Why is Eve blamed for the first sin/disobedience of God and not Adam?

[Della]

Hmmm. I am trying to determine here whether your statement “sin is retained” is equal to “God does not forgive you”.

That is precisely what it means. If sins are retained they are not forgiven–because the penitent did not meet the criteria for absolution. It’s a definitive reality.

God always forgives, us. Always. Yes, there are no “shades” of forgiveness.

He always forgives us if we repent. It’s not that he withholds forgiveness it’s that we decide we don’t want it.

Reconciliation, however, has a lot of gray area, does it not? The will of God is constant and unceasing, desiring relationship. The will of the penitent, and arguably all of us, is not necessarily an “on/off” switch; the nuances are as numerous as the varieties of awareness we have. We are all sinners; we all see with some fogginess.

If we were to use your indeterminate definition we couldn’t know if we were forgiven or not. The sacrament would be useless and pointless.

The person who comes to the confessional is the prodigal son, who the Father rushes to embrace. Any stance contrary to this goes against the spirit of the Gospel. The penitent’s feet say “I wish for reconciliation”, and sometimes it takes more than a quick prayer to work it all out.

Not all come to confession to be reconciled to God and the Church but to excuse themselves or to defy the sacrament. It happens. It’s not the usual scenario for penitents, but it can happen. There’s no “quick prayer” about it. The penitent is expected to relate all his mortal sins that he can remember and meet the criteria of repentance. If he doesn’t, the priest can retain his sins. This is a safeguard for the penitent as well as the Church. If a person is not repentant but receives the sacraments, he is receiving them falsely and incurring sin, perhaps mortal sin. Confession is an interchange between confessor and penitent in which both are supposed to be there in truth and for the same purpose. It’s on the head of the penitent if he will not repent, not the priest.

Are you coming from the side of the Gospel that says that God forgives conditionally?

Thanks for your response.

There isn’t any “side” to come from. Forgiveness has always been conditional from Adam and Eve down to today. The prodigal son was repentant–he didn’t come home and tell his father, “Well, I don’t regret breaking your heart, living a life of dissipation, losing your money and acting like a fool, but since I’m here you’re obliged to take me back.” His very demeanor shouted repentance when his father rushed out to meet him.

You are advocating the same idea as the once-saved-always-saved people do–that God forgives before we repent of future sins. That’s not how it works. Sure, he knows we will repent, but we live in time and are limited by time, and the onus is on us to demonstrate repentance, not presume upon God’s mercy and do whatever we want and sin as we please. If a person comes to confession and falsifies his intentions, then he has only added sin to sin and no, he will not be forgiven. If the priest assesses that a penitent is not repentant, he has the right and obligation to withhold absolution for the good of that person’s soul–to prompt him to come back truly repentant.

 

[Della]

I always thought that the phrase blood and guts for humans included the human voice mechanism and the ears. (Genesis 2: 20; Genesis 2: 15-17).

You are using metaphor to tell me this, and yet I know what you mean. See?

As a modern human, in the Sacred Scripture Forum, I am currently using the alphabet, A to Z, as an easy way to actually examine the flat out reality of the informative first three chapters of Genesis. It is my personal opinion that using the alphabet is a fun way to grasp the down-to-earth language used by the brilliant author of a classic.

Of course it’s real, no matter how we approach it. That’s my point. We cannot escape metaphor or mythology or allegory. It’s a part of how we communicate–in ancient times, as well as our own.

 

[grannymh]

You are using metaphor to tell me this, and yet I know what you mean. See?

Of course it’s real, no matter how we approach it. That’s my point. We cannot escape metaphor or mythology or allegory. It’s a part of how we communicate–in ancient times, as well as our own.

Bad Day at Black Rock

Post 59 should read: Being a sentient being of a higher order than the animals is not a full explanation of a human being’s unique unification of both the material and spiritual (rational soul) worlds.

 

[Della]

Bad Day at Black Rock

Post 59 should read: Being a sentient being of a higher order than the animals is not a full explanation of a human being’s unique unification of both the material and spiritual (rational soul) worlds.

If that had been the only qualification I’d offered I’d agree, but I went on… Let’s not nitpick in a thread which we have already taken off topic.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Catholic doctrine is that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

The Church understands that it is allegorical not literal historical fact.

Jim

The problem is you can’t build a theology or doctrine on events which “literally” never happened.

