The sin of Adam and Eve affected all of creation?

[grannymh]

The commandments teach us what we should do, not do etc, only when sin had entered the world.
Before that the only thing Adam needed to do was tend to the garden and not eat from the tree.
Having the commandments doesn’t explain why it was wrong to eat from a tree that gives knowledge of Good and Evil, because they are only inforced after the sin and is why they are then needed to help people remain with God.
God wanted Adam to be able to choose, so in order to choose we have freewill, Adam chose wrongly, but he would have needed to choose between God and not God.
So why having knowledge of both Good and Evil is wrong I don’t understand.
Knowing not to disobey I get, but only after knowing why.

First, one has to examine the fact that Adam, being a human creature, was subject (meaning obedience) to the moral norms (ten commandments) that govern the use of freedom from the moment he appeared on planet earth. That, my dear friends, is logical Catholic teaching.

Second, a tree is a tree is a tree. It is scientific knowledge that a tree does not teach knowledge of good and evil by lecturing to two eager students. It is also scientific knowledge that a tree does not dig into its branches in order to give fruits of knowledge of good and evil to two eager students.

In addition, it is valuable to accept the fact of God’s existence. God, Himself, is the one Who determines what is good and what is evil for human nature. Adam was created with human nature.

(Information source: first three chapters of Genesis; CCC 396; *CCC *1730-1732; CCC 355-421)

 

[simpleas]

First, one has to examine the fact that Adam, being a human creature, was subject (meaning obedience) to the moral norms (ten commandments) that govern the use of freedom from the moment he appeared on planet earth. That, my dear friends, is logical Catholic teaching.

Second, a tree is a tree is a tree. It is scientific knowledge that a tree does not teach knowledge of good and evil by lecturing to two eager students. It is also scientific knowledge that a tree does not dig into its branches in order to give fruits of knowledge of good and evil to two eager students.

In addition, it is valuable to accept the fact of God’s existence. God, Himself, is the one Who determines what is good and what is evil for human nature. Adam was created with human nature.

(Information source: first three chapters of Genesis; CCC 396; *CCC *1730-1732; CCC 355-421)

:aok: grannymh,

Exodus was written before Genesis, the commandments were written down before the story of Adam and Eve, it seems we don’t always start at the beginning? If the commandments from God get given to Moses long after Adam had sinned, then they were needed then, during that time, not before sin. Adam need only not eat from the tree to begin with and tend to his garden, not nine other commands, that would not have existed because there would have been no sin yet.

When I refer to the tree, fruit etc, I do so only because I use the words from Genesis, I’m long over the fact that it was not an actual tree/fruit that caused the first man to sin.
And yes, God gave Adam the one command, but still allowed adam to choose what is good and evil for human nature don’t you think?

 

[grannymh]

:aok: grannymh,

Exodus was written before Genesis, the commandments were written down before the story of Adam and Eve, it seems we don’t always start at the beginning? If the commandments from God get given to Moses long after Adam had sinned, then they were needed then, during that time, not before sin. Adam need only not eat from the tree to begin with and tend to his garden, not nine other commands, that would not have existed because there would have been no sin yet.

When I refer to the tree, fruit etc, I do so only because I use the words from Genesis, I’m long over the fact that it was not an actual tree/fruit that caused the first man to sin.
And yes, God gave Adam the one command, but still allowed adam to choose what is good and evil for human nature don’t you think?

I am not about to deny Adam’s human nature. As Adam’s descendant, Moses would also have Adam’s basic human nature.

Adam had a fully-complete human nature. Common sense, backed by Catholic teaching regarding God as Creator, is that Adam understood the moral norms of the Ten Commandments. Some people would refer to Adam’s Conscience; others might refer to Natural Law. Appropriately, considering the nature of Adam’s serious disobedience, the first Commandment is referenced in Genesis, chapter 2.

 

[Aloysium]

The commandments teach us what we should do, not do etc, only when sin had entered the world. . . So why having knowledge of both Good and Evil is wrong I don’t understand.
Knowing not to disobey I get, but only after knowing why.

