As a result of eating of the fruit (disobedience of God), man would come to know (experience) the lack of absolute goodness, i.e. that which lies outside the perfect will of God.The tree of knowledge is known for its content which is the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Evil is as true as Good. Catholics however consider evil as lake of Good which is contrary to what is clearly claimed in the scripture. I was wondering how Catholic could defend their position. That seems a big misunderstanding to me.
Yes, lack can be known once we comprehend full.So a lack can’t be known?
Yes, I can say when I define what I mean with content.You can’t look in a cup and say, “This is empty”?
That is not a good argument since I can argue oppositely: Good is lack of Evil. You can argue that God is Good and can only create Good. I can ask that how do you know if God is not evil? In fact an Evil God is as consistent as Good God since we don’t know whether Good or Evil is true.and, evil is a metaphysical lacking, but physically perhaps more aptly called a perversion.
No, murdering someone can be because of hate. You can of course experience or imagine the lack of love, emptiness, which has no relation with hate! Have you ever experience hate?Murdering someone is a lack of love toward our neighbor, but it is still a physical thing, a perversion in behavior, that happens and can be known.
How they could perform any non-Good action if they were created Good? This is viable option only after eating the fruit.As a result of eating of the fruit (disobedience of God).
You don’t need to eat a fruit to know what lack means if you are a intellectual being.man would come to know (experience) the lack of absolute goodness, i.e. that which lies outside the perfect will of God.
First. A bit of clarification about the Catholic Church.The tree of knowledge is known for its content which is the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Evil is as true as Good. Catholics however consider evil as lake of Good which is contrary to what is clearly claimed in the scripture. I was wondering how Catholic could defend their position. That seems a big misunderstanding to me.
It should be one of the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church. No creation means no suffering, peace!First. A bit of clarification about the Catholic Church.
Regardless of the miles of posts talking about the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil as being known for its content — That, my friend, is not the basic, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for clarifying.Yup!
There is one grand super misunderstanding about the Catholic position.
@BahmanThe tree of knowledge is known for its content which is the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Evil is as true as Good. Catholics however consider evil as lake of Good which is contrary to what is clearly claimed in the scripture. I was wondering how Catholic could defend their position. That seems a big misunderstanding to me.
I don’t think so since they, Adam and Eve, were able to decide on their own. Deciding about a situation without the knowledge of consequence is meaningless. That is what a rational being means.The Ignatius Study Bible truly helped me understand the Tree of Consience. The fruit did not give man an understanding of good and evil. Man was created rationale and knowing. The knowledge in this sense wasn’t reason or conscience; it’s more legal. Man was asserting that he had the knowledge to decide on his own, without God, what was right and wrong. This was to be “like God.”
That is your interpretation which apparently confers with scripture. Moreover, we cannot decide about what Good and Evil are since they are intrinsic properties of any action.The problem wasn’t that the tree allowed us to recognize good and evil, it was Man’s assertion that he could decide what was good and what was evil, even if God had told him otherwise.
Sheesh. Why should we need an interpretation about a topic which is clearly stated? Unless otherwise there are conflicts in what scripture contains.That’s the interpretation from the ISB, anyway. I do not know if that is THE interpretation given by the Church, or only one of many.
Thanks!I don’t think the Tree of Good and Evil indicates that ‘evil’ isn’t just a lack of good, though.
So you are not apparently familiar with Church position.@Bahman
Not sure I understand your assertion. Do you mean to say your belief is that Catholics believe evil is merely the absence of good? If so, I disagree. Evil is a choice against good; there must be a conscious action that brings about evil as well as knowing the difference between good and evil. Even if someone chooses to do nothing in the face of evil, he chooses evil (the case of Germans who stood by while the Nazis murdered millions of “undesirables” in WW2.)
Just as good requires a conscious action so does evil. Does that make sense to you?
