Couldn't God Create a Better World?

[Credo_in_Deum]

Jesus said:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The death caused by sin is spiritual not physical…

It’s both actually. If physical death was not caused by the sin of man then there would be no need for the resurrection would there? I mean what was the point of Christ’s Resurrection if the physical death was not also a consequence of man’s sin that needed to be won and conquered? Even the verse you just presented is evidence that the death that entered the world by mans sin is both physical and spiritual since both the Body and Soul will be in Hell.

 

[razredge]

Yes well sadly those that dont believe that these things entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve and that God transformed them into something that will benefit us are not exactly practicing Catholics are they?

I dont expect you Infidel to believe this but you razredge are going against your Catholic Faith if you dont.

I don’t see how I am going against my faith by believing the scientific evidence.

It would seem that St Augustine even back in the 4th century had a more modern understanding of faith & science than most Catholics on here seem too!

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. – De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]

So I am well in keeping with my Catholic faith, thank you very much. And certainly all the priests and bishops I’ve met would also not share the simplistic view of scripture that is touted on this forum as if we were all Southern Baptists!

Do you really believe we would be worthy to share life with God before we have had the opportunity to demonstrate we are capable of unselfish love?

What explanation do you have? If you have none your faith seems to have a precarious foundation. Perhaps “Credo quia absurdum”!

Well aren’t the angels worthy of sharing life with God? This is offtopic anyway - there’s a specific thread for that discussion.

Jesus said:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The death caused by sin is spiritual not physical…

Yes, spiritual death - note how Adam and Eve did not physically die once they ate the forbidden fruit - despite God saying to them that they will surely die the very day they ate the fruit of the tree.

No actually we naive Catholics dont have a hard time with that one. Perks of the Faith I guess.

You don’t have a hard time with that one because you either say the problem doesn’t exist or that humanity is responsible for all the evil in the world due to original sin.

Needless to say - I don’t think many non-believers will find that argument convincing.

 

[razredge]

There is no paradox at all. The point was that God could eliminate the death due to illnesses and natural causes, and that act would lower the suffering. Not one word has been said about preventing murders.

I was responding to belorg’s post where he followed my premises to that conclusion.

As for your point - the natural processes and laws of nature that allow intelligent life to evolve and humans to create technology to control their environment are the same processes and laws that lead to disease and natural disasters.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, spiritual death - note how Adam and Eve did not physically die once they ate the forbidden fruit - despite God saying to them that they will surely die the very day they ate the fruit of the tree.

Augustine taught that the role of the Church is to teach those things which pertain to mans salvation, not those things that apply strictly to the natural world. He recognized that scripture contains much figurative language. He did, however, teach that a literal pair of first human parents literally disobeyed God and that man not only died spiritually at that time but also that physical death entered mans’ world as well. And the CC continues to teach this today.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.571 Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.573 **

Man died at the fall, having become separated from God the source of his life, but physical death became his destiny at the same time. Jesus’ sacrifice of His life reconciles man with God-sin is forgiven, but His resurrection-another tenet of our faith which is irreconcilable with a materialistic perspective- is the ultimate triumph over this final enemy. The inescapable fact of physical death, staring us in the face-something we’re helpless against and which constitutes a step into the unknown as far as our natural knowledge is concerned-makes this life and the consequences of how we live it all the more profoundly relevant-and should help serve to make us recognize all the more acutely our absolute need for and dependency on God.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Augustine taught that the role of the Church is to teach those things which pertain to mans salvation, not those things that apply strictly to the natural world. He recognized that scripture contains much figurative language. He did, however, teach that a literal pair of first human parents literally disobeyed God and that man not only died spiritually at that time but also that physical death entered mans’ world as well. And the CC continues to teach this today.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history**.286

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.571 Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.573

Man died at the fall, having become separated from God the source of his life, but physical death became his destiny at the same time. Jesus’ sacrifice of His life reconciles man with God-sin is forgiven, but His resurrection-another tenet of our faith which is irreconcilable with a materialistic perspective- is the ultimate triumph over this final enemy. The inescapable fact of physical death, staring us in the face-something we’re helpless against and which constitutes a step into the unknown as far as our natural knowledge is concerned-makes this life and the consequences of how we live it all the more profoundly relevant-and should help serve to make us recognize all the more acutely our absolute need for and dependency on God.

