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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elena321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The sacrament of baptism is cleansing of original sin of our original parents, both Adam and Eve, is stated as such, and stated as the sins of Adam in the CCC.

Incidentally, the CCC 402, has scripture quote from St.Paul who also attests to this so I am confused. I do know that scripture should not be cherry picked, or interpreted without the church authority:shrug:

Iow, where did you hear this from–that the church blames only Eve for the fall of man?
 
Two points. Adam was instructed by God to Keep the garden. Keep didn’t just mean “Look after the plants and trees” The word Keep also had an element of ‘Guard’ the garden. If God told him to guard the garden, then it stands to reason that Adam would have known that there was a danger which the garden must be guarded from. Well, as we know, Adam didn’t guard the garden .

2nd point According to the Bible narrative while Satan was tempting his wife to sin
Adam was there beside her and did nothing to intervene. When she turned around and handed him the forbidden fruit he simply went along.

God had spoken directly to Adam and Adam failed to follow God’s instruction
" To whom much is given, much will be expected"🤷
 
Of course she’s also to blame. She sinned first. But it was Adam who represented the race and HE is the one ultimately responsible.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman. That’s feminist nonsense. Men and women are equally capable of sin.
Nobody is saying that she is innocent…? It’s just that people tend to associate her with the sin, instead of both.

People in the past(and some now) used the argument that because Eve sinned first, women are morally weaker and are temptresses, and THAT reasoning is sexist.
 
If I’m understanding you correctly, the question is not why the Church blames Eve but why Christians do. But wouldn’t that imply that Christians and the Church are different? For me, I blame Eve only to the extent the Church does and for the same reasons. I hope other Christians do the same. There is no reason to put excessive blame on her or to exonerate Adam. We should do what Scripture does, and say both committed the sin and were later forgiven.
I meant church teachings vs what Christians say. I don’t think the Church believes what OP said in terms of teachings, but christians have been saying what OP says to justify whatever negative view they had on women
 
I meant church teachings vs what Christians say. I don’t think the Church believes what OP said in terms of teachings, but christians have been saying what OP says to justify whatever negative view they had on women
Ah, that makes more sense. Not all Christians follow Church doctrine. No one follows it perfectly. We should try though. There would be no sexism if people just believed and behaved as the Church says we should.
christians have been [blaming Eve] to justify whatever negative view they had on women
I get what you’re saying now, thank you for clarifying. But still… Hashtag NotAllChristians.

**EDIT :: I just remembered that that hashtag is meant as a dismissal of the Catholic attitude against same-sex romance. Non-Christians frequently bring up an example of Christians opposing homosexual acts, call it bigotry, and then other Christians criticize the “conservatives” and say #NotAllChristians. (As in, Not All Christians believe homosexual acts are bad!) Just to be clear, I’m not bringing up that hashtag to mean that.
 
If I’m understanding you correctly, the question is not why the Church blames Eve but why Christians do. But wouldn’t that imply that Christians and the Church are different? For me, I blame Eve only to the extent the Church does and for the same reasons. I hope other Christians do the same. There is no reason to put excessive blame on her or to exonerate Adam. We should do what Scripture does, and say both committed the sin and were later forgiven.
Hello dmar,

Well, we are Church; and we can hope that blame of anyone quickly (but timely) gives way to forgiveness, correct?

Interesting how it is said “later” forgiven. The time restrictions we people have on forgiveness are time for prayer and reflection. Since our omniscient Father has not the same restriction, why would there be a “later”? Would forgiveness not be immediate?
 
Hello dmar,

Well, we are Church; and we can hope that blame of anyone quickly (but timely) gives way to forgiveness, correct?
Yes. On a related note, Adam and Eve have been forgiven, therefore we do not need to blame them in the sense of thinking badly of them. Also, I wonder if we can give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. We all make mistakes. What do you think?
Interesting how it is said “later” forgiven. The time restrictions we people have on forgiveness are time for prayer and reflection. Since our omniscient Father has not the same restriction, why would there be a “later”? Would forgiveness not be immediate?
I suppose I am assuming that God doesn’t forgive us until we repent. That assumption is rooted in our perspective as creatures in time, whereas with God, all things happen at once. Or something like that. It’s a bit over my head. What do you think?
 
