T
twinc
Guest
pre-fall there was no death when the world was very good - twinc
- Status
T
twinc
Guest
you seem to know or think you know what neither true science or God knows - there are of course many others who presume they know more or better than God - twinc
R
rossum
Guest
Erm… Read your Genesis. The verse I quoted was pre-Fall. It was after Adam was created and he was looking for a companion among the animals as he named them. Eve was only made later, and the Fall came after Eve.
Did you really not know this?
The pre-Fall world was not always “very good”, God says so. That would seem to allow some “not good” things to happen before the Fall.
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes.
S
SanAgustin
Guest
I’m not sure how this opinion means we “stumbled” upon the creation of the internet, or how practical uses of electricity have nothing to do with what we know about electricity from pure physics.
I work on the software side of things, so I know very well we didn’t “accidentally” create the internet. I also work in the energy sector, alongside people who design power generation turbines (steam, coal, wind, etc), and it’s going to be a surprised to my co-workers to learn that science doesn’t bring anything to the table when it comes to our work, research and patents.
Please illuminate us.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Science and Catholicism are compatible in some ways and incompatible in others. They both assume that the universe is rational and that human reason can to some extent discover and understand how it works. But as soon as Catholicism, or any other religion, tells science, “thus far and no farther,” their compatibility ends, for science recognizes no limits to its investigations except those imposed by the nature of its methods; that is, whatever cannot produce verifiable predictions concerning the natural world. Nor does “science” in general allow any religion to dictate its results or limit its inquiries. Catholic scientists, of course, have to make their own decisions about how to balance these contrary demands. It is to the credit if the Church that it allows a wider area of free investigation than many other religions; however, when it presumes to dictate to science what results it will accept regarding human origins, for example, it shows itself to be divorced from reality and closed to further knowledge in that area, which is sad. I realize that, by its own convictions, it has to be; that is why I believe that the rift between science and religious dogma can never be closed. When they conflict, everyone has to choose one side or the other.
It is not true that, as is widely supposed, science can say nothing about morality. The sciences of genetics and neuroscience have a lot to say about the possible evolutionary origins of moral principles, emotional urges toward certain actions, genetic influences on behavior, all of which have a bearing on moral understanding and individual culpability. Not to mention DNA testing, which has rescued over a hundred innocent people from death row.
It is not true that, as is widely supposed, science can say nothing about morality. The sciences of genetics and neuroscience have a lot to say about the possible evolutionary origins of moral principles, emotional urges toward certain actions, genetic influences on behavior, all of which have a bearing on moral understanding and individual culpability. Not to mention DNA testing, which has rescued over a hundred innocent people from death row.
F
francessmith
Guest
Father Bryan Joyce. in 2000.
Teilhard de Chardin was born in France in 1881. He was ordained a Jesuit priest in 1911. He served as a medic in the trenches of World War I. But he was most noted, and is most famous as a paleontologist, (a studier of the ancient fossils of the earth) and a theologian, as a scientist of the first rank and as a visionary. Unlike many Church leaders before him, he did not grudgingly accept the findings of modern science or just barely justify the theory of evolution. He actually enthusiastically embraced it and recast it with a vision of Christian faith. He developed a philosophy which tried to marry the science of the material world with the spiritual wisdom of the Church. You have to be honest that neither the scientific community nor the leaders of the Catholic Church were very quick to welcome his work. The scientific community felt that he was too much of a faithful believer to be that sound a scientist. And Church leadership felt he was too good and faithful a scientist to be that sound a believer.
He spent from 1923 to 1946 on major excavations in Africa and China. He was among those who discovered the Peking Man, which was the earliest human remains found at that time. He published hundreds of well-received, scholarly articles about his research. But his Jesuit superiors would not allow him to print anything on theology and his writings on religion and science. And they were delighted that he was spending most of his time down in Africa and out in China and not in the theological limelight of Europe. His writings were limited to be circulated among a small circle of friends who were very enthusiastic about him and supported him a lot.
But, his friends immediately began publishing his works and within five years, in 1960, this photo of him appeared in the Vatican pavilion at the World’s Fair, where they bragged that he was “one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the twentieth century.” Within ten years, his concepts and his vocabulary had woven their way into the official declarations of the Second Vatican Council. And, by then, his writings had inspired countless scholars and scientists and theologians throughout the world.
With many other scientists of his day he rejected Darwin’s Theory that what makes evolution work is the survival of the fittest. But he went beyond those other critics. They settled with random chance and necessity as explanation enough. But, for Teilhard, the journey of the Universe is driven by guided chance and guided necessity. And then he dared to ask the question, “If evolution is going somewhere and being led somewhere, who’s leading it? And where is it going?”
continued in next post.
Teilhard de Chardin was born in France in 1881. He was ordained a Jesuit priest in 1911. He served as a medic in the trenches of World War I. But he was most noted, and is most famous as a paleontologist, (a studier of the ancient fossils of the earth) and a theologian, as a scientist of the first rank and as a visionary. Unlike many Church leaders before him, he did not grudgingly accept the findings of modern science or just barely justify the theory of evolution. He actually enthusiastically embraced it and recast it with a vision of Christian faith. He developed a philosophy which tried to marry the science of the material world with the spiritual wisdom of the Church. You have to be honest that neither the scientific community nor the leaders of the Catholic Church were very quick to welcome his work. The scientific community felt that he was too much of a faithful believer to be that sound a scientist. And Church leadership felt he was too good and faithful a scientist to be that sound a believer.