Adam was created good, but not necessarily perfect in wisdom, which only God possesses by nature and which man possess only to the extent that he remains in communion with God. Free will, another Good, provides the potential for man to express his human limitations, his creaturely imperfection relative to the Creator’s infinite perfection, and separate himself from subjugation to Him. God knew this of course, and deemed it worthwhile nonetheless to include free will into His creation, for His good purposes, even if man were to fall because of it. Man’s job, with this free will and Gods help, is to ultimately find his way back to God, bowing to His perfect wisdom and man’s need for it. This is the state of “journeying to perfection” which the catechism speaks of. Man is perfected-or just- to the extent that he freely choses obedience to God. This only occurs, however, as man comes to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strengthHow they could perform any non-Good action if they were created Good? This is viable option only after eating the fruit.
Apparently we don’t necessarily really know what lack means until we’ve experienced it. To this day humans choose lesser goods over greater ones, thinking they’ll come out ahead.You don’t need to eat a fruit to know what lack means if you are a intellectual being.
The first real interpreter is the author of the first three chapters of Genesis. My guess is that this author had a basic background in natural science because he understood the science of agriculture, especially since Adam was ahead of his time by growing organic fruit.Sheesh. Why should we need an interpretation about a topic which is clearly stated? Unless otherwise there are conflicts in what scripture contains.
This is a good story which has a big flaw because man stays in the state imperfection forever which inforece the possibility of falling again! So what is the purpose?Adam was created good, but not necessarily perfect in wisdom, which only God possesses by nature and which man possess only to the extent that he remains in communion with God. Free will, another Good, provides the potential for man to express his human limitations, his creaturely imperfection relative to the Creator’s infinite perfection, and separate himself from subjugation to Him. God knew this of course, and deemed it worthwhile nonetheless to include free will into His creation, for His good purposes, even if man were to fall because of it. Man’s job, with this free will and Gods help, is to ultimately find his way back to God, bowing to His perfect wisdom and man’s need for it. This is the state of “journeying to perfection” which the catechism speaks of.
This is nonsense since we cannot be free if we purely obey! State of staying obedient to God is the state of torture since there is always tendency to do otherwise! So what is the purpose?Man is perfected-or just- to the extent that he freely choses obedience to God.
This is a romantic story which cannot comes true because we have to obey God.This only occurs, however, as man comes to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength
Yes, unless Adam and Eve were not giving any opportunity except eating the fruit!Apparently we don’t necessarily really know what lack means until we’ve experienced it.
This is not reasonable.To this day humans choose lesser goods over greater ones, thinking they’ll come out ahead.
Nope, man participates in his perfecting as a matter of the will, by choosing to commune or unite with God, a state where his perfection is then fully consummated. To the extent that we will rightly, our perfection is the greater.This is a good story which has a big flaw because man stays in the state imperfection forever which inforece the possibility of falling again! So what is the purpose?
Yes, we can be free in our obedience, in fact that’s the only place we find true freedom. Man was made for communion with God. Obedience freely chosen is to freely align our wills with His, coming to agree with Him as we truly come to recognize His infinite superiority and goodness above all things.This is nonsense since we cannot be free if we purely obey! State of staying obedient to God is the state of torture since there is always tendency to do otherwise! So what is the purpose?
No, this is a real story that comes true-of its own accord-as we come to know God.This is a romantic story which cannot comes true because we have to obey God.
They didn’t have to eat the fruit. This is the essence of their free will. In fact, they could’ve eaten of the Tree of Life, choosing correctly, growing in even greater justice.Yes, unless Adam and Eve were not giving any opportunity except eating the fruit!
Yes, humans aren’t always reasonable. The point is that we must learn, viscerally, sometimes gruelingly, what is of authentic, lasting value, what is truly good in this life. And it’s a good struggle, with God being the ultimate good that we want, even if we miss it at first glance, preferring “our” way instead. As we came to know God, we begin to realize that His way us also our way after all. Always was. And presumably Adam knows that by now.This is not reasonable.
Perfection is not possible unless God enforces it. So why God didn’t enforce perfection in the first place, creation of Adam and Eve? Simple, create a pair of Gods! Unless this is impossible which means that we cannot fully consume the perfection.Nope, man participates in his perfecting as a matter of the will, by choosing to commune or unite with God, a state where his perfection is then fully consummated. To the extent that we will rightly, our perfection is the greater.