Of course those events - however they are described - can be taken and interpreted a number of ways, as bible scholars have done. But if they never happened then you have zilch, nada, zip.
It may as well be a bedtime story and the atheist would be right to lump that story into the same basket as every other “allegorical” religious myth. (Note that many scholarly people describe Jesus’ Resurrection as “allegorical” and His miracles as “allegorical” and the Eucharistic bread and wine as purely symbolic.)

Perhaps Eve looked exactly like an ape. Perhaps the Garden of Eden didn’t have neatly tended lawns and hedges. Perhaps the satanic creature which tempted Eve was only snake-like in appearance in the mind of Eve herself. But are we supposed to think there was no actual place, nor actual person nor actual temptation event leading to the actual Fall?

I think that all the events in Genesis actually happened. And, for the same reason, I also think that when Jesus says there was once a man who was beaten and robbed on the road to Jericho, and that there was once a prodigal son who squandered his inheritance, that He (Jesus) is telling the literal truth about events that actually happened.

Is “the road to Jericho” allegorically comparable to the road we call life? And is “the Inn” where the beaten and robbed man is nursed back to health a perfect analogy to The Church? And can we read more into the story when we see the beaten/robbed man having his hotel bill paid for by someone else? You bet we can!

But I won’t let any “scholar” tell me that I have to choose between either allegory or literal fact.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

grannymh;

“He created man and woman and man and woman fell from God’s grace through sin.” – you may not realize the foundation for this kind of thinking.

Right, and this is a far cry from taking the literal account in Genesis.

The foundation dates to the 1940’s where some good-hearted Catholics wanted to downgrade some valuable Catholic doctrines so that the Catholic Church could be a Big Tent where annoying doctrines can be eliminated.

Those who wanted to deny that God created a man and woman who fell from grace.

Again, the Church was not telling us to take the Genesis account literally.

As it is, the first five books of the Pentateuc were not written until 500 years after the remaining books.

In other words, the author had the other books in memory when he wrote the fist five.

It was also taught in oral tradition and is mythological in nature.

T

oday, the Big Tent would also be known as Emerging Christianity and a few Catholics would be known as Progressive Christians. Years ago, at an interesting workshop, we discussed modern Arianism, now known as stealth Arianism. Jesus, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, is being attacked left and right.

This has nothing to do with what’s being disgust here.

I’m perfectly in line with Catholic teaching on the creation fall of mankind story.

Last sentence of CCC 389

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

What this has to do with whether we have to take Genesis literally or accept it as allegorical, is beyond me ?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem is you can’t build a theology or doctrine on events which “literally” never happened.

Of course those events - however they are described - can be taken and interpreted a number of ways, as bible scholars have done. But if they never happened then you have zilch, nada, zip.

I never suggested that the accounts, however they may have happened, do not have to be taken as fact that something did in fact happen.

The argument is interpreting the book of Genesis literally as written.

The Church does not interpret Genesis literally, but accepts it as allegorical.

The events happened, but the historical specifics are not known.

I listened to Fr Groschel who had a series on this on EWTN.

He said it was allegorical text. However one fact is is true. Something took place which caused the fall of mankind and separated man from God.

It is the state we live in and the need for a saviour whom we have in Jesus Christ

JIm

 

[grannymh]

If that had been the only qualification I’d offered I’d agree, but I went on… Let’s not nitpick in a thread which we have already taken off topic.

I am on topic. How can anyone blame Eve, who is in the title of this thread, if she never existed as the second real human being on planet earth? Do we gather everyone who has an opinion about "language "and then draw straws to find out who has the winning information?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well right here on Catholic Answers in one of the library tracts, it seems as though while Genesis I is not necessarily to be taken as literal, i.e. the creation of things in ‘one day’, etc., the story of Adam and Eve and the fall is not under that umbrella.

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

**The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390). **

 

[grannymh]

Catholic doctrine is that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally.

The Church understands that it is allegorical not literal historical fact.

Jim

Where is your Catholic doctrine located --the one which says that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally?

Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis. Where is your doctrine located that says – “The Church understands that it is allegorical not literal historical fact.”

Eve, who is in the title of this thread, is part of the real Catholic doctrine that she and her husband Adam are the sole, fully-complete-human founders of the human species. Please tell me where your doctrine is located – the doctrine which says that Eve’s existence does not have to be taken literally. Does your doctrine also say that Genesis 1: 27 is allegorical and not historical fact?

