Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If I were to concede that God exists and put everything into motion, my idea would be that what He put into motion was initially good. We arose from it with free will and we screwed it all up.

But therein is the great rub, isn't it? In the evolution scheme, simpler lifeforms existed long before complex humans did; therefore so did death exist all the way up to the chain of homo sapiens! We cannot escape this dilemma -- because this is a fact according to evolutionists. Therefore, God was a big screw up because he's directly responsible for also setting death "into motion" along with all the miseries that attend to that both before and after that state. At its very core, this is what makes theistic evolution an irreconcilable contradiction with everything that God is according to divine revelation. (Haven't you noticed the deafening silence of the Catholics on this thread?)

And by the way, we were both right. El Papa Francis is an evolutionist. Why am I not surprised?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-is-no-wizard/

The idea that makes me most comfortable is that the universe is just and interactive. It's almost alive in a way. It's just too complex for us to understand (maybe even more complicated than women ). There are inputs and outputs to and from this universe. We are one of the inputs. And what we get back is sometimes really bad because of our actions. It's all on us. The guidelines for operating within this universe and getting back positive results have to a large extent been revealed. We just ignore them because of our human desires, lack of faith, and arrogance.

Only rational beings can be "just". The universe itself cannot be just; but the universe contains just beings, i.e. man. (However, God, who transcends his creation, is infinitely just.) I have a tough time personalizing a cold, impersonal and mostly inorganic universe. That's a wee bit over-the-top abstractedness for my taste.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have claimed moral relativism is the work of the devil, with liberals giving satan a hand of course.

Define moral absolutism and please demonstrate that there is such a thing.
Hint: it is the exact same problem as demonstrating a "proof" for god.

There is no absolute moralism.

(Emphasis in last sentence is mine)

Are you talking to yourself here or are you addressing someone, specifically?

But in any case, your emphatic statement above is self-defeating. (Why am I not surprised that you would so easily fall into the temptation of committing mental hari-kari? ) If your last statement is absolutely true, then that truth would be absolute; and, therefore, your absolute truth would have to be perfectly (or absolutely) moral. On the other hand, if you deny your last statement is absolutely true, then it renders your words as meaningless gibberish.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But therein is the great rub, isn't it? In the evolution scheme, simpler lifeforms existed long before complex humans did; therefore so did death exist all the way up to the chain of homo sapiens! We cannot escape this dilemma -- because this is a fact according to evolutionists. Therefore, God was a big screw up because he's directly responsible for also setting death "into motion" along with all the miseries that attend to that both before and after that state. At its very core, this is what makes theistic evolution an irreconcilable contradiction with everything that God is according to divine revelation. (Haven't you noticed the deafening silence of the Catholics on this thread?)

And by the way, we were both right. El Papa Francis is an evolutionist. Why am I not surprised?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-is-no-wizard/



Only rational beings can be "just". The universe itself cannot be just; but the universe contains just beings, i.e. man. (However, God, who transcends his creation, is infinitely just.) I have a tough time personalizing a cold, impersonal and mostly inorganic universe. That's a wee bit over-the-top abstractedness for my taste.

I'll entertain you only because the 1st at Gulfstream contains a 1-5 shot and the 1st at Belmont has a bunch of first-starters. Otherwise I'm content with my popcorn these days, getting some laughs from the howlers about the Catholic Church on display, when not able to ignore the thread altogether. It would be a full time job to address them all.

The big diff between us is that the whole universe can be seen to be entropic--the nature of matter is to change and break down or decompose. Even for the Genesis literalist, sun and stars "shine", Adam and Eve need food before the Fall, i.e., physical sustenance. It is God and who he chooses to elevate to immortality with grace (grace builds on nature) that distinguished among the pre-fall living organisms. Fruit "died", along with living seedlings--independent embryonic organisms--in order for Adam and Eve to sustain their life.

There's more, but that's enough to confidently state that Paul was writing of human death ("Death spread to all men...yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not like the transgression of Adam"---he's writing about man).

I understand the fear of reductionist views about scripture regarding Genesis, but God authored faith and reason. Genesis is not a science textbook, whereby God dictated to the sacred author apart form the author's humanly expressing himself. The paintbrush leaves it's mark on the canvas that conveys the painter's idea. The human author had no way of knowing the science behind our pre-history, but that doesn't detract from the faith aspects of Genesis.

