The myth of Adam and Eve

[Bahman]

I don’t subscribe to the idea of a literal tree or fruit. That said, let’s say there was. Let’s say God put it there. Let’s say God knew what would happen. Do you claim to be wiser and to know as much or more than an omnipotent, omniscient being who is the the uncaused cause of everything? Are you able to point to God and, not just cry out, “I don’t understand!”, but go so far as to declare, “There is no possible good reason! I know better!”

???

Why God didn’t provide a reason in revelation? We could all know that there is a reason for our sufferings, which seems pointless.

 

[Wesrock]

Why God didn’t provide a reason in revelation? We could all know that there is a reason for our sufferings, which seems pointless.

Are you saying there can’t possibly be a good explanation and you know better for both this and the previous point?

 

[Bahman]

Are you saying there can’t possibly be a good explanation and you know better for both this and the previous point?

Of course there should be a good explanation for it. How we could define a purpose for our lives if we don’t know why we came here?

 

[Wesrock]

Of course there should be a good explanation for it. How we could define a purpose for our lives if we don’t know why we came here?

I did not ask if there should be or is a good one. I’m asking if you’ve determined that there cannot be one. Have you completely excluded the possibility of a good explanation?

 

[OneSheep]

Yes.

But seriously it is a good way of learning things which we need.

Yes, we all need to learn more. I have learned a great deal on the CAF about different theologies and ways of looking at things. Tell me, what have you learned here on the CAF?

Why God didn’t provide a reason in revelation? We could all know that there is a reason for our sufferings, which seems pointless.

I’m not sure, but I think you are saying that our suffering seems pointless, not the lack of providing a reason as pointless.

 

[DCNBILL]

Why God didn’t provide a reason in revelation? We could all know that there is a reason for our sufferings, which seems pointless.

We suffer here on Earth in order to participate in our own salvation by joining our suffering with that of Christ’s passion and death.

 

[Bahman]

I did not ask if there should be or is a good one. I’m asking if you’ve determined that there cannot be one. Have you completely excluded the possibility of a good explanation?

I don’t believe on God so I am free to define a purpose for my life, simply trying to be a better person. You are however a believer so you should know what is the God purpose. Why you are really here? What is the God purpose?

 

[Bahman]

Yes, we all need to learn more. I have learned a great deal on the CAF about different theologies and ways of looking at things. Tell me, what have you learned here on the CAF?

Same here.

I’m not sure, but I think you are saying that our suffering seems pointless, not the lack of providing a reason as pointless.

These are very annoying questions: What is the purpose? Why we should suffer?..

 

[HelenRose]

Why do people today, still read material designed for the intellect of man from 2000 years ago?

God has revealed Himself more recently to appeal to today’s human thinking and intellect.

It baffles me that we are trying to “understand” these things from Genesis when the only relevance it has today is that of “human beings sometimes do the wrong thing”. That’s the only relevance it has, nothing more and nothing less.

Those who choose to live their lives by teachings that are more than 2000 years old can happily do so. In the meantime, it would be of great merit if those who see through these ancient teachings find means by which we can apply more modern thinking to the current spiritual condition of the individual the community and it’s institutions.

.

The intellect of human beings has not changed nor has the inner workings of the sub-conscience. These stories are and were meant to reach the deepest and most mystical of our souls. These stories are a form of poetry telling the truth of human origins. I am certain that the people of 3,000 to 4,000 years ago understood the meaning and genre of these stories far better than we do. They were not meant to be mere “facts” and I don’t think that they were believed to be mere “facts”

These stories are written with the skill and talent of mystical story-tellers. They speak the truth - the same truth that is present when a person who is in love looks into the eyes of the one they love versus a picture of an eye in a doctor’s office.

 

[Bahman]

We suffer here on Earth in order to participate in our own salvation by joining our suffering with that of Christ’s passion and death.

Couldn’t life be more interesting without suffering? There are people living in misery.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t believe on God so I am free to define a purpose for my life, simply trying to be a better person. You are however a believer so you should know what is the God purpose. Why you are really here? What is the God purpose?

I feel I do have answers, found in Christ, Scripture, and the Church.

But that’s neither here nor there at the moment. You can’t make it an objection to the existence or goodness of God and then admit there could be a good reason you’re not aware of.

So your third point is completely moot.

