Where did the body of Eve come from in 'catholic' evolution?
#21
(03-08-2017, 05:02 PM)In His Love Wrote: The Remnant published an article yesterday tackling the problem of evolution.

Evolution and the Neo-Catholic Planet of the Apes:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.ph...f-the-apes

This was a really good article.  It said some things that make me lean again towards theistic evolution.  Judging by what it said, it sounds as if it would be acceptable for Catholics, from a traditional mindset, to believe perhaps God created one type of deer, for example, and all the whitetails, muleys, elk, moose, caribou, etc., diverged from that original deer species, but that original deer species did not evolve from a single cell.  Ultimately, it sounds like it is possible to believe that all kinds of animals may have diverged into the current varieties we have now, and that mankind alone was created as is, and diverged from nothing before it.  Does that sound right?

The one thing I can't get past, and the article mentioned this, is the idea that evolution can't be true because if it is, Original Sin cannot be.  Or, more accurately, original sin as the foundation of death could not be.  This is where every argument for strict creationism loses its credibility for me.  The author of this article kind of mixed together his/her belief in the implausibility of evolution with the "fact" that death began with original sin, and that because of that, it is nonsensical to believe that death existed before the creation of man.  Whatever holes in the theory there may be with evolution or the age of the earth, physical death most certainly existed before the beginning of human kind.  There are fossils of dinosaurs that have the teeth and claws of carnivores (fully developed, no less, not in a useless, developing stage as the author put it).  There are fossils of dinosaurs with fossils of other animals in their stomachs.  I imagine someone might say, "Maybe those dinosaurs aren't really as old as we think.  After all, if their age is determined by carbon dating, that has been shown to be false."  Ok, maybe.  But my question to that is, even if carbon dating tells us a dinosaur fossil is 85 million years old when it really isn't, it's certainly still older than the oldest human.  If the problem were carbon dating being inherently flawed, certainly a creationist could present a fossil of a modern human that, when dated, appears to be several dozen million years old, right?  Cassini?

Death pre-existed man.  Any refutation of evolution, for the purpose of defending creationism, would have to be able to confront that fact in order for me to consider it credible.
Reply
#22
(03-08-2017, 06:05 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Melkite, I loves ya, but this IS a Catholic forum.

People either have faith (which is not contrary to reason), or they don't. It's apparent you don't. OK-fine. But you can't expect to come to a Catholic forum and expect to get away with discounting the possibility of miracles a priori (which is not a scientific stance, BTW).

We have faith because we've been given the grace to have it. If you want that grace, ask for it; if you don't, don't (and if you've asked but still don't have it, don't despair; it took me probably 20 years to be able to receive it). But you can't expect to come to a Catholic forum and argue against the existence of God, miracles, angels, demons, etc. and get away with it. If you don't believe in the probability of miracles, then you don't. But we do (and science cannot prove miracles don't happen, have never happened, etc.). Same with the existence of God (and some of us have experienced Him so we know He exists).

It's one thing to have and ask questions; it's another to talk about the Catholic position as being ignorant, unreasonable, scientifically unfeasible, etc., and to pile on.

I'm sorry that I've been disrespectful in this discussion.  I forget in the heat of the moment that this is your forum, and Vox, you of all people are the last I want to offend or hurt.  I'm truly sorry.  My DNA test said I was less than 1% Italian, I guess they either got that wrong, or it's one hell of a dominant gene!  :LOL:

