Genesis 3: Questions for Apologetics

Apologetics
1

1. The serpent isn’t described as Satan. Why would God create an animal that would lead his creations astray? What’s in it for the serpent? Weren’t the first man and women supposed to rule over all the animals on the earth?

2. If God is all-knowing then he knew the serpent, for whatever reason, would tempt the woman. He also knew that she would succumb. But the Bible doesn’t state that she gave in and ate the cursed fruit because of any ill will towards her creator. She was just curious. It was an innocent mistake. Why didn’t God stop her as she was reaching for the fruit and explain to both her and the man what she was doing wrong? That’s what any caring parent or creator would do. And even after she ate the fruit, if God is all-powerful, why not just take away their knowledge if it was really so horrible for them to have it? And why exactly was it so bad for them to know the difference between good and evil to begin with?

3. The serpent tells the woman that, “5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” What is good and evil? And how do we know what God defines as good and evil is what we regard as good and evil?

4. The Bible says, “6 she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.” But it doesn’t elaborate on what was said by the women to the man in order to convince him to go against God’s order and eat the fruit, which supports the idea that this could’ve been an innocent mistake, one born purely out of having been led astray and curious. An innocent mistake is completely different from an action done to purposefully spite or harm God. We understand in popular culture that this is the “original sin” that somehow doomed humanity. But that seems preposterous given what I’ve read and understood. How could thousands of years of suffering and death, on top of the potential for eternal torment be justified as punishment for one small mistake? The punishment doesn’t seem to fit the “crime.”

5. Also, it’s curious that a woman would be the one to commit this “crime” or “sin” and not the man. It paints women as the reason for humanity’s supposed downfall, and I don’t think I have to elaborate on how the idea that women are the cause of all suffering could be used as justification for men to treat them unfairly.

6. The Bible says, “8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” If God could reveal himself to the first man and woman of humanity, why can’t he do it now, especially when the stakes are much higher given the number of us and the increased likelihood that we could harm each other and lead one another astray? If God really cares about his creations, why not just reveal himself, dispel every unsound religion, and not only get everyone to believe in him, but encourage countless more to make the decision to follow and worship him? Why make anything ambiguous about his existence when that only creates more problems than solves them?

7. Then the Bible says, "9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” If we’re to take the Bible as evidence of God’s existence, then this demonstrates that God can directly reveal himself and communicate with people. If this story is true, why has he not done it in a way that can be soundly proven to all of humanity, regardless of belief? If God is all-powerful, then regardless of who I am or what I believe, he should be able to reveal himself to me and compel me to believe in him and worship him. Why has that not happened? And on that note, why does God even want to be worshipped? That seems like such a trivial and vain desire for a being that can somehow do all things, knows all things, and transcends reality itself.

8. I actually laughed out loud while reading this next part. It’s wild to me that after the man snitched on the woman, and the woman told God that the snake told her to eat the forbidden fruit, that God didn’t ask for any explanations or offered any kind of mercy on his innocent first creations that he supposedly took frequent walks with, had conversations with, and not long before was willing to show affection to. I mean, what? Is God bipolar? On top of that, he went from 0 to 100 and actually cursed the man and woman, his precious creations, for the rest of their lives by making childbirth excruciatingly painful for the woman and farming damn near impossible for the man. Again, what? For such a small and what could’ve been an unavoidable mistake? And to go one further, he says that he cursed the snake, but did he really? Snakes are feared both by humans and by many other animals in the wild. Some of them can kill creatures many times their size with only one bite (which includes humans), and they sit pretty comfortably as predators in their ecosystems. If anything, God gave the snake an upgrade! Why didn’t God just smite the serpent as a creature altogether? Why give the snake the ability to be so dangerous and continue to be dangerous?

9. The Bible continues, "22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

Huh? Is God expressing fear here? Or at the very least, some kind of concern? Is he implying that he’s worried that mankind will become gods themselves if they also ate from the other tree in the garden? Why would God be afraid of anything? And even if mankind were to become gods in their own right, if God is all-powerful, then they surely wouldn’t be able to harm or destroy him, no matter the power or multitude. It doesn’t make sense.

10. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

This supports my idea that God is demonstrating fear or worry. What are the cherubim? Did God create them? What do they look like? How powerful are they? How long do they live for? Are they eternal? Are they good or evil?

But why not just eliminate the tree? Why not cause it to cease to exist so that the problem is definitively and simply solved? Why leave the chance that it could ever been discovered and used in a way that makes him fearful?

Also, if this story is true, then Eden existed here on earth. Have we ever found it, or discovered sufficient evidence of it? I’m assuming that the tree of life would still be there, as well as the cherubim that guard it. Do we know where that is? Wouldn’t that be stellar evidence that God exists? Is anyone currently searching for Eden?

2

I’ll start by Faith does not need evidence, it needs a source and that source is God.

Your post is lengthy and would require too much time for me to respond to. Instead, I turned to Magesterium AI which provided the following:

Your objections identify real difficulties in a strictly literalistic reading of Genesis 3. Catholic interpretation does not require treating every detail as a modern historical report or as a complete explanation of biology, psychology, or geography. The chapter is theological narrative: it explains humanity’s alienation from God, the disorder introduced into human relationships and work, and the need for redemption.