We have the commandments because our hearts are hardened.
The connection with God/Love has been damaged and we need to know what actions constitute giving of ourselves to God and our neighbour.

Adam sinned in not trusting God, not loving God, not obeying God, and wanting what he wanted when he wanted it for himself. It wasn’t his, but he took it. He had everything else. The only thing he had that was truly his was his own free will. Rather than conforming it to the will of God - an act of pure love, he used it to get what he could, thinking he could be another God.

Love is all about giving, the more you give the more you will receive.
Love reigns, and the result is that if what is given in love is not used for love, it will be taken.
We all will die, Dying in Christ, we have life eternal.

Romans 6:
. . . if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. . . Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. **When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? **Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[simpleas]

I am not about to deny Adam’s human nature. As Adam’s descendant, Moses would also have Adam’s basic human nature.

Adam had a fully-complete human nature. Common sense, backed by Catholic teaching regarding God as Creator, is that Adam understood the moral norms of the Ten Commandments. Some people would refer to Adam’s Conscience; others might refer to Natural Law. Appropriately, considering the nature of Adam’s serious disobedience, the first Commandment is referenced in Genesis, chapter 2.

Did my last question suggest you should deny Adam’s human nature? It wasn’t meant to…

God allowed Adam to make a decision by his freewill, that would cause a break in relationship with the Divine. So to me, that is the first human created by God, choosing what he wanted, for him and for every other human that came after him, also creation…although I’m not certain Adam’s choice affected the environment around him, lots of scientific evidence to suggest other wise, but I maybe wrong.
So Adam choose for himself and the rest of human creation that he could try to go it alone, by determining what was good/evil for us.

Adam knowing the ten commandents…? They are commands given to peoples, lots of them, Adam knowing all that when there was only him and Eve Why would he need to know all the commands if he wasn’t in sin?

Adam knowing he was not to partake in a deed that would cause death, bodily/spiritually, because he had tried to make himself powerful, he wanted to know more, he didn’t know everything, but God allowed him to make his partly informed decision to eat of the tree.

 

[simpleas]

We have the commandments because our hearts are hardened.
The connection with God/Love has been damaged and we need to know what actions constitute giving of ourselves to God and our neighbour.

Adam sinned in not trusting God, not loving God, not obeying God, and wanting what he wanted when he wanted it for himself. It wasn’t his, but he took it. He had everything else. The only thing he had that was truly his was his own free will. Rather than conforming it to the will of God - an act of pure love, he used it to get what he could, thinking he could be another God.

Love is all about giving, the more you give the more you will receive.
Love reigns, and the result is that if what is given in love is not used for love, it will be taken.
We all will die, Dying in Christ, we have life eternal.

Yes I know why we have the commandments, in a way we have knowledge of what is good and evil through the commandments…so this knowledge is a good thing.

Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing according to Genesis. We gained more and more knowledge through revelation, hopefully to serve us and help us understand our human nature as we know it. Then we can live as one, love each other, and our God etc.

We have a basic human nature, like grannymh said of Moses.

Adam had a superior human nature until he lost it, passing on this “state” to all.

 

[grannymh]

Did my last question suggest you should deny Adam’s human nature? It wasn’t meant to…

God allowed Adam to make a decision by his freewill, that would cause a break in relationship with the Divine. So to me, that is the first human created by God, choosing what he wanted, for him and for every other human that came after him, also creation…although I’m not certain Adam’s choice affected the environment around him, lots of scientific evidence to suggest other wise, but I maybe wrong.
So Adam choose for himself and the rest of human creation that he could try to go it alone, by determining what was good/evil for us.

Adam knowing the ten commandents…? They are commands given to peoples, lots of them, Adam knowing all that when there was only him and Eve Why would he need to know all the commands if he wasn’t in sin?

Adam knowing he was not to partake in a deed that would cause death, bodily/spiritually, because he had tried to make himself powerful, he wanted to know more, he didn’t know everything, but God allowed him to make his partly informed decision to eat of the tree.

