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

[belorg]

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.

Of course it made a difference, how would they have known they should have obeyed God? Since they did not know good from evil, there was nothing wrong with obeying the snake instead of God.

 

[belorg]

There are inconsistencies in everyone’s story.Plato and Aristolte Im sure had people pass on their stories and their were inconsistencies.

My point is;, the A and E story is a metaphor and not history.

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.

Evolution is actually a scientific theory. But this is not about evolution being true or not. It is a fact that the first man and women lived very long ago. Much too long for there to be a credible story about these two individuals.

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.

I’m not talking about being thrown out of the garden, I am talking about original sin and how it was supposedly passed on to all the descendants. I’m talking about people believing that for this eating the forbiden fruit the punishment is that people are cast into hell etc.

 

[davidv]

My point is;, the A and E story is a metaphor and not history.

How do you know this?

Evolution is actually a scientific theory. But this is not about evolution being true or not. It is a fact that the first man and women lived very long ago. Much too long for there to be a credible story about these two individuals.

What creditials do you have that allow you to make such a bold claim.

I’m not talking about being thrown out of the garden, I am talking about original sin and how it was supposedly passed on to all the descendants. I’m talking about people believing that for this eating the forbiden fruit the punishment is that people are cast into hell etc.

How does original sin cast one into hell? It seems that you have some very severe misconceptions about Catholic teaching.

 

[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.

The scientific method isn’t some sure way of proving every theory that someone proposes is true…We know that the theories which are studied using the scientific method are taken to be true until someone comes alongs and proves it to be false.its always that way.I don’t think that there are any theories new theories which have come along in the last 30 or 40yrs that haven’t been proved to be wrong.

 

[valentino]

My point is;, the A and E story is a metaphor and not history.

Evolution is actually a scientific theory. But this is not about evolution being true or not. It is a fact that the first man and women lived very long ago. Much too long for there to be a credible story about these two individuals.

I’m not talking about being thrown out of the garden, I am talking about original sin and how it was supposedly passed on to all the descendants. I’m talking about people believing that for this eating the forbiden fruit the punishment is that people are cast into hell etc.

Whenever A and E lived it still doesn’t change the fact that somewhere in time man wrote or passed on how mankind got in the position it is today.Now a person can deny the story but they still can’t prove that the story is false or its meaning irrelevant to man.One can say that these were ignorant beings who just tried to explain there existence but no knows when this story was first told or how ignorant these people really were.Even an ignnorant person is capable of passing on truth and it can still be relevant today.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The scientific method isn’t some sure way of proving every theory that someone proposes is true…

It’s not a way of proving anything at all. This has been emphasized your thread about star dust and others.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

belorg;8154219:

My point is;, the A and E story is a metaphor and not history.

How do you know this?

There a lot of different Christian traditions. Some of them view Adam and Eve and the other accounts in Genesis as being literal. Some label parts of genesis as metaphorical. I’m not speaking for belorg, but I did want to point out that even among Christians there are multiple interpretations of the accounts in the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible These interpretations change over time and are affected by general knowledge (ex: the parts about the earth being set up pillars and unmovable were largely view as literal before the knowledge we now include in the realm as basic astronomy became general knowledge).

 

[valentino]

It’s not a way of proving anything at all. This has been emphasized your thread about star dust and others.

The scientific method is a way of gathering facts isn’t it?Aren’t facts added together to try to explain or prove a theory?

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

One of the Jewish interpretations regarding the disobedience of Adam and Eve is that they knew the difference between right and wrong (i.e. that they were committing a sinful act) by obeying the tempter, Satan, instead of G-d; however, the evil was external, in the form of Satan, and had not yet become internalized in the form of their “evil inclination” until after committing the act. That is why they felt shame due to their nakedness (literally and figuratively) only after disobeying G-d and yielding instead to Satan.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The scientific method is a way of gathering facts isn’t it?Aren’t facts added together to try to explain or prove a theory?

They support a theory, but they don’t prove it. The theory is just an explanatory model and may be used for making predictions or or retrodiction (think of this as a prediction about the past). As more data is gathered a theory may be found to be inadequate for a scenario or range. When this occurs a new theory may be built to include the new data. Usually the new theory is an adjustment of the old theory and not a complete re-authoring. This has happened within physics with Relativistic theories replacing Newtonian ones, or with the evolution of atomic theories (Dalton mode, Bhor planetary model, Rutherford model, and probably some others). Though there are some occurances of theories that get thrown out all together such as geocentric theory being replaced with heliocentric theory, or germ theory and cell theory replacing the theory of spontaneous generation.

“Wrong” theories can still be useful though. Bohr’s planetary model is still taught in grade school (I guess it’s easier to start off viewing the atom as a miniature solar system until one has built up enough understanding to understand more modern models) and Newtonian physics is still used for the relatively slow moving objects we interact with on the surface of the earth (side note: GPS systems are an example of something we use all the time that must use relativistic physics models).

It’s believed that there may be possible to build theories that include or account for observations that are relegated to different theories (ex: combining electromagnetism theory and relativity into the “Unified theory”) and if this were ever done then it could show that the theories we have on both of those areas to have been inadequate some how.

 

[davidv]

There a lot of different Christian traditions. Some of them view Adam and Eve and the other accounts in Genesis as being literal. Some label parts of genesis as metaphorical. I’m not speaking for belorg, but I did want to point out that even among Christians there are multiple interpretations of the accounts in the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible These interpretations change over time and are affected by general knowledge (ex: the parts about the earth being set up pillars and unmovable were largely view as literal before the knowledge we now include in the realm as basic astronomy became general knowledge).