The title of this thread also includes Adam. Please tell me where your doctrine is located. To be fair. What does your doctrine teach allegorically about this handsome gardener?

 

[grannymh]

Well right here on Catholic Answers in one of the library tracts, it seems as though while Genesis I is not necessarily to be taken as literal, i.e. the creation of things in ‘one day’, etc., the story of Adam and Eve and the fall is not under that umbrella.

I copied the red part in your valuable post 68.

A few Catholics are so eager to get rid of annoying Catholic doctrines, that they fail to see the obvious difference between "the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event,"
and
"Catholic doctrine is that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally.
The Church understands that it is allegorical not literal historical fact." **
Frompost 47.

**Those who are familiar with the Scientific (Inductive) Method understand the importance of “observe without prejudice” in order to form a proper hypothesis evinced in the methods and materials sections of a paper. When one steps into the sandals of the highly intelligent author of the fantastic first three chapters of Genesis, one can almost feel his acute observations which tend toward philosophical and theological reality. This talented author has no need for allegory. And neither do we.

**The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390). **

 

[Elena321]

Regarding is Adam and Eve literal or allegoral-

I dont know if this helps,but i had a 23 and me genetic test and i dont know how “fool proof” acurate this is but i found it weird that they stated they couldnt trace my paternal genetic line as apparently all females (speculation or true?) originally come from some man in Africa!!

Im a white European with parents from the same country and certainly no “doubts” lol.
As lovely as Africans are-theres nothing African about me in neither looks,hair or skin colour.

Apparenty all female who do this genetic test get the same results for paternal ancestry but males who do the test dont

 

[grannymh]

Regarding is Adam and Eve literal or allegoral-

I dont know if this helps,but i had a 23 and me genetic test and i dont know how “fool proof” acurate this is but i found it weird that they stated they couldnt trace my paternal genetic line as apparently all females (speculation or true?) originally come from some man in Africa!!

Im a white European with parents from the same country and certainly no “doubts” lol.
As lovely as Africans are-theres nothing African about me in neither looks,hair or skin colour.

Apparenty all female who do this genetic test get the same results for paternal ancestry but males who do the test dont

This is a strange reference to the 1987 research paper on Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution by Rebecca Cann et al, published in the journal Nature. The research studies a particular part of female genetics which can be traced back to a female in an ancient population of breeding males and females. It proposed that all human populations had a common ancestor around 200,000 years ago in Africa. This research is commonly known as the “Out of Africa” theory which replaced the “Multi-Regional” theory of human evolution. Both theories refer to migrations to various geographic locations over centuries which eventually led to the evolving differences within the human species.

The media referred to the research paper as “Mitochondrial Eve”. Please scroll down to “Common Misconceptions” in this link. Because the particular woman is one woman among many women, she is not the Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

This link has more technical information. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitoch...-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan

 

[grannymh]

Regarding is Adam and Eve literal or allegoral-

I dont know if this helps,but i had a 23 and me genetic test and i dont know how “fool proof” acurate this is but i found it weird that they stated they couldnt trace my paternal genetic line as apparently all females (speculation or true?) originally come from some man in Africa!!

Im a white European with parents from the same country and certainly no “doubts” lol.
As lovely as Africans are-theres nothing African about me in neither looks,hair or skin colour.

Apparenty all female who do this genetic test get the same results for paternal ancestry but males who do the test dont

In addition to the confusion in post 71, I have seen CAF members use the media version of the research title for female ancestry along with subsequent similar male research (Y-chromosomal Adam**)** as scientific proof that there is a real Eve and Adam who founded humankind. Obviously, that is silliness considering by definition, it is not necessary that the Y-Adam and the Mt-Eve should have lived at the same time.
link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

While science continues re-estimating the age of the common ancestor for males, the evolution model still maintains that new species evolve from large random breeding polygenetic populations. (Homo/Pan split aka a speciation event) The Catholic teaching is that the species of humankind began as a population of two, one male and one female. (Genesis 1: 27)

Common sense teaches that it is impossible for scientists to observe, without prejudice, every event in every geographical location on earth, going thousands of years backwards. Paleoanthropology does present some good possibilities via fossils and modern technology. Still that evidence along with assumptions is not enough to universally rule out the possibility of two fully complete rational humans surviving – especially when one is an expert in the science of agriculture. (Genesis 2: 15) Note that God created humans in His image which immediately lifts us out of the animal kingdom. (Genesis 1: 27)

 

[grannymh]

Doesn’t this then make out like us women are “temptresses” or having a weaker nature etc and sort of blame women?