 

[HelenRose]

Couldn’t life be more interesting without suffering? There are people living in misery.

We could all be puppets. We have no trouble thinking about nature and the beauty of the life around us. Life in nature lives because of life. I watch nature films. They are not always pleasant. We find predators like lions beautiful. We are fascinated with snakes. I personally have no problem with the theory of evolution so the concept that we have bones because as a species we had to work against gravity. Nature is hard and often cruel but we still find life beautiful. There is a saying, “It is what it is”. We accept life for what it is because “it is what it is”

Take a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Silks flowers are beautiful. They do not wilt and die but they are not alive.

God created life. I love life. Even though life is harsh and we have to contend with evil I recognize that for now I will accept the life God has given me because he is “I AM THAT I AM”

HE is not a warm soft fuzzy.

 

[OneSheep]

These are very annoying questions: What is the purpose? Why we should suffer?..

Well, I know why I suffer. Most of the time my own suffering falls under my “Wrench theory of learning.” I go about life trying to fix the world, to do my best, to have a good life with this wrench. Inadvertently, I have been using the wrench to beat on my own head. Finally, at some point, I realize that I have been making a bloody painful mess, especially on myself, and say something very insightful and intelligent like “Oh, that hurts.”

Sometimes I wonder if hours on the CAF are such a wrench for me.

Then, I put the wrench down. I have suffered, and I have learned something.

Then, of course, I reach for a new wrench…

The rest of it, natural disasters and so forth, fall under “deconstruction in order to build”, or some other perhaps seemingly unpurposeful natural occurrence. There must be some reason, but I don’t know it exactly. I do not know that God is Love because of natural disasters, I know that God is Love because that is how I experience Him in myself and other people, in creation itself.

So, to me, suffering serves a purpose. We have evolved (been created) with a capacity to suffer so that we avoid doing those things that take away from our ability to thrive.

What do you think? Does that raise more questions? Can you relate, a little?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Same here.

These are very annoying questions: What is the purpose? Why we should suffer?..

So we won’t be so attached to the world. At some point we are all going to die. Suffering is a way to willingly let go of this world. There’s a better place afterwards.

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning!

This is a really interesting point, Simpleas. I had never thought of Jesus’ answer as an argument against original sin, but yes, it is. Now, there are plenty of other places in the Gospel that indicate something different. For example:

This indicates that man can be “defiled”, which means that we somehow bring some kind of negative upon ourselves, which supports the idea of original sin.

Does this indicate that there are actually two God-spells, that there are two images of God presented? That there are two images of Man presented?

I didn’t think of it as an argument against the teaching of Original sin, I just wonder when asked about how a person is ill, at that time people believed it was because they were a sinner or their parent sinned, that Jesus didn’t explain about the first two humans causing the fall, as we say Jesus was present at the time of the fall. Maybe that would have been to much for people back then. So explaining that it is the good works of God helped them not to comdemn people as sinners.

We can bring a negative upon ourselves, but I don’t think that line supports Original sin. It reads to me that nothing defiles us, we defile ourselves.

Good evening

 

[DCNBILL]

Couldn’t life be more interesting without suffering? There are people living in misery.

i know, I am one of them but at the same time I am joyful at being able to offer up my pain to my Lord and Savior with the knowledge that it is not in vain but allows me to glorify God through that which I suffer.

 

[ffg]

I’m sure life without suffering is quite interesting, but it’s just not the way things are, yet.

I hope Dad is living that interesting life now.

Patience through pain can be very difficult.

 

[OneSheep]

I didn’t think of it as an argument against the teaching of Original sin, I just wonder when asked about how a person is ill, at that time people believed it was because they were a sinner or their parent sinned, that Jesus didn’t explain about the first two humans causing the fall, as we say Jesus was present at the time of the fall.

Oops! I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

More interesting points, though. Let’s mix up the characters a bit and say that Jesus was talking to someone inquiring about Cain and Abel instead of the man born blind. Would Jesus have stated it differently, that their physical and spiritual disabilities were due to the sins of Adam and Eve, instead of saying that the “works of God might be displayed in them”?

Lots of “what ifs”, but interesting to consider.

Maybe that would have been to much for people back then. So explaining that it is the good works of God helped them not to comdemn people as sinners.

On the other hand, in the story of Adam and Eve, God condemns them, does He not? So the example set by God in the creation story is that the following disabilities were due to sin. In contrast, Jesus offers that disabilities (if seen that way) have nothing to do with sin at all. Fascinating stuff, really.