I put in bold the ideas which can lead to a form of denial of Adam’s fully-complete human nature. For example, free will cannot be separated from a rational intellect. If Adam only had free will, he would not be a fully-complete human. If Adam did not understand the nature of the moral norms of the Ten Commandments, he would not have a rational intellective soul which is necessary for a fully-complete human nature. Because Catholic teachings include a rational intellective soul as an essential part of human nature, is why I am not about to deny Adam’s human nature.

Going deeper into Adam’s human nature, we find numerous popular misconceptions about Catholic teachings on Original Sin. Currently, the attack on Adam’s intellective powers is actually a modern way of saying that God did not give Adam a real soul. Adam’s soul was more like a seed which would then develop as Adam learned about real life. For some people, Original Sin symbolizes Adam’s realization of right from wrong. Catholicism does not consider Original Sin as a symbol nor does the Catholic Church consider Adam as some kind of symbol of subhumans learning by experimentation (eating this fruit instead of that fruit) what will work for the betterment of the community.

And yes, Original Sin is depended on a fully-complete human person. Take away Adam’s knowledge of right from wrong and Adam becomes a subhuman waiting for the Ten Commandments to find out Who God is in relationship to humankind. That is another reason, I am not about to deny Adam’s human nature.

 

[grannymh]

Yes I know why we have the commandments, in a way we have knowledge of what is good and evil through the commandments…so this knowledge is a good thing.

Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing according to Genesis. We gained more and more knowledge through revelation, hopefully to serve us and help us understand our human nature as we know it. Then we can live as one, love each other, and our God etc.

We have a basic human nature, like grannymh said of Moses.

Adam had a superior human nature until he lost it, passing on this “state” to all.

I had never read the first three chapters of Genesis in their entirety before Google landed me in the middle of a CAF thread. So I acknowledge that it is very possible that I missed something.

Regarding the comment: “Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing according to Genesis.”

Would you kindly give me the verses which indicate that Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing? Thank you.

 

[simpleas]

I had never read the first three chapters of Genesis in their entirety before Google landed me in the middle of a CAF thread. So I acknowledge that it is very possible that I missed something.

Regarding the comment: “Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing according to Genesis.”

Would you kindly give me the verses which indicate that Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing? Thank you.

Gen 3: 22-24.

 

[Aloysium]

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[a] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

This is filled with meaning and mystery.

Perhaps, “one of us” refers to each individual relationship that exists between mankind and God.
I have a relationship with God as you do, as does granny, as does everyone else.
We all join within His church, but we all have an individual special relationship with God.
“Us” would refer to He whom we are relating to in a billion different ways.
Then, he has “become like one of us” would mean that man has chosen himself, his own mind, his own will over that of God.
The relationship between man and God has been damaged by man’s putting himself in God’s place.
We are to look to God, not ourselves to decide what is good and bad. We don’t know; we cannot know.
The “knowledge” would be in the act which is the antithesis of the love required to keep us in communion with God.

So, the “knowledge” is not intellectual knowledge but experiential. We became sin, in that act.
As the eucharist brings Christ, the bite of fruit brought us sin and death into us.
We became what the act reveals, a lack of love and trust in God, envy and pride, that we as creatures considered ourselves His equals.
He is all about love, as is heaven and was Eden. We showed ourselves to be unworthy.
The knowledge is not necessarily bad, since it here makes clear to us all our creaturely status and our need for God; it was our act that was sinful and relegated us to this world where Satan once ruled.
But, in that sense, the knowledge would be bad, knowledge meaning the incorporation of evil into oneself. But then that is what Jesus did to save us, so . . . over to you.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding the comment: “Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing according to Genesis.”

Gen 3: 22-24.

That refers to the shattering of humanity’s relationship with Divinity. That refers to the effect on human nature caused by Original Sin.

The problem is that the meaning of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is being*** totally ignored***.

My apology for shouting.

 

[RCCB]

Wondering out loud if the nature of Adam before the Fall was different from what we now refer to as human nature and what that ‘superior’ nature might have been is worthy of speculation, even if such insight has yet to be revealed.