A few brief Saturday morning thoughts.

When it comes to the language in the first three historical chapters of the Book of Genesis, we may be making the error of imposing our world culture on Adam and Eve. It seems to me that every other news story is about the terrible ways today’s women, including female children, are being treated. Human equality is not seen worldwide. Yet, true human equality is found in the Garden of Eden.

In contrast to today’s world, the author’s obedience to the truth takes us directly to the first man who recognizes his equality with the woman God gave him.
From Genesis, chapter 2 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

23
the man said:
“This one, at last, is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man this one has been taken.”

In the above “wow!” statement of Adam, the Catholic Church sees the depth of divine worth. Both Adam and Eve received God’s action invitation to “share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life” (CCC 356) Both equally have the right to “an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God the Creator.” Both “reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.”(CCC 369)

To understand the true nature of Eve, we have to view divine worth in its entirety. Then, we will instantly know that true human equality is very important. “honor killings” need to be replaced by the truth that women have an equal right to the mercy and forgiveness of the One God equally accessible to all.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I have a theology degree, not that this means I know more only to offer what i was taught. Eve’s sin was personal, but Adam’s sin collective, since he - as Priest, Prophet and King - represented humanity before God. Eve is responsible for her own sin and tempting Adam. Adam responsible for not stopping her and not being priestly, prophetic or kingly in his family/ecclesial/royal/prophetic duties

 

[meltzerboy]

I have a theology degree, not that this means I know more only to offer what i was taught. Eve’s sin was personal, but Adam’s sin collective, since he - as Priest, Prophet and King - represented humanity before God. Eve is responsible for her own sin and tempting Adam. Adam responsible for not stopping her and not being priestly, prophetic or kingly in his family/ecclesial/royal/prophetic duties

This is an interesting distinction and interpretation.

 

[OneSheep]

Regarding is Adam and Eve literal or allegoral-

I dont know if this helps,but i had a 23 and me genetic test and i dont know how “fool proof” acurate this is but i found it weird that they stated they couldnt trace my paternal genetic line as apparently all females (speculation or true?) originally come from some man in Africa!!

Im a white European with parents from the same country and certainly no “doubts” lol.
As lovely as Africans are-theres nothing African about me in neither looks,hair or skin colour.

Apparenty all female who do this genetic test get the same results for paternal ancestry but males who do the test dont

Hi Elena,

Well, that is sort of an over-simplification. While it is true that we can trace our genetic ancestry (and mitochondrial DNA) to a common source, probably from Africa, other sources (other women) who may have contributed are not ruled out, it is the case that based on current evidence other contibutors’ mitochondrial DNA did not happen to be passed on to modern humanity.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed through eggs, so it is not traced back to a man, but a woman. Men and women both get their Mito. DNA from their mothers.

 

[grannymh]

I have a theology degree, not that this means I know more only to offer what i was taught. Eve’s sin was personal, but Adam’s sin collective, since he - as Priest, Prophet and King - represented humanity before God. Eve is responsible for her own sin and tempting Adam. Adam responsible for not stopping her and not being priestly, prophetic or kingly in his family/ecclesial/royal/prophetic duties

As a young student, I was told that theology referred to God Himself and to His actions. That seemed reasonable. As I re-read the first three chapters of Genesis, I find a Creator God Who has a friendship relationship with one of His creatures. (Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 15-17) Therefore, I considered this special relationship as theology because there was direct action by God Himself.

What is interesting about God’s actions is that His original friendship relationship was between two unequal beings–One Divine and one human Adam who is both material and spiritual, decomposing anatomy and rational immortal soul. God’s relationship with Adam goes deeper than the designations of Priest, Prophet and King and beyond Adam representing humanity before God. All future humankind is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (CCC 404; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1.) We know by Revelation that Adam himself received the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace to be transmitted to his descendants. (CCC 375; CCC 404) Therefore, Adam’s feely chosen disobedience Original Sin (Genesis 3: 9-11) shatters humanity’s relationship with Divinity. Adam being human cannot repair a relationship which was instituted by a Divine Being. The solution is John 3: 16-17.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Della,

That is precisely what it means. If sins are retained they are not forgiven–because the penitent did not meet the criteria for absolution. It’s a definitive reality.

