Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world with no death prior to the alleged fall?

[stevil]

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I have studied about it in biology.

It's an interesting topic, a simple idea, a simple mechanism, but amazing given time how it can come up with such complex organisms and structures. It certainly does result in an ecology with the appearance of design rather than a purposeless, haphazard stepwise evolution.

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I don't think that faith is as simple as lack of evidence

Yeah, I'm not really sure what faith is. I consider that it has an optimistic side to it. You have faith in things that you want to happen, you don't have faith in things that you don't want to happen.

But I figured that you have faith in things where there is uncertainty, otherwise you don't need faith, you have knowledge instead.

Knowledge is a Justified True Belief, which means that you believe it to be true and your belief is justified based on some evidence. i.e. We don't have faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow, we have knowledge that the Sun will come up.

So I think if you have compelling evidence then you have knowledge rather than faith. Anyway, just my position on the matter. I could be wrong.

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Some things like God's existence we can find out through reason and some things are in natural law.

I personally can't reason my way to the existence of gods.

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I'm a convert and the way of faith is through grace but not against reason.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this but I am lost regarding the meaning of "grace". I've just googled it, but still am lacking enough understanding of it to make sense of your explanation. 

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

 

 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

His posts remind me of another fella who used to post here alot.  Jus' sayin'

Which fella?

[Guest]

On 12/4/2015 10:08:43, Josh said:

I'm just asking honest questions. If I can't ask those with a tag that says Church Militant then I'm happy to have it removed. For the record I believe and accept every thing the Church teaches. I believe in Adam and Eve. Although I believe there's some depth to it and it goes deeper then sin and a talking snake. I read a lot of stuff from Christians and Catholics that I whole heartedly disagree with. Especially when they throw science out the window and are ready to burn people at the stake who think intelligence is important and a good thing that shouldn't be cast aside because it appears threatening.

Wow I'm calling people stupid and I can't even differentiate between than and then. Pathetic.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Josh said:

Wow I'm calling people stupid and I can't even differentiate between than and then. Pathetic.

I'm still confused............................... than and then - the difference

 

Then relates to time.

Than is used to introduce a comparison.

 

Than and Then The words then and than look similar, but their uses are very different.Then The word then usually relates to time. It is most commonly used as an adverb. It has the following meanings:

 

Subsequently or afterwards Go to the traffic lights, then turn right. It went dark, then there was a scream. The council members argued for three days then eventually came to a decision. As a consequence or in that case.If you had cleaned your teeth properly, then you wouldn't be in this predicament.You're certain then? If that's how you feel, let it go then. At that time or that time.I was much fitter back then. She used to holiday in Sri Lanka as it was then known. The schedule will be completed before then. It was the responsibility of the then team captain to account for the trophies in the cabinet.  (In this example, then is an adjective Than The word than introduces a comparison. It is most often seen with comparatives and words like more, less and fewer.Craig is smarter than Paul. (Smarter is a comparative.)Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.(Woody Allen)(Better is a comparative.)Russia is even more spacious than Canada. (More spacious is a comparative.)I have less space than you, but I also have fewer workers than you. 

 

Select the correct version:

 

Those with English as a second language are particularly prone to confusing than and then. A native English speaker confusing these words constitutes a grammatical howler.

 

COMPARISONS INVOLVING TIME

 

Comparisons involving time tend to attract this error. Remember, use than for comparisons, including those involving time.Winter is later then autumn. Winter is later than autumn. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And reformed alcoholics and drug addicts whom have incured slight brain damage from there abuse of mind altering substances confuse than and then. So that includes me. But aye God can heal anything either supernaturally through time or spectacularly with a miracle. 

And it's amazing that you bring up than and then in the relation to time and comparrison, coz time perhaps can alter natural appearance as we can see in just one life time but comparatively we have not the real time records of millions of years to make an exact judgement on evolution though it is possible, i dare not say probable because we have a lot more research to do with modern technology like carbon dating and many other techniques to look back in time and piece the jigsaw together. Any real scientist i'm sure would agree with me. 

And why have they carbon dated aboriginal australians back 40 000 years and they have not evolved in any way shape or form as far as i'm aware except in the intellectual ability to create technology/tools. Or are humans an exception to the rule, perhaps this is so. There are to many missing links, please remember that it is quite possible and looking more probable that the illuminati run most of the worlds popular media and entertainment industry at present, including documentaries and are directly opposed to church teaching with the complete knowledge and understanding that they could be wrong, they just do it because they can and really hate any entity that opposes there plans for world domination of the financial global market.

