To Act for Ourselves

[theplains]

On 4/8/2021 at 6:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yes, they did.  All the eternal blessings God promises us in scripture are dependent on our progression from mortal to resurrected beings.

D&C 130:20–21 says, "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this
world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is
by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated".

What law or laws did Adam and Eve obey to get their blessings before, during, and after the
fall?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

What great blessings happened to Adam and Eve in the fall, as Gospel Principles says?

No great blessings comes from the fall, only the twin curses of endless physical and total spiritual death. The atonement of Christ miraculously reverses the everlasting curse of the fall and makes the blessings of eternal salvation available to all who are under the fall.

Do you deny the blessings of salvation that enable us to escape from the consequences of the fall are a good thing? Or would you rather have had God do nothing to reverse the deadly effects of the fall and just let the entire human race descend into an endless hell? This is what it seems you want. You seemingly refuse to admit that God was able to bring the marvelous blessings of eternal salvation in spite of the curse of the fall.

I don’t get it. Why don’t you ask God why he allowed the fall to take place if he foreknew it was going to happen? Do you think the perfect God made a mistake or do you think he he allowed it to happen for reasons that are impossible for you to fathom and understand. Either way, your argument is with God, not the Latter-Day Saints.

If you don’t presently comprehend why a perfect God would allow the fall to take place in spite of his infinite foreknowledge, don’t get all upset with the Latter-Day Saints just because we believe there must be some good and perfectly justifiable reason why he set up the possibility that it could happen and then just stood back and allowed it to happen.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

D&C 130:20–21 says, "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this
world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is
by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated".

What law or laws did Adam and Eve obey to get their blessings before, during, and after the
fall?

All of them.

[theplains]

On 4/14/2021 at 7:12 PM, teddyaware said:

No great blessings comes from the fall, only the twin curses of endless physical and total spiritual death. The atonement of Christ miraculously reverses the everlasting curse of the fall and makes the blessings of eternal salvation available to all who are under the fall.

Do you deny the blessings of salvation that enable us to escape from the consequences of the fall are a good thing? Or would you rather have had God do nothing to reverse the deadly effects of the fall and just let the entire human race descend into an endless hell? This is what it seems you want. You seemingly refuse to admit that God was able to bring the marvelous blessings of eternal salvation in spite of the curse of the fall.

I don’t get it. Why don’t you ask God why he allowed the fall to take place if he foreknew it was going to happen? Do you think the perfect God made a mistake or do you think he he allowed it to happen for reasons that are impossible for you to fathom and understand. Either way, your argument is with God, not the Latter-Day Saints.

If you don’t presently comprehend why a perfect God would allow the fall to take place in spite of his infinite foreknowledge, don’t get all upset with the Latter-Day Saints just because we believe there must be some good and perfectly justifiable reason why he set up the possibility that it could happen and then just stood back and allowed it to happen.

Gospel Principles says that procreation was one of the great blessings that resulted
from the Fall.  Even the Pearl of Great Price alludes to that in Moses 5:10-11.

I believe the fall caused the need for the atonement.   The atonement is the effect,
the fall is the cause.   

God knew the fall would happen but he did not want it to happen.  It's what is referred
to as his permissive will, not his desired will. Like the murder of Abel. God knew it
would happen but he allowed it to happen.  The atonement was provided so that our sins
could be paid for by Christ so we would not be separated from him and endure his wrath.
By faith, we are adopted as children of God.  Those who are led by the spirit of God
are the sons of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

Should we sin more and more so that God's grace can be applied to us more and more?  
I would say no.

I don't understand a lot about why God allowed murder and rape and other bad things
to happen.  But I can say for sure that he did not want it to happen or design it to 
happen.

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the fall caused the need for the atonement.   The atonement is the effect,the fall is the cause.   

God knew the fall would happen but he did not want it to happen.  It's what is referred
to as his permissive will, not his desired will. 

Then what was the actual plan?  What was God's desired will?