I may not have faith anymore, but I still want to believe the Church is true.  I don't want to believe that the world and everything beautiful in it is just some tragic accident of mindless physics.  But there is so much in the world that causes cognitive dissonance when they try to reconcile it with a Christian worldview, even moreso a traditional Catholic one.  The Latin in me gets the better of me all too frequently, but please know, when I get angry and accusatory, I'm angry at falsehood parading as truth.  I may ultimately be wrong about which facts are falsehood parading as truth, but I only want the truth to be crystal clear for anyone to see it, and my "attacks" if you can really call them that, on Catholic teaching are because I know if what the Church teaches is true, no attack I can make on it will be able to stand up to it.  The reason why it probably comes out as attacking is because when I first became Catholic, I didn't challenge the Church to prove itself.  I never demanded the Church to show me why it was worthy of believe, I just swallowed it hook, line and sinker like the willing customer of a snake-oil salesman.  The Church might not actually be one, but because I never demanded it to prove itself, it never showed me why it was more worthy of my faith than Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam or any other faith that demands prejudicial loyalty.  And that makes me angry at myself for relinquishing healthy skepticism to the Church.  I don't want to make that mistake again.  I want to believe the Church, but I don't want to just have faith in it.  Actually, I don't want to have faith in it at all.  I want to know it is the Truth if it is.  I need to know it, because I know the snake oil customer in me will just as easily gobble up Islamic snake oil or Mormon snake oil if I listen to their spiel if I don't demand they prove their effectiveness.  If I'm going to make them prove themselves, it would be unjust of me not to make Catholicism prove itself as well.

I'll try to be more respectful in my challenges of the Church, although, I think more likely it will probably be better for me if I refrain from challenging at all.  I don't know that I can ask a question about something I'm having strong doubts about in a way that both expresses the doubt effectively and is respectful to those who don't doubt.  I feel like, in showing respect, I would be suggesting I don't think the causes of my doubt were objectively worthy of causing doubt in anybody, or by suggesting they are, then I would be a liar to show respect for a belief I believe to be erroneous.  How do you respect something you know to be wrong, even if you yourself are wrong of its error, without making yourself complicit in the profession of falsehood? 
Reply
#23
(03-08-2017, 09:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-08-2017, 06:05 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Melkite, I loves ya, but this IS a Catholic forum.

People either have faith (which is not contrary to reason), or they don't. It's apparent you don't. OK-fine. But you can't expect to come to a Catholic forum and expect to get away with discounting the possibility of miracles a priori (which is not a scientific stance, BTW).

We have faith because we've been given the grace to have it. If you want that grace, ask for it; if you don't, don't (and if you've asked but still don't have it, don't despair; it took me probably 20 years to be able to receive it). But you can't expect to come to a Catholic forum and argue against the existence of God, miracles, angels, demons, etc. and get away with it. If you don't believe in the probability of miracles, then you don't. But we do (and science cannot prove miracles don't happen, have never happened, etc.). Same with the existence of God (and some of us have experienced Him so we know He exists).

It's one thing to have and ask questions; it's another to talk about the Catholic position as being ignorant, unreasonable, scientifically unfeasible, etc., and to pile on.

I'm sorry that I've been disrespectful in this discussion.  I forget in the heat of the moment that this is your forum, and Vox, you of all people are the last I want to offend or hurt.  I'm truly sorry.  My DNA test said I was less than 1% Italian, I guess they either got that wrong, or it's one hell of a dominant gene!  :LOL:

Oh, it's dominant all right! I'm actually only half Italian, but when asked, typically just say "Italian." LOL

Quote:I may not have faith anymore, but I still want to believe the Church is true.  I don't want to believe that the world and everything beautiful in it is just some tragic accident of mindless physics.  But there is so much in the world that causes cognitive dissonance when they try to reconcile it with a Christian worldview, even moreso a traditional Catholic one.  The Latin in me gets the better of me all too frequently, but please know, when I get angry and accusatory, I'm angry at falsehood parading as truth.  I may ultimately be wrong about which facts are falsehood parading as truth, but I only want the truth to be crystal clear for anyone to see it, and my "attacks" if you can really call them that, on Catholic teaching are because I know if what the Church teaches is true, no attack I can make on it will be able to stand up to it.  The reason why it probably comes out as attacking is because when I first became Catholic, I didn't challenge the Church to prove itself.  I never demanded the Church to show me why it was worthy of believe, I just swallowed it hook, line and sinker like the willing customer of a snake-oil salesman.  The Church might not actually be one, but because I never demanded it to prove itself, it never showed me why it was more worthy of my faith than Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam or any other faith that demands prejudicial loyalty.  And that makes me angry at myself for relinquishing healthy skepticism to the Church.  I don't want to make that mistake again.  I want to believe the Church, but I don't want to just have faith in it.  Actually, I don't want to have faith in it at all.  I want to know it is the Truth if it is.  I need to know it, because I know the snake oil customer in me will just as easily gobble up Islamic snake oil or Mormon snake oil if I listen to their spiel if I don't demand they prove their effectiveness.  If I'm going to make them prove themselves, it would be unjust of me not to make Catholicism prove itself as well.

