The Fall

[CorMaria]

Without the fall would we still have sexual intercourse and Holy Matrimony?

[Resurrexi]

Marriage existed before the fall.

[Resurrexi]

"And God blessed them, saying: [b]Increase and multiply[/b], and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28, emphasis added)

God told our first parents to increase and multiply before the fall.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[perfectunion33]

I don't believe it is possible to really know whether or not man and woman would have to engage in sexual intercourse before the fall. It's not impossible to believe that Eve could have miraculously conceived a child as did Mary who was conceived without original sin, since before the fall Eve was also without original sin. "With God all things are possible".[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/saint.gif[/img]

[Gregorius]

I do recall God saying to the first woman that besides being subordinate to man, He also told her she would bring forth children in pain.

So she might have been able to reproduce biologically, though in a less painful manner.

Though from the very beginning man chose to disobey God. Which begs the question, was it even possible for us to avoid the fall? I think it is not possible, given our intelligence.

Think of this: God existed before time even began. God is One, and God is Three. All three Persons existed in the beginning, and through Him all things were made. Christ's purpose was to become one of us, suffer, die to destroy the power of death, and rise to new life to glorify the Father. But God existed before Man fell. Christ existed before man fell. Which probably meant that, sooner or later, we would make a bad choice.

[Selah]

[quote]I do recall God saying to the first woman that besides being subordinate to man,[/quote]

Edited September 16, 2009 by Selah

[Gregorius]

awww, man, -1? really?

I'm just clarifying, I'm not saying or thinking that women are naturally or otherwise inferior to men in any way, nor am I saying God created us to be such. I was just saying:

"I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing;
in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Gen 3:16)

Plus 1 Corinthians 11,3; Ephesians 5,22; and 1 Timothy 2, 12 also seem to place women in a 'subordinate' but in no way inferior position. That wasn't even my main point. I'm not trying to insult or offend.

Speaking of which, here's another thought on the fall: Why would the serpent go to the woman and not the man? Some would say it's because the woman was easier to seduce. But look at it this way: The serpent was considered the most cunning of all the animals. Now the serpent could either speak to the man, or to the woman. Now think of this: if you could choose to have a conversation with a child or and adult close to your own age, which would you choose. If you wanted a meaningful conversation, you would choose the person closer to your age. Now I doubt there was that large of a difference in intelligence between the first humans, but the implications are interesting in that the serpent chose to speak to the woman. Plus added to the factor that the women [u]reasoned[/u] that the tree of knowledge would be beneficial to her and her spouse and not trying to disobey God, meanwhile the man blindly trusted his wife when she offered the fruit and he ate it.

What do you all think?
... -1? really?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Gregorius

[Servus_Mariae]

I would say so. Human sexuality is a beautiful part of our nature in which by intercourse man and woman participate in the creating power of God. This is so in that God creates in the context of intimate love...so it is with human sexuality. I would think that this gift however would have been acted out with perfect purity however.

Also, to say that intercourse would not have occurred prior to the fall, seems to imply that it is an effect of the fall. I fail to see how this would be the case recognizing that sexuality is a good thing.

[Selah]

[quote name='Gregorius' date='16 September 2009 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1253143165' post='1967807']
awww, man, -1? really?

I'm just clarifying, I'm not saying or thinking that women are naturally or otherwise inferior to men in any way, nor am I saying God created us to be such. I was just saying:

"I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing;
in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Gen 3:16)

Plus 1 Corinthians 11,3; Ephesians 5,22; and 1 Timothy 2, 12 also seem to place women in a 'subordinate' but in no way inferior position. That wasn't even my main point. I'm not trying to insult or offend.

Speaking of which, here's another thought on the fall: Why would the serpent go to the woman and not the man? Some would say it's because the woman was easier to seduce. But look at it this way: The serpent was considered the most cunning of all the animals. Now the serpent could either speak to the man, or to the woman. Now think of this: if you could choose to have a conversation with a child or and adult close to your own age, which would you choose. If you wanted a meaningful conversation, you would choose the person closer to your age. Now I doubt there was that large of a difference in intelligence between the first humans, but the implications are interesting in that the serpent chose to speak to the woman. Plus added to the factor that the women [u]reasoned[/u] that the tree of knowledge would be beneficial to her and her spouse and not trying to disobey God, meanwhile the man blindly trusted his wife when she offered the fruit and he ate it.

What do you all think?
... -1? really?
[/quote]


I apologize. I misunderstood. *hug*