Why did God put man(Adam and Eve) to the test?

[valentino]

Was it necessary?What kind of being would man be if he wasn’t tested and therefore never failed?We know that God knew man would fail but was it necessary?

 

[belorg]

Was it necessary?What kind of being would man be if he wasn’t tested and therefore never failed?We know that God knew man would fail but was it necessary?

The Adam and Eve story is a myth, of course, so there was never this kind of test. If man “fell” in any way it was not by eating the forbiden fruit.

And why would an all-knwing being have to test anything?

 

[EmeraldWings]

It was necessary, the same way the angels choosing either to serve God or not was necessary, because God will not force us to love Him,

love must be chosen, and to choose it there must be something to choose between, otherwise there’s no choice, and the choice is between love and a lack thereof.
God being love, and evil being a lack of God,
and it is necessary because, God being love itself, He could not act against Himself and force us to love Him, because if it were forced, then it would not be genuine, since love is an act of the will, it’s chosen not in our affections or thoughts or words, but in our deeds, and in order for it to be true genuine love, it has to be our choice.

but even though they were tested and fell, that is not necessarily a bad thing, God saw that it would happen, and He also saw what great good would come from it, such as Jesus of course, and also the Blessed Mother of God, all the great saints, and all the great merit we would receive this way, higher degrees of heaven and being closer to God by our sacrifices on earth,
if it happened that they did not fall, God knows what would be the result and whether we would have been better off…but i can’t say i know, and the simple fact remains even still, whether it would have been better for them not to have fallen, it was still necessary for them to choose(or be tested) simply because that’s how love works,
although i think Fulton J. Sheen has spoken about this all to, maybe you can find it - fultonsheen.com/Fulton-Sheen-MP3.cfm

so that’s what i think, hope this helps, take care.

 

[tonyrey]

God didn’t create us specifically to test us! Life isn’t an examination to decide whether we pass or fail. It is an opportunity to develop our capacity for development, creativity, enjoyment and - above all - love. The fact that we get what we deserve is incidental and **not **the primary purpose of sharing His power with us.

 

[valentino]

The Adam and Eve story is a myth, of course, so there was never this kind of test. If man “fell” in any way it was not by eating the forbiden fruit.

And why would an all-knwing being have to test anything?

How do you differentiate myth and Truth?

 

[valentino]

It was necessary, the same way the angels choosing either to serve God or not was necessary, because God will not force us to love Him,

love must be chosen, and to choose it there must be something to choose between, otherwise there’s no choice, and the choice is between love and a lack thereof.
God being love, and evil being a lack of God,
and it is necessary because, God being love itself, He could not act against Himself and force us to love Him, because if it were forced, then it would not be genuine, since love is an act of the will, it’s chosen not in our affections or thoughts or words, but in our deeds, and in order for it to be true genuine love, it has to be our choice.

but even though they were tested and fell, that is not necessarily a bad thing, God saw that it would happen, and He also saw what great good would come from it, such as Jesus of course, and also the Blessed Mother of God, all the great saints, and all the great merit we would receive this way, higher degrees of heaven and being closer to God by our sacrifices on earth,
if it happened that they did not fall, God knows what would be the result and whether we would have been better off…but i can’t say i know, and the simple fact remains even still, whether it would have been better for them not to have fallen, it was still necessary for them to choose(or be tested) simply because that’s how love works,
although i think Fulton J. Sheen has spoken about this all to, maybe you can find it - fultonsheen.com/Fulton-Sheen-MP3.cfm

so that’s what i think, hope this helps, take care.

Very good ideas.I think it comes down to 2 things.If man had not sinned he would not have to suffer but since man did sin he knows what suffering is yet he know what love has to do with.Pretty much like your saying I suppose.as terrible as suffering seems to be to man we all know from experience that the more we are able to endure our sacrifices and suffering the greater we are able to love and feel.

 

[valentino]

God didn’t create us specifically to test us! Life isn’t an examination to decide whether we pass or fail. It is an opportunity to develop our capacity for development, creativity, enjoyment and - above all - love. The fact that we get what we deserve is incidental and **not **the primary purpose of sharing His power with us.