See, this is why you break my heart and why I have a soft spot for you (well, one of a number of reasons). You've been here for a long time, and all that time it's been clear to me that you WANT to believe. While you do sometimes come off as disrespectful, I think that it's not actually disrespect but a form of -- well, angst. With some anger thrown in. Like I said, I, too, wanted to believe for YEARS, but simply didn't. Those years were bad. Really, really bad. And I'm so grateful to have somehow, in whatever way things work, gotten myself prepared and able to receive the gift of faith. I just know this will happen for you, too.

See, faith isn't contradictory to reason. It simply isn't. It's another source of knowledge, one that science won't contradict, but one that is beyond the purview of science. E.g., miracles: if miracles happen, they happen outside normal, every day physical laws. That means science can't explain them. But that doesn't mean they contradict science, and just because science can't explain them doesn't mean they don't happen. Using science as the measure for all things is like trying to dig a grave with a spoon; wrong tool for the job. Science is just one tool, not all tools.

Reason: If God exists, it isn't impossible that miracles happen. And if miracles happen, science won't be able to explain them. Still doesn't mean they don't happen. And if you reject the possibility of the miraculous from the outset because science can't measure them, you're not being reasonable.

Quote: I'll try to be more respectful in my challenges of the Church, although, I think more likely it will probably be better for me if I refrain from challenging at all.  I don't know that I can ask a question about something I'm having strong doubts about in a way that both expresses the doubt effectively and is respectful to those who don't doubt.  I feel like, in showing respect, I would be suggesting I don't think the causes of my doubt were objectively worthy of causing doubt in anybody, or by suggesting they are, then I would be a liar to show respect for a belief I believe to be erroneous.  How do you respect something you know to be wrong, even if you yourself are wrong of its error, without making yourself complicit in the profession of falsehood?

No, don't stop asking questions! It's good for everyone! Good for you in that you might get answers you need, and good for Catholics who need to be kept on our toes!

Of course you're not expected to show respect in terms of pretending you believe what you don't believe or anything. But I hope you can show respect in the sense of having an open mind and of giving credence to the idea that 2,000 years of Catholic Doctors, theologians, scientists, Saints, etc., aren't stupid or anything. You KWIM. I think that if you don't assume you're perfectly right in your assumptions, stop thinking of science as the only tool there is, and  honestly seek Truth, you will not be let down. Not in the end. Might take a while, but ask Him to show you all Truth, and He will. That's a promise :)
Reply
#24
Well, I just got my first answer, completely unexpectedly, and it's left me sorrowfully joyful, if that makes any sense.  Someone asked in another thread if people forget their loved ones in hell if they are in heaven.  This is a question that has always bothered me, how can heaven truly be a happy place if you know that someone you loved with all of your soul was permanently in hell?  It's bothered me to the point that, if I don't believe, I want very strongly to believe in an ultimate universal reconciliation if there is an afterlife.

At any rate, there are things in my life that I think are horrible, that even should they end, I can't imagine how God could possibly console their experience in this life, other than to make me completely forget.  And I don't want to forget, because my experiences make me who I am.  My horrible experiences are relatively light compared to what some people have to go through, so I imagine that all of humanity has felt, at some point or another, that their existence is so painful that nothing can console having to have borne such pain, even if only for a limited time.  Because of this, when I go to church, the only thing I've been able to pray for, maybe the past 6 months or so, is to beg God to have mercy on me and let me cease to exist when I die, and to beg the Theotokos to intercede for me, that God would allow it.  I can't imagine how God could make me stop feeling the pain, other than by me not existing to feel it.  As much as I don't want to stop existing, I can't bear the thought of permanent loss.  At least if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be aware of any of it.  And I figured if I pleaded with God sincerely enough, if he truly has any degree of love for me, he could allow it.  He certainly has the power to make me cease to exist if he has the power to call me into existence from nothing.