Thank you

I was very shocked when razredge continued with his/her anti-catholic view even after I provided him/her with the same reference from the CCC.

 

[fhansen]

Thank you

I was very shocked when razredge continued with his/her anti-catholic view even after I provided him/her with the same reference from the CCC.

Yeah, I should’ve referenced yours but I also to added a couple of others. Doesn’t seem to matter much, tho.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Yeah, I should’ve referenced yours but I also to added a couple of others. Doesn’t seem to matter much, tho.

No problem in fact I like your response better. I’m sure Augustine is giving you a big

God Bless

 

[Infidel]

As for your point - the natural processes and laws of nature that allow intelligent life to evolve and humans to create technology to control their environment are the same processes and laws that lead to disease and natural disasters.

To a certain extent, yes. But no one can argue that the existence of Alzheimer’s (for example) adds anything to the process of creating technology. Or that dying in leprosy has a “redeeming” value. (Just examples, of course).

About 95% of all the microbes are either benefiical or neutral to the hosts. The remaining 5% is detrimental, and in those cases when they cause the death of the host they kill themselves, too. So it would be a child’s play (for God) to eliminate this 5%. The result would be a very remarkable decrease of suffering.

 

[razredge]

Augustine taught that the role of the Church is to teach those things which pertain to mans salvation, not those things that apply strictly to the natural world. He recognized that scripture contains much figurative language. He did, however, teach that a literal pair of first human parents literally disobeyed God and that man not only died spiritually at that time but also that physical death entered mans’ world as well. And the CC continues to teach this today.

He may have well said that, but St Augustine had no reason to believe otherwise - they didn’t have the fossil record or modern science back in 400 as we do today.
If I choose to keep to St Augustine’s dictum on faith & science then why does that bother you?

Anyway this is offtopic, there are plenty of genesis/evolution threads already up.

Originally Posted by Credo in Deum View Post
Thank you

I was very shocked when razredge continued with his/her anti-catholic view even after I provided him/her with the same reference from the CCC.

Oh that’s nice - I acknowledge what science has revealed to us about God’s creation and that makes me anti-Catholic, does it? If so I am happy to take my place with plenty of ‘anti-Catholic’ priests, bishops and theologians, scientists and laity.

And tonyrey first brought up the ‘spiritual death rather than physical death’ thing so you might want to excommunicate him too.

To a certain extent, yes. But no one can argue that the existence of Alzheimer’s (for example) adds anything to the process of creating technology. Or that dying in leprosy has a “redeeming” value. (Just examples, of course).

About 95% of all the microbes are either benefiical or neutral to the hosts. The remaining 5% is detrimental, and in those cases when they cause the death of the host they kill themselves, too. So it would be a child’s play (for God) to eliminate this 5%. The result would be a very remarkable decrease of suffering.

That would be absolutely true - if I believed in ID where God continually intervenes in the evolutionary process - I don’t

Since I’m apparently ‘anti-Catholic’, perhaps I shall step out of this debate for a while and watch and see how the others refute your arguments - without invoking solutions that require belief in Christian dogma.

 

[fhansen]

Oh that’s nice - I acknowledge what science has revealed to us about God’s creation and that makes me anti-Catholic, does it? If so I am happy to take my place with plenty of ‘anti-Catholic’ priests, bishops and theologians, scientists and laity.

It doesn’t bother me at all-He was quite ahead of his time. But I haven’t seen where it’s been shown (or how it could be, for that matter) that immortality wasn’t an option for man -at the time he became man. Our faith claims something extraordinary about humankind, and this applies regardless of our position on human origins:

**356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead. **

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Oh that’s nice - I acknowledge what science has revealed to us about God’s creation and that makes me anti-Catholic, does it? If so I am happy to take my place with plenty of ‘anti-Catholic’ priests, bishops and theologians, scientists and laity.

Since I’m apparently ‘anti-Catholic’, perhaps I shall step out of this debate for a while and watch and see how the others refute your arguments - without invoking solutions that require belief in Christian dogma.

