The Serpent

[Lonewolf90]

“Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;”

Does this mean that they had no clue about evil?

If someone only knows good, how could they perform and evil such as eating from the tree?

If God tells someone (who has no recollection of evil) not to do something how could their mind think of disobeying?

And if SOMEHOW they did think of disobeying, they would know that its bad even before eating the fruit meaning that they would know evil before eating the fruit.

Also, after eating the fruit they realized that they were naked. Does this mean that even before they knew they were nude, it was bad to be nude?

 

[isaacalsop]

“Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;”

Does this mean that they had no clue about evil?

If someone only knows good, how could they perform and evil such as eating from the tree?

If God tells someone (who has no recollection of evil) not to do something how could their mind think of disobeying?

And if SOMEHOW they did think of disobeying, they would know that its bad even before eating the fruit meaning that they would know evil before eating the fruit.

Also, after eating the fruit they realized that they were naked. Does this mean that even before they knew they were nude, it was bad to be nude?

Interesting. I think honestly they did NOT think of disobeying God, at all. Think about it. All temptation is from either Satan or sinful nature. BEFORE the serpent came to them they were exposed to neither. Adam and Eve were the only humans besides Virgin Mary born without original sin. People forget that about Adam and Eve.

As to nudity, it wasnt “bad” because they were husband and wife and nobody else was around. They just became self conscious and felt exposed because God could see them. It shows the immediate effects we can see in our own lives of sin, we feel ashamed of even what God made for us.

 

[faithfulwannabe]

I think it’s because they were exposed to an alternative opinion. Before the serpent came, they were only given one instruction and it’s easy to follow. But then came another opinion from a serpent that made them think & doubt. They then try to follow that other opinion and see how did it feel like. Perhaps.

So then came the consequences of disobeying & disconnected with God.

 

[SybilMolly]

Original nakedness, the nakedness of Adam and Eve before the fall, is not sinful because though they were naked they saw one another’s value as people. After the fall, they were shamed because sin, including lust, had entered them, and when looking at a naked person they no longer saw one’s value as a person before their value of an object for sexual pleasure.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Interesting. I think honestly they did NOT think of disobeying God, at all. Think about it. All temptation is from either Satan or sinful nature. BEFORE the serpent came to them they were exposed to neither. Adam and Eve were the only humans besides Virgin Mary born without original sin. People forget that about Adam and Eve.

As to nudity, it wasnt “bad” because they were husband and wife and nobody **else **was around. They just became self conscious and felt exposed because God could see them. It shows the immediate effects we can see in our own lives of sin, we feel ashamed of even what God made for us.

Nobody else was around?
Nobody.

That’s interesting, as it is not possible.

 

[isaacalsop]

Nobody else was around?
Nobody.

That’s interesting, as it is not possible.

They were the only two people on Earth at the time…who else was there??

 

[SlaveofMary1208]

actually science has shown that we come from a “mitochondrial eve”. meaning we descended from a set of two parents. So how is it not possible that no one else was around? Well not only do studies show us coming from one set of parents but also think of the Second Law of Thermodynamics… everything decays. While the DNA was more pure and less corrupt the consequences of incest didn’t exist. it is only after generation after generation of gradual transcription errors that make offspring from couples that are closely related deformed. Just another reason we haven’t been around millions and millions of years

 

[StrawberryJam]

I can not discuss banned topics, therefore the need to explain the reason why this is impossible is not an available option. This catholic forum has banned an entire area of science. The misconceptions and misunderstandings displayed here in this thread are downright alarming.

 

[isaacalsop]

I can not discuss banned topics, therefore the need to explain the reason why this is impossible is not an available option. This catholic forum has banned an entire area of science. The misconceptions and misunderstandings displayed here in this thread are downright alarming.