Maybe your right.In fact I believe your right.God didn’t have in mind to test Adam when He created Him.Even though God knows everything in advance He still moves or makes decisions according to how man responds.Maybe he created this perfect man but decided to test him rather than leave him in a static situation.He knew that man was capable of more than what he was or he wanted man to be more than what he was.Temptation was a logical step.

 

[meltzerboy]

Was it necessary?What kind of being would man be if he wasn’t tested and therefore never failed?We know that God knew man would fail but was it necessary?

I think that in giving Man free will to choose between right and wrong, G-d makes Man’s love stronger for both G-d and his fellow man. If Man had no choice but to love G-d and his neighbor, that love would be forced and mechanical, with no deep understanding and emotion, which can result only from Man’s inner conflict, external rebellion, and learning to control his own tendency to abuse the freedom of choice he was given. G-d’s testing of Man’s free will–particularly in those instances when Man initially chooses the wrong path–enables Man to repent for his indiscretions and sins against G-d and his fellow man, and thereby endears himself to G-d even more.

 

[belorg]

How do you differentiate myth and Truth?

Using the scientific method, e.g. plus the fact that the story is internally inconsistent. The first man and the fist woman lived at least a million years ago and not only a few thousand years ago, The people were 'punished ’ for doing evil when the story says that they could not even have known they were doing evil until after they had actually done it etc.
I am starting to wonder if this trul is a catholic forum and not some sort of fundamentalist site. I personally do not know any Catholic (and I know lots of them) whio believes the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.

 

[meltzerboy]

Using the scientific method, e.g. plus the fact that the story is internally inconsistent. The first man and the fist woman lived at least a million years ago and not only a few thousand years ago, The people were 'punished ’ for doing evil when the story says that they could not even have known they were doing evil until after they had actually done it etc.
I am starting to wonder if this trul is a catholic forum and not some sort of fundamentalist site. I personally do not know any Catholic (and I know lots of them) whio believes the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.

Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and most Hebrew scholars and rabbis do NOT take all of the Torah literally–including even the Karaite Jews–but, rather, consisting of many metaphorical passages. Thus there is no conflict in Judaism (except from some of the hard-core Hareidi Jews) in accepting the theory of evolution with respect to the age of the Earth and the creation of Man, so long as G-d is included as the initial and maintaining force in the process instead of its being completely based on random physical and biochemical processes. I believe most Catholics would accept this too, and so does Billy Graham. Regarding your second point, didn’t Adam and Eve know they were disobeying G-d and thus doing evil?

 

[valentino]

I think that in giving Man free will to choose between right and wrong, G-d makes Man’s love stronger for both G-d and his fellow man. If Man had no choice but to love G-d and his neighbor, that love would be forced and mechanical, with no deep understanding and emotion, which can result only from Man’s inner conflict, external rebellion, and learning to control his own tendency to abuse the freedom of choice he was given. G-d’s testing of Man’s free will–particularly in those instances when Man initially chooses the wrong path–enables Man to repent for his indiscretions and sins against G-d and his fellow man, and thereby endears himself to G-d even more.

Well of course he had no fellow man(unless your referrring to Eve)at the time and how would it strenghten his love for G-d if he disobeyed Him?Im not so sure that Adam or Eve actually loved God?A cat obeys God because he can’t go against his nature which G-d has put in him but a cat doesn’t love God.IMO man recognized G-d as creator but that’s about all.IMO when man sinned he recognized that He disobeyed G-d’s command but he had to learn how to love God.First man has to recognized how much God loves him.Until G-d revealed this to the Hebrews by protecting them and promising them a land of milk and honey they didn’t know G-d’s love.

 

[valentino]

Using the scientific method, e.g. plus the fact that the story is internally inconsistent. The first man and the fist woman lived at least a million years ago and not only a few thousand years ago, The people were 'punished ’ for doing evil when the story says that they could not even have known they were doing evil until after they had actually done it etc.
I am starting to wonder if this trul is a catholic forum and not some sort of fundamentalist site. I personally do not know any Catholic (and I know lots of them) whio believes the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.

