According to the reasoning given, we would have to conclude that there are no evil actions. Hitler desired for Germany to be great and concluded that this was sufficient reason to "be like God" in controlling the lives and deaths of people in Europe. Morality requires not only correct intent, but correct method. Eve could have asked for God's permission or even, "God, why not?"

I did not say that intention decides the morality of an action, but rather that it mitigates culpability, just as lack of consent and lack of knowledge does. Is not becoming more like God an intrinsic good? Certainly that was the result of their action, they became more like God. What do you think their primary sin is?

I would say that curiosity is a very human trait that should not be punished.

You may want to double-check the claim that God lied here. He said that they would die, not that they would die immediately. The fifth chapter explicitly records Adam's death.

Granted. However, before Adam and Eve, our ancestors and all of the creatures of the earth died violently. Why did God allow all this suffering and violence, if no one had sinned yet? I thought Adam and Eve's first sin brought suffering into the world. I think this is a very important objection to the biblical account vis-à-vis the problem of evil. We are told that evil is brought into the world, because of the parents first sin, however, suffering is clearly present before our first parents even existed. How is this not irreconcilable with an all-everything God?

Since it is the inspired work of God, shouldn't we expect that it would teach morality? Clearly, misogyny is immoral.

I would repeat my response to three (b) here. The story appears to indicate that this is less a "punishment" and more a consequence of "knowing evil".

By this you mean the banishment and being sent to the stone age? I do not understand how "knowing evil" necessitates banishment to the stone age. Certainly, everyone in heaven still "knows evil"? Also, God "knows evil" and he does not exist in the stone age.

Did God have a choice in sending them to the stone age? If he did not, then he is not all-powerful. If he did, them he is not omni- benevolent. Claiming that it is a consequence skirts the main objection.

In summary I have three main objections and one question:

Obection 1: Original sin does not explain the problem of evil, because there was evil before the sin.

Objection 2: God punishment is over the top, and immoral.

Objection 3: (another poster brought this up, but I have not seen in satisfactorily answered): Does not Adam and Eve's sin presuppose knowledge of what sin is? How do they have that knowledge, if they haven't yet eaten from the tree?
Question: Does the tree of life and the tree of knowledge actually exist and do they have said properties? Are they just metaphors? If so what is the purpose of the tree of life metaphor?

Finally, what does it mean for a book to be inspired by God? And what means can we use to test whether or not a book is inspired by God? How do we know that Genesis is inspired, but the Iliad is not?

There are some issues with this argumentation. (Numbers taken from Argument numbers from the top)

1.a.)

So Eve eats the fruit, because she wants to gain wisdom. If intention has any value on the morality of an act, we would say that Eve's intention certainly mitigates her action.

According to the reasoning given, we would have to conclude that there are no evil actions. Hitler desired for Germany to be great and concluded that this was sufficient reason to "be like God" in controlling the lives and deaths of people in Europe. Morality requires not only correct intent, but correct method. Eve could have asked for God's permission or even, "God, why not?"

1.b)

Furthermore, God actually lies about the tree. He tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the tree, they will die. However, they actually only gain knowledge of good and evil.

You may want to double-check the claim that God lied here. He said that they would die, not that they would die immediately. The fifth chapter explicitly records Adam's death.

3.a)

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. [and the like]

I would note that the shame, the birth-pains, and the rule of the man over the woman are post-fall. This implicitly states that they are not the original state of humanity. The last, in particular, is an odd claim for a misogynistic culture.

3.b) What does it mean to "know evil"? Can we truly know evil without a holocaust?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this passage is nothing more than the attempt of a culture to understand suffering, it seems rather embarrassing for them to conclude that its source is their request for it against the instructions of the divine.

4.a.)

God created us in our His image. Now, by eating from the tree of Good and Evil we became more like God. Why would God want to punish us for this?

I would repeat my response to three (b) here. The story appears to indicate that this is less a "punishment" and more a consequence of "knowing evil".

4.b)

...so He has to banish man from paradise and guard the path back with flaming swords. Does this not really seem to put a limit on God's power? God could have destroyed the tree of life, or made the tree impotent.

Caution: Even under the assumption that no metaphor is intended, did is not must. The claim that God banished man is not a claim that banishing man was His only option.

4.c)

We have two options:

1) The bible is the inspired work of God

2) It was written by a bronze aged people to try and make sense of their world.