As a Catholic, I'm free to take Genesis as a literal 6 days, as well as accept the findings of science. But that last part needs more explanation...

http://m-francis.livejournal.com/139135.html

Doc

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I'll entertain you only because the 1st at Gulfstream contains a 1-5 shot and the 1st at Belmont has a bunch of first-starters. Otherwise I'm content with my popcorn these days, getting some laughs from the howlers about the Catholic Church on display, when not able to ignore the thread altogether. It would be a full time job to address them all.

The big diff between us is that the whole universe can be seen to be entropic--the nature of matter is to change and break down or decompose. Even for the Genesis literalist, sun and stars "shine", Adam and Eve need food before the Fall, i.e., physical sustenance. It is God and who he chooses to elevate to immortality with grace (grace builds on nature) that distinguished among the pre-fall living organisms. Fruit "died", along with living seedlings--independent embryonic organisms--in order for Adam and Eve to sustain their life.

There's more, but that's enough to confidently state that Paul was writing of human death ("Death spread to all men...yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not like the transgression of Adam"---he's writing about man).

I understand the fear of reductionist views about scripture regarding Genesis, but God authored faith and reason. Genesis is not a science textbook, whereby God dictated to the sacred author apart form the author's humanly expressing himself. The paintbrush leaves it's mark on the canvas that conveys the painter's idea. The human author had no way of knowing the science behind our pre-history, but that doesn't detract from the faith aspects of Genesis.

As a Catholic, I'm free to take Genesis as a literal 6 days, as well as accept the findings of science. But that last part needs more explanation...

http://m-francis.livejournal.com/139135.html

Doc

I'll read that link a little later. I'm very curious how the brainiacs try to wriggle out of this theological dilemma. And it is indeed a genuine, unresolvable problem. You must consider Rom 5:12

Rom 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned —
NASB

Did you catch this? Death entered the world though one man! And don't forget the second of the verse -- the one that deals with Cause and Effect. [The effect of] death spread to all mankind beCAUSE all sinned. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no death! In heaven, will there be any death? Of course not! Heaven will be perfect.

Rev 21:4
4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
NASB

I'll get back to you later after I read the link.

[Show Me the Wire]

(Haven't you noticed the deafening silence of the Catholics on this thread?)

I have been absent, since I decided to have mercy on you by not engaging you in discussion, as you continually demonstrate you have no answers, i.e. the procreation ordinance and your lack of understanding regarding the foundations of the theology you supposedly subscribe to. Since you are insistent us Catholics should respond to you, I propose this question to you.

What are the implications of teaching and believing in predestined condemnation in eternity upon your thesis that theistic evolution is false, solely because Scripture states death did not enter into creation prior to Adam's transgression?

Hope this question is not too deep for your end of the pool.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'll read that link a little later. I'm very curious how the brainiacs try to wriggle out of this theological dilemma. And it is indeed a genuine, unresolvable problem. You must consider Rom 5:12

Rom 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned —
NASB

Did you catch this? Death entered the world though one man! And don't forget the second of the verse -- the one that deals with Cause and Effect. [The effect of] death spread to all mankind beCAUSE all sinned. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no death! In heaven, will there be any death? Of course not! Heaven will be perfect.

Rev 21:4
4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
NASB

I'll get back to you later after I read the link.

Yes, I caught it the first time. What in your subsequent post changes my response? You stated yourself, "the effect of death spread to all mankind...If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no death!"...for man, in the context of the first part of the statement. The stuff about heaven follows and is obvious. Anyone damned won't die either.

I could almost hear your computer fan as you googled this and that. Hopefully I'm asking a rhetorical question for the Genesis literalist...Did not the fruit and seedlings given by God (Gen 1:29) to pre-fallen Adam and Eve die?

Read the link...there are problems with some evolution.

But we're boring hcap.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I have been absent, since I decided to have mercy on you by not engaging you in discussion, as you continually demonstrate you have no answers, i.e. the procreation ordinance and your lack of understanding regarding the foundations of the theology you supposedly subscribe to. Since you are insistent us Catholics should respond to you, I propose this question to you.

What are the implications of teaching and believing in predestined condemnation in eternity upon your thesis that theistic evolution is false, solely because Scripture states death did not enter into creation prior to Adam's transgression?