So, back to the thread about forgetting loved ones in hell.  I realized why there has to be a hell.  The only thing we need to cease to exist is for God to forget us.  The moment he isn't aware of us, we would vanish in an instant.  But you can't ever truly forget someone you love.  So, if God really loves us, as much as he might want to allow us to cease to exist to spare us pain, from a purely human perspective, he isn't capable of letting our memory go.  So if he does love us, it's logically impossible for us to ever cease to exist.  This is beautiful and depressing to me at the same time.  To know that you are loved so immensely and deeply, and that love is the very reason that your own pain will never come to an end.  It quenches the pain at the same time as it perpetuates it.  It's completely joyful and completely sorrowful at the same time. 
Reply
#25
(03-10-2017, 12:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: This is beautiful and depressing to me at the same time.  To know that you are loved so immensely and deeply, and that love is the very reason that your own pain will never come to an end.  It quenches the pain at the same time as it perpetuates it.  It's completely joyful and completely sorrowful at the same time.
But since you are loved so immensely and deeply, would it not also make sense to trust that this same God will soothe and ease all the wounds that cause you pain if you are open to that same love?
Reply
#26
(03-10-2017, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: But since you are loved so immensely and deeply, would it not also make sense to trust that this same God will soothe and ease all the wounds that cause you pain if you are open to that same love?

Probably.  But right now, I can't contemplate a soothing or easing that doesn't involve an undoing via rewriting history without getting immensely Italian.
Reply
#27
(03-10-2017, 01:02 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-10-2017, 12:38 AM)In His Love Wrote: But since you are loved so immensely and deeply, would it not also make sense to trust that this same God will soothe and ease all the wounds that cause you pain if you are open to that same love?

Probably.  But right now, I can't contemplate a soothing or easing that doesn't involve an undoing via rewriting history without getting immensely Italian.
Understandable. You have some big things to sort out. But I think you're making good progress, from what you've posted here. :)

Here are some saints I can think of off the top of my head who carried considerable mental burdens, at least at one point. You could ask for their intercession.

Our Lady (was told at Jesus' presentation that "a sword shall pierce [her] heart"; saw Him die in a horrible fashion)
St. Francis de Sales (struggled for a time with what he was hearing from Calvinists and was afraid of going to hell)
St. Ignatius Loyola (tempted to commit suicide)
St. Alphonsus Liguori (struggled with scruples)
St. Therese of Lisieux (struggled with scruples)

St. Dymphna is the patroness of those who are mentally afflicted.
Reply
#28
(03-10-2017, 12:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Well, I just got my first answer, completely unexpectedly, and it's left me sorrowfully joyful, if that makes any sense.  Someone asked in another thread if people forget their loved ones in hell if they are in heaven.  This is a question that has always bothered me, how can heaven truly be a happy place if you know that someone you loved with all of your soul was permanently in hell?  It's bothered me to the point that, if I don't believe, I want very strongly to believe in an ultimate universal reconciliation if there is an afterlife.

At any rate, there are things in my life that I think are horrible, that even should they end, I can't imagine how God could possibly console their experience in this life, other than to make me completely forget.  And I don't want to forget, because my experiences make me who I am.  My horrible experiences are relatively light compared to what some people have to go through, so I imagine that all of humanity has felt, at some point or another, that their existence is so painful that nothing can console having to have borne such pain, even if only for a limited time.  Because of this, when I go to church, the only thing I've been able to pray for, maybe the past 6 months or so, is to beg God to have mercy on me and let me cease to exist when I die, and to beg the Theotokos to intercede for me, that God would allow it.  I can't imagine how God could make me stop feeling the pain, other than by me not existing to feel it.  As much as I don't want to stop existing, I can't bear the thought of permanent loss.  At least if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be aware of any of it.  And I figured if I pleaded with God sincerely enough, if he truly has any degree of love for me, he could allow it.  He certainly has the power to make me cease to exist if he has the power to call me into existence from nothing.