Because without the fall there was no death, no resurrection.  No Jesus as Savior.  No heaven or hell needed.  No commandments or ordinances because no path to follow.  The earth itself wouldn't reach the point of exaltation in the end of Revelation.

What was the plan in creation without the fall?  What did God really want?

[theplains]

On 4/22/2021 at 7:36 AM, JLHPROF said:

Then what was the actual plan?  What was God's desired will?

Because without the fall there was no death, no resurrection.  No Jesus as Savior.  No heaven or hell needed.  No commandments or ordinances because no path to follow.  The earth itself wouldn't reach the point of exaltation in the end of Revelation.

What was the plan in creation without the fall?  What did God really want?

I believe the plan of God is seen in the original creation of Adam and Eve, the plants, animals,
and the earth. 

When the fall came about, the Atonement was needed to correct this. The Fall caused
the need for the Atonement.  Fellowship with God was broken for Adam and Eve and
their descendants and so a redemption was required.

Unless you believe that God first planned the Atonement then needed the assistance
of Adam, Eve, and Satan to bring about the Fall so His plan would not be frustrated.

[InCognitus]

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Unless you believe that God first planned the Atonement then needed the assistance
of Adam, Eve, and Satan to bring about the Fall so His plan would not be frustrated.

The Bible tells us that God first planned the Atonement (before the foundation of the world).  Given that the Atonement was clearly planned first, it's up to you how you want to construe the way the fall of Adam and Eve fits into to God's plan.   

Since the Bible tells us that God planned the Atonement first, do you believe that God needed the assistance of wicked men to bring about the atonement by crucifying our Lord Jesus Christ?  Or how do you think God intended the Atonement part of the plan to be played out given your belief that the original creation was what God intended for Adam and Eve?

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the plan of God is seen in the original creation of Adam and Eve, the plants, animals,
and the earth. 

You didn't answer the question.  What was the plan?  The result of his creation?

No heaven, no resurrection, no glorified earth as in Revelation, no eternity with God, Christ and angels.  Possibly no Jesus at all if I understand the Trinitarian view.

Just one naked man and one naked woman running around in a garden?  That was the entire goal In the creation of the world?  Two people in perpetual innocence.  Or if you still believe they'd somehow reproduce in their innocent state without death how long till the entire earth was full of immortal bodies?

You really need to do a better job explaining how God actually wanted his creation to be.  Anything other than the fall makes zero sense.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You didn't answer the question.  What was the plan?  The result of his creation?

No heaven, no resurrection, no glorified earth as in Revelation, no eternity with God, Christ and angels.  Possibly no Jesus at all if I understand the Trinitarian view.

Just one naked man and one naked woman running around in a garden?  That was the entire goal In the creation of the world?  Two people in perpetual innocence.  Or if you still believe they'd somehow reproduce in their innocent state without death how long till the entire earth was full of immortal bodies?

You really need to do a better job explaining how God actually wanted his creation to be.  Anything other than the fall makes zero sense.

Billions and billions of immortal people in a garden with a tree right in the middle and a big wall around the tree with a sign that says, "Don't touch this or you'll ruin everything."

[JLHPROF]

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Billions and billions of immortal people in a garden with a tree right in the middle and a big wall around the tree with a sign that says, "Don't touch this or you'll ruin everything."

 

 

[teddyaware]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:14 PM, JLHPROF said:

You didn't answer the question.  What was the plan?  The result of his creation?

No heaven, no resurrection, no glorified earth as in Revelation, no eternity with God, Christ and angels.  Possibly no Jesus at all if I understand the Trinitarian view.

Just one naked man and one naked woman running around in a garden?  That was the entire goal In the creation of the world?  Two people in perpetual innocence.  Or if you still believe they'd somehow reproduce in their innocent state without death how long till the entire earth was full of immortal bodies?

You really need to do a better job explaining how God actually wanted his creation to be.  Anything other than the fall makes zero sense.

