Zone1 Question For Catholics

[Donald H]

The point overlooked is that Adam and Eve chose to have knowledge of both good and evil. People therefore knew what was good and what was evil.

From your description, there was no good being offered. So people who are corrupted generally don't understand the difference between good and evil. Although there could be exceptions.

The Adam and Eve story is not to be read as being literally true, but that doesn't mean that there is no lesson to be learned from it. I'm not hearing the message, other than you suggesting that A and E chose knowing of good and evil. Maybe more to the point is that the message is that they chose to act out evil.

They were choosing evil/corruption. They could have reformed any time they chose to do so. Keep in mind that Noah was referred to as righteous, so at least he was seen/known as choosing good over evil.

I've never heard of any description of the evil they chose, save eating fruit that was forbidden.

There's a message to the story but it's comparatively weak considering the details of the story.

Maybe I'm missing the more important message?

It appears that you're really not interested in leaving out references to the stories in the bibles that are now accepted as allegory, and not literally true.

 

[Donald H]

Yawn.

That reads as the opposite of a yawn. It's not been you but is it now you?

 

[Donald H]

Who said anything about a global flood? The Hebrew does not refer to the planet, but to the ground...soil, dirt, earth, dust, land, even farm.

I think I might have misunderstood that. You seem to be suggesting that there was no global flood. (the entire planet)

And you're accepting something of much smaller proportions? Correct?

Let's keep it friendly. I haven't given you any reason to think that I'm not sincere about learning the nature of your current studies that are to do with the allegorical, as opposed to the literal truth of the stories in question.

 

[Meriweather]

I think I might have misunderstood that. You seem to be suggesting that there was no global flood. (the entire planet)

And you're accepting something of much smaller proportions? Correct?

I am saying when King James said covered the earth, there was an assumption this meant covered the Earth. The Hebrew suggests something more on the order of, As far as the eye could see. The Hebrew also can suggest that the rain was so dense, the mountains were covered up by the vertical fall of the heavy rain instead of covered by the depth of falling rain. The physical data science provides appears to favor the original Hebrew picture, not the King James figure of an entire planet being covered. Spiritually, I don't see how one or the other makes any difference.

 

[Meriweather]

From your description, there was no good being offered. So people who are corrupted generally don't understand the difference between good and evil. Although there could be exceptions.

Remember, throughout the creation story, God saw that it was good. This was said seven times, and that number symbolizes completion, wholeness, perfection. In the beginning all Adam and Eve knew was goodness. The fruit they consumed was the knowledge of evil as well as goodness. They wanted, like God, to know and to experience both.

 

[Meriweather]

From your description, there was no good being offered.

What do you mean no good was being offered. The goodness of creation--including in themselves--was readily apparent.

 

[Donald H]

I am saying when King James said covered the earth, there was an assumption this meant covered the Earth. The Hebrew suggests something more on the order of, As far as the eye could see. The Hebrew also can suggest that the rain was so dense, the mountains were covered up by the vertical fall of the heavy rain instead of covered by the depth of falling rain. The physical data science provides appears to favor the original Hebrew picture, not the King James figure of an entire planet being covered. Spiritually, I don't see how one or the other makes any difference.

No, the flood covering the entire earth doesn't make sense and we can agree on that.

And the other option might possibly make sense, but it's a stretch, so I agree with you that it's hardly any better.

Is there a third option in the spiritual sense? I'm a little confused over what it could possibly be. That is, if it's not a message coming out of the story which is ???

If so then the message need not be restrained in any way from including the supernatural.

Why would I bother to to explain why the wooden boat of those dimensions woould be impossible. We're both beyond that in that we accept that the story isn't literally true! Let's continue to explore the allegorical possibilities of the message.

I won't attempt any guesses until you provide your conclusions, arising out of your studies.

 

[Donald H]

What do you mean no good was being offered. The goodness of creation--including in themselves--was readily apparent.

I was suggesting that there's no good being offered by a flood that kills all the people. There is nobody left that can learn a lesson on good vs.evil.

No, it was not readily apparent in themselves. They were all dead by drowning.

Or are you going back to a localized flood in which only a small proportion of all life on earth was drowned?

 

[Donald H]

Remember, throughout the creation story, God saw that it was good. This was said seven times, and that number symbolizes completion, wholeness, perfection. In the beginning all Adam and Eve knew was goodness. The fruit they consumed was the knowledge of evil as well as goodness. They wanted, like God, to know and to experience both.

The god's creation was so bad and such a mistake, that he had to drown every living thing on the face of the earth. Nothing can be farther from perfection!