1. The serpent

Genesis itself calls the serpent a creature God made; it does not explicitly call it Satan. The serpent’s role is that of the tempter, while later Christian interpretation identifies this adversarial figure with the devil. The text does not explain the serpent’s motives or psychology, so we should not invent a motive for the animal itself.

Human dominion over creation does not mean that no creature can threaten or deceive human beings. Dominion is a vocation to govern creation responsibly, not a promise that every animal will behave submissively.

2. Did God permit an innocent mistake?

The narrative presents more than mere curiosity. The serpent creates suspicion about God’s goodness and authority, then promises that disobedience will make the humans “like God.” The Pontifical Biblical Commission identifies the temptation as involving distrust of God and an attractive desire for self-exaltation. 1

Still, Genesis does not describe the woman as motivated by hatred or deliberate malice. It portrays deception, desire, and disobedience. The man also eats; the text explicitly says that he was with her. 2

God’s prior warning is itself a form of moral instruction. The command establishes that human freedom is real but not absolute: creatures receive life from God and must trust him concerning the limits of their creaturely condition.

3. “Knowing good and evil”

In this context, “knowing good and evil” means more than acquiring information about morality. It signifies claiming the authority to determine good and evil independently of God—to establish oneself as the measure of right and wrong. The biblical narrative contrasts this with trusting God’s command.

Catholic theology holds that God is not arbitrary when he defines good and evil. Good is grounded in God’s wisdom and in the truth of creation. Human conscience can recognize moral truth, but conscience does not create that truth.

4. Is original sin disproportionate?

The Church does not teach that every human being personally committed Adam’s act or deserves punishment for an act he or she did not personally choose. Rather, Genesis presents a primordial rupture whose consequences include mortality, disordered desire, suffering, and alienation. The biblical commission describes the narrative as explaining how misery enters a creation originally called good. 3

Nor does Genesis say that the couple was eternally condemned without mercy. The threatened death does not occur immediately; God clothes them, continues to address them, and gives a future promise of victory over the serpent. The Pontifical Biblical Commission observes that the consequences are not merely judicial punishment and that God continues to act for humanity’s good. 4

Thus, the account is not best understood as “God inflicts infinite suffering for one minor mistake.” It depicts a foundational rejection of trust in God, together with the tragic consequences of creatures attempting to seize divine prerogatives.

5. Does Genesis blame women?

No. The text assigns responsibility to the serpent, the woman, and the man. The man is not an innocent bystander: he receives the command, is present during the temptation, and eats. God addresses him because he too has transgressed. 2

The passage has certainly been misused to denigrate women, but that misuse is contrary to the text’s structure. Genesis does not teach that woman alone caused humanity’s fall. Indeed, the promise concerning the serpent’s defeat is associated with “the woman and her offspring,” a passage Christians traditionally read in relation to Mary and Christ. 5

6–7. Why does God not reveal himself unmistakably today?

Genesis uses anthropomorphic language—God “walking” and calling—to communicate divine initiative in human terms. It does not require the conclusion that God has a physical body or that Eden was a publicly observable location.

Catholicism teaches that God has not left humanity without evidence or revelation. Creation can lead the human mind toward knowledge of God, and God has also revealed himself in salvation history, above all in Christ. Yet God does not normally compel belief by overwhelming the intellect. Faith involves a free response to truth and grace, not merely psychological submission to an undeniable spectacle.

The Catechism states that human reason can know God’s existence, while also teaching that God freely reveals himself and gives grace so that this revelation can be received in faith. 6 The ambiguity is therefore not evidence that God is indifferent; it reflects the difference between recognizing signs and being coerced.

God’s desire for worship is not vanity or a need for affirmation. Worship is the creature’s truthful response to the Creator and is ordered toward the creature’s good. God does not become greater because humans worship him; humans become rightly ordered when they acknowledge the truth about God and themselves.

8. The punishments and the serpent

The language of Genesis 3 describes the new conditions of human existence: childbirth becomes marked by pain, work by toil, relationships by domination, and life by death. The biblical commission notes that these “sentences” should not be reduced to a simple judicial penalty; they describe the painful consequences of sin entering human life. 4

The serpent’s curse is also theological and symbolic. The serpent becomes the image of the adversary and of the defeat that will ultimately come upon evil. Its continued ability to harm does not mean that evil has finally triumphed; Genesis 3:15 presents the serpent’s eventual defeat as the central hope of the passage. 5

9–10. Is God afraid of human beings becoming gods?

No. “Lest he put forth his hand” does not imply divine fear. The passage describes God preventing humanity from perpetuating its fallen condition indefinitely. Immortality in a state of alienation would not be salvation; it would make the disorder permanent.

The cherubim are heavenly spiritual beings who serve God. Catholic tradition understands them as real angelic creatures, though biblical descriptions of them are highly symbolic and visionary. 7 The flaming sword signifies guarded access to the tree of life. It is not evidence that God is anxious about rivals.

The tree is not simply a dangerous object that God forgot to destroy. Its guarded status expresses the theological claim that immortal life is not something humans can seize by force. In Christian interpretation, access to life is restored not through Eden’s geography but through God’s saving action.

Was Eden a discoverable place?

