Morning!

Anomaly free? Perhaps. But even when we are free from all anomalies, we may be still quite far from a deeper truth. Addressing the anomalies helps, for sure.

Here are some things we can learn from the story/myth (a partial list):

1. The human resents disobedience. Especially in the tribal situation, disobedience can be dangerous.
2. The human doubts authority, even when the authority is greatly valued. When we do not fully appreciate/understand the consequences of our actions, we test the limits. “That fruit looks so good to eat, why would it be there if God did not want us to eat it?” etc. See no. 3 for the mechanism.
3. Desire blinds us. We do what we know is wrong when we desire greatly. Eating the fruit “should have been” unscionable. Desire for knowledge, power, etc. (any strong desire) overrides the conscience itself, even though it “shouldn’t”.
4. The human is not always cognizant of the ever-loving presence of God. Notice: all the action happened when God was mysteriously not looking.
5. The human conscience, as the first Voice from Within we hear (and is equated with God), loves us conditionally. It sets up conditions of acceptance (i.e. obedience), and when we violate them, we are subject to internal punishment (guilt) and we project that God is punishing us. Affiliation motivates the human. When we misbehave, we can cause rifts in the tribe. We naturally resent misbehavior, it is an evolved mechanism.

Okay, maybe I editorialized the truth a little. … Okay, a lot. (Ultra-Orthodox: please forgive!)

What I am saying, generally speaking, reflects a bit of this:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

Bold mine, of course.

Feel free to disagree/find anomalies!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Let’s assume you have been in a loving relationship with someone.
Is that a fair assumption?
If not let us know. Please stop me at any point as I am making some common assumptions about common human experiences.

When you decided to love that person, you made a commitment, right?
When you made that commitment, were you aware of the possibility of rejection by that person?
They might do things that hurt you or hurt themselves.
These negative possibilities might make this love very difficult. Right?
Were you also aware of the possibility of severe hardship? For instance, were you aware that if you commit to love this person, they may become handicapped, or disabled, in some way, and then you are forced out of the “garden” and into severe hardship with thgis person?

So let’s assume

1. you do love or have loved someone, and
2. were also aware of these negative possibilities beforehand…

If you aware of the risks, why did you enter the relationship?

By your own insistent thinking, you should have not gone forward with this relationship, because you knew you would encounter rejection or other hardships (or what we might call "evils).

If you had the power to prevent these negative consequences in you relationship and “force” this person to love you without rejection, isn’t that what we call “rape”?

This is the kind of God you are insisting on. A God of force who counts the costs of love on a calculator before he commits.
Nothing in your human experience should point you to this kind of God. If I am wrong, I am sorry for your losses.

This is a great analogy.

 

[Gorgias]

That is called critical thinking. More you use it better you become.

Yes, but you make a lot of mistakes along the way. You claimed, however, something completely different: you claimed that you don’t make mistakes because you check your work.

In other words, you’ve made an egregious error here. Either admit you are (or have been) wrong, or continue to claim (in error) that ‘critical thinking’ implies ‘no errors’.

 

[Gorgias]

Angels sinned and fell from Heaven so we could too.

Because you engage in critical thinking, I’m certain you’ll be able to see the error in this statement you’ve just made.

If ‘angels’ and ‘humans’ were identical in nature, then you might have a point. However, they are not. Therefore, it does not necessarily hold that if “angels sinned and fell from heaven”, therefore “so we [humans] could too.” That’s a logical error.

It’s equivalent to saying “if my sister had intercourse and gave birth to a baby, therefore my brother could have intercourse and give birth to a baby too”. See the logical inconsistency there?

 

[clem456]

Greater good comes from it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308

That greater good is not the attainment of some bounty in comfort and ease and productivity and good health. Those are all good things, but the greatest good is this:

To freely choose and enter into relationship with God, who offers himself to us completely, and desires our free and complete response, even in the midst of circumstances that make this relationship difficult. .

 

[Bahman]

Yes, which allows for each person to love one another, becoming Christlike. A double value is seen in every good work: the meritorious and the satisfactory value.

Each has a distinctive character, by the difference in concepts, so that the value of merit (which is the increase of grace and of heavenly glory) is personal and not applicable to others, but the satisfactory value may be applied to others.

You need to provide an argument that why your scenario (some people go to Heaven and the rest go to Hell) that you believe is better than my scenario (everybody goes to Heaven).

