Theory: Adam and Eve

[FlyLikeABird]

I have a theory/thought/idea about Adam and Eve. Feel free to comment/correct, etc.

I was listening to Open Line on EWTN (a re-run) and was thinking about the question that was asked. The quetion was "Are we better off or worse off than if Adam and Eve had not failed?" The answer Colin gave was basically yes we are better off because we pray "Oh happy fault that gave us such a Redemer" at Easter time in reference to the Fall.

My theory/thought/idea. Yes we are better off. Why? Because if Adam and Eve had NOT fallen they would not have been sent out to "Be fruitful and multiply". You see sexual activity is not mentioned until after the fall and only after the fall were Adam and Eve slated to die (Ashes to Ashes... etc.) and so had to propagate the human race.

Ergo if Adam and Eve had not sinned we would not be alive, only Adam and Eve would be alive.

[White Knight]

Adam and Eve were given the preivlege to be fruitful and produce offsrping even before the fall, it says this before Genesis chapter 3, Genesis Chapter 3 toward the end is where they are driven out, and I think God mentioned the 3 Blessings that he poured out on the World to Adam.

[Apotheoun]

White Knight is correct, and so it is a matter of interpretation, because the command to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) is given in the first narrative of creation, while the ancestral sin is described in the second narrative (Genesis 3). Thus, it depends upon how you interpret the two narratives.

[FlyLikeABird]

I guess that can be true too, one can construe that the specifics of God's punishment implies that they would have been capable of procreation before the fall and that the fall only added the pain! (Only, who am I kidding ONLY)

[White Knight]

Well the question is everyones mind those who believe in the Creation Story as litteral fact, as I do, and many others.


How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden for before the fall.


Thats another big question.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='FlyLikeABird' date='Sep 5 2005, 05:24 AM']Because if Adam and Eve had NOT fallen they would not have been sent out to "Be fruitful and multiply". You see sexual activity is not mentioned until after the fall and only after the fall were Adam and Eve slated to die (Ashes to Ashes... etc.) and so had to propagate the human race.
[/quote]
There are Fathers of the Church who would share this view. But Augustine would ironically challenge this interpretation and say that sexual union and procreation were in fact a part of God's plan before the fall. There may be a creeping Gnosticism or Manichaeism in the other interpretation. To say sex was not intended apart from sin is to suggest that sex is somehow corrupt or evil. Augustine rejects this idea believe it or not. He is often accused of the opposite, but I've studied the matter and this is simply not true. He stands out among the Fathers in defending the goodness of sexuality and the body. His ideas regarding concupiscence are often the source of accusations that he was tainted by Manichaeism. Oh, also his views on the transmission of original sin. But I would say that Augustine's thought is complex and must be understood holistically or else it is possible to come to such conclusions. Just like Calvinists conclude that Augustine taught Calvinism. But this is also totally false.

Anyway, I would say that the position that makes the most sense in light of the Church's teachings on sexuality is that of Augustine (not in every detail, but the jist of it), that sexual union was a part of God's plan from the beginning.
Pope Pius IX (maybe it was XI), says that God instituted marriage in the very act of creating man as male and female, and that marriage is part of the natural law in that it is stamped into our very being. The ends of marriage are two-fold, unity and procreation. This is official teaching of the Church therefore I'd say the other interpretation of Genesis (the one you propose) is highly problematic.