I'm missing the point, but I'm pretty sure that the problem is that neither of us is keeping strictly to allegory, and that's allowing literal truth to creep in.

The reason why I think, is that it's impossible to keep the two separate.

Why don't you try? I'm here to cooperate. In fact I'm seeing now that cooperating was the best approach right from our beginning!

 

[Leo123]

I can't find any way to reconcile evolution with creation. If you could then you could challenge atheism

I understand that an accept it. Isn't it you that is trying to make some of religion literally true?

No, not literal 24 hour day. I've said that the creation of the world is just as impossible by the god in a million years as it is in 6 24 hour days.

You're talking about allegory and I have no quarrel over that. It's when you move on to telling me that it's literally true, that's when our quarrel starts.

But have you ever claimed that anything about Christianity is literally true? I don't recall anything.

I can agree and I understand much less of the bibles than you. But you refuse to give me a chance to even challenge it by suggesting something in the bibles is literally true. You only hint at creation but you preface it with your acceptance of evolution too.

We don't have to be enemies. There's no reason for you to feel threatened over these questions.

I'm not Hobelim or Ding!

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life it merely chronicles existing life for which there has to be an intellect to create it.

The ingredients of life do not live long so an explanation of it taking billions of years
just isn't plausible.

Many historical scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person.

Regarding life. James Tour (a synthetic organic chemist and PHD) asks what do you have left if you kill a living cell? Everything that the cell had when it was alive it still has.......except for life which no one yet has adequately defined. If we give all those cell ingredients to science, it still could not make a living cell.

 

[BreezeWood]

Regarding life. James Tour (a synthetic organic chemist and PHD) asks what do you have left if you kill a living cell? Everything that the cell had when it was alive it still has.......except for life which no one yet has adequately defined. If we give all those cell ingredients to science, it still could not make a living cell.

very true ...

physiology is itself a metaphysical substance guided by its spiritual content which when removed the physiology dissipates back into the atmosphere.

that's why there will never be physiology created in a test tub without a spiritual inclusion for which there is no known knowledge for its production and far more illusive to ever be discovered.

 

[Leo123]

very true ...

physiology is itself a metaphysical substance guided by its spiritual content which when removed the physiology dissipates back into the atmosphere.

that's why there will never be physiology created in a test tub without a spiritual inclusion for which there is no known knowledge for its production and far more illusive to ever be discovered.

All one has to do is look at one living cell. There are literally thousands of operations being carried out by specialized proteins and amino acids inside just one cell. DNA looks like code as well. Even the cell's semipermeable outer membranes are programmed to only let certain things in and out. The closer you look, the more amazing it is.

Good video

 

[Meriweather]

The god's creation was so bad and such a mistake, that he had to drown every living thing on the face of the earth. Nothing can be farther from perfection!

I'm missing the point, but I'm pretty sure that the problem is that neither of us is keeping strictly to allegory, and that's allowing literal truth to creep in.

The reason why I think, is that it's impossible to keep the two separate.

Why don't you try? I'm here to cooperate. In fact I'm seeing now that cooperating was the best approach right from our beginning!

I remain with God's creation was/is good. I believe knowledge is a good thing, and if I had been given a choice to just know good, or the choice to know both good and evil, I--like Eve--would have chosen to know both. There is a Hebrew story that as God created the tree with fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, that tree was good and that fruit was good. Eve looked at it and saw it was good. This story explains the problem arose because the fruit wasn't quite ready to eat, or perhaps, they had not yet the maturity to consume it. The story explains why Orthodox Jews do not eat first year's fruit from a tree. There is also reason that first fruits belong to God.

My point is that the people of Noah's time knew good and they knew evil. They kept choosing to do evil. Here we come to what some call Karma, but we see it in our own phrase of, What goes around, comes around, or, we get what we choose. If we choose evil, evil will come to us. The other part of this is what I presented before. We might see it as Newton's Third Law of Motion coming into play: An action against what is just causes an equal but opposite reaction from justice.

 

[Donald H]

I remain with God's creation was/is good. I believe knowledge is a good thing, and if I had been given a choice to just know good, or the choice to know both good and evil, I--like Eve--would have chosen to know both.

The god destroyed evil with the flood, or rather the message coming out of a allegorical flood would certainly have to contain that message! You say you know both good and evil but in that instance you're denying evil. You can explain if you care to.

There is a Hebrew story that as God created the tree with fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, that tree was good and that fruit was good. Eve looked at it and saw it was good.

