We start with the fact we live in a natural world. Nature..something we both think is wonderous. St.Paul says what can be known about God is plain because God has shown it to us.(What has He shown to us? His wonderous nature all around us.) Ever since the creation, God's invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

So here we have it ...  that our human reason is capable of attaining a true, albeit an imperfect knowledge of God. So reason comes first. The gift of faith follows which seals the knowledge. Faith teaches things that are so profound that they are above reason.

Belief (Divine Faith) in the One God and His one, holy, catholic and apostolic religion is rational and in no way conflicts with science although that is the propaganda of those who hate the Church. Of Faith and Science, there was a teacher who once said, "Science is knowing how God works in the natural order and Faith is knowing how God works in the supernatural order."

 

I've already addressed your faith first misconception. As far science, empirical knowledge and theology failing us .... you speak but you don't know what your talking about. If you do, give some concrete examples.

Your misunderstanding is due to failure properly to appreciate what Faith really is and its basic role in the sphere of science as well as true religion. Because we can know by the light of human reason which comes first, Faith isn't emotional blind submission to the unknowable. 

Faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye; the acceptance of a truth upon the authority of someone else. In true religion, it's Divine Authority, taking God at His word.

In science it's dependence upon human authority, that may or may not be right despite its personal integrity.

 

 

Q. # 1,  No, only God the First Cause can create life, especially human life. God created man and woman so taht they could effectively partner and cooperate with God in the creation of new offspring. 

Q #2, I have no idea.

 

Myfist0 posts #100

Regarding the highlighted...I am one of the those who say this. It seems to me they go hand in hand in that it would be impossible to pursue God and not pursue perfection at the same time.

As to your second statement, yes there is the one, perfect religion and Almighty God Himself gave it to us. 

Here's my reasoning. Almighty God in His Mercy and Goodness did not leave us high and dry in these pursuits. For our road map, He gave us His holy (perfect) religion which started out as Hebraic Old Covenant religion fulfilled in Christ's New Covenant Church and religion known as Christianity and by Christianity I mean Catholic Christianity.

Christ gave us a Church and the Church gave us Oral (Sacred Tradition) and Written Revelation, (Sacred Scripture), both of which are God's communication of Himself to mankind. The great teachings and dogmas and definitions proclaimed by the Chruch as contained in Revelation or issuing from it are light- bearing; possessing them we are in the light of God's grace.

In that light, we can grow, in other words, become holy or perfect.  

 

Sorry Lula ... let me see if I can catch up ...

I need a break from the Middle East ...

I have no use for becoming holy nor am I stupid enough to desire perfection ... I leave these things to the religions. I do not need someone to walk off a mountain with a tablet to know not to kill my neighbor, to respect my parents now any of the rest. These are all traits from our animalistic ancestors and apply to most of nature. There is a logical progression and it can only be interrupted by the religions or other supernatural manifestations. Take a look at this clip and watch the progression of Christendom across the world. Watch the last few frames as Christianity spread from Europe to and across America, down through Central, Middle and South America … throughout southern Africa. It also shows the spread of the American imperialist expansionism of the last hundred years. EXPANDING CHURCH = Death and destruction for the indigenous peoples everywhere they go under the guise of saving them.

This is nothing short of strong-arming your way to your perfection ... over the blood of the people ... just as the USG does. Our soldiers are the best in the world and they cannot be directly defeated, but they are just doing their job ... relying on the veracity of the USG. And you are soldiers of the church ... the best in the world and you cannot be directly defeated, but you are just doing your job ... relying on the veracity of the Church. They are both liars …

As far as question 1 ...

 

Question 2 ... wise answer!

Whenever I play with the word “REASON”, logic, rational and the ability to think clearly and coherently comes up … but I cannot find a reference to the irrational?

First you want me to prove that God doesn’t exist for you … now you want me to point out where science has failed you, tisk, tisk, tisk. You keep up this nonsense about the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls” and whatnot as supporting all your stuff ... and you want me to tell you why it doesn’t??? Don’t you think it would be easier if you went a tad further and told me what it is you believe so resounding and scientifically supportive so my job would be a little less time consuming … All I can tell you as you ponder this quarry is, know that I couldn’t find the least bit to support your claims. If you want more, go find it yourself.