No what makes you anti-Catholic is that you willfully preach against Catholic Doctrine which is the foundation of your Catholic Faith. With all your brains razredge I’m sure it won’t take you long to realize that if you preach against the doctrine of your faith then you are being anti-Catholic. Now if you chose to go against the Church’s teachings on the doctrines of the faith then fine that is your choice but I would ask out of common decency that you at least place in your religious affiliation section on your profile the phrase "Heretical Catholic” so then others can be forewarned that you are not eye to eye with the Catholic Faith because you feel that there is some sort of conflict with science.

Furthermore your position that there is some conflict with the Catholic Faith and the scientific evidence is ridiculous since Science has not nor can it give use the origin of this “death” consequence we experience. One can scientifically believe that the “death” we experience today did not have to exist in the beginning stages of evolution. What we can ascertain if we so wanted to from our Catholic Faith regarding our first parents is that their evolutionary course could have changed from not needing death to having death. One can believe scientifically that our first parents could have had the same process of life as amoeba have in where they do not die but divide and become two amoebas.

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[Infidel]

That would be absolutely true - if I believed in ID where God continually intervenes in the evolutionary process - I don’t

It is cool. But such an act would not require constant tinkering, would it? A nice surgery to remove a few harmful suckers, nothing major. But we have a good agreement, at least on some facts. That is good enough for me. See you around.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I would like to apologize to you razredge for my uncharitable remarks in my above response. If I was able to edit them now I would but I hope you accept my apology.

 

[razredge]

I would like to apologize to you razredge for my uncharitable remarks in my above response. If I was able to edit them now I would but I hope you accept my apology.

It’s ok, don’t worry about it I was a bit bemused by the fact that I was called anti-Catholic for believing there was death before the Fall - as I don’t really think I fall into that category:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

It is cool. But such an act would not require constant tinkering, would it? A nice surgery to remove a few harmful suckers, nothing major. But we have a good agreement, at least on some facts. That is good enough for me. See you around.

Possibly, but then you could say He could be tempted to do some more tinkering and fix something else and then you could wonder why did he stop with removing just ‘a few harmful suckers’ and not remove all disease etc.

It doesn’t bother me at all-He was quite ahead of his time. But I haven’t seen where it’s been shown (or how it could be, for that matter) that immortality wasn’t an option for man -at the time he became man. Our faith claims something extraordinary about humankind, and this applies regardless of our position on human origins:

Well, it’s always possible - but even if biological immortality is possible (and animals like the hydra jellyfish which do not exhibit senescence show that it is possible)
I tend to think of a situation in which a rock fell on Adams head, would it kill him? Did he have an adamantium skull? What if a metorite landed on him? Did the laws of physics work differently prior to the Fall? There’s no geological or other evidence to show that they did.

The other reason is that Genesis says there was no death (animals included) prior to the Fall, now that is simply impossible to reconcile with the fossil record which shows millions of years of animal death long before humans were on the scene.

So you can’t just say that there was animal death before the Fall and only human death occurred because of it as that would entail a selective reading of Genesis.

Anyway this is way offtopic - if you want to continue this discussion there are quite a few Genesis threads in the Philosophy forum.

 

[fhansen]

Well, it’s always possible - but even if biological immortality is possible (and animals like the hydra jellyfish which do not exhibit senescence show that it is possible)
I tend to think of a situation in which a rock fell on Adams head, would it kill him? Did he have an adamantium skull? What if a metorite landed on him? Did the laws of physics work differently prior to the Fall? There’s no geological or other evidence to show that they did.

The other reason is that Genesis says there was no death (animals included) prior to the Fall, now that is simply impossible to reconcile with the fossil record which shows millions of years of animal death long before humans were on the scene.

So you can’t just say that there was animal death before the Fall and only human death occurred because of it as that would entail a selective reading of Genesis.

Anyway this is way offtopic - if you want to continue this discussion there are quite a few Genesis threads in the Philosophy forum.

I’m not sure where Genesis says there was no animal death before the fall. But in any case the Church teaches that man, by nature, will die, and that only Gods grace can cause him to live eternally, something available to him by another act, that of taking and eating from the Tree of Life. Some of this is related to the resurrection. What was Jesus’ resurrected body like-how would it differ from ours? If the supernatural is involved, as, of course, it must be with our faith, then many questions have only partial answers now.

 

[razredge]

I’m not sure where Genesis says there was no animal death before the fall. But in any case the Church teaches that man, by nature, will die, and that only Gods grace can cause him to live eternally, something available to him by another act, that of taking and eating from the Tree of Life. Some of this is related to the resurrection. What was Jesus’ resurrected body like-how would it differ from ours? If the supernatural is involved, as, of course, it must be with our faith, then many questions have only partial answers now.