This is absolutely the best post I’ve ever seen on this board! It’s all so plain that I’m wondering why I never before thought of these oh-so-obvious implications of the world prior to the fall? Here we have 2 full-grown adults (at least in body) running around a garden naked, and so innocent that they have no idea how to differentiate between good and evil, and so naive that they are going to remain virtual toddlers throughout all eternity. “Hey Dad, thank goodness we’re going to remain clueless babes for all eternity because otherwise we’d be as bored as hell...”

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by teddyaware

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

This is absolutely the best post I’ve ever seen on this board! It’s all so plain that I’m wondering why I never before thought of these oh-so-obvious implications of the world prior to the fall? Here we have 2 full-grown adults (at least in body) running around a garden naked, and so innocent that they have no idea how to differentiate between good and evil, and so naive that they are going to remain virtual toddlers throughout all eternity. “Hey Dad, thank goodness we’re going to remain clueless babes for all eternity because otherwise we’d be as bored as hell...”

 

Who said that Adam and Ever were like toddlers? How is innocence a negative thing, as compared to guilt and sin? Why is being clothed somehow superior to being naked?

I think you're taking your LDS views and injecting them into traditional Christian beliefs, thus turning the Christian beliefs into a caricature.

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches about life before the fall. From the catechism. Take a very brief moment to read it so that you can understand what we believe and how your characterization of it is incorrect:

Quote

IV. MAN IN PARADISE

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called "original justice".

377 The "mastery" over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. the first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

378 The sign of man's familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives "to till it and keep it". Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God's plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Who said that Adam and Ever were like toddlers? How is innocence a negative thing, as compared to guilt and sin? Why is being clothed somehow superior to being naked?

I think you're taking your LDS views and injecting them into traditional Christian beliefs, thus turning the Christian beliefs into a caricature.

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches about life before the fall. From the catechism. Take a very brief moment to read it so that you can understand what we believe and how your characterization of it is incorrect:

 

God is happy because he’s intimately acquainted with the difference between good and evil and, like his Son Jesus Christ who was tempted of the devil but overcame his temptations in the wilderness, always chooses to do good. Is God inferior to Adam and Eve, as they existed prior to the fall, because he has a perfect knowledge of good and evil while they didn’t? Did God create beings who were superior to himself because the were perfectly innocent and unaware of the ins and outs of good and evil? If so, it looks like the perfect innocence Adam and Eve enjoyed is insufficient to remain in a holy condition because they were fallible enough to unwisely make decisions that caused them to fall from their Edenic state.

And of course it always comes back to this: if Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundation of the world, this can mean nothing less than that God created Adam and Eve in this supposed state of perfect innocence while being fully aware that that innocence wouldn’t prevent them from eventually falling. Why would God do this? And if the state of pure innocence, without a knowledge of good and evil, is so desirable, and a perfect end in and of itself, why in the world didn’t he let Adam and Eve enjoy their perfect innocence without allowing Satan to come and tempt them — something he could have very easily prevented? Further, why did God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in a place of such prominence in the midst of the  garden, and then laden it with the most delicious and desirable of fruit, and simply not take any chances at all that might cause them to eventually succumb to temptation and loose their state of idyllic innocence?

So again, it’s plainly obvious that the original state of innocence experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden couldn’t  possibly have been a perfect state of existence, in and of itself, because they lacked the moral insight and strength of character to forever remain in their state of  putative “perfection” that wasn’t so perfect after all.

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by teddyaware

[MiserereNobis]

Hi @teddyaware, @JLHPROF, and @InCognitus,

My previous response to teddyaware also applies to others. I am pushing back against the caricature/straw man of the traditional Christian (Catholic) view that the  Garden of Eden was just going to be just a bunch of naked toddlers running around. That's an easy position to make fun of, but it is a straw man, because that is not the Catholic position.