Yes. On a related note, Adam and Eve have been forgiven, therefore we do not need to blame them in the sense of thinking badly of them. Also, I wonder if we can give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. We all make mistakes. What do you think?
Well, we are called to give the benefit of the doubt. It is fair to say that Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing. They did not realize the importance, nor the impact, of their choice.
I suppose I am assuming that God doesn’t forgive us until we repent. That assumption is rooted in our perspective as creatures in time, whereas with God, all things happen at once. Or something like that. It’s a bit over my head. What do you think?
The repentance condition is very controversial among theologians. In my own experience, if I wait for people to repent to forgive them, I may have to wait all my life. And what good is that? Jesus, from the cross, forgave an unrepentant crowd.

And speaking for benefit-of-the-doubt, we have it from scripture that the crowd, nor the leaders, knew what they were doing.

What do you think of what some say, that God forgives “before always”?
 
Well, we are called to give the benefit of the doubt. It is fair to say that Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing. They did not realize the importance, nor the impact, of their choice.
On one level, this sounds reasonable. I think we do have to clearly announce that Adam and Eve committed a mortal sin, though. Scripture says they sinned in the passages that have been quoted through this thread, and there is good evidence that the sin was mortal. You don’t always have to realize the full impact of a mortal sin for it to count as mortal, but you do have to fully realize that the sin you are committing is a grave one. It is in this sense that I think a person can be defended for saying that Adam and Eve should be blamed. In their case, we know that they did not act in pure ignorance, because if they did, it would not have been a sin. At least, that’s my understanding. What do you think?
The repentance condition is very controversial among theologians.
It is? Can you give an example of this controversy playing out? (If you can’t, that’s fine, but I would be interested to know if there are actual scholarly works discussing this.)
In my own experience, if I wait for people to repent to forgive them, I may have to wait all my life. And what good is that?
One possible good: waiting until they repent seems to fulfill the Scripture which says, “If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3) Scripture seems to give us a condition here: the “ifs” mean something. It doesn’t just say “forgive him,” it says, “if he repents, forgive him.” At least sometimes, I think we are supposed to wait before forgiving until the other person has repented. Priests are actually required to retain someone’s sins until they have repented.
Jesus, from the cross, forgave an unrepentant crowd.
The beautiful and merciful passage is in Luke 23:34 – “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I wonder how that works with other passages that seem to say forgiveness is conditioned on repentance (like 1 John 1:9)? Are there some wicked acts which can be forgiven without repentance? Acts done in ignorance? I’d love to find out. Thank you for bringing this tension to my attention.
And speaking for benefit-of-the-doubt, we have it from scripture that the crowd, nor the leaders, knew what they were doing.
Yes, that is in Acts 3:17 – “I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.”
What do you think of what some say, that God forgives “before always”?
It reminds me of Scripture: “[Remember] thy tender mercies and thy loving-kindnesses; for they are from everlasting.” (Psalms 25:6) If God’s mercy is from eternity, and His forgiveness is a kind of mercy, then it seems to follow that His forgiveness is from everlasting.

Does God, from eternity, prearrange His forgiveness so that it takes effect at the moment of our repentance? I don’t know. But thank you for your enlightening comments, and any more you may have. 🙂
 
Doesn’t this then make out like us women are “temptresses” or having a weaker nature etc and sort of blame women?
I don’t think Eve bears any greater responsibility than Adam.
They both made the same mistake.
Neither forced the other to sin. And neither tried to protect the other FROM sin.

But let’s not forget satan’s culpability either.

Just like in the story of Job, where we see “once upon a time” there was God (happy) and Job (happy) and the story should have ended right there with… “they all lived happily ever after” but who shows up and sticks his nose in, interrupting God’s plan?

satan the accuser.
satan the liar.
satan the disingenuous hypocrite who says that Job only loves God because Job is happy, and then proceeds to inflict misery on Job - the sole purpose of which is to try and stop Job from loving God.

Adam and Eve were happy. satan lied to them and they learned a hard lesson about who is the source of truth/goodness/happiness and who is the source of lies/evil/unhappiness.
But they both learned the lesson together as man and woman - one flesh.
 
