Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Maria Regina on December 18, 2018, 12:23:40 PM

Title: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Maria Regina on December 18, 2018, 12:23:40 PM
Quote
Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Ladislaus/)

I actually wonder sometimes what would have happened if Eve had given in but then Adam didn't follow suit.  Interesting exercise in speculative theology there.  Would God have made Adam another companion?  Or, alternatively, would their offspring have Original Sin transmitted through Eve alone had Adam not fallen?
Do the Church Fathers address this topic? Did St. Thomas Aquinas?

My opinion is expressed below,  so notice the use of modal verbs and the hypothetical "if".

If Adam had refused Eve's request to taste of the forbidden fruit, then Adam, as head of the First Family, could have prayerfully led Eve to repentance as acts of repentance and forgiveness are graces from God.  Then Adam would have fulfilled his role as Priest, Prophet, and King. When the two met Christ on their daily walks in Eden, then Adam could have begged Christ to forgive Eve, and things could have been restored.

But would that initial rebellious sin of Eve have left a weakness that could have been passed onto their offspring? Would Christ as Savior and Redeemer still need to be born to redeem us?

We must also ask: Why was Christ our eternal King and God known as the Incarnate God? He created the world, and appeared as the Incarnate God in His daily walks in the Garden of Eden even before His Incarnation as a New Born Child.

"O Happy Fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"

Even St. David the Psalmist begged forgiveness and was forgiven long before the birth of Christ. Psalm 50 is a product of that repentance.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2018, 12:29:37 PM
Of course Eve could have been forgiven, but I don't believe she would have been restored to a state of Original Justice.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 18, 2018, 12:32:37 PM


I’ve always wondered the same thing. 

But would God still punish Adam for not guarding Eve better? 

I always thought it could go one of two ways. The first one you brought up. That Adam scolds Eve, and tells her to beg God for forgiveness. Or that God wipes Eve out to make a better model. I do think it would still pass on to offspring because it couldn’t have gone entirely unpunished. 

 to be honest it’s nice to think if Adam hadn’t eaten the apple our Loving Savior wouldn’t have had to endure what He did for us.  
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2018, 12:35:50 PM
My guess is that God would not have wiped out Eve but that He would have created another helper for Adam.  He would not punish Adam and his offspring on account of Eve's sin.  IMO.  Eve would have been kicked out of the Garden, while Adam stayed.  Unless Adam chose to go with her out of love and compassion.  I would imagine that God would have given him a choice.  Stay here in the Garden, and I'll make you another helpmate, in which case your offspring will be as planned ... or else go with Eve, and your offspring will be born into Original Sin.

Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2018, 12:41:04 PM
Cant say for sure but most theologians say Eve’s sin alone wouldn’t have transmitted Original Sin.  

Also, the Old Testament talks about “sins of the father” being passed down through the ages, not the sins of the Mother. 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 18, 2018, 12:44:45 PM
It wasn’t just her sin that brought our Lord to such suffering. Both of their sins combined did. I feel as if God would have had to punish them together because they were “married”. But again, there are multiple outcomes.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
Exactly.  It was Adam's sin that caused Christ to have to redeem the human race.  Eve's sin was her own, but spiritually, the mother does not affect the children to the same degree as the father (i.e. Adam) because the husband is the head of the family, so his sin is greater and has more consequences.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2018, 12:55:47 PM
Another interesting aspect of the question is:  would Adam have been held accountable for the sin of Eve because he was her head, or was that relationship due to the post-Fall subjection of woman to man?
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2018, 12:56:23 PM
Asking questions like this might seem silly, but it helps to elucidate the principles behind what actually happened:  about the nature of Original Sin, about its transmission, about the relationship between husband/wife before the Fall and after the Fall, etc.  One poster here said they were married.  Were they?

Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: klasG4e on December 18, 2018, 01:05:43 PM
Another interesting aspect of the question is:  would Adam have been held accountable for the sin of Eve because he was her head, or was that relationship due to the post-Fall subjection of woman to man?
I once heard it said that Adam committed the first sin in falling asleep at the switch so to speak -- in negligently letting the snake get into the Garden in the first place!
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Likewise, [St Augustine] notes that death reigned even over those "who had not yet sinned of their own individual will, as Adam did, but had drawn from him original sin...because in him [Adam] was constituted the form of condemnation to his future progeny'' (Ibid. I.13; Fathers of the Church).