The supplied Catholic sources do not identify Eden’s location or provide evidence that the garden, the tree of life, or the cherubim remain accessible somewhere on earth. The text’s geography should not be treated as a reliable map for archaeological exploration. Whether the narrative describes identifiable historical geography is not resolved by the passage itself.

Overall conclusion

Your criticisms are strongest against the idea that Genesis 3 is a simplistic account in which a naïve woman commits a minor error and an insecure deity reacts irrationally. That is not the most adequate Catholic reading.

The chapter presents:

  • a good creation;
  • genuine human freedom;
  • deception and distrust of God;
  • both man’s and woman’s participation;
  • the consequences of alienation from God;
  • God’s continuing concern for humanity;
  • and a promise that evil will ultimately be defeated.

The story is not intended to answer every scientific or psychological question about Eden. Its central question is moral and theological: Will human beings receive the good from God in trust, or attempt to define life and goodness apart from him?

[1] “What is Man?” (Ps 8:5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology, 299. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/d9cdb0bf-8c22-4558-bc4f-100ad2ebc614/ref/299

[2] The Holy Bible, Genesis 3. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/7ab6e175-afab-4262-915a-0e98ce0d133d/ref/Genesis%203

[3] The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (May 24, 2001), 28. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/00a1de35-98f1-481a-956f-e98e2b52331d/ref/28

[4] “What is Man?” (Ps 8:5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology, 318. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/d9cdb0bf-8c22-4558-bc4f-100ad2ebc614/ref/318

[5] “What is Man?” (Ps 8:5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology, 320. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/d9cdb0bf-8c22-4558-bc4f-100ad2ebc614/ref/320

[6] CCC, 35. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/0583c069-d4bf-42dd-97de-c19f0b80150f/ref/35

[7] Catholic Encyclopedia, Cherubim. https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Cherubim

3

1. Is believing something without evidence a rational way to establish what is true versus what isn’t?

2. Do you think that using AI (and apparently a biased model) to answer questions about what you believe will enhance or diminish your ability to think critically for yourself?

2. Why does humanity create many different interpretations of something that should be self-evident as the word of God?

3. Why should the Bible not be read literally? Are the events described in Genesis not true? And if it’s only partially true, how do you reliably determine fact from fantasy?

4. If God exists, why did he choose to use the serpent to take on the role of the tempter? Why not a bull or a monkey? And if the Bible doesn’t identify the serpent as Satan, why does humanity choose to do so?

5. The AI’s explanation about human dominion over creation is correct, but it doesn’t make sense in the context of Genesis. The Bible states that God created man in his own image so that he could, “28 …fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” That gives him supreme authority over all creatures on earth, and if Eden was a peaceful place before the consumption of the forbidden fruit, where Adam and Eve could stroll naked with God and pass time having conversations with him, then it doesn’t make sense to think that anything would want to threaten or deceive him. This logic makes the serpent itself seem suspect, which adds to the dubiousness of the story. Why would it be the exception to the authority that was given to man by God himself? And if it was somehow an exception, why would God even create such a creature with such foul intent? If God is in fact all-knowing, these questions lead down a rabbit that doesn’t cast him in a favorable light as a creator.

6. The AI didn’t directly answer the question of, “Did God permit an innocent mistake?” so I’ll do so. He did indeed. God could’ve prevented Eve from consuming the fruit, much like a loving parent, guardian, or creator would, but he didn’t. And even if he didn’t because he wanted to teach Adam and Eve an important lesson or test the limits of their obedience, I don’t accept that their great punishments (which unfairly affected their future generations) fit the scale or nature of their disobedience. The AI confirms that Eve wasn’t motivated by hatred or deliberate malice. Instead, she was deceived and led astray by her simple desire to know more than she did. A person can disobey a command innocently, from a position of foolishness, or even out of necessity. That doesn’t necessarily make them evil or deserving of horrible punishments.

7. If good is grounded in God’s wisdom, does that mean that God is incapable of doing bad things? How does determining what is good relate to the “truth of creation”? What is the “truth of creation”?

8. The problem with the biblical commission describing the primordial events in Genesis as “how misery enters a creation originally called good” stems from the fact that the misery in question was not introduced or happened organically. It was all done purposefully by God, which begs the question: why create misery in the first place? Why create humanity to suffer? Why didn’t God prevent Eve from eating the fruit, and even after she and Adam consumed it, why didn’t God simply smite the serpent and use the situation as an opportunity to teach his creations right from wrong himself? Why create the tempting serpent at all? Why make the choice to continue observing a human reality of suffering? How could that reasonably be argued as a choice that prioritizes humanity’s good?

9. It’s more accurate to say that the Bible assigns responsibility to the woman and then the man. While it’s true that the man disobeyed God’s order, there’s not nearly enough context in the story to determine the true weight of Adam and Eve’s transgression. For example, we don’t know what Eve said to Adam to convince him to eat the fruit. We don’t know if Adam expressed doubt in her, if he tried to reach out to God, or even if he himself spoke to the serpent. The story is filled with a vagueness that adds to the dubiousness of its claims. Also, in the stanzas of Eve’s punishment (as said by God), it reads, “16… yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This could imply that both her desire for her husband and his command over her are somehow punishments for her deed, and it’s certainly not a stretch to assume that some people would use that interpretation as an excuse to mistreat women. This is a lingering problem with the Bible, even at this early stage. There’s much ambiguity that makes it all too easy for the text to be misconstrued, creating the possibility for it to be used to justify terrible actions.