I would note here that Catholic Doctrine on the Inspiration of Scripture would not hold these two in contradictions. I suspect you intend Two to mean that it was nothing more than a written attempt "by a bronze aged people to try and make sense of their world."

Also found a relevant perspective in an answer that William Lane Craig gave to a question regarding the logic of the Trinity. Apparently the theological definition is that there is both an ontological and efficient way to view the Trinity. In the ontological perspective God has 'no sexual orientation or gender'. That could help to explain in some way that the incarnation involved a conceptual foundation for the human aspect of Christ, without getting into difficulties over the need for both male and female chromosomes. But it's always difficult for me to deal with 'miracles' on an explanatory, evidence based level - of course!!!!!

Thanks for 'excusing' my colloquialism! Yeah! I thought about the limitations of my proposal after posting. Besides the transformational element, my suggestion does not take account of the development, through repentance or 'change' the development of the 'interior' self, if I can call it that, or the metaphysical, all of these terms that I am using. Thus it does not take account to develop wholeness, or holiness with regard to the 'totality' of the 'person'. I don't think resurrection, etc. is something related to the 'parts of a whole'.

Perhaps it is a good thesis, in that it demonstrates some 'truth' that in the process of 'spiritual growth', the 'sins' are incorporated within the 'new person', in such a way that they are 'overcome'. Something like the effects of trauma are overcome in cases of PTSD for instance, when the experience leads to new growth. So, I concede that such a thesis limits the possibility of 'universal' salvation. But is it not possible that even those 'in hell' can undergo a transformation. I know I have been through my 'hell' on earth, so I can't be totally pessi-mystic (grin grin) about this possibility. I often wondered about the 'wounds of Christ' being visible. It is certainly true that the personal hells we experience have some kind of lasting effect, even though the 'thought of them' is transformed.

Thanks for replying.

Sure Loreen, I'm up for that :-)

When you say, "How about ...", it makes it sound a bit like you and I get to decide on the rules (which I know is how many people imagine this whole enterprise), but I understand that you are just proposing a way of saying it.

I think what you say is somewhat implied by the correct understanding of "saved". It doesn't mean "preserved", as in "saved the file to hard disk". The saving of the resurrection is a transformation. I'm not sure if it's quite correct to say that all the bad memories will be gone. The risen Christ is considered to be inseparable from the crucified Christ, as indicated by the account that the wounds of crucifixion were still visible.

The EWTN author makes it clear at the beginning that s/he is indulging in some speculation. I guess I would challenge that author on the statement that "In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence."
I don't see how it makes for any soul to go out of existence just because it is no longer materially manifested. And again, I don't see how this author's speculation can be reconciled with Romans 8.

No single way of saying it is totally adequate. That's the value of these multivalent stories. When I talk about the struggle to become your true self, I'm using a "self" (i.e. ego-laden self) versus "true self" language that runs the risk of not sufficiently emphasizing sin. The language that you learned (presumably emphasizing "sin" and "redemption") is also correct, but it risks certain misinterpretations that I would say are revealed upon returning to the story. A sort of intermediate path would be to reflect on Genesis using the language of "broken-ness" and "wholeness". We ARE in a broken state , just as a perfectly engineered and beautifully designed car might have chips and dings almost immediately once it "hits the road". But we ARE NOT like a poorly designed or sloppily engineered car. We were created great, and that potential for greatness -- the potential even for Godliness, as Jesus showed -- is still with us. The struggle to be made whole again is the process of atonement (deriving from "at-one-ment", as I recently learned), and that is what Jesus showed us how to do.

As for why your catechesis (and that of so many others) had this over-emphasis on sin, I can only guess. We are all only a generation or two removed from some very hard-scrapple people, who may have naturally taken a pretty dim view of the world. I would say this is the value of canonical scripture: when our culturally conditioned expressions of dogma start to drift off course, this fixed anchor of the canon is there to help keep things from drifting too far. If you return to Genesis, you can say, "Ah yes, sin, it is there, it is real, but the larger, surrounding story is a story of grace. It's a bit like we are on a broken boat floating in a sea of grace."

Found it! Gospel Sept. 8.
mt 1:18-23

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about.
When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,
but before they lived together,
she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man,
yet unwilling to expose her to shame,
decided to divorce her quietly.
Such was his intention when, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
“Joseph, son of David,
do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.
For it is through the Holy Spirit
that this child has been conceived in her.
She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus,
because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill
what the Lord had said through the prophet:

Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,

which means “God is with us.”

Thanks - Michael