There are inconsistencies in everyone’s story.Plato and Aristolte Im sure had people pass on their stories and their were inconsistencies.Evolution is still not a fact.Its a theory which has yet be proven conclusively.It a lot of data(facts)strung together held together by assumptions without which the theory could make sense.Being put out of garden into the world was not a great punishmentIMO.Do you feel that making a living is a great punishment?I would liken it to a child who has become of age when he(she) has to start going to school instead of being free to play.There is no evidence that people hated working for a living.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think that in giving Man free will to choose between right and wrong, G-d makes Man’s love stronger for both G-d and his fellow man.

I’ve had a hard time understanding that. Whenever I see that it I always see it as being a parallel of a parent that decides not to keep dangerous cleaning chemicals out of the reach of their children because doing so would interfere with their free will. And that the children’s love will be greater to the parent for not having been protected by the chemicals. It’s a bit difficult for me to wrap my mind around that one.

 

[davidv]

I’ve had a hard time understanding that. Whenever I see that it I always see it as being a parallel of a parent that decides not to keep dangerous cleaning chemicals out of the reach of their children because doing so would interfere with their free will. And that the children’s love will be greater to the parent for not having been protected by the chemicals. It’s a bit difficult for me to wrap my mind around that one.

I believe this is an unfair analogy. God does not purposely put man in harms way. A more apt parental analogy would be the first time the child is allowed to drive away with the car alone for the first time. The parents have hopefully prepared them for this by getting them the proper training and giving them the instructions that will help keep them out of harms way.

God gave man the instructions that would have protected him. However man decided that they knew better than God.

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe your right. In fact I believe your right.God didn’t have in mind to test Adam when He created Him.Even though God knows everything in advance He still moves or makes decisions according to how man responds.Maybe he created this perfect man but decided to test him rather than leave him in a static situation.He knew that man was capable of more than what he was or he wanted man to be more than what he was.Temptation was a logical step.

You are right, Valentino - up to a point. Robert Browning wrote:

“A man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for?”

Yet it is not God that does the tempting. That’s the devil’s job! The very fact that God has shared His power with us means we are capable of heroic acts of compassion and self-sacrifice - like Jesus - or horrific acts of cruelty and destruction - like the Nazis. Our power itself is a source of temptation. We can reject God’s love or we can choose to reciprocate His love - and the only way we can love Him is by striving to love others as He has loved us…

Life is indeed a test but it is not an arbitrary one. The famous atheist Jean Paul Sartre believed we are not persons unless we recognise and act upon our freedom, responsibility and the need for commitment. He was right but he didn’t - and couldn’t - explain the source of our power because it is divine! It is the result of being made in the image and likeness of God. There is no need for Him to judge us:

“By their fruits you shall know them.”

We are judged by what we choose to believe and how we choose to live. We are created for unselfish love which leads to happiness in this world as a foretaste of joy in heaven.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I believe this is an unfair analogy. God does not purposely put man in harms way. A more apt parental analogy would be the first time the child is allowed to drive away with the car alone for the first time. The parents have hopefully prepared them for this by getting them the proper training and giving them the instructions that will help keep them out of harms way.

What stood out to me in my own analogy as not fitting is that exposure to the chemicals doesn’t necessarily result in all descendants of that child being condemned by the consequences of the original child. I’m not familiar with chemicals in the house that lead to genetic mutation, so I couldn’t include something in my analogy to cover that.

I’m not able to map the analogy that you’ve presented to the situation completely. Driving training typically starts with observation (even before a child has reached legal driving age he or see is familiarized with operating principals of a car from being a passenger, TV, so on), analogous situations (riding a bike, toy vehicles, or even video games), verbal instructions, and then passing a written or computer’s test to earn a learner’s permit. After that the child is allowed to operate a vehicle with supervision for some time before making a first attempt at passing an operational test. Until this point is reached the parent cannot legally allow the child to operate the vehicle without the supervision of a licensed adult over a certain age (the age being dependent on your state). Once the child is allowed to operate a vehicle on his or her own there may still be reinforcement of driving principals from the parent and law enforcement officers. Since humans are social beings there may also be vicarious experience from people that talk about driving situations that lead up to undesired consequences, news stories about accidents, relatives or parents that have been in accidents or received tickets, and so on.