10 hours ago, Josh said:

I'm still confused............................... than and then - the difference

 

Then relates to time.

Than is used to introduce a comparison.

 

Than and Then The words then and than look similar, but their uses are very different.Then The word then usually relates to time. It is most commonly used as an adverb. It has the following meanings:

 

Subsequently or afterwards Go to the traffic lights, then turn right. It went dark, then there was a scream. The council members argued for three days then eventually came to a decision. As a consequence or in that case.If you had cleaned your teeth properly, then you wouldn't be in this predicament.You're certain then? If that's how you feel, let it go then. At that time or that time.I was much fitter back then. She used to holiday in Sri Lanka as it was then known. The schedule will be completed before then. It was the responsibility of the then team captain to account for the trophies in the cabinet.  (In this example, then is an adjective Than The word than introduces a comparison. It is most often seen with comparatives and words like more, less and fewer.Craig is smarter than Paul. (Smarter is a comparative.)Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.(Woody Allen)(Better is a comparative.)Russia is even more spacious than Canada. (More spacious is a comparative.)I have less space than you, but I also have fewer workers than you. 

 

Select the correct version:

 

Those with English as a second language are particularly prone to confusing than and then. A native English speaker confusing these words constitutes a grammatical howler.

 

COMPARISONS INVOLVING TIME

 

Comparisons involving time tend to attract this error. Remember, use than for comparisons, including those involving time.Winter is later then autumn. Winter is later than autumn. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

12 hours ago, stevil said:

It's an interesting topic, a simple idea, a simple mechanism, but amazing given time how it can come up with such complex organisms and structures. It certainly does result in an ecology with the appearance of design rather than a purposeless, haphazard stepwise evolution.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what faith is. I consider that it has an optimistic side to it. You have faith in things that you want to happen, you don't have faith in things that you don't want to happen.

But I figured that you have faith in things where there is uncertainty, otherwise you don't need faith, you have knowledge instead.

Knowledge is a Justified True Belief, which means that you believe it to be true and your belief is justified based on some evidence. i.e. We don't have faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow, we have knowledge that the Sun will come up.

So I think if you have compelling evidence then you have knowledge rather than faith. Anyway, just my position on the matter. I could be wrong.

I personally can't reason my way to the existence of gods.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this but I am lost regarding the meaning of "grace". I've just googled it, but still am lacking enough understanding of it to make sense of your explanation. 

 

The understanding of grace is different with Catholics and Protestants. Catholic Encyclopaedia is provably the most detailed: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm. there are different types of grace. Regarding faith and knowledge... Once we see God we would have direct knowledge rather than faith, we won't need faith in Heaven. However here on earth our faith can result in a type of an experiential 'knowledge of God (for example in contemplation in mystical theology - I mean in Christianity). Also reason can be a support for certain articles of faith - others are above reason but are still reasonable and can be seen to be logical. St Augustine said - we believe in what we do not see, and the reward of this faith is to see and enjoy what we believe. Perhaps this is not just for Heaven. Faith for us isn't just a belief alone - its a certain interior certainty. Its different than natural faith in the experience of it. I don't know if I'm describing it well. 

Faith in God doesn't seem like an uncertainty that we believe could be, but there's a certainty to it that gives a strong confidence in His existence, goodness, etc. Its by grace (the articles above about actual and sanctifying grace could help). Rather than the faith being accompanied by a suspense of reason (as many think), it seems to illuminate reason so that it can understand God more. We understand Him through loving Him and the more we know Him, the more we love. And both are related to the virtue of faith. There's an experiential side but its interior and transformative instead of sensory, mostly. At least that's how I've understood it.

[Spinozist]

On 12/4/2015, 3:58:57, KnightofChrist said:

The trouble with science is that it cannot explain many parts of the Faith, not just Adam and Eve.

"Science" says that a man cannot die and rise again three days later.

"Science" says that bread and wine cannot become the body and blood of Christ while still under the appearance of bread and wine.

"Science" says that a virgin birth amongst humans is not possible.

I could go on but I won't bother. If Adam and Eve are nothing but myths because "science", which can only see things in the physical empirical world, then all of Christianity is a myth.

I agree with this comment, but I see this as less of a trouble with science and more a trouble with religion.