So, back to the thread about forgetting loved ones in hell.  I realized why there has to be a hell.  The only thing we need to cease to exist is for God to forget us.  The moment he isn't aware of us, we would vanish in an instant.  But you can't ever truly forget someone you love.  So, if God really loves us, as much as he might want to allow us to cease to exist to spare us pain, from a purely human perspective, he isn't capable of letting our memory go.  So if he does love us, it's logically impossible for us to ever cease to exist.  This is beautiful and depressing to me at the same time.  To know that you are loved so immensely and deeply, and that love is the very reason that your own pain will never come to an end.  It quenches the pain at the same time as it perpetuates it.  It's completely joyful and completely sorrowful at the same time.

Somewhere in the sub-section of the FE site on the Preternatural World, I say something to this effect:  that many gentle and innocent souls disbelieve in Hell because they project their own goodness onto everyone. "How can ANYONE end up in HELL? It's so mean!" But the thing is that there really are truly malevolent, vicious people out there. Heck, lemme find what I wrote...

.. OK, back. I wrote this:

Quote:
There are those who don't believe in Hell, or who believe that Hell contains but a few, or who think that Hell is more like Purgatory -- that it may have souls now, but will eventually be emptied. This is against the teachings of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and it must be understood that people send themselves there by the choices they make. They are never sent there out of simple ignorance. Further, there really are truly wicked people in the world. I think that the innocent-minded sometimes have an inordinately "soft" view of people, projecting their own innocence onto others. "How bad can a person be to suffer eternal torments? I just can't imagine that anyone could warrant such a punishment!" The innocent can often be naive -- though it's not so at all so that "innocence" and "naivete" must go together -- and while that sort of ignorance and psychological projection have a sweetness about them, it's dangerous. It's dangerous in terms of personal safety, and it's dangerous in terms of how such soft-hearted souls can too easily think that everyone is basically good and, so, can't deserve going to Hell, thereby leading them to embrace heresy. Let me tell you a few stories to make those innocent but ignorant-of-evil people more aware. I warn you that the following stories will be very difficult to read! They're extremely brutal and ugly. But they are true.


BEGIN WARNING:

[size=10pt]Skip the text between this point and the "End Warning" notation if you're sensitive to reading about violence. And be warned that it isn't a typical sort of violence that will be described, but the most gruesome sort!

[size=10pt]The first is about a little girl I read about many, many years ago but whom I just cannot forget. I'm a "True Crime" buff, and have read many stories about the evils man is capable of, but something about this particular story struck me to the core. I don't know why, but this little girl has become, for me, a reminder of why Hell exists. This little girl was a little black child, a baby, and her name was Onowanique. One day, she wouldn't stop crying, so her parents murdered her. And then they cut her up into pieces. Her little hands and little feet were found on top of the stove, cooked in a frying pan, in order to be fed to the dogs. Her sweet little head was found in a blender.2

The second story is about the murder of Kelly Ann Bates. Her mother described meeting the man who'd become Kelly's boyfriend and murderer with these words: "As soon as I saw Smith the hairs on the back of my neck went up. I tried everything I could to get Kelly Anne away from him." 3 That boyfriend, whose full name was James Patterson Smith, murdered Kelly in a crime so gruesome that the jury who heard the case was provided with counseling to help them deal with what they'd seen and heard. Mr. Patterson starved Kelly until she'd lost almost 45 pounds; scalded her; burned her; broke her arm; stabbed her repeatedly, including inside her mouth; crushed her hands; mutilated her ears, nose, mouth, and genitalia; partially scalped her; gouged out her eyes and then later stabbed her through the empty eye sockets; beat her in the head; and, finally, drowned her, the coup that, mercifully, killed her. Her eyes had been gouged out at least 5 days and up to three weeks before her death. This murder wasn't the result of a single act of passion; it was an ongoing bout of hideous torture that lasted for weeks and maybe months.