Sounds like you were speculating rather than stating a fact when you said “…the story of A & E is a metaphor…”

 

[buffalo]

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.

What??? - it is Catholic dogma.

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

 

[valentino]

They support a theory, but they don’t prove it. The theory is just an explanatory model and may be used for making predictions or or retrodiction (think of this as a prediction about the past). As more data is gathered a theory may be found to be inadequate for a scenario or range. When this occurs a new theory may be built to include the new data. Usually the new theory is an adjustment of the old theory and not a complete re-authoring. This has happened within physics with Relativistic theories replacing Newtonian ones, or with the evolution of atomic theories (Dalton mode, Bhor planetary model, Rutherford model, and probably some others). Though there are some occurances of theories that get thrown out all together such as geocentric theory being replaced with heliocentric theory, or germ theory and cell theory replacing the theory of spontaneous generation.

“Wrong” theories can still be useful though. Bohr’s planetary model is still taught in grade school (I guess it’s easier to start off viewing the atom as a miniature solar system until one has built up enough understanding to understand more modern models) and Newtonian physics is still used for the relatively slow moving objects we interact with on the surface of the earth (side note: GPS systems are an example of something we use all the time that must use relativistic physics models).

It’s believed that there may be possible to build theories that include or account for observations that are relegated to different theories (ex: combining electromagnetism theory and relativity into the “Unified theory”) and if this were ever done then it could show that the theories we have on both of those areas to have been inadequate some how.

So evolution is just a theory and so is the big bang.I heard a program on tv two nights ago with Morgan Freeman hosting.He was talking about what may be able to be known in the future such as life being on Mars at an earlier time in its history.Anyway he said “now we know the universe had its creation in the big bang”.If its just a theory how is he able to say “we know”?Then he went on discussing dark matter.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So evolution is just a theory and so is the big bang.

For the sake of avoiding a possible ambiguity I want to point out that generally when some one uses the phrase “just a theory” they are using the word “theory” in the common vernacular that is synonymous with “speculation.” In scientific vernacular it is an explanation for a group of facts. There is an opposition in those two meanings of the word “theory” - one is fact based, and the other requires no facts.

The Big Bang theory was originally based on observations from the movement of nebulae and a few years after it was published Edwin Hubble collected evidence that galaxies in the universe were moving apart (universe is expanding). One of the implications of the Big Bang theory was expected that there should be some type of radiation left over from when the universe was in it’s early state. The radiation was discovered by accident in 1964. In the late 90s or early 2000s the radiation was mapped.*]

But theory is as high as you can go with an explanation in science. Newton’s theories on Gravity have come into play when landing probes on the moon and other bodies in our solar system. While it’s demonstrably useful and predictable it’s still just a theory (scientific vernacular). We can say that we believe the theory to be true and that it’s been consistent with our observations.

I won’t bother to do the same break down with evolution. But like the Big Bang theory it is based on facts originally collected by Darwin and Wallace (they came up with the theory independently) and since then additional facts and other theories have been included as supporting evidence for the theory.

I heard a program on tv two nights ago with Morgan Freeman hosting.He was talking about what may be able to be known in the future such as life being on Mars at an earlier time in its history.Anyway he said “now we know the universe had its creation in the big bang”. If its just a theory how is he able to say “we know”?

I don’t know. My theory (common vernacular) is it sounds better to say “we know” instead of “we have a significant amount of evidence that supports this explanatory model of the early state of the universe and its rapid expansion.” I’m going to avoid the temptation to pick at the use of the word “Creation.”

This isn’t directed at what Morgan Freeman said, but scientific information published in main stream magazines has to be taken with a grain of salt. Original publications many times contain confidence qualifiers that end up being discarded when publishers that target the general public write on it.I don’t think there’s a high tendency in the general public to scrutinize data. If the confidence qualifiers were included I question whether or not the general public would see it as a benefit.

 

[belorg]

How do you know this?

I know a metaphor when I see one, and this story has the definition of metaphor (or allegory) written all over it.
Added to this that it is internally inconsistent.

What creditials do you have that allow you to make such a bold claim.

That the first human beings lived a few hunderd thousand dor even a million years ago s common knoledge, just as the fact that the Earth isn’t flat.

How does original sin cast one into hell? It seems that you have some very severe misconceptions about Catholic teaching.

Oh, it’s a misconception about Catholic teaching? Well, let me quote you from ‘Catholic dogma’ (courtesy of Buffalo)

Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

 

[belorg]

What??? - it is Catholic dogma.

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

1. 
   Sorry, but if this is to be taken literally, I see no point in even trying to have a rational discussion here. Most Catholic I know are more or less ratioonal people and most certainly do not believe this.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, but if this is to be taken literally, I see no point in even trying to have a rational discussion here. Most Catholic I know are more or less ratioonal people and most certainly do not believe this.

We certainly can have a rational discussion about this.

Apparently you have no understanding of the force of dogma and how derived.

Offer your best proofs that deny Adam and Eve.

(Incidentally, I submit the Catholics you know have fallen for scientism)

 

[jonfawkes]

The Church doesn’t consider the story literally true - scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

They are saying at some point we “fell” - this we know. The rest of the story, welllll…

 

[Lui]

(Incidentally, I submit the Catholics you know have fallen for scientism)

I don’t think falling for Creationism is any better.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think falling for Creationism is any better.

A Catholic by definition is a creationist.

I have not fallen for anything. I too gappled with these issues. Evolution is a philosophy that does not pass the empirical test.