Axiom 1. God as Creator exists.
Continuing the above points about God as Creator.
While we are trying to find a quiet moment in our busy lives so that we can actually read the first three loving chapters of Genesis (post 379) and find God’s signs of His loving humans starting with the first real human Adam – I had a weird thought. Older than dirt grannies are entitled to some weird thoughts.
God, the source of beauty, is the Creator in verse 1, Genesis, chapter 1. Like Adam and Eve, we can see the beauty of God by looking around us at the truly amazing universe including hundreds of flowers at our feet and thousands of stars beyond our eyes. The first Garden of Eden would not have less. The author tells us “God saw how good it was.” Genesis 1: 25. Then in the following verses, the author shifts to the most beautiful creatures. God, totally beautiful love, creates the human species in His image. CCC 355-357 The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Looking at our world with scientific eyes cannot answer all our questions. There is the big question “Why?”
the next alphabetic point isRegarding this comment in post 387 –
I don’t think the garden was meant to be thought of as a Kingdom, because later we have Jesus teaching that the Kingdom of God is within.Regarding this comment in post 387 –
“That Genesis “garden” is often described in different ways. For now, may we see that garden as God’s kingdom?”
It is reasonable that we see that garden as God’s kingdom; but, I truly doubt that the author of the reasonable first three chapters of Genesis would have seen that garden as any kind of a “kingdom.” Questions such as "Is it God’s garden kingdom or Adam’s garden kingdom? haunt me. Who is the primary character in these intriguing chapters – God or Adam? Or are they equal, not in power, but in importance to the human species?
One of my guesses to questions such as the above is that the historic author was telling us that in all the centuries to follow, we will be unique because we are in the image of God. Yes, I know that there are people who say that the author was writing for his generation and that is why we should kindly ignore some of his thoughts.
The current obvious difficulty when it comes to understanding the first three chapters of Genesis is that interpretations have multiplied like rabbits. Personally, I would like to find some kind of truth in the rather weird interpretations. Unfortunately, there is no truth in the wishful thinking that Eve committed the Original Sin. Sorry, Adam, your finger pointing failed.
Perhaps, this is a good place to spend some quiet time. Many gardens have a variety of flowers. Maybe it is time for us to smell the roses.
These comments of simpleas bring us to K is for the Kingdom of God, part 2.
That “failure” is often present in discussions.
My thought is that punishment is really the natural result of Adam’s disobedience. When Adam chose to leave God’s kingdom, the outside weather can be bitter cold. Even then, God loves Adam and Eve by making garments to clothe them. Genesis 3: 21. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer regarding the use of figurative language. However, when I am low, I want verse 21 to be literal.
I hope that makes up for all the times I have been late. 
To understand this difference, one needs to go back to the journalism mantra Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?
Granny, dear, you can see that it is a non-starter because the cause is misplaced, and there is no “modern arianism”. I would love to talk to the fellow who gave your workshop to find out what his real beef was. I am sure he is well-intended, and so are you, but we need to go after the real roots of apathy and rejection, not the false ones.L is for God’s Unconditional LOVE, part 1.
There is a difference between questioning God’s unconditional love and questioning God’s unconditional love.
We sing the “What?”Many of us can picture God, in unconditional love, reaching down to us and with His strong arms, He pulls us from the mud. Certainly, God knows our muddy condition. Still, He never minds getting dirty. Somewhere there is a Scripture verse about “washing our robes.”
Amazing grace. How sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me.
In my childhood neighborhood, there would be pictures of God as an old-looking man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud. That is so far from the truth
A better picture truth is Jesus as the Good Shepherd. How wonderful it can be when we picture ourself safe in His arms. No matter how muddy we can be, Jesus does not drop us.
The second “questioning God’s unconditional love” often has a dark purpose. What seems to be innocent proposals turns out to be a denial of human’s intellective free choice. When it becomes impossible to reject God because God “automatically” forgives, the road is open to changing the Catholic Church from inside.
In 1950, Pope Pius XII strongly warned about the danger of softening annoying doctrines so that everyone can be comfortable in a Big Tent religion.
From the encyclical Humani Generis.
11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.
12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
In my opinion, the words “but only to their destruction.” can describe what has been happening in our era. For example, empty pews.