The third story is about an Australian man named Peter Scully, who moved from "Oz" to the Philippines in order to escape authorities who wanted him for fraud. In the Philippines, he began making films for view on "The Dark Web," a "level" of the internet that is only accessibly by using certain software. He is infamous for two films, "Daisy's Destruction" and "Dafu Love." I will tell you about the latter.

Those who've seen the video say it begins in a house that is mostly empty but for three men, one of whom is Scully. Two women show up with five babies, all of them under the age of one. The poor innocents are molested and raped, and then a woman hands Scully a chisel, which he drives into one of the babies' heads with the help of a hammer. After this, a chainsaw comes out and a baby is dismembered. While alive, while screaming. The child's remains are thrown outside, where a dog is visible. The remaining babies are whipped and bitten, and then two are used as if they were pillows in a pillow fight, being slammed against each other until their skulls break open. The last child is murdered by being stabbed repeatedly, in the belly, with scissors. Then they stab the scissors into the child's eyes, after which he quickly dies.

Not only were there five adults, who somehow found each other, engaging in these unspeakable atrocities together, but there was a network of God knows how many people on "The Deep Web," a group that spanned the globe, who paid to watch their handiwork. There is a market out there for this sort of abomination.

What does a man like Peter Scully look like? Does he have cloven hooves instead of feet? Does the foul stench of sulfur emanate from his person? Does he look menacing, perhaps covered in tattoos, someone who'd undergone body modifications such as tongue-splitting, or forehead implants to mimic horns? No. He looks like this:
[/size][/size]

[Image: peterscully.jpg]

He looks like a High School Biology teacher. Or maybe an accountant, possibly your next-door neighbor who'd let you borrow his lawnmower when yours breaks down.

END WARNING

[size=10pt]
And what about those who've committed so many murders that it all seems too abstract to truly fathom? Men like Stalin, who killed between 56 and 62 million, including the millions who died during the Holodomor, a man-made famine, orchestrated by functionary Lazar Kaganovich, that had its Ukrainian sufferers resorting to cannibalism in order to survive? What about those who died under Hitler's regime? What of the 2 million Irish who suffered and died during the Potato Famine, all because of British policy decisions? Consider Pol Pot, under whose rule, one fourth of all Cambodians died. Or Mao Tse-Tung, whose "Great Leap Forward" killed 45 million in just 4 years. Consider the Allied bombing of Dresden during World War II, which created a fiery Hell on earth endured by already-starving, innocent civilians.

Consider the people who work behind the scenes, manipulating our economy and playing with our currencies for their benefit (learn about them on these pages: The Money Masters; Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve; The Creature from Jeckyll Island). Think of the almost two and a half trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon, revealed to the world the very day before 9-11 and then promptly forgotten during the chaos that ensued from the attacks. Think of the billionaires who don't mind destroying entire nations so they can exploit immigrant laborers as indentured servants, or destroying entire economies so they can profit from the chaos while millions are financially ruined.

Think of the people who've worked to redefine marriage and promote abortion. Think of the hypocritical groups who work to protect Israel as a nation for Jews alone while doing all they can to allow Muslims to take over Christian Europe. Consider those who've changed the popular definition of art to include vials of urine containing Crucifixes, vats of chemicals holding rotting sharks, and cans of excrement.

The spirit of those who commit the vile acts described above is Satanic. That is what Satan is about. He is the Beatitudes turned upside-down, ugliness, pain, suffering, and death. And for those who don't believe in Hell, in spite of Christ Himself speaking of it, would you allow into Heaven those who'd willingly commit such acts and not repent of them? Do they belong in a place where your hopefully saved dead family members dwell? Would you want your children around them even after bodily death? How can they enter into Heaven, a place of perfect Beauty, Goodness, and Love if they not only refuse Christ's grace, but act in such Satanic ways and refuse to repent of them? These people willingly choose their behaviors; they choose to reject God, and in rejecting God, they, themselves, choose Hell.