He spent from 1923 to 1946 on major excavations in Africa and China. He was among those who discovered the Peking Man, which was the earliest human remains found at that time. He published hundreds of well-received, scholarly articles about his research. But his Jesuit superiors would not allow him to print anything on theology and his writings on religion and science. And they were delighted that he was spending most of his time down in Africa and out in China and not in the theological limelight of Europe. His writings were limited to be circulated among a small circle of friends who were very enthusiastic about him and supported him a lot.
But, his friends immediately began publishing his works and within five years, in 1960, this photo of him appeared in the Vatican pavilion at the World’s Fair, where they bragged that he was “one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the twentieth century.” Within ten years, his concepts and his vocabulary had woven their way into the official declarations of the Second Vatican Council. And, by then, his writings had inspired countless scholars and scientists and theologians throughout the world.
With many other scientists of his day he rejected Darwin’s Theory that what makes evolution work is the survival of the fittest. But he went beyond those other critics. They settled with random chance and necessity as explanation enough. But, for Teilhard, the journey of the Universe is driven by guided chance and guided necessity. And then he dared to ask the question, “If evolution is going somewhere and being led somewhere, who’s leading it? And where is it going?”
continued in next post.
F
francessmith
Guest
continued from last post.
But, what lessons does he have for us today? I would say the first lesson is a warning. That is that we have to be able to listen to one another and learn. Listen critically, but learn. You know, what a loss that he was never able to share his thoughts really with anyone during his lifetime so that he could listen and refine his thoughts. And the world wasn’t able to listen to him and dialog with him. We have to be willing to listen and learn. But beyond those lessons of warning, there are gifts from him.
To me, the first gift from Teilhard is the realization that I do not live in a two-room house or in a two-story universe. I don’t live in a two-room house. I don’t live in a house where in one room I have all I find out from science. Then there’s a wall and a locked door and in the other room is everything I find out from faith. They welcome one another and enrich one another. I live in a one-room house. And I don’t live in a two-story universe, where in one story we have the material and in the other we have the spirit. One we have the natural, the other we have the supernatural. One place God is and the other place, God ain’t. We live in a Universe where God is truly present, The Word made flesh. We live in a world of spirit and flesh at the same time, all around us.
Teilhard also reminds us that we should value the work of our hands and the relationships of our hearts because they are not passing and perishable. They have a communal and cosmic future. Or another way of putting it, God takes our lives and who we are and what we do very seriously. It’s going somewhere. And, finally, he reminds us that the poetry of another Jesuit (Remember that phrase, “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.”)… He reminds us that that is not poetry. It’s not a metaphor. It’s not romantic thought. Rather, it is an accurate description of how near our God is, at work in our Universe, on our Earth, in our flesh and in our lives, bringing forth and building up the Kingdom of God at every moment.
Let us give thanks to the Lord Who is so good. Amen.
There is a difference between science and technology: (read on)
To me, the first gift from Teilhard is the realization that I do not live in a two-room house or in a two-story universe. I don’t live in a two-room house. I don’t live in a house where in one room I have all I find out from science. Then there’s a wall and a locked door and in the other room is everything I find out from faith. They welcome one another and enrich one another. I live in a one-room house. And I don’t live in a two-story universe, where in one story we have the material and in the other we have the spirit. One we have the natural, the other we have the supernatural. One place God is and the other place, God ain’t. We live in a Universe where God is truly present, The Word made flesh. We live in a world of spirit and flesh at the same time, all around us.
Teilhard also reminds us that we should value the work of our hands and the relationships of our hearts because they are not passing and perishable. They have a communal and cosmic future. Or another way of putting it, God takes our lives and who we are and what we do very seriously. It’s going somewhere. And, finally, he reminds us that the poetry of another Jesuit (Remember that phrase, “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.”)… He reminds us that that is not poetry. It’s not a metaphor. It’s not romantic thought. Rather, it is an accurate description of how near our God is, at work in our Universe, on our Earth, in our flesh and in our lives, bringing forth and building up the Kingdom of God at every moment.
Let us give thanks to the Lord Who is so good. Amen.
But, what lessons does he have for us today? I would say the first lesson is a warning. That is that we have to be able to listen to one another and learn. Listen critically, but learn. You know, what a loss that he was never able to share his thoughts really with anyone during his lifetime so that he could listen and refine his thoughts. And the world wasn’t able to listen to him and dialog with him. We have to be willing to listen and learn. But beyond those lessons of warning, there are gifts from him.