Well, your position has support, and is very common and natural. When someone sins against us or the “tribe”, it fosters cooperation to resent the action and the person. We naturally want punishment and withhold acceptance until a person repents. There is a great deal of support for this in the Gospel, and it is very functional.

There is also support for the thesis that God always forgives, without condition, as He loves unconditionally. The person who aspires for a deeper holiness does not wait for a person to repent before he forgives. Jesus forgave, from the cross, the unrepentant. Mark 11:25 does not require that the resented person be repentant.

This is the “tension” we were talking about earlier.

He always forgives us if we repent. It’s not that he withholds forgiveness it’s that we decide we don’t want it.

Your stance may have an internal contradiction. If God does not forgive until we decide we “want it”, this means that He withholds forgiveness. Like I said, there is a lot of support for the view that God withholds forgiveness.

If we were to use your indeterminate definition we couldn’t know if we were forgiven or not. The sacrament would be useless and pointless.

“We are always forgiven” leaves no room for doubt, Della. I know we are always forgiven, but I sometimes need to share my sins to a priest, I need someone to communicate this forgiveness to me when I am feeling guilty. The sacrament is far from useless or pointless to me. When the priest communicates God’s forgiveness, regardless what I have done, there is a healing, a return to holiness.

Not all come to confession to be reconciled to God and the Church but to excuse themselves or to defy the sacrament.

This could be further investigated, but this fear or condemnation of the possible dishonesty is understandably put forth as a reason why a priest might communicate that God does not forgive them. Again, your position has a great deal of support, but the fears and condemnations should be addressed with mercy, a mercy we know from a God who always forgives. People who are dishonest in their approach to confession are blind or unaware.

There isn’t any “side” to come from. Forgiveness has always been conditional from Adam and Eve down to today. The prodigal son was repentant–he didn’t come home and tell his father, “Well, I don’t regret breaking your heart, living a life of dissipation, losing your money and acting like a fool, but since I’m here you’re obliged to take me back.” His very demeanor shouted repentance when his father rushed out to meet him.

This is the response one gives to the story of the prodigal son when one stands by conditional forgiveness. Let me ask you this: When someone sins against you or someone you love, do you wait to forgive the person until he repents, or do you forgive him unconditionally?

The other approach to the Gospel: God loves unconditionally and His mercy knows no limit. Forgiveness is an important gift of the Spirit, and comes from Love, is an act of love for self and other. If love is unconditional, so is forgiveness. This approach emphasizes Jesus’ words from the cross.

You are advocating the same idea as the once-saved-always-saved people do–that God forgives before we repent of future sins.

The priest who taught our scripture study was coming from a Catholic theology and tradition, just as found in the words of Pope Francis in my signature. The whole idea of “once-saved-always-saved” neglects the fact that salvation is much more than a heaven-ticket. Jesus is wanting for us an “eternal life”, a free life, a fulfilling life, starting today. This is the way to build His kingdom.

That’s not how it works. Sure, he knows we will repent, but we live in time and are limited by time, and the onus is on us to demonstrate repentance, not presume upon God’s mercy and do whatever we want and sin as we please. If a person comes to confession and falsifies his intentions, then he has only added sin to sin and no, he will not be forgiven. If the priest assesses that a penitent is not repentant, he has the right and obligation to withhold absolution for the good of that person’s soul–to prompt him to come back truly repentant.

You make a very good point here, and this is a very good case for saying that God does not forgive the unrepentant, because such withholding is practical, it serves as a means of motivating repentance. However, there is a trade-off. The image of a God who punished Adam and Eve, the give-and-take-away, compromises the infinite mercy of God. We are to “be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect”, and in context that is a compassionate perfection. If conditional forgiveness is perfect, we are to see it as perfection. However, if we wait until others repent before we forgive, we could go our whole lives hanging onto resentment.

So, how do we resolve the problem of people hearing that God always forgives, and then continuing to sin? There are means of dealing with this, it is a matter of presentation. In my view, the tension found in the Gospel is in itself inspired. It is a Gospel that speaks to us as we are working through (operating from) our natural compulsion to punish misbehavior, but also calls us to greater holiness found in unconditional forgiveness.

People who are aware and not blind do not continue to sin. Sin goes away when we shine the light, generally speaking.

Of course, seeing the tension as inspired raises more questions…