If this is “state of the art” Catholic thinking then no wonder it is a dying church. You pretty much said one can take or leave whatever they want from the Bible. It’s a “living document” just like the Constitution, right?
You have no idea what philosophical and theological and for that matter scientific quicksand you are in, do you?[/quote]
Easy Push. I assure you the Catholic church is going nowhere. No we don’t subscribe to a literal biblical translation. We feel the truth lies deeper and is much larger than the words on the page. But we do not cherry pick scripture for nuggets that fit our view. Look the church existed before the bible was assembled and before the NT was written. We are Christ centered, not scripture centered. Scripture is the ultimate authority, but it is not the only way to know God.
In other words, don’t rip us all because your pissed off at Sloth.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]
When did this occur?
Sloth obviously disagrees with you. As an evolutionist he has placed millions of years of death in the picture before man even came along.[/quote]
So? What’s the issue with death having been the reality of species pre man?
We offer no exacting answer to when death (chronologically) entered the world. We also do not give an exacting answer to when the first man and woman were seen as the first man and woman. That is, as oppossed to a developmental stage leading to man in the line of evolution. We make room for biological processes (planned out WAY back down the chain) to have been the selected tool for the development of what would be the first Human, with a capital H. The soul, now that would be the immediate gift of God to first man and woman he deemed ‘finished.’ Ready, whatever. Basically, an end had been reached, and the next step was set in motion.
While God had wanted man, from first to last, to live eternally in his grace, he understood where the gifting of free will would lead. Even in the literalist reading of the apple test, your understand it’s a test. A demonstration of why things will become what they will throughout human history. If not a test (or perhaps demonstration is the better term), why the tree in the first place? Why is the situation even presented? Furthermore, obviously Adam and Eve were already capable of rebellion, or we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, as they would’ve been literally incapable of their disobedience.
Somewhere along the line a Human being, singularly graced with the first revelation of God, was capable of sin, acted out on it, and demonstrated why we aren’t ready for eternal life in God’s grace. Yet.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]
But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.
Does this sound like the act of a loving God?
In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.
My issue is this: Why is it assumed this “first cause” is sentient and has a plan? Gravity causes things to fall down… gravity doesn’t think about what it’s pulling down, it just is. [/quote]
That’s a legit question. It does not necessarily follow that the Uncaused-cause would have anything to do with what follows it’s initial act of causation.
But think about this, for something to be an uncaused-cause, what properties must it posses to fulfill the role of an uncaused-causer?
I would say first, it must exist unaffected in any way by anything. Second, since ‘it’ cannot be caused to do anything, then it must posses something like a ‘will’ to make it happen.
If it cannot be affected by outside influences, it must choose of it’s own freewill, what to do. If this is true, we can see something of a personality appear. As people we are proud of our work and we tend to protect, I’d imagine God is some what the same way.[/quote]
Excellent argument. Going to take me a few days to really wrap my brain around this subject.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]
But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.
Does this sound like the act of a loving God?
In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.
But do you see what you’re lamenting? Free will. The alternative is to have been created as simple automatons, unthinking, running the “living a life in grace” software. What you’ve called entrapment was simply a demonstration of the inevitable consequence of having the capactity to contemplate, thus choose, to disobey. So while there was that capability, which we believe God would’ve been aware of, the first act of disobedience would’ve brought sin into the world as reality. We pay for their act of disobedience because we maintain their gift of free will. Because of this, there is much to master about ourselves, to learn, before we are worthy (not that we ever truly are) to live eternally in God’s presence.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We offer no exacting answer to when death (chronologically) entered the world. We also do not give an exacting answer to when the first man and woman were seen as the first man and woman. That is, as oppossed to a developmental stage leading to man in the line of evolution. We make room for biological processes (planned out WAY back down the chain) to have been the selected tool for the development of what would be the first Human, with a capital H. The soul, now that would be the immediate gift of God to first man and woman he deemed ‘finished.’ Ready, whatever. Basically, an end had been reached, and the next step was set in motion.
While God had wanted man, from first to last, to live eternally in his grace, he understood where the gifting of free will would lead. Even in the literalist reading of the apple test, your understand it’s a test. A demonstration of why things will become what they will throughout human history. If not a test (or perhaps demonstration is the better term), why the tree in the first place? Why is the situation even presented? Furthermore, obviously Adam and Eve were already capable of rebellion, or we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, as they would’ve been literally incapable of their disobedience.
Somewhere along the line a Human being, singularly graced with the first revelation of God, was capable of sin, acted out on it, and demonstrated why we aren’t ready for eternal life in God’s grace. Yet.[/quote]
You and Pat obviously disagree then. He agrees with me that man’s sin brought death into the world (Romans 5:12 Genesis 3). [/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]
But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.