Hope this question is not too deep for your end of the pool.

Your question makes no sense. I see no problems with Creationism and Predestination. Evidently, you see some? If so, elaborate. And then I'll respond.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Yes, I caught it the first time. What in your subsequent post changes my response? You stated yourself, "the effect of death spread to all mankind...If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no death!"...for man, in the context of the first part of the statement. The stuff about heaven follows and is obvious. Anyone damned won't die either.

I could almost hear your computer fan as you googled this and that. Hopefully I'm asking a rhetorical question for the Genesis literalist...Did not the fruit and seedlings given by God (Gen 1:29) to pre-fallen Adam and Eve die?

Also, the damned do die! They die the [b]second death[/b! And I have to think that they would welcome physical death more than anything else in hell!

Read the link...there are problems with some evolution.

But we're boring hcap.

Your "response"? Are you serious? First all that link was really masquearading as an answer -- a total red herring!. The whole page talked about the "philosophy of God" and the natural science. Really? Where does scripture come in? (A rhetorical question to most Catholics, I'm sure.)

The problem is not a philosophical one. It's a huge THEOLOGICAL issue with many serious implications for theistic evolutionists.

Seeds dying before the fall!? I object your, honor, because you're asking for an opinion. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve were on earth before they sinned. The could have sinned in the same hour they were created or in years down the road. However, from a theological perspective, plant life, animal life and human life ain't created equal!

We know that animals and man were not eating meat originally according to Genesis 1:29–30. So, meat-eaters today were all vegetarian originally, which also points to death not being part of the original creation. Plants are not “alive” in the biblical sense of nephesh chayyah, only animals and man. So, plants being eaten did not mean death existed before the Fall. One would not expect a God of life to be a god of death. When we look at God’s restoration in Revelation 21–22, there will be no death, pain, or suffering.

https://answersingenesis.org/death-b...ed-before-sin/

We also know from the NT that the saints in the eternal, visible kingdom will sit with the Lord at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. What this feast exactly will consist of, we're not told. Quite possibly fruit and veggie delectables, since Revelation 21 also states that there will be no death in the eternal kingdom. So...from a theological or divine perspective, God apparently does not consider plant life to suffer death. Only the two higher forms of life can suffer death. As the above paragraph says, plants are not alive in the nephesh chayyah sense.

A God whose works are PERFECT could not have permitted death to enter the world apart from divine justice be executed for disobedience. God is the God of the living, not the dead! As stated previously, death is antithetical to everything God is!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your question makes no sense. I see no problems with Creationism and Predestination. Evidently, you see some? If so, elaborate. And then I'll respond.

It makes much sense. Obviously, you do not see a problem. because my question is not about creationism or problems with literal creationism.

Read my question again without your bias lenses. My question does not even mention the word or concept of creationism. My question focuses on the concept of predestined condemnation in eternity and actual Scriptural teaching on the existence of death.

To simplify my too complex question for you:

What impact does the concept of predestined condemnation in eternity have upon your statement; If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no death!

Hint. Answer for yourself this question. Which existed first eternity or Adam's transgression?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But therein is the great rub, isn't it? In the evolution scheme, simpler lifeforms existed long before complex humans did; therefore so did death exist all the way up to the chain of homo sapiens! We cannot escape this dilemma -- because this is a fact according to evolutionists. Therefore, God was a big screw up because he's directly responsible for also setting death "into motion" along with all the miseries that attend to that both before and after that state.

Death is only a bad thing if you don't believe in God and an afterlife. I'm sure you've seen me classify myself as an "agnostic with a rooting interest".

What do you think that's about?

It's almost entirely about life after death. If there's a God and life after death, then the people I have loved that are gone now are not really gone. God willing, I will get to see them again in a much better place. I also have no reason to fear my own death.

But if there no God, then I am some kind of cosmic accident. When I die, I will be gone. I will never see the people I lost again. I may never see the Knicks win the championship again.

I don't know the truth, but I know which one I am rooting for.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

You did say "There was a time in this country that sleeping around before marriage was considered a moral negative. If a women got pregnant before marriage, it was considered a scandal. That attitude came from religion. Those were the rules".

Scandals are not illegal, their overwhelming effect is to shame those involved.

Stigma, stigmatize..........

a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation.