I'd like you to consider that any sort of "gotcha!" or "how could you believe such nonsense!" when it comes to Catholicism should probably be tempered. We may certainly be wrong, but Catholic theology is not stupid. It's not a house of cards that will simply fall when poked at superficially. It's had 2000 years to develop and has been explored and believed by some of the best minds of Western Civilization. Again, we may certainly be wrong, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that some obvious silly mistake that ruins the whole thing has been overlooked all these years to suddenly be discovered now.

I quoted the catechism above to show the actual Catholic position of what the Garden of Eden was like and what was the state of Adam and Eve. If you haven't read it, please do so to understand how why your caricature doesn't work (it's super short!).

(I'll also add that I believe that the first couple chapters of Genesis are allegorical, and that my stance is perfectly allowable in Catholic theology)

I find it interesting that "innocence" and the ability to procreate are opposed in your views. In our view, everything was in perfect harmony in the Garden. Adam and Eve with each other, Adam and Eve with God, Adam and Eve with nature. Everything was ordered (sin is a disorder). Sexual relations between a husband and wife are not disordered, are not disharmonious, and do not negate the "original state of holiness and justice." Could it be that some Puritanical/protestant thinking has influenced your thoughts on this matter? That the fall is necessary for sex? To me that belief would reveal a negative view of sex, that sex is somehow connected with sin.

Teddy, I'll respond to your post separately.

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'd like you to consider that any sort of "gotcha!" or "how could you believe such nonsense!" when it comes to Catholicism should probably be tempered. We may certainly be wrong, but Catholic theology is not stupid. It's not a house of cards that will simply fall when poked at superficially. It's had 2000 years to develop and has been explored and believed by some of the best minds of Western Civilization. Again, we may certainly be wrong, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that some obvious silly mistake that ruins the whole thing has been overlooked all these years to suddenly be discovered now.

I quoted the catechism above to show the actual Catholic position of what the Garden of Eden was like and what was the state of Adam and Eve. If you haven't read it, please do so to understand how why your caricature doesn't work (it's super short!).

Thanks for this.  To be clear, none of my comments were directed at any Catholic position, because I have some (limited) understanding of the "felix culpa" concept in Catholicism.    “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”   But not everyone understands the fall the same way.  I think Calvinism did some of the most damage to the prior traditions.

Edit to add:   One of my favorite lines from St. Thomas Aquinas:

Quote

 But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"   (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3)

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by InCognitus

[Mark White]

On 4/28/2021 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Billions and billions of immortal people in a garden with a tree right in the middle and a big wall around the tree with a sign that says, "Don't touch this or you'll ruin everything."

Sounds funny when you think of that in a certain context but there are always going to be some things that will get us into some trouble.  And the reason we'd get into some trouble would always be because we went against the counsel of our Father.

 

On 4/28/2021 at 8:14 PM, JLHPROF said:

You didn't answer the question.  What was the plan?  The result of his creation?

No heaven, no resurrection, no glorified earth as in Revelation, no eternity with God, Christ and angels.  Possibly no Jesus at all if I understand the Trinitarian view.

Just one naked man and one naked woman running around in a garden?  That was the entire goal In the creation of the world?  Two people in perpetual innocence.  Or if you still believe they'd somehow reproduce in their innocent state without death how long till the entire earth was full of immortal bodies?

You really need to do a better job explaining how God actually wanted his creation to be.  Anything other than the fall makes zero sense.

I can understand someone thinking the whole point of God's creation was to create what God created.  God created what he created, said it was good, and then he told Adam and Eve they could enjoy what he had created while it was still good.

Why should we think God's creation needed to be something other than what it was when God was done doing what he did in those days or creative time periods?  Why wasn't what God did good enough?  Why did Adam and Eve need to disobey God?

Rather than seeing the Fall of Adam and Eve as "the plan" or God's plan I see the Atonement as "the backup plan" God had in mind to restore what Adam and Eve had in the beginning before Adam and Eve fell by eating what God forbid them to eat.