Religion can escape this trouble by not interpreting scientific inaccuracies within its holy book literally. If interpreted metaphorically, these parts of the holy books cannot conflict with science. If religion is seen as a way of providing a moral framework and inspiration to follow this morality, in a way divorced completely from physics and metaphysics, then science can never conflict with religion. If religion is not seen in this way, if it makes claims about real events in history or makes broad metaphysical assertions, then there is always a risk that religion will be falsified by new discoveries, and that rational people should then abandon such a religion.

[Cam42]

On 12/30/2015, 11:45:46, Josh said:

Which fella?

Oh, just some "random guy from the internet."

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Cam42 said:

Oh, just some "random guy from the internet."

Why the quotation marks? Spit it out buddy. I'm curious.

I think I'm one of the few long time posters here who only have one account. If you're insinuating I post under multiple accounts which violate the rules here. Although it doesn't seem to be enforced.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Guest

[KnightofChrist]

18 hours ago, Spinozist said:

I agree with this comment, but I see this as less of a trouble with science and more a trouble with religion.

Religion can escape this trouble by not interpreting scientific inaccuracies within its holy book literally. If interpreted metaphorically, these parts of the holy books cannot conflict with science. If religion is seen as a way of providing a moral framework and inspiration to follow this morality, in a way divorced completely from physics and metaphysics, then science can never conflict with religion. If religion is not seen in this way, if it makes claims about real events in history or makes broad metaphysical assertions, then there is always a risk that religion will be falsified by new discoveries, and that rational people should then abandon such a religion.

You hit on points on why I could never become an atheist and why people of faith should not take advice from atheists on faith. Such a world view is limiting and narrow, it basically only accepts what can be observed in the physical world. But there is more to life and existence in the universe than what can be proven by the scientific method, more than just the physical world. Faith does not limit itself as so-called 'rationalism' does, that was my point. If we are only going to accept what 'rationalism' tell us then we severally limit ourselves and our view of existence and that at best is boring, dull and cold. Anyway, I hope you have a good and blessed new year.

[Cam42]

18 hours ago, Josh said:

Why the quotation marks? Spit it out buddy. I'm curious.

I think I'm one of the few long time posters here who only have one account. If you're insinuating I post under multiple accounts which violate the rules here. Although it doesn't seem to be enforced.

I was speaking about me, Josh.  I've only ever had one account as well.  I insinuate nothing.  If nothing else, you will always see what you get from me.  There is no agenda from me, other than to promote authentic Catholicism from the Early Church through today.

There was a time when I got pretty snarky, but we all go through "dark nights" don't we.  I just didn't handle mine very well.  Some of what people know about me is true, some of what people know about me is not.  That is what makes a legend.  And I am sure there are legends around this place about me.....I hope not, but I think so.

Anyhow, I was referring to myself.  What you'll find is that my sign on date is within 9 months of yours.  We're both old timers.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I miss Rexi.  

[Spinozist]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

You hit on points on why I could never become an atheist and why people of faith should not take advice from atheists on faith. Such a world view is limiting and narrow, it basically only accepts what can be observed in the physical world. But there is more to life and existence in the universe than what can be proven by the scientific method, more than just the physical world. Faith does not limit itself as so-called 'rationalism' does, that was my point. If we are only going to accept what 'rationalism' tell us then we severally limit ourselves and our view of existence and that at best is boring, dull and cold. Anyway, I hope you have a good and blessed new year.

Thanks for your well wishes, and for being candid. The only thing you say that I would object to would be the end. I am a rationalist, my world-view has no room for the supernatural, the divine, the miraculous, and this is considerably narrow-minded. It is not, however, boring, at least not to me. I find the world remaining in this vision, however narrow, to be rich with beauty and wonder, more beautiful and wonderful for being comprehensible, and full of the richest and best sort of hope, hope for discovering the true explanation for why things are the way that they are and not another. There is no necessary barrier to understanding, no unmovable veil that keeps us from reality. Maybe humans are not bright enough to find the answers, the veil may be too great for us to lift, but it is still in principle movable, and we may always have hope of peering within, and finding that at the end of the day there are no enduring mysteries. There are answers to enrich our wonder.

Beyond this, I agree with everything else you say, and would emphasise that it would be a bad idea for a Catholic to take advice from atheists about faith. It doesn't keep us atheists from offering the advice anyway

[Cam42]

9 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I miss Rexi.  

Me too....and IronMonk....

Had lunch with the_Rev, this summer though.  It was amesome.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Me too....and IronMonk....

Had lunch with the_Rev, this summer though.  It was amesome.

IIRC IronMonk has dropped in a few times in the last year or so.