St Thomas writes that, "Wherefore, original justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent; as human nature was stricken in the soul...also it became subject to corruption'' (Ibid. IaIIae.85.5; New Advent).  Through removal of original justice, "the sin our our first parent is the cause of death and all such like defects in human nature'' (Ibid.; New Advent). 

St Thomas continues, distinguishing between Adam's willful 1st sin and the effects of Original Sin of the rest of the human race, who are not guilty of Original Sin through their bad will but through nature.  ...Though original sin is a sin of the will of Adam, it is not a sin of his descendants "except inasmuch as this person [his descendant] receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the `sin of nature'' (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent

First parent = Adam

Is not Christ, then, subject to Original Sin because He is an offspring of Adam?

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, finds that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his conception, would not be subject to original sin. Aquinas found that original sin passed to men since they were "one body'' with Adam (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent). But Christ was not part of this body. As Aquinas notes, original sin is only contracted by those "who are descended from him [Adam] through seminal power'' (Ibid. IaIIae81.4; New Advent).

In other words, only those properly of the seed of Adam would be subject of original sin. Thus Aquinas concludes that ,''If anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently, he would not contract original sin'' (Ibid.; New Advent). Thus, Aquinas finds that Jesus Christ would have no need to cleanse his body of original sin, since his conception, by its independence from carnal generation, would have been without sin.

http://www.memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html (http://www.memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html)
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2018, 01:58:36 PM
I once heard it said that Adam committed the first sin in falling asleep at the switch so to speak -- in negligently letting the snake get into the Garden in the first place!

Interesting.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2018, 01:59:50 PM
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, finds that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his conception, would not be subject to original sin. Aquinas found that original sin passed to men since they were "one body'' with Adam (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent). But Christ was not part of this body. As Aquinas notes, original sin is only contracted by those "who are descended from him [Adam] through seminal power'' (Ibid. IaIIae81.4; New Advent).


Interestingly, this makes it sound almost as if Original Sin is transmitted genetically.  So that's another question.  Is it transmitted physically or spiritually ... or through some combination of the two?
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2018, 02:12:14 PM
Yes, it sounds like it is transmitted by a combination of both.  1) physically, since all men are descendents of Adam, genetically (except Christ, whose Father was the Holy Ghost).  2) spiritually, since all men's parents had original sin (except Christ, since Our Lady was spotless and the Holy Ghost is God).  So Christ is free on both accounts.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2018, 02:20:49 PM
Quote
I once heard it said that Adam committed the first sin in falling asleep at the switch so to speak -- in negligently letting the snake get into the Garden in the first place!
I see what you're saying but I disagree.  St Augustine says that both Adam and Eve committed Original Sin before eating the apple because sin is committed first in the will.  He said that their desire for knowledge was a sin against pride first, then they sinned in action as a result of the loss of grace.

Since Eve sinned through her will and desire for knowledge, which are internal sins, it could be argued that such a sin could've taken place with or without the presence of the serpent.  So even if Adam had protected the garden from all external forces, the temptation to pride (which is the sin of the angels and arguably, the ONLY sin that Adam and Eve were capable of, since their reason, intellect and human nature had no disorders) would've always been an internal struggle.  In other words, God would've tested them in some other way, since Adam/Eve had to be tested just as the angels were.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 18, 2018, 04:36:34 PM
The fall of man still happened because Eve sinned first. We all inherit original sin and die because of her.

Quote
From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 18, 2018, 04:49:41 PM
If it was genetically/spiritually passed on wouldn’t that make baptism obsolete? Just asking for clarification!

Or would the genetic part be our desire to continue to do our own will not God’s? 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 18, 2018, 04:57:44 PM
If it was genetically/spiritually passed on wouldn’t that make baptism obsolete? Just asking for clarification!

Water baptism erases the guilt of original sin and regenerates the soul for the other requirements for salvation: Faith and works in Jesus Christ at the age of reason; and, essentially, Faith in, and practice of, what's contained in the Athanasian Creed.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 18, 2018, 05:03:04 PM
Water baptism erases the guilt of original sin and regenerates the soul for the other requirements for salvation: Faith and works in Jesus Christ at the age of reason; and, essentially, Faith in, and practice of, what's contained in the Athanasian Creed.
I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics. 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 18, 2018, 05:05:31 PM
I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics.