And later when we are allowed to live in the presence of God again, the conditions for remaining with him will still be the same as they were in the beginning.  We will still need to do what God wants us to do, and not do what he doesn't want us to do.

[JLHPROF]

@MiserereNobis, @Mark White, @theplains

You are still not addressing the point.

Sure we may be teasing a bit about naked innocent people.

But the question still hasn't been answered.  From the time God placed Adam and Eve in the garden in an unfallen state how did he want the course of man and the world to go?  What was his expectation for his creation?

Because any plan other than the fall that I've heard simply doesn't work with anything else in scripture.  I am genuinely asking.  If man hadn't fallen, what was supposed to happen?

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Is God inferior to Adam and Eve, as they existed prior to the fall, because he has a perfect knowledge of good and evil while they didn’t? Did God create beings who were superior to himself because the were perfectly innocent and unaware of the ins and outs of good and evil?

Absolutely not. God is the creator, humans are the creature. Humans will always be inferior to God.

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If so, it looks like the perfect innocence Adam and Eve enjoyed is insufficient to remain in a holy condition because they were fallible enough to unwisely make decisions that caused them to fall from their Edenic state.

Adam and Eve were innocent, not infallible. 

We should probably again clarify our terms here. The state of Adam and Eve in the Garden is referred to as "original justice." In original justice, they possessed the grace which kept them holy and free from sin (they were innocent) and death. They were not deprived of will nor were they unable to choose sin.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And of course it always comes back to this: if Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundation of the world, this can mean nothing less than that God created Adam and Eve in this supposed state of perfect innocence while being fully aware that that innocence wouldn’t prevent them from eventually falling.

God didn't create humans as automatons. He didn't want to commune with humans who couldn't willfully choose to love and commune with Him back. In the state of original justice, Adam and Eve were full of grace but also able to choose.  Again, they were innocent, not infallible. They had the ability to fall.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why would God do this? And if the state of pure innocence, without a knowledge of good and evil, is so desirable, and a perfect end in and of itself, why in the world didn’t he let Adam and Eve enjoy their perfect innocence without allowing Satan to come and tempt them — something he could have very easily prevented?

And here it is: the problem of evil. Why does God allow evil?

I'm personally not 100% persuaded by any theodicy -- they all have problems. It boils ultimately down to an issue of faith. The Catholic Church has some good teachings on it, especially as pertains to the fall, but again, it ends up on faith. From the catechism:

Quote

387 ... Only in the knowledge of God's plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

You ask why God would allow Satan to do what he did/does. The catechism responds like I do, that ultimately the answer is one of faith:

Quote

395 ... the action [of Satan] is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."

We'll get to this again further down, but everything God takes and works with is made better.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Further, why did God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in a place of such prominence in the midst of the  garden, and then laden it with the most delicious and desirable of fruit, and simply not take any chances at all that might cause them to eventually succumb to temptation and loose their state of idyllic innocence?

There must be freedom and there must be choice.

I hope you don't mind my quoting the catechism frequently. I do so so that readers know that what I write is not just my opinion, but the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Quote

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

The "knowledge of good and evil" isn't the knowledge that some things are good and some things are evil. It is the knowledge of WHAT is good and WHAT is evil. As the catechism teaches, that is an insurmountable limit. Without God, we cannot know every what. Only He knows, and so we must trust Him and follow Him.

Satan appealed to our envy and our desire to be free of God, our desire to be able to know for ourselves 100% WHAT is good and WHAT is evil, rather than relying upon God. Hence his temptation: eat the fruit and you will be like God (i.e. not dependent upon Him as His creature).

Again, from the good ol' catechism:

Quote

398 In that sin [the fall] man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God"

I like that end quote (from St. Maximus the Confessor). Adam and Eve wanted what God was offering them, but they didn't want it according to God's will. Isn't that what most sin is? We desire something and go about the wrong (disordered) way.