Speaking as one who left the church, it is self evident to me that our species is without the potential, either moral or spiritual to address the most profound issues facing and threatening the future of humanity. Thus I am convinced that we remain in a fallen state. Our world does not in any way reflect the wisdom of an omniscient God. Our stewardship is a sham.

Certainly if there was a ‘superior nature’ that was lost, that nature would have to include a greater moral conception that was exists today. And the predominant materialism innate to human nature that is slowly destroying the the environment must somehow be reversed.

If there was a Fall, there must be a ‘Rising’. So a Resurrection, I see not literally, but as God prepared to intervene directly into the natural world. And if He were to do so, a correction to human nature would be a good place to start. And there is much material in the non-canonical texts to suggest and support this possibility. But such a direct PROOF would of course bring the entire church into question. That may yet be the price of human progress?

 

[simpleas]

Regarding the comment: “Adam’s knowledge seemed to be a bad thing according to Genesis.”

That refers to the shattering of humanity’s relationship with Divinity. That refers to the effect on human nature caused by Original Sin.

The problem is that the meaning of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is being*** totally ignored***.

My apology for shouting.

Well, with my little amount of brain power, I thought I was investigating the meaning, rather than ignoring it.

There is no difference then, to the knowledge we have now and the knowledge Adam and Eve had received before sin?

I have intellectual knowledge (I hear you laughing!) and Experimental knowledge.
I intellectually know something is gravely wrong, and I do not need Experimental knowledge to know it.
That is why I think the sin of A&E is unlike any of the sin’s man came to fall into. Hence why he would not be aware of the Ten Commands.

 

[simpleas]

This is filled with meaning and mystery.

Perhaps, “one of us” refers to each individual relationship that exists between mankind and God.
I have a relationship with God as you do, as does granny, as does everyone else.
We all join within His church, but we all have an individual special relationship with God.
“Us” would refer to He whom we are relating to in a billion different ways.
Then, he has “become like one of us” would mean that man has chosen himself, his own mind, his own will over that of God.
The relationship between man and God has been damaged by man’s putting himself in God’s place.
We are to look to God, not ourselves to decide what is good and bad. We don’t know; we cannot know.
The “knowledge” would be in the act which is the antithesis of the love required to keep us in communion with God.

So, the “knowledge” is not intellectual knowledge but experiential. We became sin, in that act.
As the eucharist brings Christ, the bite of fruit brought us sin and death into us.
We became what the act reveals, a lack of love and trust in God, envy and pride, that we as creatures considered ourselves His equals.
He is all about love, as is heaven and was Eden. We showed ourselves to be unworthy.
The knowledge is not necessarily bad, since it here makes clear to us all our creaturely status and our need for God; it was our act that was sinful and relegated us to this world where Satan once ruled.
But, in that sense, the knowledge would be bad, knowledge meaning the incorporation of evil into oneself. But then that is what Jesus did to save us, so . . . over to you.

Thanks.

The one of us, my bible foot notes it as possibly implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court. A while back I read something that made me think it was God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit who is the “one of us”.
I never thought of “has become like one of us with his knowledge of Good and Evil” the way you have described it, I took it to mean he had now knowledge of Good and Evil that he had not before and so could not live forever.

Not sure about “we became sin in that act” and “incorporating evil into oneself” We were just born into a “state” we aren’t a sin…I don’t think this is what you are trying to say.

 

[simpleas]

Wondering out loud if the nature of Adam before the Fall was different from what we now refer to as human nature and what that ‘superior’ nature might have been is worthy of speculation, even if such insight has yet to be revealed.

Speaking as one who left the church, it is self evident to me that our species is without the potential, either moral or spiritual to address the most profound issues facing and threatening the future of humanity. Thus I am convinced that we remain in a fallen state. Our world does not in any way reflect the wisdom of an omniscient God. Our stewardship is a sham.

Certainly if there was a ‘superior nature’ that was lost, that nature would have to include a greater moral conception that was exists today. And the predominant materialism innate to human nature that is slowly destroying the the environment must somehow be reversed.