You obviously don't understand baptism, for if you did, you wouldn't ask the question in the first place, and then follow it up with another spin.

The question is answered, but you refuse to hear it. The dense cranium of a modern woman.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 18, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
You obviously don't understand baptism, for if you did, you wouldn't ask the question in the first place, and then follow it up with another spin.

The question is answered, but you refuse to hear it. The dense cranium of a modern woman.
You can wash it away SPIRITUALLY
But you can’t wash away genetics. 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 18, 2018, 05:14:30 PM
You can wash it away SPIRITUALLY
But you can’t wash away genetics.

Water baptism erases the guilt of original sin, but everyone, except the Christ and His Blessed Mother (both of Whom are conceived Immaculately, hence, no original sin), inherits the physical effects of original sin. Not only humans, but animals and the rest of nature.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Endeavor on December 18, 2018, 06:13:41 PM
Concupiscence remains as a lingering effect after baptism.

Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 18, 2018, 06:30:56 PM
Concupiscence remains as a lingering effect after baptism.
I remember that from Religious class. So, I wonder if we have to fight our genetics to stay true to Gods will.  

If original sin is genetic as well as spiritual.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 18, 2018, 06:39:26 PM
I remember that from Religious class. So, I wonder if we have to fight our genetics to stay true to Gods will. 

If original sin is genetic as well as spiritual.

We're all wounded physically, mentally and spiritually because of original sin, but the soul is freed of its guilt upon water baptism.

But Blessed Mary and the *human nature* of Jesus Christ still experienced temptations and they had free will, just as Adam and Eve when they were first created without the stain of sin. As we know, Mary and the Christ chose God over temptation every time, but Eve, and subsequently, Adam, chose sin over God.

* * Jesus Christ is a Divine Being with two natures: Divine and human
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Endeavor on December 18, 2018, 07:03:20 PM
It is not genetic.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Student of Qi on December 19, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
Do the Church Fathers address this topic? Did St. Thomas Aquinas?

My opinion is expressed below,  so notice the use of modal verbs and the hypothetical "if".

If Adam had refused Eve's request to taste of the forbidden fruit, then Adam, as head of the First Family, could have prayerfully led Eve to repentance as acts of repentance and forgiveness are graces from God.  Then Adam would have fulfilled his role as Priest, Prophet, and King. When the two met Christ on their daily walks in Eden, then Adam could have begged Christ to forgive Eve, and things could have been restored.

But would that initial rebellious sin of Eve have left a weakness that could have been passed onto their offspring? Would Christ as Savior and Redeemer still need to be born to redeem us?

We must also ask: Why was Christ our eternal King and God known as the Incarnate God? He created the world, and appeared as the Incarnate God in His daily walks in the Garden of Eden even before His Incarnation as a New Born Child.

"O Happy Fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"

Even St. David the Psalmist begged forgiveness and was forgiven long before the birth of Christ. Psalm 50 is a product of that repentance.
Growing up I've always been told that if Eve alone sinned, mankind as a whole would not have fallen. Though we are and must be born from a woman, it is the man who transmits Original Sin to his children, not the woman, because the man is responsible for deciding the course the family is to take.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 19, 2018, 03:13:50 PM
Growing up I've always been told that if Eve alone sinned, mankind as a whole would not have fallen.

You were told wrong.

"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2018, 03:24:56 PM
Quote
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
This is talking about the current reality of things.

Quote
Growing up I've always been told that if Eve alone sinned, mankind as a whole would not have fallen.
This is talking about the "what if" scenario.
She's not wrong.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 19, 2018, 03:35:02 PM
This is talking about the current reality of things.
This is talking about the "what if" scenario.
She's not wrong.

She is wrong because all of mankind (did) still would have fallen. Her fall might have transcended over to Adam, thus making him more susceptible to her corrupting him, subsequently, his eating of the apple.

All of nature fell because of Eve.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2018, 03:47:34 PM
Many theologians would disagree with you.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Cera on December 19, 2018, 04:06:58 PM
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.

Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

 I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.

I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).

Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.

Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 19, 2018, 04:11:12 PM
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.

Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

 I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.

I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).

Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.

Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.
But Cera, Adam was seduced by Eve! 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 19, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
Many theologians would disagree with you.