Scholars pretty much agree that the creation story along with Adam and Eve are allegorical and shouldn’t be taken literally.

That all being said, for those upset about Eve’s sin, remember that Mary our Blessed Mother, is referred to as the New Eve, while Jesus is the New Adam.

Jim
 
Hello dmar,
On one level, this sounds reasonable. I think we do have to clearly announce that Adam and Eve committed a mortal sin, though. Scripture says they sinned in the passages that have been quoted through this thread, and there is good evidence that the sin was mortal.
We have to? 🙂
You don’t always have to realize the full impact of a mortal sin for it to count as mortal, but you do have to fully realize that the sin you are committing is a grave one. It is in this sense that I think a person can be defended for saying that Adam and Eve should be blamed. In their case, we know that they did not act in pure ignorance, because if they did, it would not have been a sin. At least, that’s my understanding. What do you think?
Well, rather than make assumptions, when I go about understanding why people do things I start with the question, “Why did she do that?”. Then I take it from there. A priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” I use that as a guide in the understanding process.
It is? Can you give an example of this controversy playing out? (If you can’t, that’s fine, but I would be interested to know if there are actual scholarly works discussing this.) One possible good: waiting until they repent seems to fulfill the Scripture which says, “If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3) Scripture seems to give us a condition here: the “ifs” mean something. It doesn’t just say “forgive him,” it says, “if he repents, forgive him.” At least sometimes, I think we are supposed to wait before forgiving until the other person has repented. Priests are actually required to retain someone’s sins until they have repented.
Priests are required to retain sins? Fascinating! Do tell me more. I have never found a reason not to forgive, though sometimes it takes some time. A priest told this restriction is bound to be enslaved by resentment if a person never repents. Very strange. Could you find me a source for this requirement? I am truly interested, not cynical.
The beautiful and merciful passage is in Luke 23:34 – “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I wonder how that works with other passages that seem to say forgiveness is conditioned on repentance (like 1 John 1:9)? Are there some wicked acts which can be forgiven without repentance? Acts done in ignorance? I’d love to find out. Thank you for bringing this tension to my attention.
Here is something to add to the tension:

Mark 11:25New International Version (NIV)

25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

You see, the condition is absent in this verse. Indeed, if the condition is promoted, people would have excuses to never forgive their enemies, which is not the holiness we are called to. That said, I am also convinced that the tension is there for a very good reason. Arguably, there are two distinct Gospel messages, and both have their reasons and merits.
Yes, that is in Acts 3:17 – “I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” It reminds me of Scripture: “[Remember] thy tender mercies and thy loving-kindnesses; for they are from everlasting.” (Psalms 25:6) If God’s mercy is from eternity, and His forgiveness is a kind of mercy, then it seems to follow that His forgiveness is from everlasting.
Thanks for that verse from the Psalms, wonderful! I love the divinity found in absolutes.

I look at it from an experiential position. When I forgive at the deepest level, I am understanding everything about the person’s point of view, which takes some awareness and reflection. Given that our Father is omniscient, He does not have to go through the time-consuming process of enlightenment. And then, when situations are such that I see something violent brewing, and I can see the limit of a person’s awareness, I can predict a hurtful behavior and understand it’s likely occurrence without ever taking offense. I can see things that are awful and saddening, but the offense (my resentment) is absent. Does our Father have a more reactive approach than that I described? It’s hard to imagine.
Does God, from eternity, prearrange His forgiveness so that it takes effect at the moment of our repentance? I don’t know. But thank you for your enlightening comments, and any more you may have. 🙂
Another great question. And well, given His omniscience we can conclude that God knew every bad act that we would ever do, even before hitting the “create” button. Did He see, then take offense, then choose to hold onto His resentment until each and every person repents? This is difficult to relate to, and does not present our creator as revealed in Christ.

Instead, we are called to “be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect”, and in context that is a merciful perfection. If God’s forgiveness is conditional, then conditional forgiveness is perfect, and we are to practice the same. However, such conditional forgiveness on our part runs contrary to one side of the “tension” we are discussing.