Divine (connected with, coming from, or caused by God) Faith (belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof) pretty well describes things for you … but I am still working on the part that really comes first … the part where God is proven to exist outside of scripture is all. … Still waiting!

 

... Do not think I want to go here to look for the truth ... only for what you believe it to be. How am I going to rebut you if I do hehehe.

... no doubt ...   

Why do you restrict the truth to  just the science books and only concerning the origins of man so to speak. You are the ones that wanted this nonsense in the schoolbooks and in the classrooms. You know science does not support any of your claims ... and then you bitch when they print anything you do not approve of ... their lies of course. What are they supposed to accept, Immaculate deceptions or your word on things, not. I vote we take it back out … end of problem.

  

Ha, and I just left a post on Farenheit urging you onward!

Myfist0,

 

Myfist0 posts #100

For me, it's in this order.....God---Family---Country.

Loyalty to God before before civic loyalty to State.The spiritual and religious sphere is of greater degnity and importance than the temporal and national sphere.

But don't get me wrong, the Church teaches Catholics it is their bounden duty to obey their rulers for love of God and that can be done only in lawful matters. If rulers exceed their authority and demand obedience to unlawful commands, then the love of God forbids us to obey.

We can't accept laws which are opposed to God's law, religious freedom and rightful individual liberties.  

Sadly, even tragically, the world is full of Catholic politicians who make and support laws that are opposed to God's laws. They are hypocrites and are in grave sin to do so.

 

Too generic for me. If the survival of my family is at stake it takes priority. If the survival of my State is at stake, then this takes priority. This is a fluid situation for me and varies on many variables. And if religion is at stake ... you are on your own, because you have made enemies of everything and everyone who follows another piper ... even those who do not follow pipers, go figure. You are literally at war with the rest of the world???

Myfist0 #100

 You have some very interesting thoughts here. Lots to discuss.

You begin with "I believe no religion has it right or wrong" and end with "Religion can morally guide humanity while we ask the great questions.". If no religion has it right or wrong, which religion would you have morally guide humanity?

It is Christianity..the one who has guided humanity since Christ established in 33AD?

 

Depends. Whose basic rules? Societal basic rules imply morality; right from wrong. Societal rules imply laws and laws have authority behind them. 

 

A society that establishes and lives by basic rules based on or in harmony with God's law will be strong and sound.

For example, the US Constitution is in harmony with God's law and if we lived by the Constitution, we would have a strong and sound society.  ObummerCare is not Constitutional and is not in harmony with God's law becasue it contains a provision that would force religious people through their tax monies to pay for abortions.

If Obummercare becomes the health care law of the land, then indeed, the US Constitution has collapsed and we are in chaos.

.........................

No, based on the key words that govern this scenario.... "live Christ-like".

First scenario....

A person who lives Christ-like believes in the existence of God whether he knows it or not. Take for example, a native person in darkest Africa or on a desert island. A native person who is Christ-like would know by reason alone that there is a God and would practice natural religion (which I mentioned in #53).  A native person who is Christ-like would be obedient to the natural moral law which God has written in his heart and manifested by his conscience.

But this natural religion is not sufficient in the present day because God has given the fullness of His revelation to the whole world to the Apostles and their lawful successors in the Church.

The Church teaches 1)that since Christ died for all mankind, we must hold that Almighty God offers to all the possibility of gaining Heavenly eternal life. 

And 2)  that every person, (aboriginals in this case) who is ignorant of the Gospels, the Church, as well of the true religion, yet seeks the truth and does the will of God, can be saved.

Second scenario....

The person who knowingly and willingly does not believe in the existence of Almighty God may do some good things and be sincere, refrain from drunkeness, pay his debts, etc. but he cannot live Christ-like unless he does the main thing for which he was made. And the main thing is that he knows, loves and serves God and regulates his conduct toward his fellow man by motives of love of God. Being Christ-like is living faith, hope and charity (which is love of God).

We agree. 

 

You write:

If I had to be the one to write about the existence of God, this God would not close the doors to any living creature that did not follow a curtain set of rules

God is the Creator and we are the created with an immortal soul, an intellect and free will.  God in His Infinite Wisdom gave the human race certain rules to live by. These rules are for our own good.