The Protties and Novus Ordoites, if they can be considered "theologians" and not narrators of the falsehood.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 19, 2018, 04:19:23 PM
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.

Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

 I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.

I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).

Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.

Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.

Your exegesis is wrong, woman.

1 Cor. 15: 21-22 means the first person to die is Adam, a man, but the person responsible for his death (and the death of all mankind) is Eve as told in Ecclesiasticus 25:33

Eve sinned first and corrupted Adam to sin, but Adam was the first person to die, just as men, today, generally have shorter life spans due to bearing more physical labors (one of the consequences of original sin) than women (they have their own consequences intrinsic to them).

Your citing of Genesis 3 and Hebrews 8 is mere padding, and it's absolutely void of supporting your argument that "man (Adam) is the cause of original sin and the fall of nature".

You lose, again, woman.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Student of Qi on December 19, 2018, 04:30:38 PM
She is wrong because all of mankind (did) still would have fallen. Her fall might have transcended over to Adam, thus making him more susceptible to her corrupting him, subsequently, his eating of the apple.

All of nature fell because of Eve.
Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede. With this in mind, I would mention that clerics teach the way I mentioned above. A particular Risistance bishop I have heard say it more than once with my own ears. And considering he was SSPX trained and insists he has changed nothing from the way he was taught and formed, we can conclude the SSPX and resulting Resistance clerics hold this position/opinion.

Many theologians would disagree with you.

That's what I would be inclined to think as well. I have never heard a cleric suggest God would obliterate Eve, as Ladislaus suggested as a possibility, or any other conclusion of what might've happened. In general, this thread is the first time I've actually seen anyone bring up different ideas to this subject. It seems Universal to me so far that Adam would help Eve do penance/contrition and make some form of reparation, but the human race as a whole would not have fallen. That's the position I currently hold on the matter as well. 

Frankly, while it is interesting to speculate on, what good does it benefit us to think of the "what ifs" on this subject? We cant change our current reality by the speculation, and we may simply be wasting time on it. Please explain to me if one thinks otherwise.


P.s. I'm not certain if yall were referring to me as "she", but just to be clear, this poster is a "he". 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 19, 2018, 04:34:45 PM
Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede. With this in mind, I would mention that clerics teach the way I mentioned above. A particular Risistance bishop I have heard say it more than once with my own ears. And considering he was SSPX trained and insists he has changed nothing from the way he was taught and formed, we can conclude the SSPX and resulting Resistance clerics hold this position/opinion.

According to you. Even if your anecdote is real, that doesn't mean that bishop is correct. What's his position on EENS? There is quite a bit of division between trad Catholic bishops and priests on that subject, too.

The founder (I love him and still think he was blessed, despite his following mistakes) of SSPX erred in teaching non-Catholics can make it to Heaven and there should be no urgency to water baptize a person seeking to enter the Church. He was wrong, and your bishop is wrong about who caused original sin and his hypothesis that mankind would not have fallen, if Eve had only sinned.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2018, 04:36:39 PM
I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics.

Only its transmission has a genetic component, but there's no Original Sin gene per se.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2018, 04:39:13 PM
It is not genetic.

St. Thomas suggests that there's a genetic component to its transmission (in the quote posted earlier).
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 19, 2018, 04:55:57 PM
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.

Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

 I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.

I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).

Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.

Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.

Your exegesis is wrong, woman.

1 Cor. 15: 21-22 means the first person to die is Adam, a man, but the person responsible for his death (and the death of all mankind) is Eve as told in Ecclesiasticus 25:33

Eve sinned first and corrupted Adam to sin, but Adam was the first person to die, just as men, today, generally have shorter life spans due to bearing more physical labors (one of the consequences of original sin intrinsic to men) than women (they have their own consequences intrinsic to them).

Your citing of Genesis 3 and Hebrews 8 is mere padding, and it's absolutely void of supporting your argument that "man (Adam) is the cause of original sin and the fall of nature".

You lose, again, woman.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2018, 08:00:00 PM
Both St Thomas and St Augustine (and who knows how many other saints) say that Original Sin is due to ADAM’S sin alone.  Don’t ignore them in your quest to correct women.  
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 02:19:36 AM
Both St Thomas and St Augustine (and who knows how many other saints) say that Original Sin is due to ADAM’S sin alone.

Who made what they say dogmatic truth? St. Thomas taught against the Immaculate Conception, but he was obviously wrong there.