Evil is around us. And the personification of evil wants us to reject God and follow him, as his fellow rebel angels did. There is a battle for souls going on right now, and you're a part of it whether you want to be or not, whether you believe you are or not. You have a decision to make:  God or Satan?
[/size]

I think it likely that Jesus sees a huge difference between human weakness and human malice. You can see that attitude all over the New Testament. He's kind to sinners who are "simply" weak in the flesh and who repent -- but when it comes to the Pharisees, those who hurt people, who are arrogant show-offs, who take advantage of people, the power-mongers, etc., you read the "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres" sort of talk. People don't get sent to Hell for simple weakness that they REPENT of and try not to engage in again, but those who are filled with malice -- that is why Hell exists. There'd be no Justice if Hell weren't a reality.

My personal belief is that more people are saved that the toxic trad type seems to actually want to believe. But I understand the question that amounts to "how can Heaven be Heaven if a loved one is in Hell?" I have the same sort of question about the "new earth" He will make at the end of time. I like THIS earth, ya know? I like all the critters, the History, books that smell old, being in an old, Historic building and knowing what took place there -- you get the idea. If the earth is to be "new," does that mean that those things, or some of them, would be gone? Or would it mean that they'll be "renewed" in some way that preserves what makes them so charming and hauntingly beautiful?

I obviously don't know the answer to that. But I TRUST that whatever it is, the One, True God Who made everything as beautiful as it is now knows exactly what will "fill us up" and let us know "oh, yes, this is Heaven!" T-R-U-S-T. He is our Father! Our omniscient, omnipotent Father! He will not let us down, and we simply have to TRUST Him.

There's an analogy I use a lot: think of a little kid be-bopping along the street with his parents, holding a nice, yummy ice cream cone, happy like crazy. Then he drops it. To the kid, it's the end of the world, and tears, maybe even a tantrum, will follow. But the adults with him know it's not the end of the world, that he can get another cone, or that he can skip having a cone that day and survive. They know because they are older and wiser. But to the kid -- it's "unfair" and "unjust" and the worst thing ever. When we compare what we think we know now, as we see through a glass darkly, to what we will know when we are face to Face with God, we'll know that even the worst of our sufferings -- cancer, the physical deaths of loved ones, physical pain, clinical depression, whatever -- are, in the end, dropped ice cream cones. As old and wise as that kid's parents are, God, Who created the universe, is that much older and wiser.

-- which doesn't mean that things like cancer, pain, etc., aren't evils to be fought, of course -- only that when seen from the perspective of eternity, they are not what we're now making them out to be.
Reply
#29
I don't grasp enough concerning the science of this to understand whether or not this is often true or not. however similarity doesn't prove descent, and their square measure a doubtless variety of estimates and guesses concerning mutation rate and such of mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid. If God created apes and man with similar desoxyribonucleic acid, we'd see an equivalent result, and don't have any means of telling the distinction.
Reply
#30
(03-03-2017, 08:40 PM)Paul Wrote: I don't know enough about the science of this to know whether this is true or not. But similarity does not prove descent, and there are likely a number of estimates and guesses about mutation rate and such of mitochondrial DNA. If God created apes and man with similar DNA, we'd see the same result, and have no way of telling the difference.

Sorry to bring up a dead thread, but there is something that has never sat right with me about the "maybe the similarities just mean they were created by the same Creator" explanation, but I couldn't put my finger on why it felt wrong.  I think I finally have, though I admit, it doesn't give any greater proof for evolution or against literalist creation.  God is a master creator.  Everything that is beautiful in existence, either directly or indirectly, originates from God because he is the Author of beauty, right?

So, here's my thought.  All the great artists constantly came up with new works of art.  So, Leonardo da Vinci didn't create the Mona Lisa, and then spend the rest of his life-repainting the Mona Lisa with slight variations.  Doing so would have shown that his artistic ability was severely limited.  Michaelangelo didn't sculpt David and then repeat it ad slightly different scales or slightly different flexes of muscles, etc.  If God created each species, or at least each category of species, individually, doesn't it stand to reason that, if he is a truly talented artist, that each act of creation would bear little to no resemblance to his previous works of creation?  Again, not an airtight argument in favor of evolution - God certainly could have created as if he was an incredibly unimaginative Creator - but it seems more likely that the wonder of Creation, or at least the Creation of Life, was for him to set it in motion and watch how it expands and changes.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)