I
itinerant1
Guest
That is precisely where you fail; it is self-deception. :ballspin:
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
In that case, a different term would have to be used, a word other than “*uni-*verse”.
E
edwest2
Guest
“abundantly clear” Only one thing is abundantly clear:
Julian Huxley, 1959.
“In evolutionary thought, there is no need or room for the supernatural, and no longer any place for it. The earth was not created, it evolved… So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. Religion, too, originated by evolution… The evolutionary man can no longer take refuge in the arms of a divinized father figure whom he has himself created.”
Excerpt from Chance or Purpose, page 27.
It’s a shame science has been taken over by an ideology.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
Still waiting to hear what the basis is for this claim, and also an explanation as to what it means specifically.
Lacking a response, I will be compelled to write it off as just another fundamentalist Protestant, creationist fantasy.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Likewise, it is a shame that the bible is being subjected to a mindless literalism and creationist ideology by those claiming to be Catholic.
B
buffalo
Guest
**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. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.
**1046 **For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
I
itinerant1
Guest
That response does not address my question. Original Justice and its loss refers to “man” and not to all of creation. Every other comment you made about human history is also irrelevant to the problematic nature of Edwest’s blanket statement.
In regard to the cosmos and non-human life, there is generation and corruption as a natural process. My concern addresses the apparent attempt to portray the natural processes of corruption, from which the cosmos will be liberated upon its transformation, as a result of original sin.
Hence, you have talked around the issue, that is, your post does not address the specific issue, and apparently Ed is unable to do so.
A position is not supported with irrelevant comments.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Addendum:
“Harmony with creation is broken” may only indicate man’s lack of harmony within himself and thereby with creation also, as a consequence. It does not say that death entered creation itself other than in the case of man.
Thus what is the authoritative source for the blanket statement Ed made about creation?
“Harmony with creation is broken” may only indicate man’s lack of harmony within himself and thereby with creation also, as a consequence. It does not say that death entered creation itself other than in the case of man.
Thus what is the authoritative source for the blanket statement Ed made about creation?
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you buffalo. Apparently one poster here missed the statement that death entered human history. Any Creationist will tell you that until the Fall, there was no death. Adam and Eve weren’t going to die. Or, The wages of sin is death.
What I still can’t understand is the obvious deadly dire consequences of believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Will I forget how to drive? Tie my shoes? What?
I spent a good deal of time in an electronics specialty school. Evolution was never mentioned once or the age of the earth. I completed my studies successfully. Life goes on. But here. I don’t know, the earth explodes, but before it gets sucked into the sun, the last human yells, “I blame all of this on the Creationists!” Nonsense.
God bless,
Ed
For the record. I do not think the earth is 6,000 years old, and I think the dating methods are off.
What I still can’t understand is the obvious deadly dire consequences of believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Will I forget how to drive? Tie my shoes? What?
I spent a good deal of time in an electronics specialty school. Evolution was never mentioned once or the age of the earth. I completed my studies successfully. Life goes on. But here. I don’t know, the earth explodes, but before it gets sucked into the sun, the last human yells, “I blame all of this on the Creationists!” Nonsense.
God bless,
Ed
For the record. I do not think the earth is 6,000 years old, and I think the dating methods are off.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Sounds like you are just blowing more smoke rather than addressing the post that stated the following:
What is the authoritative source for your statement, “All of Creation became degraded”?
B
buffalo
Guest
Doctrine of the Resurrection according to St. Paul Pope John Paul II ** GENERAL AUDIENCE OF WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY
**
…At this point of the First Letter to the Corinthians the author does not speak directly of original sin. Yet the series of definitions which he attributes to the body of historical man, writing that it is “perishable…weak…physical…in dishonor…” indicates sufficiently what the consequence of sin is, according to revelation. Paul himself will call it elsewhere “bondage to decay” (Rom 8:21). The whole of creation is subjected indirectly to this “bondage to decay” owing to the sin of man, who was placed by the Creator in the midst of the visible world in order to subdue it (cf. Gn 1:28). So man’s sin has a dimension that is not only interior, but also cosmic. According to this dimension, the body—which Paul (in conformity with his experience) characterizes as “perishable…weak…physical…in dishonor…”—expresses in itself the state of creation after sin. This creation “has been groaning in travail together until now” (Rom 8:22).
I
itinerant1
Guest
So far you are correct. I was pushing the issue to see if Edwest or you would perchance expand on the the “bondage to decay” with specific details, such as I have seen done by a number of creationists, and some of the those specifics, however, cannot be supported by what St. Paul says. And that would have been my real contention, but nothing came up. So, if you are just staying with citing the Letter to the Romans, then there is nothing I can object to. Darn! I must find something else, instead.