It should be a considered negative because it generally produces inferior results, not just for women, but for men and society as a whole.

You know my politics fairly well now by now. I'm a libertarian. I am very much in favor of freedom and tolerance. I just want what I believe to be the superior choices to be encouraged. There's a huge gap between encouraging positive behavior and the type of thing you are suggesting.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It makes much sense. Obviously, you do not see a problem. because my question is not about creationism or problems with literal creationism.

Read my question again without your bias lenses. My question does not even mention the word or concept of creationism. My question focuses on the concept of predestined condemnation in eternity and actual Scriptural teaching on the existence of death.

To simplify my too complex question for you:

What impact does the concept of predestined condemnation in eternity have upon your statement; If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no death!

Hint. Answer for yourself this question. Which existed first eternity or Adam's transgression?

No impact, as far as I'm concerned. As stated earlier: If you have a particular point to make -- or you think you see a bona fide problem between "predestined condemnation" and Adam and Eve and death, then cut to the chase and make your point, already. I'm not clairvoyant.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Death is only a bad thing if you don't believe in God and an afterlife. I'm sure you've seen me classify myself as an "agnostic with a rooting interest".

What do you think that's about?

It's almost entirely about life after death. If there's a God and life after death, then the people I have loved that are gone now are not really gone. God willing, I will get to see them again in a much better place. I also have no reason to fear my own death.

But if there no God, then I am some kind of cosmic accident. When I die, I will be gone. I will never see the people I lost again. I may never see the Knicks win the championship again.

I don't know the truth, but I know which one I am rooting for.

Death is also a bad thing from a theological perspective. God himself is LIFE. His very essence is life, i.e. eternal life, eternal existence. Therefore, if God, through the process of evolution, allowed death to enter this world for no just reason, what would this say about God's character? I mean...no rationale person views death as a good thing. No one comes into this world counting off the seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, etc. because they can't wait to greet death. Or they can't wait until one of their loved ones die, etc. Death is [b]not a good[b] thing. There is no virtue in death. There is no glory in death, save for the saints of God who will immediately be ushered into his glorious presence upon their death. But even that is God's doing! This is because of the person and work of Christ. Christ, as the Last Adam, was the Father's "undo" button to the First Adam's damage -- damage that would have been irreversible, if it weren't for Christ.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have claimed moral relativism is the work of the devil, with liberals giving satan a hand of course.

Define moral absolutism and please demonstrate that there is such a thing.
Hint: it is the exact same problem as demonstrating a "proof" for god.

There is no absolute moralism.

Given that I am an agnostic, I am obviously using "Satan" as representing the bad guy. It's hyperbole. The only thing I am interested in is results.

If I don't sleep with any women until marriage, find the right woman, marry her, and have a child after I am emotionally mature and financially capable of caring for it, I am fairly likely to get a pretty good result. The chances of me getting an STD or impregnating a woman before we are both emotionally and financially ready for that kind of commitment are close to nil. (other than a blood transfusion or similar accident).

If I sleep with a few women in serious relationships only, the chances of disease or unwanted pregnancy go up slightly.

If I sleep with a bunch of women casually over my lifetime the chances of disease, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, etc... occurring are higher.

If I sleep with many women casually every year the chances of something really bad happening get a lot higher.

One of those scenarios is best and some are worse than others. I don't care if it's just basic stats, a moral absolute, comes from God, there is no God, or any other scenario you could possibly imagine. One of those scenarios is best, end of story, irrefutable.

If you are telling people that they are all equal choices, you are not only wrong, you are encouraging poor behavior and results. The idea is to leave God and absolutes out of the equation. You just give people the stats, tell them what works best and why, and do what you can to encourage it while being fully tolerant of those that choose another path. This is not complicated at all. Religion has nothing to do with it other that the basic fact that religions have tended to promote behaviors that lead to better results.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No impact, as far as I'm concerned. As stated earlier: If you have a particular point to make -- or you think you see a bona fide problem between "predestined condemnation" and Adam and Eve and death, then cut to the chase and make your point, already. I'm not clairvoyant.

I am not asking you to be clairvoyant, I asked if you saw any problems with your position.

The understanding (not the validity) of the point is grounded on which existed first, all of eternity or Adam's transgression. I need to know your understanding about which existed first, all of eternity or Adam's transgression.