God is All Just and will secure the absolute balance justice demands on the day we die.If He were to allow every sinner to go without punishment as unbelievers say He should do, by having no Hell for the wicked, then He would not be Just. Now God has promised to punish sin and since He is Infinitely True, He must keep His promise.

If we take your scenario and apply it here, we'd be in chaos. 

A just judge gives the sentence exactly in accordance with the guilt. If the judge dismissed every prisoner no matter how guilty, without punishment, he would not be just, but unjust.

.......................

You write:

but would open the doors to all who believed that there was more to life than the rights of the just the individual, rather the individual is only a small portion of a global or universal community that includes all living life on this planet and anywhere in the universe.

To me a man of God does not kill animals, plants or even insects out of the notion that we are greater than or more deserving than other forms of life. My God would hold the life of a human with the same value of the life of an ant as we are all part of the same system and dependent on everything one might call mother nature.

The Catholic Church teaches:

Man stands apart from anything else in creation becasue he is composed of a body (matter) and soul (spirit) and made in the image and likeness of God.

Why did God create us? What is the purpose of our life on this earth? What is the end of man?

Man is created to praise, love and serve God in this life and by doing so to attain eternal life with God hereafter. 

We understand that human life is not with the same value as that of an ant  by amnsweing the question what is the end of man?

The end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made. The end of a watch is to keep time. The end of a pen is to write, etc.

A thing is good only to the proportion to the way it fulfills the end for which it was made. A watch may be beautifully made but it it doesn't keep time, it is useless as a watch and the same with the pen.

 

For what purpose was man made? If we discover that we know his end. When we look around the world we see a purpose or an end for everything. We see that the soil is made for plants and trees to grow in, and so we must have soil.  The vegetables and plants are made for animals to feed upon, while the animals themselves were made for man that they may help him in his work or serve him for food. So, it's evident that everything in the world was made to serve something else.

What then was man made for? Was it for anything in the world? We see that all classes of beings were created for something higher than themselves. The plants are higher than soil becasue they have life and the soil does not. ANimals are higher than plants because they not only have life but they feel and plants cannot. Man is higher than animals becasue he not only has life and can feel, but he also has reason and intelligence and can understand while animals cannot.

Therefore, we must look for something higher than man himself but there is nothing higher than man in this world and so we must look beyond it to find that for which he was made. And looking beyond it and considering all things, we find that he was made for God--to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him both in this world and in the next.

Again, we read in Genesis 1 that at the Creation of the world all things were made before man and that he was created last. THerefore if all these things could exist without man, we cannot say that he was made for them. The world existed before him and can exist after him. 

The world goes along without man. Neither was man made to stay here and become rich, powerful, learned, becasue all do not become rich, as some are poor, all are not educated as some are ignorant, and all are not powerful as some are slaves.

But since all men are alike and equal in this, .... that they have bodies all formed in the same way and all souls that are immortal, they should all be made for the same end. Although men differ in many things, they are all alike in the essential thing, viz. that they are composed of body and soul and made to the image and likeness of God. 

 

Therefore, as pens are only made to write with, so all men must have only one and the same end, namely to serve God and be with Him in everlasting life.

Returning to our discussion concerning the Bible and history.

BT posts 114

I agree the Bible is not a historical document per se.

What I said is that the Bible contains actual history and that's true.

BT,

I did prove that some books of the BIble contain actual history. In post #119, I gave proof. Instead of heralding it from a cloud, I cited a website that lists the historical books.

Myfist0 posts #115

You're describing Theistic Evolution, an attempt to make God a part of Evolution. It is in effect a compromise position which seeks to accomodate evolutionary beliefs.Unfortunately many Catholics uncritically accept this mistaken venture.

We can't have both for theological and scientific reasons. For now, I'll just give the scientific. Science, particularly molecular genetics, has since shed light on DNA and genetics has no profs for evolution. It does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes say from fish to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny. Linnaeas, not Darwin.

The bottom line: Science has failed to supply evidence for Evolution. The theory keeps looking for evidence and failing to find it moves on to other postulates.

 

You show a picture of a wolf and a dog.

This is not Evolution. Rather it is "Variety Within Kind" due to reshuffling of genes (recombination) and it should not be confused with Evolution which is a molecules to man natural transformation in which new, higher, genetic information is gained which was not posessed by one's ancestors. In other words, Evolution is the idea of change into something vastly different is the common understanding held across society.