What is interesting according to St. Paul’s teaching on sin is that it is not only Original Sin that has consequences for creation, but it seems that even personal sin reverberates cosmically somehow. There is some great mystery here.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I retract my challenge thanks to Buffalo, who came up with an adequate response.
I
itinerant1
Guest
What supposedly makes the trickster argument bogus you have not really said, as I shall explain.
If the general findings of geology, archaeology, astrophysics, and other natural sciences tell us the earth and the universe are quite ancient, but creationists say the world was actually created only several millenniums ago, but created in an advanced state of billions of years, then the natural sciences are giving us false information and science has no means for determining what is fact and what is not.
(I realize only “some” creationists take the foregoing position, while certain others claim that “genuine” scientific evidence will reveal a young earth; and yet other creationists, like Phillip E. Johnson at U.C. Berkeley, do not believe in a young earth. So, creationists are all over the map on this one, just as Protestant fundamentalists are all over the map about the actual sequence of events of the End Times, but that is another story. In sum, fundamentalists are all over the place about the beginning of time and the end of time, and can’t seem to get either right…)
My contention in no way implies, by any stretch of the imagination, that God should have given us infused knowledge. My contention is, rather, that God gave man a mind and a desire to discover the truth about His creation, but that truth remains unattainable because of the radical chronological disconnect in physical reality being asserted by creationist ideology. Hence, the natural desire to know, which God created in man, is frustrated by that same God with His trick creation. The creationists’ god looks suspect. If there were to be a criminal investigation into this cosmic fraud, the creationists’ god would be charged and found guilty.
The YEC argument, so described, makes God out to have fooled everyone (except the YECs of course), and He has given man a mind and the gift of science, but neither of which are reliable or worth much within a YEC universe.
It is a possibility that a trickster was involved, a possibility that can be affirmed or dis-confirmed only if the human mind can discover the truth about a physical situation, which it cannot do in a young universe created to appear old.
Not that it matters, but since you mentioned it, how old would you say the earth is?
Don’t you think this is a strange comment to make in light of the many times I have posted an explanation of the Jewish idea of the firmament, and so far you have refused to reply to any of those previous posts. The is the closest you have come to a response, and it ends up being a question.
Tell me then, what do you think the “Jewish word firmament means”? (Actually, “firmament” is not a “Jewish” word as you so characterized it. Neither is it a Hebrew word. It is an English word. But proceed anyway with your explanation, and we will go from there).
B
buffalo
Guest
Duh - of course the word firmament is a translation. My understanding of the meaning of firmament is “expanse”.
Using archaeology, history and science together - minimum 12,000 years and up. I really do not know the upper limit, but it seems the lower limit has to be 12,000 or so.
The argument that God would be indicted for being a trickster is so bogus. One could argue that He is tricking us by not allowing us to observe the supernatural world. Why can’t we see angels on a regular basis? He is tricking us? Bogus! Bogus! Bogus!
B
buffalo
Guest
I had started that thread and the quantum effects of it (the thread went nowhere).
The question I was putting forth was this - can the cumulation of the world’s prayer or non-prayer affect the journey of the cosmos? Is God allowing us as the human totality to plot our own course?
E
edwest2
Guest
So, the return of the Trickster?
It goes like this: Sure, Jesus raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, walked on water, calmed the storm, all without technology. Came back bodily from the dead. OK, I’ll give you that. But see this over here? God didn’t do that. It happened ‘naturally’ (whatever that means). So no, God could not have literally stretched out the Heavens and no, God did not create a fully formed earth, but maybe he sorta, kinda created an immortal Adam, and Eve was made, by God, from Adam’s side. Uh… maybe. But, stars are billions of light years away.
Apparently, I’m not allowed to think the earth may be less than billions of years old, or what? It explodes?
God bless,
Ed
It goes like this: Sure, Jesus raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, walked on water, calmed the storm, all without technology. Came back bodily from the dead. OK, I’ll give you that. But see this over here? God didn’t do that. It happened ‘naturally’ (whatever that means). So no, God could not have literally stretched out the Heavens and no, God did not create a fully formed earth, but maybe he sorta, kinda created an immortal Adam, and Eve was made, by God, from Adam’s side. Uh… maybe. But, stars are billions of light years away.
Apparently, I’m not allowed to think the earth may be less than billions of years old, or what? It explodes?
God bless,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, how big is the firmament? Thousands of miles in extent or millions? Or perhaps even bigger than that?
B
buffalo
Guest
The expanse?
- Status