10. Why would God not want to compel belief by revealing himself in an undeniable way? Why make it unnecessarily difficult to believe in him, especially if that decision directly leads to more conflict and suffering in humanity?

11. What does, “Faith involves a free response to truth and grace, not merely psychological submission to an undeniable spectacle” mean?

12. Human reason cannot know God’s existence. Human reason can claim to know God’s existence. Those are not the same things.

13. What does, “… God freely reveals himself and gives grace so that this revelation can be received in faith” mean?

14. “Worship is the creature’s truthful response to the Creator and is ordered toward the creature’s good.” So if God were to somehow reveal himself to humanity, would refusing to worship him be an untrue response to his existence? If so, how? From what I understand here, truthful is synonymous with honest. Also, if something is ordered of me, I wouldn’t consider it good if I didn’t want it.

15. “… humans become rightly ordered when they acknowledge the truth about God and themselves.” What truth is being mentioned here? Has God himself been proven to be true? As far as I know, no God has been proven to exist. Believing that something exists using faith and proving that something exists using a combination of logic and sufficient evidence are two entirely different things.

16. Again, the problem with, “… (Genesis 3) describe(s) the painful consequences of sin entering human life,” is that God was the one ultimately responsible for the sin itself. It wasn’t the serpent. It wasn’t Eve. It wasn’t Adam. God created all of them and knew what events would unfold, so it’s not altogether proper to so harshly judge his creations when he’s actually the architect of sin. Instead of creating a reality of peace, God purposefully created a reality of sin and suffering. What is the point of that? Why is that preferable to him over a reality of serenity? And if heaven is that reality of serenity, why also create eternal damnation? Why create an experience on earth that could damn people to that horrible judgement? It doesn’t seem to make much sense at all.

17. How do I know that “Lest he put forth his hand” doesn’t imply divine fear? Even if I were to grant your explanation about humanity’s immortality and the tree of life, how do I know that your interpretation of the word of God is correct?

18. Can you elaborate on the question, “Will human beings receive the good from God in trust, or attempt to define life and goodness apart from him?” I’m not sure I understand its meaning.

4

@actualevidence Your queries in relation to Genesis are similar to mine in this post fairly recently: The Culpability of Adam & Eve

My conclusion is that Genesis at least up to the end of the Tower of Babel story, but certainly Adam & Eve, can’t be taken literally. If it is taken literally, then God is plotting and Adam & Eve are set up as innocent Patsies. As I stated in my thread, Adam & Eve have no prior reference point of/for evil of any kind. They are not only completely naive and gullible, they have no concept of disobedience.

5

Why can’t it be taken literally? Because it risks making believers uncomfortable?

Would that be a good reason to not take it literally if one cared about knowing what was true or not?

If the Bible is indeed the word of God, shouldn’t it be taken literally?

Isn’t it dishonest at best and manipulative at worst to choose to accept only certain things in the Bible as true and others as not?

6

The answers to these questions are found in the book of Revelation. If you re-read Genesis 3:15, you will see that God has put enmity between the woman and the woman’s Son (pointing to Jesus) and the serpent and the serpent’s offspring.

Satan was created, just as we all were, to love God, to be loved by God, and to serve God. God gifted us free-will, for if God forced everyone to love Him, that is not love.

Satan was an angel and he thought he could be like God. St. Michael, the Archangel’s name literally means “Who is like God?” (implying that no one is like God, but God alone).

The serpent in the garden was trying to convince Adam and Eve what? That they could be like God.

Now, the Church does not say that you must take this account as literal, but that you may take it allegorically. But, what we must believe as Catholic Christians is that the first humans fell into sin and were deceived into believing that they could be like God. And many human today, fall for the same lies, that they can be like God or that they are more intelligent than God.

And if this is you, then you have been deceived by either an allegorical snake or by Satan actually, who’s name means “one who plots against another”.

A few things going on here. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Woman came later. So, the fault falls on Adam. As far as God allowing them to fall, this is called permissive will.

Something similar happens in the New Testament when Jesus chooses Judas to be one of His Apostles, knowing that he will betray Him. But, just as one man sins and does not repent, another (St. Peter) does.

So, though God allows individuals to choose sin, He also offers a way of repentance (namely through “the Woman’s Son,” Jesus The Christ, Who crushes the head of the striking serpent/dragon (depending on the translation).

So, the question is, will you be like the fallen angel or will you be like St. Michael? Will you be like the fallen man (Adam) or like Jesus (obedient to the Father)? When you fall, will you be like Judas or will you be like Peter?

We know that disobeying God’s will is evil (I define “evil” as anything that is not of God’s order—both His natural law and Divine law). As a result of Eve & more so Adam’s disobedience, sin and death entered our world. And because of Mary and ultimately Jesus’ obedience to God, redemption and new life has entered our world. Thanks be to God.

7

“ActualEvidence” you lack the understanding of the priciple of obedience and the priciple of being tested and the priciple of being rewarded and punished. God does not interfere with man’s free will.

You see things through the eyes of man and not God.