 

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

So again, it’s plainly obvious that the original state of innocence experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden couldn’t  possibly have been a perfect state of existence, in and of itself, because they lacked the moral insight and strength of character to forever remain in their state of  putative “perfection” that wasn’t so perfect after all.

I hope I have sufficiently explained why it's not plainly obvious. My goal is not to show that we are right and you are wrong, but instead to explain what we believe to an extent that you can understand it and not just dismiss it as "plainly" wrong.

One point that I think we can agree on is that a great good came from the fall. Things would have been fine without it, but things are even better with it, because it necessitated the atonement, a most holy event. To return to your question as to why God would allow the fall:

Quote

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away" and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good." Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'"

O felix culpa, o happy fault, o fortunate fall.

[MiserereNobis]

39 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think Calvinism did some of the most damage to the prior traditions.

Those dang protestants  

39 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Edit to add:   One of my favorite lines from St. Thomas Aquinas:

Quote

 But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"   (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3)

 

My post to teddy includes the paragraph from the catechism that quotes this. I think both our traditions align here, though we came from different starting points and go to different ending points, ha.

[Mark White]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

@MiserereNobis, @Mark White, @theplains

You are still not addressing the point.

Sure we may be teasing a bit about naked innocent people.

But the question still hasn't been answered.  From the time God placed Adam and Eve in the garden in an unfallen state how did he want the course of man and the world to go?  What was his expectation for his creation?

Because any plan other than the fall that I've heard simply doesn't work with anything else in scripture.  I am genuinely asking.  If man hadn't fallen, what was supposed to happen?

One perspective, whether right or wrong, is that what God may have wanted was for Adam and Eve to do only what he told them to do.  Don't eat the fruit from that tree but yes go ahead and make babies.  Any questions, they could have asked him.

And I still think that is what God wants all of us to do now, and in the future.  Do only what he tells us to do, or only that which is good.  And don't do what Satan tells us to do.  I hope this experience is helping all of us to learn it is never good to disobey God.

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

@MiserereNobis, @Mark White, @theplains

You are still not addressing the point.

Sure we may be teasing a bit about naked innocent people.

But the question still hasn't been answered.  From the time God placed Adam and Eve in the garden in an unfallen state how did he want the course of man and the world to go?  What was his expectation for his creation?

Because any plan other than the fall that I've heard simply doesn't work with anything else in scripture.  I am genuinely asking.  If man hadn't fallen, what was supposed to happen?

See my post to teddy above.

I'll also answer your question directly. The course of man would have been to remain in the state of perfect harmony with God, with each other, and with nature. This could only happen with freedom to choose, so we have that freedom. He didn't want to create another animal without the choice to love and commune with Him. He created us "in his image," which to us does not mean we physically look like Him, but that we have some of His faculties: the ability to choose, the ability to give ourselves in love, the ability to know ourselves and others. All the things that differentiate us from the animals.

But because He is omniscient, He knew that the devil would beguile Adam and Eve, even in their state of communion with God, so that redemption would be needed. That redemption would bring about an even great good: the atonement.

I don't like to think about it as plan A and plan B, like the Garden was the first plan and the atonement is a back-up plan. That is linear temporal thinking. God knows all at once. I look at it as a bit of paradox (Star Trek temporal paradoxes anyone? Janeway?) The plan with the Garden and the plan with the atonement are from one point of view two plans, but from another point of view just one plan. That's why we can call the fall a sin, and also call it a "happy fault" or a "fortunate fall."

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi @teddyaware, @JLHPROF, and @InCognitus,

My previous response to teddyaware also applies to others. I am pushing back against the caricature/straw man of the traditional Christian (Catholic) view that the  Garden of Eden was just going to be just a bunch of naked toddlers running around. That's an easy position to make fun of, but it is a straw man, because that is not the Catholic position.