Does this sound like the act of a loving God?
In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.
… What you’ve called entrapment was simply a demonstration of the inevitable consequence of having the capactity to contemplate, thus choose, to disobey. [/quote]
Inevitable consequence.
So God made us with a quality that He knew would be our undoing, and punishes us for it? So that we can eternally struggle to be worthy of something we’ll never be worthy of?
My point stands: Literal impossibility aside (no snakes have ever talked, ever), the bible doesn’t depict a loving God.
So God made us with a quality that He knew would be our undoing, and punishes us for it? So that we can eternally struggle to be worthy of something we’ll never be worthy of?
My point stands: Literal impossibility aside (no snakes have ever talked, ever), the bible doesn’t depict a loving God. [/quote]
Then you’d create man as automaton. I’d rather the present arrangment. At least my seperation from, or nearness to, God, would be the result of a self-aware, choice making, individual. Me. Again, the ‘quality’ you deplore, is the one I’m grateful for. I don’t know, I guess I’m just not interested in being a robot, basically.
So God made us with a quality that He knew would be our undoing, and punishes us for it? So that we can eternally struggle to be worthy of something we’ll never be worthy of?
My point stands: Literal impossibility aside (no snakes have ever talked, ever), the bible doesn’t depict a loving God. [/quote]
Then you’d create man as automaton. I’d rather the present arrangment. At least my seperation from, or nearness to, God, would be the result of a self-aware, choice making, individual. Me. [/quote]
Or you could create man with free will, and not create a forbidden fruit, or not create a demon to convince them to eat of that fruit. Or put the tree real real super far away so they have to really work to disobey.
Or you could understand that its your own damn fault for setting the whole situation up (not to mention the fact that you knew what was going to happen), and forgive their childrens childrens children for something they had no part of.
So God made us with a quality that He knew would be our undoing, and punishes us for it? So that we can eternally struggle to be worthy of something we’ll never be worthy of?
My point stands: Literal impossibility aside (no snakes have ever talked, ever), the bible doesn’t depict a loving God. [/quote]
Then you’d create man as automaton. I’d rather the present arrangment. At least my seperation from, or nearness to, God, would be the result of a self-aware, choice making, individual. Me. [/quote]
Or you could create man with free will, and not create a forbidden fruit, or not create a demon to convince them to eat of that fruit. Or put the tree real real super far away so they have to really work to disobey.
Or you could understand that its your own damn fault for setting the whole situation up (not to mention the fact that you knew what was going to happen), and forgive their childrens childrens children for something they had no part of.[/quote]
Methinks you’re not uderstanding that very nature of free will as the origin of the inevitable.
So God made us with a quality that He knew would be our undoing, and punishes us for it? So that we can eternally struggle to be worthy of something we’ll never be worthy of?
My point stands: Literal impossibility aside (no snakes have ever talked, ever), the bible doesn’t depict a loving God. [/quote]
Then you’d create man as automaton. I’d rather the present arrangment. At least my seperation from, or nearness to, God, would be the result of a self-aware, choice making, individual. Me. [/quote]
Or you could create man with free will, and not create a forbidden fruit, or not create a demon to convince them to eat of that fruit. Or put the tree real real super far away so they have to really work to disobey.
Or you could understand that its your own damn fault for setting the whole situation up (not to mention the fact that you knew what was going to happen), and forgive their childrens childrens children for something they had no part of.[/quote]
Methinks you’re not uderstanding that very nature of free will as the origin of the inevitable. [/quote]
Methinks you’re not understanding how a truly loving, all powerful God would act.
So God made us with a quality that He knew would be our undoing, and punishes us for it? So that we can eternally struggle to be worthy of something we’ll never be worthy of?
My point stands: Literal impossibility aside (no snakes have ever talked, ever), the bible doesn’t depict a loving God. [/quote]
Then you’d create man as automaton. I’d rather the present arrangment. At least my seperation from, or nearness to, God, would be the result of a self-aware, choice making, individual. Me. [/quote]
Or you could create man with free will, and not create a forbidden fruit, or not create a demon to convince them to eat of that fruit. Or put the tree real real super far away so they have to really work to disobey.
Or you could understand that its your own damn fault for setting the whole situation up (not to mention the fact that you knew what was going to happen), and forgive their childrens childrens children for something they had no part of.[/quote]
Methinks you’re not uderstanding that very nature of free will as the origin of the inevitable. [/quote]
Methinks you’re not understanding how a truly loving, all powerful God would act.[/quote]