Ezechias 18:29-30 And the children of Israel say: The way of the Lord is not right. Are not my ways right, O house of Israel, and are not rather your ways perverse. Therefore will I judge every man according to his ways, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Be converted, and do penance for all your iniquities: and iniquity shall not be your ruin.

Isaias 55:7-9 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive. For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

You do not consider the infinite majesty of God and that any disobedience against God, is an infinite offense.

And that is why Jesus, in the Incarnation, had to become man; having two natures. Jesus made infinite satisfaction for the infinite crime, by His infinite divine nature, through His human nature, the spilling of His Precious Blood, unto death.

John 3:14-17 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting. For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

8

What you said is very interesting to me, because I can’t tell if you said it to discourage inquiry.

I know very well what it means to be either obedient or disobedient, to be tested by another person, and also the concepts of reward and punishment.

The fundamental issue with your perspective is that you claim to know that God exists, and I don’t.

I don’t even know if the contents of the Bible, especially those claiming divinity and the supernatural, are true. It’s possible they could be true. But it’s also possible for it to be fiction.

In that case, I don’t claim to know which is true either.

But how could anyone actually know the ways of God when only God himself would know that? If God was all-powerful and all-knowing, then he could choose to be and do anything. Couldn’t God change his mind about anything? How would we know that the God of today has the desires of the God of yesterday, especially since God chooses not to reveal himself or communicate directly with humanity?

Also, to claim that any disobedience against God is an infinite offense seems ridiculous to me.

It wouldn’t make sense for any sin to rival the scale of infinity.

I’m going to ask questions of the Bible if its contents don’t seem to make sense. It deserves that, given the power it holds in society. I don’t intend to accept it as true because it tells me so. But I also won’t disregard it as a source of information.

I don’t know what I’ll think of it by the time I’m done reading, and I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. I just want to read and continue to wonder.

1 Like
9

Sadly and in charity, [ActualEvidence], you are in a bad place, lacking severely God’s grace. If you have an ounce of good will, you would ask God to show you the truth in His regard.

       "A WATCH DEMANDS A WATCHMAKER"!

Romans 1:16-23 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man

10

I Haven’t read your entire post. But I will come back. This description of the serpent is pure metaphoric talk. Just like the Catholic Church believes that the throne of God and the crown of God are metaphoric. They declare that God has no throne and no crown. I personally disagree, but that is what the Church declares. The serpent is the aspect of the heart, that is envious of God’s position and desires to be independent of God’s dominion in our lives. That’s why the material world is created for us. We are in therapy. Most souls never come to the material creation. They are called “the heavenly host”. The Garden of Eden narrative is a metaphor for the soul wanting to be independent and wanting to have the position of God. Therefore everyone in the material creation has this streak of vanity and a desire to be the most powerful, the most everything. Satin is a quality of the heart. But the church does not teach that we have to take responsibility for our vain demeanor, and blames it on the “the devil”. The soul that surrenders completely to God, will never be attacked by the sinful desire to be an independent enjoyer, but will only take pleasure in the being personally pleasing to God. Hare Krishna!

11

You are asking questions.

  1. There are different grades of scriptures, and different grades of teachings for different grades of students. This is true in the material world and the ways and means of this world. And it is true in spiritual teachings for those who become inclined to come closer to God. God does not create an animal (the serpent) that leads his children astray. God creates every spirit soul with free will. In other words we can rejoice in the understanding of our constitutional position in relation to God, or we can question it, even reject it. If we were created otherwise, our love would be the love of robots. God desires that our love for Him be of our own volition. The “serpent” is the symbol of envy. And we all have the potential for this serpent to arise within our hearts. The origin of envy is envy of God’s position as our eternal Lord and Master. On the sermon on the mount, Jesus says that we cannot have two masters. We are servant of one or the other. One Master is God. And the other Master is Mammon. In plain English Mammon is the characteristic in mankind to seek his own glorification, his own separate sense of power and prestige, his own pleasure…as opposed to simply seeking the pleasure of God with our every thought, word and deed. This demeanor of the heart is the expression of our envy of God. We all have it. We are born with it. It is called, by the Church, as “original sin”. The Church blames this on Adam and Eve. As their successors, their progeny through generations, this is our inheritance. The Vedic scriptures do not accept this idea. Rather, the Vedic scriptures place responsibility where it belongs. Each of us has made their own choice. This is misuse of our free will. The bottom line is that the “serpent” is the envy of God that we carry within our hearts. We are not the majority. The “heavenly host” abides within the spiritual realm, “heaven” with God. But we are here. Because we wanted to find fulfillment apart from abiding in our constitutional relationship with God. The bottom line is that the serpent of envy is not the creation of God. The serpent, this envy of the position of God, is the manifestation of the misuse of our God-given free will. Man and women were not meant rule over the creatures of the earth. Animal husbandry, is like any other husbandry…loving care, as opposed to exploitation.