 

[Bahman]

Let’s assume you have been in a loving relationship with someone.
Is that a fair assumption?
If not let us know. Please stop me at any point as I am making some common assumptions about common human experiences.

When you decided to love that person, you made a commitment, right?

We cannot decide to love.

When you made that commitment, were you aware of the possibility of rejection by that person?

This doesn’t apply to God.

They might do things that hurt you or hurt themselves.
These negative possibilities might make this love very difficult. Right?

This doesn’t apply to God.

Were you also aware of the possibility of severe hardship? For instance, were you aware that if you commit to love this person, they may become handicapped, or disabled, in some way, and then you are forced out of the “garden” and into severe hardship with thgis person?

This does apply to God.

So let’s assume

1. you do love or have loved someone, and
2. were also aware of these negative possibilities beforehand…

There is no negative possibilities in loving God.

If you aware of the risks, why did you enter the relationship?

There is no risk involved in relationship with God.

By your own insistent thinking, you should have not gone forward with this relationship, because you knew you would encounter rejection or other hardships (or what we might call "evils).

This doesn’t happen when we are dealing with God.

If you had the power to prevent these negative consequences in you relationship and “force” this person to love you without rejection, isn’t that what we call “rape”?

God is absolute Love. Isn’t he? We fall in love with Him once we taste his Love so no force is involved.

This is the kind of God you are insisting on. A God of force who counts the costs of love on a calculator before he commits.
Nothing in your human experience should point you to this kind of God. If I am wrong, I am sorry for your losses.

Yes, your analogy is wrong.

 

[Bahman]

Good Morning!

Anomaly free? Perhaps. But even when we are free from all anomalies, we may be still quite far from a deeper truth. Addressing the anomalies helps, for sure.

That is not possible if there is one truth since truth is the set of consistent counterfactuals.

Here are some things we can learn from the story/myth (a partial list):

1. The human resents disobedience. Especially in the tribal situation, disobedience can be dangerous.

I don’t understand you.

1. The human doubts authority, even when the authority is greatly valued. When we do not fully appreciate/understand the consequences of our actions, we test the limits. “That fruit looks so good to eat, why would it be there if God did not want us to eat it?” etc. See no. 3 for the mechanism.

Curiosity is good. That is how we learn things.

1. Desire blinds us. We do what we know is wrong when we desire greatly. Eating the fruit “should have been” unscionable. Desire for knowledge, power, etc. (any strong desire) overrides the conscience itself, even though it “shouldn’t”.

We move and do things for our desires. Of course desire could blind us so we have to balance our desires. We can do that because we are rational beings.

1. The human is not always cognizant of the ever-loving presence of God. Notice: all the action happened when God was mysteriously not looking.

I don’t understand you.

1. The human conscience, as the first Voice from Within we hear (and is equated with God), loves us conditionally. It sets up conditions of acceptance (i.e. obedience), and when we violate them, we are subject to internal punishment (guilt) and we project that God is punishing us. Affiliation motivates the human. When we misbehave, we can cause rifts in the tribe. We naturally resent misbehavior, it is an evolved mechanism.

Are you saying that God’s love is conditional? Moreover I don’t think that eternal punishment is right since our sins have limited impact.

Okay, maybe I editorialized the truth a little. … Okay, a lot. (Ultra-Orthodox: please forgive!)

What I am saying, generally speaking, reflects a bit of this:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

Bold mine, of course.

Feel free to disagree/find anomalies!

I don’t think if obedience is a good thing when we are dealing with a relationship.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, but you make a lot of mistakes along the way. You claimed, however, something completely different: you claimed that you don’t make mistakes because you check your work.

In other words, you’ve made an egregious error here. Either admit you are (or have been) wrong, or continue to claim (in error) that ‘critical thinking’ implies ‘no errors’.

I think you misunderstood me. Our understanding of truth is not complete so we can do mistake. I do think that we are allowed to act under a consistent framework unless it is shown that some aspect of our framework is wrong. That is when you need to look for a correct framework using our critical thinking so you can act freely again within accepted framework.

 

[Bahman]

Because you engage in critical thinking, I’m certain you’ll be able to see the error in this statement you’ve just made.

If ‘angels’ and ‘humans’ were identical in nature, then you might have a point. However, they are not. Therefore, it does not necessarily hold that if “angels sinned and fell from heaven”, therefore “so we [humans] could too.” That’s a logical error.

It’s equivalent to saying “if my sister had intercourse and gave birth to a baby, therefore my brother could have intercourse and give birth to a baby too”. See the logical inconsistency there?