Adam is blamed insofar that he allowed Eve to be navigated by her own faculties as she was left alone, rather than leading her, thus she first sinned by trusting in Satan (the Serpent) over God, because she wanted to be like God with knowledge. Adam is, also, blamed because he's the human father of humanity. Eve was created from Adam's rib by God, therefore, Adam had authority over her, and he was, ultimately, responsible for her actions. However, Eve was the first sinner because her action met all conditions required for sin. All of nature fell because of her, and this fall transcended to Adam, thus making him more susceptible to being corrupted by her in the Garden. Ecclesiasticus tells us that the beginning of sin came from Eve, and we all die because of her. Again, the reason is because Eve was the first person to meet all conditions of sin: 1) Its subject matter must be grave. 2) It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense. 3) It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

Adam's lapse in leadership didn't meet all conditions required of sin, but he, ultimately, gets the blame by some Church doctors because he's the human father of humanity and he had authority over Eve. Of course, Adam had to, also, sin, which he did by eating of the apple, but it was Eve who sinned first and seduced Adam to eat of it.

The fall of nature and death transcended through Eve to Adam.

The salvation of man transcended through Blessed Mary to Jesus Christ.

Eve chose to sin, and Adam followed her example rather than remaining a humble creature before God and trusting in Him.

Blessed Mary chose to reject sin which allowed herself to continue to be an immaculate vessel for the Creator of Life - the Logos - Whose human nature, subsequently, chose to reject sin and fulfill the Divine plan of His holy sacrifice so we might have eternal life.

In short, if Eve hadn't sinned first, Adam wouldn't have sinned and there would be no fall of nature. If the Immaculate Conception hadn't chosen to reject sin in her life, and had she rejected the Lord's plan for her to be a vessel for Our Redeemer, the Word would not have become flesh and dwelt among us, and we would have no salvation.

Quote
Don’t ignore them in your quest to correct women.

#soy
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Nadir on December 20, 2018, 02:47:30 AM
Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede. 
This is not necessarily so. I've been posting here for over 6 years and I am committed to none of the above. The only requirement, as I understand it, is that a poster be Catholic or sincerely enquiring into the Faith.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2018, 08:07:37 AM
Quid,
You continue to explain what happened in real life, which is not what we're talking about.  We're talking about a "what-if" scenario, which is completely different from our current reality, and which you apparently are unable to comprehend, so you should just stop trying.

p.s. If you go around correcting random women you're not being a man, you're acting like an nosy, gossiping old-lady.  You have no authority over anyone on this site or anyone you meet randomly, so your zeal for true catholic leadership and the proper hierarchy of authority in the family is grossly misplaced when you act to correct those who are your equals, which 99% of the population are, since you're not their superior.  At best, you can offer fraternal correction and pray they listen, but your abrasive manner impedes any truth you try to convey.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 20, 2018, 08:12:47 AM
Adam sinned of his own free will. Eve didn’t ram the apple down his throat, and even if she’s did forcing him wouldn’t have been his sin either. Adam sinned of his own free will.


If my husband wants to do something sinful (steal a car, commit insurance fraud, tax fraud, receive communion in a sacrilegious state, etc) but I don’t, and I do everything I can to stop it, and bring justice to the situation. He’s guilty, I’m not. I didn’t commit the sin, but he did. Adam commuted hisnown sin, but not because of Eve. He was weak in that moment, but that’s on him. He hid from God too.


We are talking about what would have happened if he didn’t sin. Yes, history is set, but we are just wondering/asking questions.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 20, 2018, 09:22:45 AM
#soy

:facepalm:
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: AlbertP on December 20, 2018, 09:57:07 AM
Eve was the first sinner because her action met all conditions required for sin. All of nature fell because of her...
If Adam had not sinned, Original Sin would not have been passed on to their offspring because of the sin of Eve.  As the Apostles says, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”
 
Commentary found in the Douay Rheims Bible:  "‘By one man’: Adam, from whom we all contracted original sin”
 
The Decrees on Original Sin from the Council of Trent
 
1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.

2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,[7] and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
 ‘By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned’.[8]


3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, is transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11]

Whence that declaration: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;’[12] and that other: ‘As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.’[13]

4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.”
 