  2. Good and evil only exist within the material dimension. For everything “good”, or desirable within the material dimension, there is an opposite. This is called “duality”. Or “relativity”. In the spiritual realm there is no duality. Everything is perfect. Every emotion is saturated with spiritual bliss. If we read the descriptions of the lives of the saints, we see that they are devoid of preference in regard to their circumstances. One man acts as a friend to them and another as an enemy. But again, they have no preference. They only see the hand of God guiding the heart of others in relation to themselves. They are able to accept everything as God’s embrace. Therefore their hearts are overflowing with the demeanor of, “Not my will, but Thy will.” This cannot be understood by us until we are very spiritually evolved. Just as, how can we begin to love others as much as we love ourselves? And yet this is the teaching: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”. We cannot do this mechanically. but these are the symptoms of the heart…the heart that is free of envy. The parent can say to the child, “Don’t touch the burning candle. It will only cause you pain.” But if the child is intent, they will do so. Then they will learn from their experience. Again, if we were created perfect, according to your reasoning, our love for God would be robotic. But God wants us to love Him of our own accord.

  3. We have to remember and accept the understanding that the “serpent” is the voice from within the spirit soul, is the voice that says, “Why do I have to acknowledge and accept God’s superiority? Why can’t I be like God? Why can’t I explore what it’s like not to be surrendered to God with all of my heart? Maybe I should explore that experience of existence.” That is the serpent speaking within us. But that serpent is the inclination, the misuse of our own free will. God does not desire this. But he permits it. And in order to permit it, He creates the material dimension, apart from the “Garden”, where we can check it out, see for ourselves what life is like apart from love of God, where we earn our bread by the sweat of our brow. Why? Because it only through suffering in this way, that we may begin to experience a change of heart…“Maybe I should retrace my steps”. Therefore the material world is made for our reclamation. We are in therapy. This is not the teaching of the Church. But Jesus says in Bible, that there are many things that he was not telling his students, because they were not ready to hear of such things yet.

  4. You are correct. But we also have to accept the logic that all of us are led by the wisdom of God within our hearts. When one desires to do evil, his heart convinces him that it is for a good cause, it is right, it is justified, etc. And when one’s heart is attached to the Lord, it is not possible for him to be mislead. With freedom comes responsibility. Adam and Eve were living in the association of God. And still they chose independence. Still they chose to know what it’s like to live “outside of the Law”. The father says, “Don’t touch the burning candle.” But the child persists. The father says, “Don’t do it.” And God said,
    “Don’t do it.” But the child that is persistent has to learn by their own mistake. It is not that we can’t retrace our steps. It is true that we are immersed in a life of suffering. But the word of God is omnipresent. And God is omnipresent within our hearts. And when the heart begins to relent in its mood of defiance, God puts that heart in touch with scripture, in touch with a teacher that can inspire faith in his heart. But the choice is always ours, from moment to moment. When we are in touch with the light, the darkness cannot prevail. But the choice is ours.

  5. Earthly man wants to dominate. The history of this planet is the history of imperialism. There is no limit to what man will do. He will even promote the concept of equal rights of women in order to exploit them. Today the women of the world are “liberated” “free”. But it is the woman who bears the children alone when the man walks away. Everyone makes their own philosophy to justify their original desire to be God, to be number One. That is what envy is all about. How wealthy can I be? How powerful can I be? How intelligent can I be? How beautiful/handsome in the eyes of others can I be? How famous can I be? And how equipoised can I be? All of this springs from, arises from, a desire to be God. All of this is an expression of envy. The serpent. It exists in man. It exists in woman. Slavery has existed since history books began recording. All over the world. Look it up on wiki. the history of slavery on planet earth. All justified in the minds of men. Men who wish to dominate others…to be like God, the Supreme Master. This is the disease itself. The exploitation of women is simply another expression of the same disease.

  6. You say this. But is there a place on earth where there is no scripture to read or to hear? Doesn’t God send his prophets, generation after generation to counsel and to warn us? We have to accept responsibility. And we have to understand that miracles are for the less intelligent…to create a little faith. But look at the rising of the sun in the morning. Is it not the hand of God? Look at mud and water that become a rose bush. Is this not the hand of God? Look at a sperm cell. Microscopic. But with all the programmed intelligence in it, like a computer chip, to create the body of a man or woman with hair color, eye color, olympic abilities…Therefore the question arises: “Who will not see all of these wonders and not bow down to God?” And you are asking Him to reveal Himself. Has he not revealed Himself? But the truth is that we con’t want to know. We turn our backs. And God watches. He watches, waiting. Waiting for us to turn back to Him. This is His patience, His renunciation, and His love. And even those who are outside of the “Garden”…they don’t really want to return. They turn to God. And they ask Him to make it nice here, in their exile. “Yes, we left. But we like it here. Can You heal my friend or my wife? Can you give me A, B, C, D. I really like it here. Maybe you can help me in my desire for independence.” Jesus said that the highest rule is to love God without all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. And we think of God as our order-supplier. We place our orders and if he delivers, we continue to go to church. And if not, we turn our back on Him.
    7. Naked truth. I was afraid that you would see me in my rebellious spirit of deviation, and I was afraid to present myself before you. As far as why has God not revealed Himself to all of us, burden of proof is with us, not with God. God calls to all of us. And the ball is in our court. If we want God, He will reveal Himself to us as much as we want to know Him. The lives of the saints are evidence. They sing, they dance, they glorify the Lord, they have no care for the ways of men, or what others will think. Why? because “the Truth” has set them free. But we scoff at them . We revile them. We are busy with our plans, who to “make it” in this world, outside of the Garden. Let’s face it. God could have put us here and thrown away the key. But he keeps sending His messengers and His prophets. A word to the wise is sufficient. But we are not wise. Why does God want to be worshipped? Why does man want to be worshipped? God doesn’t want to be worshipped. God wants to be loved. That’s why Jesus said that to love God with all of our heart is the highest rule of spiritual life. To exchange love is the only thing that makes life worth living. But we give our love in the wrong directions, in the wrong places. We love our bank balance. We love our clothes, our houses, our vehicles, fame and fortune, our social status. Because all of these things inflate the concept of our sovereignty, of our personal greatness. All our love for these things are symptoms are symptoms of our envy or God’s unlimited greatness. And none of these things give real satisfaction to the soul. Therefore everyone needs “more, more, more and more.” Never enough. Even if we have to enslave each other. Even if we have make wars, and kill each other. It’s never enough. Because we want “more.” But if one actually cultivates love for God in his heart, he feels complete disdain for all these things. He sees everything as a device, as an opportunity to serve the Lord, to express his love for the Lord. for himself, he wants nothing more than to feel the exchange of love between himself and God. “My cup runneth over.” He becomes so happy that he cannot express it. Therefore God also wants our love, because he understands that this the only way in which we can be happy. This is our actually inheritance, our actual wealth. But we have turned our backs on it, in our pursuit of independent pursuit of “more”. He is there for us. We just don’t want to be close to Him. He keeps calling us. But we are not ready to hear. Didn’t Jesus keep saying, “Those who have ears, let them hear.” This is Supreme Patience. He could exterminate us. But he wants us to come home. We are all “prodigal sons”.