I think both views have their place, but as Christians we are to follow Jesus’ non-condemning (forgiving) example, as you certainly agree.

We can bring a negative upon ourselves, but I don’t think that line supports Original sin. It reads to me that nothing defiles us, we defile ourselves.

Good evening

Well, “defilement” has to do with “stain”. Do we bring stain upon ourselves in God’s eyes? This is one image. On the other hand, does God always look upon us with eyes of love, never changing, knowing all we will ever do even before we are born? Always understanding us, always forgiving us, before we have even chosen to sin? This is another image.

Do you see the contrast? Or, am I missing something? Let me know…

 

[Gorgias]

I dont believe satan and the demons actually ‘fell’ or tried to rebel in heaven, I think they were just doing exactly what God intended them to do, there duty was to be ‘the other choice’ the alternative to God

That sounds quite Calvinistic – namely, that God capriciously wills some to damnation. In a very real way, that makes God out to be a monster.

Satan and the rest of the angels KNEW ‘what’ God was and how all-powerful he was, to think satan was so stupid, he actually thought he had a chance of overthrowing God and taking over…YEAH RIGHT

The point of the rebellion, I think, isn’t that Satan is saying “I’m more powerful than you”, but that he’s saying that he rejects God’s plan. Often, it is said that Satan’s sin is pride – that is, that he objects to God’s use of humanity as the means through which His plan unfolds. After all, what does Jesus say to Peter when he tells Him that He can’t suffer and die? “Get behind me, Satan”!

Without satan or the demons being there, who would have been there to tempt adam and eve, who would be here in our times to tempt us, draw us away from God? God said he wanted a world with free will…well free will means there must be some other alternative to God.

And that alternative that Satan offers isn’t himself; after all, he doesn’t offer himself to Adam and Eve in the story of the Fall. Rather, he offers Adam and Eve themselves – that is, he offers that they take matters in their own hands and make their own decisions about how to use creation… and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker. “What would have been there to tempt Adam and Eve”? Everything in the world, and the way that they choose to be stewards of it.

I think the story of the fall is just that…a story, so we can better relate to it

That’s exactly what the Catechism teaches: it’s a story, and it’s the point of the story that we need to pay attention to, rather than the details contained in the narrative.

 

[simpleas]

Oops! I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

More interesting points, though. Let’s mix up the characters a bit and say that Jesus was talking to someone inquiring about Cain and Abel instead of the man born blind. Would Jesus have stated it differently, that their physical and spiritual disabilities were due to the sins of Adam and Eve, instead of saying that the “works of God might be displayed in them”?

Lots of “what ifs”, but interesting to consider.

On the other hand, in the story of Adam and Eve, God condemns them, does He not? So the example set by God in the creation story is that the following disabilities were due to sin. In contrast, Jesus offers that disabilities (if seen that way) have nothing to do with sin at all. Fascinating stuff, really.

I think both views have their place, but as Christians we are to follow Jesus’ non-condemning (forgiving) example, as you certainly agree.

Well, “defilement” has to do with “stain”. Do we bring stain upon ourselves in God’s eyes? This is one image. On the other hand, does God always look upon us with eyes of love, never changing, knowing all we will ever do even before we are born? Always understanding us, always forgiving us, before we have even chosen to sin? This is another image.

Do you see the contrast? Or, am I missing something? Let me know…

No worries

Interesting first question, I can only wonder why Jesus didn’t point to Adam and Eve as the source of sin in the world.
To say murder is the work of God wouldn’t sound right to me, but then God apparently telling some in the bible to wipe out civilisations because of sin compared to the NT God telling people to forgive will always catch me out.

Maybe we do bring stain upon ourselves in Gods eyes. God is perfect, so can see our faults and failings, I don’t mean God will not love us because of our faults, in fact God may love us more. God knew us before we were Born, even all the evil we will do, yet God allowed us to live.
I’m just pondering that in the story of A&E they sinned from the beginning, even with all they had that we do not have, they failed. So does it really matter that they had anything more than us, because it didn’t stop them going against God, they used their own conscience, reasoning etc to make their decision. We do the same, it would be unfair if God would punish us for someone else’s conscience, reasoning etc. We do fine by ourselves, with God’s love.