But everybody was mistaken because the flood allegory destroyed all of it because there must have been evil to destroy. Or am I wrong and god destroyed good along with evil

This story explains the problem arose because the fruit wasn't quite ready to eat, or perhaps, they had not yet the maturity to consume it. The story explains why Orthodox Jews do not eat first year's fruit from a tree. There is also reason that first fruits belong to God.

I can make that work for me if I'm allowed to consider the fruit as being symbolic of everything destroyed in the flood. But it really doesn't work very well.

My point is that the people of Noah's time knew good and they knew evil.

I must still be missing the point on 'knowing' good and evil. Doesn't evervbody know both good and evil? You must be using the word 'know' in a different sense from what most people understand?

I would say 'know of' good and evil, but than maybe that doesn't work for what you are saying?
Are you sayiing that Eve 'did' both good and evil?

They kept choosing to do evil. Here we come to what some call Karma, but we see it in our own phrase of, What goes around, comes around, or, we get what we choose. If we choose evil, evil will come to us.

I accept that as true in many cases. It's the equivalent of stealing somebody car and then the act 'comes around' and you go to jail.
Elementary!

Thanks for your time and your thoughts.

The other part of this is what I presented before. We might see it as Newton's Third Law of Motion coming into play: An action against what is just causes an equal but opposite reaction from justice.

You must be thinking of something other than just consequences of doing something bad or illegal?

 

[Donald H]

All one has to do is look at one living cell. There are literally thousands of operations being carried out by specialized proteins and amino acids inside just one cell. DNA looks like code as well. Even the cell's semipermeable outer membranes are programmed to only let certain things in and out. The closer you look, the more amazing it is.

Good video

Irreducible complexity was proven to be reducible.

But what a great argument for evolution that's shown with that motor.

 

[Donald H]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life it merely chronicles existing life for which there has to be an intellect to create it.

The ingredients of life do not live long so an explanation of it taking billions of years
just isn't plausible.

Many historical scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person.

Regarding life. James Tour (a synthetic organic chemist and PHD) asks what do you have left if you kill a living cell? Everything that the cell had when it was alive it still has.......except for life which no one yet has adequately defined. If we give all those cell ingredients to science, it still could not make a living cell.

I'm not a biologist but you could ask questions of Richard Dawkins.

In any case, the ID'ers in the Dover case were thoroughly discredited and defeated. Maybe there should be a rematch? The end result isn't going to be any different.

Personally, as a lay person, I'm left with relying on science's track record on proving the lies of creation.

Here! I'll pick the fight for us: Why does the bible fk up with having the earth created and life created, before the sun?

Creation worked before Darwin but it's seen its 'best before' date more than 100 years ago.

 

[Donald H]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life

Wrong. Science has produced a 'tree of life' showing how life forms evolved. Most rational people accept it but even rational Christians accept it if humans are not shown on the tree.

it merely chronicles existing life for which there has to be an intellect to create it.

99+% of life shown on the tree isn't currently existing.

No, there is no intelligent designer. We'll just have to disagree, unless you can keep iit suitably simple enough for me to understand.

 

[Meriweather]

The god destroyed evil with the flood, or rather the message coming out of a allegorical flood would certainly have to contain that message! You say you know both good and evil but in that instance you're denying evil. You can explain if you care to.

Try using logic. How can evil be destroyed by a flood? Evil is a choice people make. People who choose evil can be punished. They can be separated from the rest of society. Evil itself remains a choice for all other living humans.

 

[Meriweather]

But everybody was mistaken because the flood allegory destroyed all of it because there must have been evil to destroy. Or am I wrong and god destroyed good along with evil

Evil is an adjective. It is not a person, not a place, not a thing. It describes a person, place, or thing.

 

[Donald H]

Try using logic. How can evil be destroyed by a flood? Evil is a choice people make. People who choose evil can be punished.

Here's my logic: Evil can be destroyed by drowning those who commit to doing evil. There can't be evil on earth when everything is dead.
Am I missing your point? I'm sincerely trying not to miss anything. Evil was apparently punished by drowning. l

Or rather more accurately, the message was that evil would be punished.

They can be separated from the rest of society. Evil itself remains a choice for all other living humans.

A great flood isn't a suitable way to separate the evil from the good, but I doubt there is any message to people living in the 21st. century. For myself, I can't help thinking that the whole story isn't possible.

Still, I don't doubt the message Be bad and god will kill you. or......

Fail to believe and god will kill you, and it won't be an easy death. It will be the cruelest death one could imagine!

I have to wonder just what the evil could be? It's only ever inferred to be the sin of not believing. Highly unfair IMO.