What topic can you not talk about? I dont believe there are any banned topics. You mean science that does not agree with the faqith? You can debate that all you want, so explain…

 

[Quill_and_Sword]

actually science has shown that we come from a “mitochondrial eve”. meaning we descended from a set of two parents. So how is it not possible that no one else was around? Well not only do studies show us coming from one set of parents but also think of the Second Law of Thermodynamics… everything decays. While the DNA was more pure and less corrupt the consequences of incest didn’t exist. it is only after generation after generation of gradual transcription errors that make offspring from couples that are closely related deformed. Just another reason we haven’t been around millions and millions of years

Not really. Statistically, we all have a common ancestor of two parents, but that’s just mathematically, and in another million years, most of us will be the same kind of “parents” to the people living then. The second law of thermodynamics means that when energy transfers from one thing to another, the universe becomes more disordered (explained in a nutshell). It’s hard to connect that to your theory on DNA transcription and incest. As a biology student, your science/math is a bit…off…

Like a lot of Catholics, I believe that Genesis is allegorical for man’s relationship to God (an opinion severely underrepresented by this thread). Covering up nakedness is probably shame of our sin from God, as opposed to when we did not sin and had nothing to hide. Adam and Eve could very well have been humans of another species who first gained free will.

It wasn’t by eating the fruit did we gain free will. That was given by God. It was only until Satan tempted us did we have the option to freely choose.

 

[The_Serpent]

“Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;”

Does this mean that they had no clue about evil?

If someone only knows good, how could they perform and evil such as eating from the tree?

If God tells someone (who has no recollection of evil) not to do something how could their mind think of disobeying?

And if SOMEHOW they did think of disobeying, they would know that its bad even before eating the fruit meaning that they would know evil before eating the fruit.

Also, after eating the fruit they realized that they were naked. Does this mean that even before they knew they were nude, it was bad to be nude?

God was rebuking Adam & Eve for seeking to be like God through knowledge. Before the Fall they did not dwell or think about evil. Whereas, after the fall their animal passions became disordered and unruly, causing easy temptation and sin. They still had their freewill, so they could and eventually did sin. They also may have been taught by God, by the emphasis of the positive side of his commandments. In regards to the nudity, some Eastern Fathers hold the view that Adam & Eve were clothed in robes of glory. They lost this glorious clothing with the Fall. Then they were really nude.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What topic can you not talk about? I dont believe there are any banned topics. You mean science that does not agree with the faqith? You can debate that all you want, so explain…

Catholic Answers forum has banned the science topic of Evolution, and as a result have had a much easier time silencing opposing views.
This is evidence that the Catholic position is hostile to reason and faith.
It is evidence that the Catholic Church is hostile to science, while claiming it is compatible with it.

 

[Aloysium]

People cannot be civil about the topic of evolution.
Some people will bring it up even when it has nothing to do with the OP.
Accusations such as that of silencing discourse is one example of such rude behavior.
People come into our house and call us hostile to science, reason and faith.
Faced with such arrogant displays of ignorance and aggression, it is difficult to find the patience not to respond in kind.

 

[StrawberryJam]

People cannot be civil about the topic of evolution.
Some people will bring it up even when it has nothing to do with the OP.
Accusations such as that of silencing discourse is one example of such rude behavior.
People come into our house and call us hostile to science, reason and faith.
Faced with such arrogant displays of ignorance and aggression, it is difficult to find the patience not to respond in kind.

Evolution is a completely appropriate topic when discussions about Adam and Eve, Original Sin and a few others are on the table for civil discussion.

It is not arrogant or rude to point out that one is being silenced. It is not ignorant to point out that science can not be allowed a voice at that table of discussion.

Ignorance is when you make claims that are patently false and claim you are open to discuss them while at the very same time making it impossible for anyone to point out how the claims are false.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution is a completely appropriate topic when discussions about Adam and Eve, Original Sin and a few others are on the table for civil discussion.

It is not arrogant or rude to point out that one is being silenced. It is not ignorant to point out that science can not be allowed a voice at that table of discussion.

Ignorance is when you make claims that are patently false and claim you are open to discuss them while at the very same time making it impossible for anyone to point out how the claims are false.

This is not a science forum.
If you want to know what God has revealed to us about our nature, our origins and our relationship with Him, you will find here what different Catholics think.
If you want the official line, read the Catechism.