To me, the first gift from Teilhard is the realization that I do not live in a two-room house or in a two-story universe. I don’t live in a two-room house. I don’t live in a house where in one room I have all I find out from science. Then there’s a wall and a locked door and in the other room is everything I find out from faith. They welcome one another and enrich one another. I live in a one-room house. And I don’t live in a two-story universe, where in one story we have the material and in the other we have the spirit. One we have the natural, the other we have the supernatural. One place God is and the other place, God ain’t. We live in a Universe where God is truly present, The Word made flesh. We live in a world of spirit and flesh at the same time, all around us.
Teilhard also reminds us that we should value the work of our hands and the relationships of our hearts because they are not passing and perishable. They have a communal and cosmic future. Or another way of putting it, God takes our lives and who we are and what we do very seriously. It’s going somewhere. And, finally, he reminds us that the poetry of another Jesuit (Remember that phrase, “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.”)… He reminds us that that is not poetry. It’s not a metaphor. It’s not romantic thought. Rather, it is an accurate description of how near our God is, at work in our Universe, on our Earth, in our flesh and in our lives, bringing forth and building up the Kingdom of God at every moment.
Let us give thanks to the Lord Who is so good. Amen.
There is a difference between science and technology: (read on)
To me, the first gift from Teilhard is the realization that I do not live in a two-room house or in a two-story universe. I don’t live in a two-room house. I don’t live in a house where in one room I have all I find out from science. Then there’s a wall and a locked door and in the other room is everything I find out from faith. They welcome one another and enrich one another. I live in a one-room house. And I don’t live in a two-story universe, where in one story we have the material and in the other we have the spirit. One we have the natural, the other we have the supernatural. One place God is and the other place, God ain’t. We live in a Universe where God is truly present, The Word made flesh. We live in a world of spirit and flesh at the same time, all around us.
Teilhard also reminds us that we should value the work of our hands and the relationships of our hearts because they are not passing and perishable. They have a communal and cosmic future. Or another way of putting it, God takes our lives and who we are and what we do very seriously. It’s going somewhere. And, finally, he reminds us that the poetry of another Jesuit (Remember that phrase, “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.”)… He reminds us that that is not poetry. It’s not a metaphor. It’s not romantic thought. Rather, it is an accurate description of how near our God is, at work in our Universe, on our Earth, in our flesh and in our lives, bringing forth and building up the Kingdom of God at every moment.
Let us give thanks to the Lord Who is so good. Amen.
F
francessmith
Guest
Again, Science and Technology are not the same:
Science - the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment
Technology the study, development, and application of devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes. .recent developments in seismographic technology
Science - the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment
Technology the study, development, and application of devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes. .recent developments in seismographic technology
R
rinnie
Guest
What does God creating Adam without Eve saying the all he created was not perfect
And God did not created the pre=fall. Adam and Eve did that on their own. They had free will.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
frances
**
Again, Science and Technology are not the same:**
In a sense they are so allied that you are not likely to find one without the other. Technology is the practical application of scientific principles. You don’t get very far with technology without understanding and being trained in scientific principles … not to mention mathematics!
**
Again, Science and Technology are not the same:**
In a sense they are so allied that you are not likely to find one without the other. Technology is the practical application of scientific principles. You don’t get very far with technology without understanding and being trained in scientific principles … not to mention mathematics!
S
SGWessells
Guest
By “pre-fall world,” Rossum meant the world as it existed before the fall.What does God creating Adam without Eve saying the all he created was not perfect
And God did not created the pre=fall. Adam and Eve did that on their own. They had free will.
R
rossum
Guest
Correct. My point was the before the Fall, God himself described at least one aspect of the then existing world as “not good”. Hence any claims that before the Fall the world was entirely “very good” or even perfect are incorrect.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
It certainly wasn’t an earthly paradise!
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
It is not good that the man be alone.What does God creating Adam without Eve saying the all he created was not perfect
And God did not created the pre=fall. Adam and Eve did that on their own. They had free will.
This is pre fall.
Why did God admit he did not create well enough for Adam to be happy pre-fall? Pre-Eve?
Why did he think animals would be good enough to entertain Adam?
T
tonyrey
Guest
The Genesis account of Creation is not literal but allegorical.
B
buffalo
Guest
God was sharing with us how important it was for man to have a complementary partner.
R
rinnie
Guest
I understand that but as stated before there was no SIN before the Fall. In the Pre-fall the world was perfect and sin had not entered the world.
That is why there was no death, until Adam and Eve sinned.
R
rinnie
Guest
I still do not understand how this could say that all that God created was not good
Rather God decided to create a woman for a man has nothing to do with what he previously created not to be good.God never said he messed up or should NOT create animals. He just decided to add more to the world.
It was God that decided that Adam should have a woman not Adam? Where did Adam complain he was lonely or not happy?
R
rossum
Guest
False. And God Himself has told you it is false: “it is not good…” In my book “not good” is most certainly not “perfect”. The pre-Fall world was not perfect.
But the talking serpent had. The serpent was there tempting Eve before she ate the fruit. Was that not a sin? Was Lucifer’s rebellion against God not a sin? If that wasn’t before the Fall then where did the serpent come from?
No human death, “and so death passed upon all men” - [Romans 5:12]. This says nothing about death and armadillos.That is why there was no death, until Adam and Eve sinned.
rossum
- Status