If there was a Fall, there must be a ‘Rising’. So a Resurrection, I see not literally, but as God prepared to intervene directly into the natural world. And if He were to do so, a correction to human nature would be a good place to start. And there is much material in the non-canonical texts to suggest and support this possibility. But such a direct PROOF would of course bring the entire church into question. That may yet be the price of human progress?

I wish I had a good answer to your thought/question’s…I’ll reflect alittle…

We do remain in a fallen state, because we can never be perfect, we can try and we definately improve, but I don’t think we can make it to an all no sinner mode in this life.
I don’t think humanity is threatened as much as the environment and other creatures are due to man’s needs.

I am not perfect, but I try to limit myself with materalistic things, checking what and where things come from rather than blindly desiring things just because they look good or would make me look good etc.

We as humans destroy and waste alot of nature’s beauty, and maybe this is how the O.S affected the environment that we are active in. It doesn’t take a genius to know that we right now are the cause of most suffering for one another, animals and the environment.
My question in the O.P was more inline with thinking that A&E’s sin affected the earth, planets etc. But I think it’s to far fetched to suggest that, knowing how our universe works and what we see is what way I think God allows the universe to progress, the animals and us. Can’t say more I don’t think, because of the evolution ban!

I do think that many people can be moral and spiritual, many stand for the rights of the voiceless, and do great works for people, again these are not “perfect” people, but they try and never give up on love and hope.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[onenow1]

Wondering out loud if the nature of Adam before the Fall was different from what we now refer to as human nature and what that ‘superior’ nature might have been is worthy of speculation, even if such insight has yet to be revealed.

If there was a Fall, there must be a ‘Rising’. So a Resurrection, I see not literally, but as God prepared to intervene directly into the natural world. And if He were to do so, a correction to human nature would be a good place to start. And there is much material in the non-canonical texts to suggest and support this possibility. But such a direct PROOF would of course bring the entire church into question. That may yet be the price of human progress?

This is very insightful RCCB ! And Jesus did just that born as an infant, obeying His human parents and His Divine Father as he was growing up reversing the disobedience of Adam’s not doing the will of God.

Question: Why would the church God instituted be brought into question ?

God Bless

 

[RCCB]

Question: Why would the church God instituted be brought into question ?

Because God did not institute the church. It remains, as all related tradition, an all too human theological construct. And because by the Fall, dominated by material perception and moral limitations, human nature is itself and in spite of any aspiration, ‘spiritually dead’.

Again speaking as a ex-catholic, I am already convinced that the church does not hold any ‘truth’ revealed from God. And that such truth, yet to be revealed, will turn out to be a ‘Resurrection’. Not as understood and taught by tradition, but " a direct, individual intervention into the natural world, ‘raising’ up within a man*a newly Enlightened heart, realigning his moral compass by correcting human nature with a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Thus freed from the corruptions that natural law is heir to, is man created in the image and likeness of His Creator."

 

[grannymh]

Question: Why would the church God instituted be brought into question ?

God Bless

Because God Himself has always been questioned starting in Genesis chapter 3.

The main difference between then and now is that a fantastic imagination, fueled by creative intellects, has center stage in the battle for one-upmanship.

 

[aragonjohn1]

The church allows for a literal interpretation of the Genesis, for example one can believe that a day of creation was literally a day.

yes in the very sense of simple precedents this does work wistfully.

“that gives the increase.” 1 Corinthians 3:7 For by this grace He engrafts into His body even baptized infants, who certainly have not yet become able to imitate any one. As therefore He, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate Him, gives also to those who believe in Him the hidden grace of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants; so likewise he, in whom all die, besides being an example for

thank you
God Bless

 

[onenow1]

Because God Himself has always been questioned starting in Genesis chapter 3.

The main difference between then and now is that a fantastic imagination, fueled by creative intellects, has center stage in the battle for one-upmanship.

:thumbsup:Granny

Matthew 16

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz3F8IUqZ31