It is a dogma of faith that Original Sin was passed on by the sin of Adam, not Eve.  If Eve had sinned, but Adam did not, Original Sin would not have been passed on.  
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 20, 2018, 11:33:17 AM
If Adam had not sinned, Original Sin would not have been passed on to their offspring because of the sin of Eve.  As the Apostles says, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”

That doesn't necessarily follow from your citations.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 11:36:04 AM
Quid,
You continue to explain what happened in real life, which is not what we're talking about.  We're talking about a "what-if" scenario,...

Your hypothesis for the "what-if" scenario is wrong, too. You have nothing but conjecture to try to "back up" what you claim. Stop wasting time on "what-if" scenarios. Time is short.


Quote
p.s. If you go around correcting random women you're not being a man,...

#gynecomastia
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 11:43:15 AM
If Adam had not sinned, Original Sin would not have been passed on to their offspring because of the sin of Eve.  As the Apostles says, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all

"Man" in that context, means "man" and/or "woman", just as that was the traditional meaning since the dawn of language until feminists and Jєωs tried to recreate language. It doesn't mean man per se.

Everything else you said is wrong, too, as it's built off this false premise.

Ecclesiasticus is CANON. It tells us woman (Eve) was the first person to sin, and by HER we all DIE.

Lay off the soy.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2018, 12:28:11 PM
Quote
Your hypothesis for the "what-if" scenario is wrong, too. You have nothing but conjecture to try to "back up" what you claim. Stop wasting time on "what-if" scenarios. Time is short.
It's called "theological speculation", something you have no capacity for.


Quote
Time is short.
Ha ha.  This advice is coming from a supposed-male yenta who spends countless hours on this site (and probably other sites too) arguing with women he doesn't even know.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 20, 2018, 12:40:21 PM
Yes, theologians engage in speculative theology all the time ... in order to help clarify and illustrate principles.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 01:01:10 PM
Yes, theologians engage in speculative theology all the time ... in order to help clarify and illustrate principles.

That's not the same as speculating on a "If Adam had not sinned..." scenario. He did sin, therefore, any speculation needs to follow from that fact.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 01:02:02 PM
It's called "theological speculation", something you have no capacity for.

Yeah, a waste of time when you can be spending it on applying the already revealed truths to man.

Quote
Ha ha.  This advice is coming from a supposed-male yenta who spends countless hours on this site (and probably other sites too) arguing with women he doesn't even know.

Speaking truth is not a waste of time.

Ecclesiasticus is canon. It's truth. Quit speculating on things that don't even matter, but are designed to continue the false notion of some intrinsic female innocence.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 01:33:20 PM
This OP, and many commenting on this thread, commit Begging The Question fallacy.

It ignores the fact that Adam would NOT have sinned, if Eve had not sinned first, weakened his nature and corrupted him to sin. 

Your fallacy is Eve remained without stain of sin, despite the fact she was the first person to disobey God and trust Satan.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2018, 01:36:13 PM
Hey Quid,
The title of this thread started off with the 2 words "What if...".  Maybe if you had better reading comprehension skills, you could've avoided this "waste of time" and leave those of us alone who wish to discuss it. 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 01:38:20 PM
Hey Quid,
The title of this thread started off with the 2 words "What if...".  Maybe if you had better reading comprehension skills, you could've avoided this "waste of time" and leave those of us alone who wish to discuss it.

You're the one who lacks reading comprehension of logical fallacies.

That "what if..." is the mechanism of the Begging The Question fallacy, and its basis is the false notion that Eve remained without stain of sin.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 20, 2018, 01:39:52 PM
This OP, and many commenting on this thread, commit Begging The Question fallacy.

It ignores the fact that Adam would NOT have sinned, if Eve had not sinned first, weakened his nature and corrupted him to sin.  

Your fallacy is Eve remained without stain of sin, despite the fact she was the first person to disobey God and trust Satan.
Adam corrupted his own nature. He could have thrown the apple away, and Talked To God right away. You can’t blame just the woman for a sin you joined in on. Both of them sinned. Both of them damned us to original sin. But Adam didn’t have to go with it.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 01:48:09 PM
Adam corrupted his own nature. He could have thrown the apple away, and Talked To God right away. You can’t blame just the woman for a sin you joined in on. Both of them sinned. Both of them damned us to original sin. But Adam didn’t have to go with it.