Thanks for your charitable tone…🙂
 
40.png
OneSheep:
Priests are required to retain sins? Fascinating! Do tell me more. I have never found a reason not to forgive, though sometimes it takes some time. A priest told this restriction is bound to be enslaved by resentment if a person never repents. Very strange. Could you find me a source for this requirement? I am truly interested, not cynical.
“‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23).

The retaining of sins is part of confession. Priests may retain sins for various reasons in confession, one of which is the person refuses to be repentant of his mortal sin(s). This is not a license for the priest or anyone else to not forgive sins committed against them personally. It’s an authority given to them as priests which is restricted to confession.
 
Scholars pretty much agree that the creation story along with Adam and Eve are allegorical and shouldn’t be taken literally.

That all being said, for those upset about Eve’s sin, remember that Mary our Blessed Mother, is referred to as the New Eve, while Jesus is the New Adam.

Jim
For general information regarding the very popular comment that scholars pretty much agree that the creation story along with Adam and Eve are allegorical and shouldn’t be taken literally.

In the Catholic Church, major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils --not simply scholars–are responsible for defining Catholic doctrines which flow from the “Creation story along with Adam and Eve.” Those who are familiar with the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth know that scholars are consulted along with the writings of Apostles, Early Church Fathers, theologians, philosophers, saints, liturgical practices, and at times, anonymous authors. (Index of Citations, page 689 & following, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition) Please note that not every word of these prominent contributors automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. It is through the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit that we now have infallible truths. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)

dmar 198, post 17, mentioned the idea of giving Adam and Eve the benefit of the doubt because – “We all make mistakes.” However, Catholics in the Catholic Church do not have to bother with this or that allegorical doubt because the first human on planet earth and his intellective free choice to directly disobey his Divine Creator are actually literal primeval events found in the first three chapters of Genesis. Causing confusion, there are a few Catholics who propose that Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing. For some unknown reason, a few Catholics propose that Adam did not recognize the true significance of his shattering the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity.
 
dmar 198, post 17, mentioned the idea of giving Adam and Eve the benefit of the doubt because – “We all make mistakes.” However, Catholics in the Catholic Church do not have to bother with this or that allegorical doubt because the first human on planet earth and his intellective free choice to directly disobey his Divine Creator are actually literal primeval events found in the first three chapters of Genesis. Causing confusion, there are a few Catholics who propose that Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing. For some unknown reason, a few Catholics propose that Adam did not recognize the true significance of his shattering the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity.
Thank you for responding to my speculative question, I just want to make clear that I wasn’t trying to assert that Adam and Eve were ignorant of what they did. (You didn’t claim I did, just clarifying for others.) I hope my comment in post 29 clarified this:
I think we do have to clearly announce that Adam and Eve committed a mortal sin, though. Scripture says they sinned in the passages that have been quoted through this thread
 
She deserves blame, all right. After all, she succumbed to temptation first and then presented Adam with the forbidden fruit, setting up the situation. She wasn’t an innocent victim.
But why is there a suggestion that only “womens nature” (Eve) was deceived /tempted by satan and therefor is “weaker minded” because if we look around there are as many men who are just as easily tempted or deceived as there are women.
 
Listen to this talk by Father Larry Richards. He sums this up quite well in my opinion. youtube.com/watch?v=-JOFv_trgqU
Thanks for the link.I tried to be open minded but there something off putting about this Fathers speeches.He comes across as disrespectful,and aggressive.
Maybe this “works” for American audiences but this sort of mannerisms is unacceptable in European cultures for a priest.
 
Like others have mentioned,I don’t think Adam and Eve story refers to two literal people.
Maybe it is symbolic for man kind and woman kind at the beginning of time?

I don’t think the Catholic Church blames only Eve but some Christian individuals have used the story of Adam + Eve to suggest that females are more weak minded,easier deceived or temptresses due to Eve being the one “fooled” by satan and not Adam.
 
Doesn’t this then make out like us women are “temptresses” or having a weaker nature etc and sort of blame women?
Well, the New Testament texts typically refers to original sin as “the sin of Adam”. You can sleep peacefully knowing that concupiscence, diabetes, and traffic jams are my fault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top