    1. Now you are in dangerous territory. If I knew your attitude, I would not have tried to write to you. You have no expression of respect. Without the grace of God, you couldn’t take your next breath. Are you thankful? God is calling you at every moment, at every breath you take, at every bite you put in your mouth. And He is inviting you to come home and live with Him…and you have your judgments against Him. In this way you will never receive answers to your questions. Because the real answer to your questions will only come when you open your heart to God. But you are in judgement. This is an expression of animosity. You are not trying to learn. You are justifying your refusal to open your heart to God. Still He maintains you. Just see your position. You bite the hand that feeds.
      9. A lot of things don’t make sense. The Bible has been translated from one language to the next, from one kingdom to the next. But the basics remain in place. You can mock God if you like. That’s why you are here in the world of birth and death. You will grow old, and weak, and diseased, and will have to leave your body. It will be burned to ashes, or put in the ground to become earth again, or eaten by animals and be excreted as fecal matter. But still you are proud and arrogant. That is your freedom. You have not suffered enough. You are in rehab. But you are not responding yet to the therapy. Therefore more experience is waiting for you.
      No, Eden does not exist on earth. The rejection from the garden is a parable, a metaphor. The real Garden is the spiritual realm. And you and I are here because we made our choice. We wanted to explore, to know what life is like with out God as the center of our lives. And God has given us the choice. And He wants us to come back to Him. But you refuse to hear it. You prefer to mock Him because you find yourself in a miserable condition of existence within the material creation. That is. your freedom. That is your desire to be apart. That is the serpent within your own heart. No one can take that away from you. That is your freedom, your desire to enjoy in a way that creates more suffering for yourself. Yes, there are some who are searching for Eden. But you are not among them. Therefore God will prove you right, so that you can be convinced that Eden doesn’t exist.
12

This is jargon and worthless.

13

Two people can have discussion, without the necessity of being rude or insulting to each other, even if they have different conceptions of why we find ourselves “deported” from the Garden of Eden today. The good aspect of our discussion is that we both believe in God, feel that He is the Supreme Controller of all that be, and that we have the freedom of choice - whether to become servants of God or Mammon. But if we are going to express antagonism, then it is not a discussion but a subtle expression of “The Inquisition” or “The Crusades”, in which everyone who has a different belief has to be killed. Although these things have been done in the name of Jesus, I don’t believe they are actually expressions of Christian values.

1 Like
14

A further thought for the “immutable_catholic”: Immutable means completely unchanging, unalterable, and incapable of change. In biblical and theological terms, immutability is a core attribute of God, meaning His divine essence, character, perfections, and ultimate purposes never alter or decay. It is interesting to note that in the centuries after the appearance of Christ on earth, the Church fathers had several meetings in which they questioned their own immutable metaphysical conceptions of the teachings of Jesus. And as I read online, these changes are still on-going today in the form of the decisions of the Pope. Your zealous embrace of your faith is good, in fact excellent…but perhaps it should be tempered with the flavor of the heart that Jesus wished to share with us.

15

In charity, the (unchanging) Catholic faith is not about respecting persons feelings, its respecting and defending God’s dogmas and Divine Laws as they have been defined once in the Chair of St. Peter.

Matthew 5:37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book 2, Chap. 1: “In the Faith, then, which was delivered by God to the Apostles we admit neither subtraction, nor alteration, nor addition, knowing assuredly that he who presumes to pervert the Divine utterance by dishonest quibbling, the same is of his father the devil, who leaves the words of truth and speaks of his own, becoming the father of a lie. [John 8:44] For whatsoever is said otherwise than in [exact accord] with the truth is assuredly false and not true.”