I don’t think if having different nature could help us while we have free will.

 

[PRmerger]

We cannot decide to love.

This, frankly, is the most absurd comment I’ve seen on this thread.

I can tell you, with all of my being, that I was never forced to love my husband.

And I decide every day, with every action, to love him.

I am not a robot programmed to love someone.

As if.

 

[Bahman]

This, frankly, is the most absurd comment I’ve seen on this thread.

I can tell you, with all of my being, that I was never forced to love my husband.

And I decide every day, with every action, to love him.

I am not a robot programmed to love someone.

As if.

So you have full control on your feelings!? So you are a robot who programs her feelings!

 

[Vico]

You need to provide an argument that why your scenario (some people go to Heaven and the rest go to Hell) that you believe is better than my scenario (everybody goes to Heaven).

True merit brings a greater state: increase of grace eternal life, attainment of that eternal life, and an increase in glory. Merit also means the possibility of demerit.

Glory is present as a result of the real possibility of Hell, through demerit and forfeiture of all merits, or Heaven, through cooperation with grace.

• “He will render to every man according to his works” - Matthew 16:27; cf Romans 2:6 * “Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor”.- 1 Corinthians 3:8
• “But the just shall live for evermore: and their reward is with the Lord”. - Wisdom 5:16
• “Be not afraid to be justified even to death: for the reward of God continueth for ever” - Ecclus., xviii, 22
• Jesus Christ said: “Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven” - Matthew 5:12

 

[Memaw]

It’s an expression that compares Satan to lightning. Where does lightning come from – the sky, or from God’s abode in heaven? From the sky, of course! So… Jesus is saying that he saw Satan fall. What did that look like? Why, like lightning going from the sky to the earth!

You seem to be misinterpreting it as if Jesus had said “I saw Satan fall from heaven. Like lightning.”

I don’t believe it is comparing Satan to lightning but is telling how fast Satan fell when he turned against God. The angels were not yet in Heaven until after the test and those that chose God, then went to Heaven, those that turned against him “fell like lightning” God Bless, Memaw

 

[Gorgias]

I think you misunderstood me.

Perhaps. Yet, when I asked whether your perceptions might be mistaken, you told me that this was not the case:

Bahman:

Gorgias:

What if your perception of “tons of errors” is itself in error?

That is not possible

Our understanding of truth is not complete so we can do mistake. I do think that we are allowed to act under a consistent framework unless it is shown that some aspect of our framework is wrong. That is when you need to look for a correct framework using our critical thinking so you can act freely again within accepted framework.

This is where we started, then. I asked whether you could be wrong (in this case, about your perceptions of ‘frameworks’), and you said “that is not possible.”

It’s really easy to argue when your presumption is that you cannot err in your judgment…

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think if having different nature could help us while we have free will.

I’m confused by the way you’ve phrased this.

It seems that you are claiming that ‘nature’ is irrelevant in the discussion of free will. Is that what you’re claiming? If so, then a simple counter-example will dismiss that argument: your claim, then, would say that in the analysis of free will, the difference between the nature of (let’s say) a garden slug and the nature of a human is irrelevant – that is, if humans have free will, then slugs do, too; or, if slugs don’t have free will, then neither do humans.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Lets put fact together to see if a God who is all wise allows this:

1. Fall of angles: It is mentioned that angels fall was because of sin of pride. It however doesn’t mentioned that how one can sin in blessed Heaven. State of mind is the state of love and harmony in haven. How then angels could fall?
2. Fall of Adam and Eve: Fall of Adam and Eve was because of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Why God should keep the tree in the garden knowing the fact Adam and Eve would eat it? Moreover why God give access to the garden to Satan knowing the fact that he can manage to tempt Adam and Eve?
3. It is obvious that a God who is all wise wouldn’t allow to this happen. The only option which is available is that all these were part of God plan. But how a God who is all good can allow that evil happen?

Your thought?

(1) Sin in Heaven - no such thing. (People on this thread have explained this to you ad nauseam.)

1. The story of Adam and Eve is to show that mankind has free will, and willingly disobeyed a God who provided everything good for them, and that is why we don’t live in paradise today.
2. Why is it obvious that God would not want this to happen?

In my mind, it is good for people to live in a less than perfect world. Otherwise how can we distinguish between good and evil? What would be the point of our existence if everything was easy and perfect? Why would we even strive to do anything in our lives, or hope for an afterlife? Life would be meaningless.