Adam is guilty of choosing to sin, but Eve sinned first, thereby, corrupting his and all of nature. She further seduced him, directly, by convincing him to eat of the apple. He still had free will and chose to sin against God by disobeying Him and following the example Eve.

Adam gets the blame because he had authority over Eve, for she was created from his rib by God. He was, ultimately, responsible for the fall because he lapsed in leadership, which allowed Eve to be navigated by her own faculties and trust in Satan, but Eve was the first person to meet all conditions required to sin, thus, she was the mechanism for the fall of man and nature.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 20, 2018, 02:04:22 PM
and Cera made one of the biggest fallacies I've seen on this forum. She cites two Biblical passages, which have absolutely no relevance to original sin, that show the New fulfilling the Old, then she erroneously proceeds to use that as a parallel to God somehow abrogating the truth (Ecclesiasticus 25:33) of the Old Testament with the New Testament. Truth can't be revoked, because God is Truth, and He doesn't change. He is the same in the New Testament as in the Old Testament.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 20, 2018, 04:40:30 PM
Adam is guilty of choosing to sin, but Eve sinned first, thereby, corrupting his and all of nature. She further seduced him, directly, by convincing him to eat of the apple. He still had free will and chose to sin against God by disobeying Him and following the example Eve.

Adam gets the blame because he had authority over Eve, for she was created from his rib by God. He was, ultimately, responsible for the fall because he lapsed in leadership, which allowed Eve to be navigated by her own faculties and trust in Satan, but Eve was the first person to meet all conditions required to sin, thus, she was the mechanism for the fall of man and nature.
.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite.  In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending). 
.
I think you have some issues to sort through. 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Cera on December 20, 2018, 06:15:29 PM
Yeah, a waste of time when you can be spending it on applying the already revealed truths to man.

Speaking truth is not a waste of time.

Ecclesiasticus is canon. It's truth. Quit speculating on things that don't even matter, but are designed to continue the false notion of some intrinsic female innocence.
Who said anything about intrinsic female innocence? Eve sinned and the fall did not occur because she was not the head of the family. When the head of the family sinned, the fall resulted from the person with authority. Therefore "As in Adam all sinned. . ."
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Cera on December 20, 2018, 06:18:47 PM
and Cera made one of the biggest fallacies I've seen on this forum. She cites two Biblical passages, which have absolutely no relevance to original sin, that show the New fulfilling the Old, then she erroneously proceeds to use that as a parallel to God somehow abrogating the truth (Ecclesiasticus 25:33) of the Old Testament with the New Testament. Truth can't be revoked, because God is Truth, and He doesn't change. He is the same in the New Testament as in the Old Testament.
The whole point of my post was that the New Testament completes and fulfills the Old Testament. Did you fail to comprehend the words in the scripture passages?
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 20, 2018, 06:49:57 PM
.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite.  In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending).  
.
I think you have some issues to sort through.

That irony was not lost on me either.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: trad123 on December 20, 2018, 09:48:22 PM
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

St. Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I)

Quote
21.

(. . .)

As a consequence, then, of this disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration — not only that he may reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the damnation of sin. Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born again in baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of the second Adam; even as it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die. Sirach 25:24 Now whether it be said of the woman or of Adam, both statements pertain to the first man; since (as we know) the woman is of the man, and the two are one flesh. Whence also it is written: And they two shall be one flesh; wherefore, the Lord says, they are no more two, but one flesh. Matthew 19:5-6
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: trad123 on December 20, 2018, 09:51:12 PM
From the same book:


Quote
Chapter 2 [II.]— If Adam Had Not Sinned, He Would Never Have Died.

They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: "On the day you eat thereof you shall surely die," Genesis 2:17 not to the death of the body, but to that death of the soul which takes place in sin. It is the unbelievers who have died this death, to whom the Lord pointed when He said, "Let the dead bury their dead." Now what will be their answer, when we read that God, when reproving and sentencing the first man after his sin, said to him, "Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return?" Genesis 3:19 For it was not in respect of his soul that he was "dust," but clearly by reason of his body, and it was by the death of the self-same body that he was destined to "return to dust." Still, although it was by reason of his body that he was dust, and although he bare about the natural body in which he was created, he would, if he had not sinned, have been changed into a spiritual body, and would have passed into the incorruptible state, which is promised to the faithful and the saints, without the peril of death. 1 Corinthians 15:52-53 And for this issue we not only are conscious in ourselves of having an earnest desire, but we learn it from the apostle's intimation, when he says: "For in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life." 2 Corinthians 5:2-4 Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption, that "mortality might have been swallowed up of life;" that is, that he might have passed from the natural body into the spiritual body.

Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 21, 2018, 03:15:03 AM
Who said anything about intrinsic female innocence? Eve sinned and the fall did not occur because she was not the head of the family. When the head of the family sinned, the fall resulted from the person with authority. Therefore "As in Adam all sinned. . ."

That contradicts Biblical canon of Ecclesiasticus 25:33, "From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die."
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 21, 2018, 03:16:17 AM
The whole point of my post was that the New Testament completes and fulfills the Old Testament. Did you fail to comprehend the words in the scripture passages?

Reiteration due to your cranial density:

and Cera made one of the biggest fallacies I've seen on this forum. She cites two Biblical passages, which have absolutely no relevance to original sin, that show the New fulfilling the Old, then she erroneously proceeds to use that as a parallel to God somehow abrogating the truth (Ecclesiasticus 25:33) of the Old Testament with the New Testament. Truth can't be revoked, because God is Truth, and He doesn't change. He is the same in the New Testament as in the Old Testament.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 21, 2018, 03:23:22 AM
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

St. Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I)

St. Augustine's opinion is just that - an opinion, and not dogmatic truth.

None of what you cited negates the fact that Eve sinned first, and Adam would not have sinned, if she hadn't first sinned and corrupted him. Because Eve sinned first, nature fell and we all die. However, it is true that if Adam hadn't sinned, he wouldn't have died because there would be no stain of sin on his soul, despite his nature being weakened with the rest of the fall of nature due to Eve's sin.

#CantSeeTheForestForTheTrees
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 21, 2018, 03:26:16 AM
.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite.  In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending). 
.
I think you have some issues to sort through.

Strawman argument.

#gynecomastia
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
#gynecomastia

Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2018, 11:34:46 AM
Indeed, Eve was the initial cause of the Fall, but many Catholic sources say that humanity sinned in Adam.  That's because he is the head and only in him can all of humanity be said to have been virtually contained.  Your argument actually undermines this headship of Adam.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2018, 11:38:49 AM
In your zeal to blame woman, you're actually undermining man.  If he has the final authority and status of head, so then also he has primary responsibility for the Fall of humanity ... even if that Fall was occasioned instrumentally by Eve.  Eve was merely the instrumental cause of humanity's Fall, with Adam being the formal cause.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2018, 11:42:29 AM
But you're still not addressing the central question.  Had Adam not fallen, but only Eve, would their offspring, had Adam chosen to procreate with her, have contracted Original Sin?
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: 1st Mansion Tenant on December 21, 2018, 12:39:58 PM
Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?
:laugh1:
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Vintagewife3 on December 21, 2018, 01:51:09 PM
Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?
Ive heard soy is a real issue too.......  ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: JezusDeKoning on December 21, 2018, 02:03:41 PM
He could be making cogent arguments, but he ruins them through random ad hominems.
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 21, 2018, 03:48:00 PM
Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?

Negatory. I've never used steroids in my life which was a little bit of a surprise to some people in the gym back in my hardcore weightlifting days. I hypertrophy* easily while maintaining low body fat. I was never a massive guy, and getting huge was never my intention, rather, I only wanted to build as much lean muscle and strength within my natural abilities. I had much success in that area. Pound for pound, nobody was stronger than me.

Nowadays, and for a long time, I'm engaged in aerobic activities such as long distance running and cycling. I'm not into the anaerobic nearly as much as I was a long time ago. 

* When I was young and first involved in weightlifting, I had a relatively hard time building muscle for about the first year, but I stuck with it and remained consistent. Now, because of my huge base (time, repetition & quality) spent in weightlifting of yore, it's now easy for me to hypertrophy because of muscle memory, if I engage in the anaerobic.  It's an incredible dynamic.

Thanks for the inquiry.

#DontBeSoy

#SugarIsAnEssentialNutrient
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: JezusDeKoning on December 21, 2018, 03:58:16 PM
Does eating white rice also cure diabetes, Croix? 
Title: Re: What if Adam had refused to taste the forbidden fruit?
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 21, 2018, 04:09:06 PM
Does eating white rice also cure diabetes, Croix?

#SoyProbing