I'd like you to consider that any sort of "gotcha!" or "how could you believe such nonsense!" when it comes to Catholicism should probably be tempered. We may certainly be wrong, but Catholic theology is not stupid. It's not a house of cards that will simply fall when poked at superficially. It's had 2000 years to develop and has been explored and believed by some of the best minds of Western Civilization. Again, we may certainly be wrong, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that some obvious silly mistake that ruins the whole thing has been overlooked all these years to suddenly be discovered now.

I quoted the catechism above to show the actual Catholic position of what the Garden of Eden was like and what was the state of Adam and Eve. If you haven't read it, please do so to understand how why your caricature doesn't work (it's super short!).

(I'll also add that I believe that the first couple chapters of Genesis are allegorical, and that my stance is perfectly allowable in Catholic theology)

I find it interesting that "innocence" and the ability to procreate are opposed in your views. In our view, everything was in perfect harmony in the Garden. Adam and Eve with each other, Adam and Eve with God, Adam and Eve with nature. Everything was ordered (sin is a disorder). Sexual relations between a husband and wife are not disordered, are not disharmonious, and do not negate the "original state of holiness and justice." Could it be that some Puritanical/protestant thinking has influenced your thoughts on this matter? That the fall is necessary for sex? To me that belief would reveal a negative view of sex, that sex is somehow connected with sin.

Teddy, I'll respond to your post separately.

I would say the relationship between their innocence and inability to procreate had more to do with the laws of life and death than their personal moral attributes. While they had sex as husband and wife while innocent, death, an integral part of creation (the death of sex cells creates the human being), is not a law of a paradisiacal world (Eden). The laws of death are part of this fallen world, which would not have come about without their knowing good and evil. In this case, knowledge is in the form of personally experiencing the consequences of partaking of the forbidden fruit contrary to the laws of paradise/Eden, and the metabolism controlling DNA (another form or medium of knowledge) methylation for sex cells is opened/awakened/activated in the physical environment of a fallen world.

[Mark White]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say the relationship between their innocence and inability to procreate had more to do with the laws of life and death than their personal moral attributes. While they had sex as husband and wife while innocent, death, an integral part of creation (the death of sex cells creates the human being), is not a law of a paradisiacal world (Eden). The laws of death are part of this fallen world, which would not have come about without their knowing good and evil. In this case, knowledge is in the form of personally experiencing the consequences of partaking of the forbidden fruit contrary to the laws of paradise/Eden, and the metabolism controlling DNA (another form or medium of knowledge) methylation for sex cells is opened/awakened/activated in the physical environment of a fallen world.

Death is not an end to existence but rather the separation of spirit from something else... mortal death a separation of a person's spirit from that person's "other" body; spiritual death a separation of a person's spirit from the presence of our Father.  

I don't believe the separation of a man's sperm from the body of his spirit qualifies as death.  And it isn't the death of a man's sperm from his body that creates another body; his sperm cells combining with a woman's egg create that other body.

[InCognitus]

47 minutes ago, Mark White said:

One perspective, whether right or wrong, is that what God may have wanted was for Adam and Eve to do only what he told them to do.  Don't eat the fruit from that tree but yes go ahead and make babies.  Any questions, they could have asked him.

Hi, and welcome to the board by the way.

One question I have to what you said above is, if God wanted Adam and Eve to only do what he told them to do, then why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden at all?  Why put it front and center as an option for them?  Why even give them a choice, especially since the consequence of that one choice would be so detrimental to everything that happened from that point forward?

[Mark White]

12 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Hi, and welcome to the board by the way.

One question I have to what you said above is, if God wanted Adam and Eve to only do what he told them to do, then why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden at all?  Why put it front and center as an option for them?  Why even give them a choice, especially since the consequence of that one choice would be so detrimental to everything that happened from that point forward?

To give them the choice, so that they could choose between good and evil, rather than have only 1 option forced upon them.  They had the option of choosing to not eat from that tree or choosing to eat from it.

I hope they and all of the rest of us can learn from their example of what we should not do.