Pope St. Agatho, III Council of Constantinople, 680-681:

“… how could a knowledge of the Scriptures, in its fullness, be found unless what has been canonically defined by our holy and apostolic predecessors, and by the venerable five councils, we preserve in simplicity of heart, and without any distorting keep the faith come to us from the Fathers, always desirous and endeavoring to possess that one and chiefest good, viz.: that nothing be diminished from the things canonically defined, and that nothing be changed nor added thereto, but that those same things, both in words and sense, be guarded untouched?”

Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council Sess. 3 ch. 4 On Faith and Reason - April 24, 1870

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding: May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos - 1832 A.D.

7. …and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[6] Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings.[7] To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church.”[8]

Pope Pius X The Oath Against Modernism - 1910

3. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

4. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Even St. Paul says that at times, harder words are needed because of things that are not true, regarding the faith of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 3:25 For he that doth wrong, shall receive for that which he hath done wrongfully: and there is no respect of persons with God.

James 2:1, 9 My brethren, (have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ) of glory with respect of persons. …But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.

2 Timothy 4:2-5 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

If a true Catholic were to consider both the respect of the feelings of the person and the Catholic faith, one or the other, must give way and assuredly its the faith that would be compromised in favor of the feelings of the person.

A person who holds and loves the faith should easily be able to take correction humbly without being offended. And even to go so far as to publicly acknowledge it.

And so the definition from the Chair is the interpretation, which means no fallible man, not even a pope can change the dogma that was once defined. This truth is dogmatic.

St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s] determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?.. And why not a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings… what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe.”

16

Peter, please refer to my other post to you on the matter of God’s immutability. God’s Word does not change. When the Creator speaks His Word, the creation, thereafter, does not get the chance to put in his own two cents. All truth and of good is of God, not man.

Its my opinion that God created man on the last day, when everything else was created so that man could not take credit for what God created and what is His.

The Catholic Church is defined by four essential characteristics, known as the Four Marks: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Each mark reflects a fundamental aspect of the Church’s identity and mission.

The visible bond of the unity is the Catholic Faith; the Word of Jesus Christ.

What makes a member of the Catholic Church?

Its maintaining the Catholic faith.

Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council Session 4 Chapter 4.
2. … The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. …

Philippians 3:16 Nevertheless whereunto we are come, that we be of the same mind, let us also continue in the same rule.

James 2:10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.

Hebrew 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please God.

If those claiming to be Catholic but hold something alien to the Catholic faith, ipso facto, they are outside the Catholic Church. No formal declaration is needed.

In charity, I am not here to fight but only inform. The reader must be of good will to see the truth.

17

This is all very good. I believe in my heart that your faith will bring you closer to Jesus and to God.
At the same time, I have read online that there are some 4000 different Christian groups on the planet today. What to speak of the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith, and the Hindus who also have a great many different camps. If among these different religions, someone born into a different culture than ours, prays to God with all of their heart, do you feel conclusively that God will reject them? The symptoms of one who is actually coming closer to God is also described in the Bible. He will love his neighbor as much as he loves himself. He will treat everyone in the way that he would like to be treated. Does this only apply to how a Catholic should deal with other Catholics? Does it mean that others who worship God in a different manner, under a different banner should be burned at the stake by Catholics who are in good standing? How do we reconcile the atrocities of the Catholic Church with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible? Do you think that Jesus would burn people alive if they called God Allah rather than Jehovah?
I acknowledge the fact that this is a Catholic web site, and you are putting forward Catholic teachings. And that is good. I can only think that God loves you for taking this stand on His behalf.

In any case, I very much respect your studious nature.

18

Do you know any man who has not looked at a beautiful woman in the supermarket and had a feeling of attraction move through his heart? I am not talking about acting on it. I am simply talking about feeling a subtle sense of lust within his heart. Does this mean that such person is damned? Are there Catholics in the armed forces that Trump sends to kill the citizens in Iran by dropping bombs on them, citizens who simply want to feed their families. Are these Catholics who "offend in one point"?
Trump government sends billions of dollars to support the genocide that is being done against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. About 50,000 Palestinians, including women and children have been killed in this way so far. Are there Catholics in the government of U.S.? Do they speak out against these ghastly activities? Does the Catholic Church speak out in this way? Does the Pope tell all Catholics to march on the U.S. government singing prayers, asking Trump to stop supporting the murder of these women and children? Or do Catholics turn their backs on the ways and procedures of the world, and simply believe that by keeping the faith, this is all that matters? These are serious questions. Do you know one Catholic who “loves the Lord thy God, with all of his heart, all of his mind, and all of his strength?” This means never having a thought about one’s own desires, one’s own pleasures - but only thinking with every thought, word and deed if it will be pleasing to God. Do you know anyone who lives in this way, or has the ability to live in this way? I respect the scriptures that you quote, but I don’t know anyone who can live in that way - do you?

19

I ask you to forgive me. I feel that your faith in Jesus and in the teachings of the Catholic Church is wonderful. It is good. It is clean. Without faith, this world is a meaningless search for happiness in all the wrong places. This is a Catholic web site, a place for Catholics to encourage each other, to discuss things from a Catholic point of view. And this is what you are doing. I respect you and the position you are taking. Sincerely, Peter