Look my friend, you cannot freely choose until there is a God with a stick in his hand for punishing you!Yes, we can be free in our obedience, in fact that’s the only place we find true freedom. Man was made for communion with God. Obedience freely chosen is to freely align our wills with His, coming to agree with Him as we truly come to recognize His infinite superiority and goodness above all things.
We cannot understand infinity/God by our own limited power! It is logically impossible.No, this is a real story that comes true-of its own accord-as we come to know God.
You didn’t get what I mean. Look my friend, Eve comes after Adam, so at least Adam could comprehend what lack means!They didn’t have to eat the fruit. In fact, they could’ve eaten of the Tree of Life, choosing correctly, growing in even greater justice.
You are evading my argument. Human can choose between good and better provided s/he knows what is good and what is better. We are reasonable being.Yes, humans aren’t always reasonable. The point is that we must learn, viscerally, sometimes gruelingly, what is of authentic, lasting value, what is truly good in this life. And it’s a good struggle, with God being the ultimate good that we want, even if we miss it at first glance, preferring “our” way instead. As we came to know God, we begin to realize that His way us also our way after all. Always was. And presumably Adam knows that now.
Perfection is ultimately a gift. Our part of the “justice equation” is in cooperating with, seeking, responding to this gift. The highest perfection cannot be enforced-it can only be accepted/chosen; that’s why hell exists. It’s the state of perfection rejected.Perfection is not possible unless God enforces it. So why God didn’t enforce perfection in the first place, creation of Adam and Eve? Simple, create a pair of Gods! Unless this is impossible which means that we cannot fully consume the perfection. .
The “stick” is nothing more or less than that the misery and unhappiness that accompanies being out of sync with Reality, Nature, God.Look my friend, you cannot freely choose until there is a God with a stick in his hand for punishing you!.
Of course not! He gives the grace of a glimpse, and we’re to respond to it, and then He gives more! And you apparently have no idea just how much He can give, even here on earth!QUOTE=Bahman;13167100]We cannot understand infinity/God by our own limited power! It is logically impossible…
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, he obviously didn’t appreciate what he had. IOW, he didn’t yet love God with his whole being.You didn’t get what I mean. Look my friend, Eve comes after Adam, so at least Adam could comprehend what lack means!.
Some people believe what they prefer to believe, such as that a temporary, momentary pleasure of a drug is better than long-term discipline, as an example. Some lessons are best learned the hard way. That shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp. Our own “godliness” is tied to our willingness to be truly godly IOW. Our perfection or justice is not created by us IOW, but God covets our choosing it, just as a good parent desires his children to do the right thing by choice, not by coercion. This is a matter of the human will from beginning to end. Grace calling us to even more grace. Read the Parable of the Talents-and observe the outcome of choices made, in response to grace given.You are evading my argument. Human can choose between good and better provided s/he knows what is good and what is better. We are reasonable being.
Please help me understand better the position of the Catholic church on good and evil. Can you provide a citation in the CCC or from one of the Ecumenical Councils? God Bless you.So you are not apparently familiar with Church position.
No. Evil is literally a metaphysical state of deficiency. Evil has no existence of its own, it only is a failure in goodness. A good car is one that works, that is, it does what it is supposed to do. It is a bad car once something breaks, and is malfunctional. A good person when seeing someone in need of help s/he can give, helps that person, does something that is supposed to be done. Neglect is the bad option, a failure to do a good work to another. Pride is the lack of proper acknowledgment that goodness is from God, not yourself. Lust involves lack of the respect of the dignity of the human person. Etc… Tell me one thing that is supposed to be, as it is, and is still evil?That is not a good argument since I can argue oppositely: Good is lack of Evil. You can argue that God is Good and can only create Good. I can ask that how do you know if God is not evil? In fact an Evil God is as consistent as Good God since we don’t know whether Good or Evil is true.
If there is hate it is because it fills the void left by there being no love.No, murdering someone can be because of hate. You can of course experience or imagine the lack of love, emptiness, which has no relation with hate! Have you ever experience hate?