By the time the child gets to the point where the parent can legally allow him or her to operate a vehicle solo he or she has already acquired experience, probably has already made mistakes and has been corrected by the supervising adults, and has been through some tests. Doesn’t that sound like a less fitting analogy?

 

[Luke_K]

Using the scientific method, e.g. plus the fact that the story is internally inconsistent. The first man and the fist woman lived at least a million years ago and not only a few thousand years ago, The people were 'punished ’ for doing evil when the story says that they could not even have known they were doing evil until after they had actually done it etc.
I am starting to wonder if this trul is a catholic forum and not some sort of fundamentalist site. I personally do not know any Catholic (and I know lots of them) whio believes the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.

They were punished because they were told not to do something and they did it. Having no “knowledge of evil” didn’t make a difference.

 

[davidv]

What stood out to me in my own analogy as not fitting is that exposure to the chemicals doesn’t necessarily result in all descendants of that child being condemned by the consequences of the original child. I’m not familiar with chemicals in the house that lead to genetic mutation, so I couldn’t include something in my analogy to cover that.

Similar dire consequences exist for the young driver. What if they ignore your rule of not allowing anyone else in the car. As a consequence they are distracted and cause a fatal accident that kills them and there passengers. Where are all of the decendents now that they have caused their own death.

I’m not able to map the analogy that you’ve presented to the situation completely. Driving training typically starts with observation (even before a child has reached legal driving age he or see is familiarized with operating principals of a car from being a passenger, TV, so on), analogous situations (riding a bike, toy vehicles, or even video games), verbal instructions, and then passing a written or computer’s test to earn a learner’s permit. After that the child is allowed to operate a vehicle with supervision for some time before making a first attempt at passing an operational test. Until this point is reached the parent cannot legally allow the child to operate the vehicle without the supervision of a licensed adult over a certain age (the age being dependent on your state). Once the child is allowed to operate a vehicle on his or her own there may still be reinforcement of driving principals from the parent and law enforcement officers. Since humans are social beings there may also be vicarious experience from people that talk about driving situations that lead up to undesired consequences, news stories about accidents, relatives or parents that have been in accidents or received tickets, and so on.

By the time the child gets to the point where the parent can legally allow him or her to operate a vehicle solo he or she has already acquired experience, probably has already made mistakes and has been corrected by the supervising adults, and has been through some tests. Doesn’t that sound like a less fitting analogy?

As we grow and mature we are given ample opportunity to learn the “rules of the road”. And contrary to the driving example, if we happen to make a fatal mistake (mortal sin) we can recover from it through repentance.

 

[belorg]

Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and most Hebrew scholars and rabbis do NOT take all of the Torah literally–including even the Karaite Jews–but, rather, consisting of many metaphorical passages. Thus there is no conflict in Judaism (except from some of the hard-core Hareidi Jews) in accepting the theory of evolution with respect to the age of the Earth and the creation of Man, so long as G-d is included as the initial and maintaining force in the process instead of its being completely based on random physical and biochemical processes. I believe most Catholics would accept this too, and so does Billy Graham. Regarding your second point, didn’t Adam and Eve know they were disobeying G-d and thus doing evil?

That’s my point: the story of A and E is a metaphor and should be read as a metaphor.

And my second point. Maybe A and E knew they were disobeying God, but they did not know obeying God was evil, and they could not have known this because they had no knowledge of good and evil.
Now this does not matter too much if you read the sory as a metaphor, but for people who think this is a literal account, it just does not make sense.

 

[shoe]

“Why did God put man(Adam and Eve) to the test?”

It seems to me that God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to do just about anything they wanted to do in the garden. The only thing that God forbade them to do was to eat a certain kind of fruit. God really wasn’t asking for too much. And I think that God gave Adam and Eve this freedom to choose to obey God as a means by which Adam and Eve would be able to express their love and trust toward God.