 

[Quill_and_Sword]

Catholic Answers forum has banned the science topic of Evolution, and as a result have had a much easier time silencing opposing views.
This is evidence that the Catholic position is hostile to reason and faith.
It is evidence that the Catholic Church is hostile to science, while claiming it is compatible with it.

Well, CAF isn’t a place to talk about science. Both are compatible (prove me otherwise, please), but talking about evolution here is banned for (kinda) the same reason Catholics don’t believe in faith healings. The two don’t mix. Like oil and water, and church and state, they can coexist but shouldn’t mix. The Catholic Church is responsible for much of the development of modern science. In fact, Catholic schools were the first to teach evolution, a Catholic monk developed the beginnings of genetics, and a Catholic priest came up with Big Bang Theory.

But of course, the Catholic Church is incompatible with science:banghead:

 

[Aloysium]

Science has nothing to say about the soul and hence the true nature of man.
If you want to grow in your relationship with God, you will focus on Him.
My profession is in an area of applied science. Science is an operating manual for matter. It is easy to mix science and religion when your life is centered on God. But, I am going off topic.
Check out what the Catechism has to say on the topic of Adam and the fall; it really is excellent.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well, CAF isn’t a place to talk about science. Both are compatible (prove me otherwise, please), but talking about evolution here is banned for (kinda) the same reason Catholics don’t believe in faith healings. The two don’t mix. Like oil and water, and church and state, they can coexist but shouldn’t mix. The Catholic Church is responsible for much of the development of modern science. In fact, Catholic schools were the first to teach evolution, a Catholic monk developed the beginnings of genetics, and a Catholic priest came up with Big Bang Theory.

But of course, the Catholic Church is incompatible with science:banghead:

I am having a hard time deciding if you understand what philosophy is or what science is when you say CAf isn’t a place to talk about science, yet demand I accept your view that the two are compatible and demand I prove otherwise after I have demonstrated that I am not allowed to because of the ban on evolution which, by definition is not faith. It is science.

I will be happy to discuss your pride that there were Catholics who did science at any point in any discussion where it is relevent to the OP.
In this case, for this OP you need a Ken Miller.

 

[CHCL]

Catholic Answers forum has banned the science topic of Evolution, and as a result have had a much easier time silencing opposing views.
This is evidence that the Catholic position is hostile to reason and faith.
It is evidence that the Catholic Church is hostile to science, while claiming it is compatible with it.

I am not going to dwell on this particular topic or particular response for long, because…

1. Catholicism accepts evolution insomuch that a few requirements are made (such as Adam and Eve’s existence, the downfall of man, and so forth.)
2. Catholicism is responsible for an incredible amount of scientific achievements and research.
3. This topic is banned because people on this forum (the trolls) would completely destroy this forum (although I would like them to set a certain date that they would lift the ban, although I don’t know if they will and I don’t care). I have this as my homepage and I don’t want to see a lot of nonsense that as already been refuted multiple times or is a Google search away.
4. I am going to go workout and hit some PRs, followed by reading some philosophy books. I don’t know which ones yet but I am going to have fun doing it.

Have a nice night (or day where ever you live).

 

[wmw]

“Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;”

Does this mean that they had no clue about evil?

If someone only knows good, how could they perform and evil such as eating from the tree?

If God tells someone (who has no recollection of evil) not to do something how could their mind think of disobeying?

And if SOMEHOW they did think of disobeying, they would know that its bad even before eating the fruit meaning that they would know evil before eating the fruit.

My opinion is that Adam & Eve had intellectual knowledge, being much brighter than even the highest IQ’s today. There sin was in choosing to explore evil, partly thinking that some good might come from it (a role played by Eve) and partly out of fear of loss of each going their separate way (the role played by Adam). I find it interesting that this is traditionally a role reversal. Culturally women were more dependent and usually more fearful of being separated from their spouse. While men were and are thought as more aggressive in exploring new death defying things. I’ve not thought of what this might be saying. Any ideas?