I agree completely with the Church’s teaching that man by his very mortal nature will die, without supernatural intervention.

My original point was that there was no evidence for any supernatural intervention to prevent death before the Fall (unless God decided to hide or tamper with all the evidence for some reason).

 

[Infidel]

Possibly, but then you could say He could be tempted to do some more tinkering and fix something else and then you could wonder why did he stop with removing just ‘a few harmful suckers’ and not remove all disease etc.

Well, this is the good old slippery slope argument. Give someone you your little finger, and he will demand your hand. No matter where the improvement stops, someone will ask for more. There is no “danger” of that here. If the creation of those harmful microbes would not have happened in the first place, no one would have known about them, so they could not use it as an example and ask for more…

But this is not what the thread was all about. Even if the improvement stops at any specific point, the result would still be incomparably better than the current situation.

 

[tonyrey]

Well aren’t the angels worthy of sharing life with God? This is offtopic anyway - there’s a specific thread for that discussion.

We have no idea of what being an angel entails! “sharing life with God” lends itself to various degrees of love.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

It’s ok, don’t worry about it I was a bit bemused by the fact that I was called anti-Catholic for believing there was death before the Fall - as I don’t really think I fall into that category:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

Yes that was a poor choice of words. If you were to go against any article of the Catholic Faith you would however be a heretic.

her·e·tic

1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

1. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

1. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle

.

Well, it’s always possible - but even if biological immortality is possible (and animals like the hydra jellyfish which do not exhibit senescence show that it is possible) I tend to think of a situation in which a rock fell on Adams head, would it kill him? Did he have an adamantium skull? What if a metorite landed on him? Did the laws of physics work differently prior to the Fall? There’s no geological or other evidence to show that they did.

But that’s only logical isn’t it? If were only able to investigate the nature of fallen mankind then we will always fall short in regards to scientific evidence in being able to establish any facts regarding the differences between mankind before the fall and mankind after the fall.

The other reason is that Genesis says there was no death (animals included) prior to the Fall, now that is simply impossible to reconcile with the fossil record which shows millions of years of animal death long before humans were on the scene.

So you can’t just say that there was animal death before the Fall and only human death occurred because of it as that would entail a selective reading of Genesis.

Anyway this is way offtopic - if you want to continue this discussion there are quite a few Genesis threads in the Philosophy forum.

But couldn’t one logically conclude that if man’s nature changed after the fall then the same would be for animals as well? Was Eden subject to time and space? Was it subject to the same laws of nature as we have today? Are the animals that existed in Eden the same as the ones we have now and know about? It’s clear that the only way we could know about these things scientifically is if we were able to go to Eden and investigate them.

I’m not sure where Genesis says there was no animal death before the fall. But in any case the Church teaches that man, by nature, will die, and that only Gods grace can cause him to live eternally, something available to him by another act, that of taking and eating from the Tree of Life. Some of this is related to the resurrection. What was Jesus’ resurrected body like-how would it differ from ours? If the supernatural is involved, as, of course, it must be with our faith, then many questions have only partial answers now.

I agree with this because after the fall our physical nature and make up must have gone through a drastic change from being immortal to mortal. I’m sure Adam went from looking like a very awe inspiring being to a very ugly primitive one because his sin drastically lowered his perfection. Take Lucifer for instance. He is believed to have been the most amazing of all the angels before his fall but after he fell he became the grossest of all of them. His very countenance did a dramatic shift from one to the other and I’m sure the same was for our first parents.

 

[mtngal25]

The first thing I thought about was, that God created the world and saw that it was good. He created everything good, but Man had free will so he could choose to love God. Man chose his own will over God’s and that is when imperfection began with Man. Evil began when Lucifer decided to go against God even though he was an angel. If it weren’t for free will, then the world would be naturally perfect…but it would lack the love that it takes to make a free choice as man has been created to do. There would be the love of God but not the return of love to God…so He created Man in His own Image so that Man would long to be with God for an eternity and would love Him. Unfortunately, many people choose to ignore God which is a form of hate…indifference. God can make anything better but He wants us to also make things better. It is up to us to let God work through us to make a better world for all.