Kent wrote:Adam and Eve were given dominion over all of [the Universe].
[T]hey were not at all like those really nice neighbors next door, only without clothes. They must have possessed powers, mental and physical, much greater than even the sum of those postulated for comic book characters.
Kent wrote:I do want to note that Gen 1: 26,28 explicitly said more than "cultivate and keep". Although only explicitly mentioning living creatures it is quite reasonable to assume that would include the creatures' environments.
seamas o dalaigh wrote:Chris,
See Gen 1:28.
The AV has: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
The Douay-Rheims has: "And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth."
Was this after the fall?
seamas o dalaigh wrote:David,Was this after the fall?
No. The Fall is two chapters later.
inthegobi wrote:Dave, I don't think 'subdue' deed mean like putting down an enemy, or an unruly room of kids.
Kent wrote:It is also clear that they did not have the Beatific Vision, else they would not, could not have sinned. Their conversations with God seem to be more like those experienced by the later Old Testament prophets.
lasaxman wrote:Is the same true of the angels?
Kent wrote:One can read Genesis in a restricted way with possible contradictions
Kent wrote:Your objections are pretty much repetitive to the ones you raised and I answered last September in this string, and I am not going to rehash them.
Kent wrote:01) It makes more sense to me (including the related posts about the Original Sin) than simply accepting that the "magic" plucking and eating a fruit caused such a catastrophic result throughout a huge universe . . .
For me it makes great sense and it does not contradict Scripture if read as a metaphor.
It does seem obvious to me that . . . this act of disobedience itself was itself a "superpower", used in a selfish and evil purpose.
Either that, or it's saying that God did the damage as punishment. Then, if you say that you are implying that God is some sort of a reactionary, retribution-seeking God.
If these earlier premises are beyond what you can accept then you obviously cannot accept what later builds upon them.
03)You might have checked the stated verse yourself, though, and understood what I meant to evidence, specifically that what our Lord said sounds very much like telekinesis
05) That is your neighsaying opinion and and you are certainly entitled to it. I do not believe you are entitled to veto it as a speculative possibility
bullying . . . straw man argument.
just accept them even for the moment as a point of discussion
(Has anyone, anyone at all, even conjectured that Adam and Even might have caused the Big Bang?)
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to HoratioThere are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Kent wrote:I write about ... possibilities.
In the underlying (religious) cosmology with its hypothetical set of dimensions/dimension analogs ("dimenalogs") . . . who can be absolutely certain that "God's imagination" is only fiction, and that the prodigal son never really existed?
And we, who are created in God's image, cannot actually create some at least infinitesimal reality in the imaginary u and v dimenalogs?
[/quote]Consider the possibility that your beliefs may compromise your ability in Paradise to actually meet people, go to places, see things which seem to be completely fictional in this life. Or that really have existed, but you (and others) conclude do not survive mortal life.
I already answered that here. But you are apparently unwilling or unable to accept that answer, which implicitly assumes that (meta)physical laws are the same in all parts of the observable universe.Please reply to the first objection I raised: how does the conventional interpretation of the First Parents and the Fall raise contradictions?
Kent wrote:I already answered that here.Please reply to the first objection I raised: how does the conventional interpretation of the First Parents and the Fall raise contradictions?
It makes more sense to me . . . than simply accepting that the "magic" plucking and eating a fruit caused such a catastrophic result throughout a huge universe, or somehow "made God" do that damage because of this physically small act of disobedience, as stated in Genesis.
that answer . . . implicitly assumes that (meta)physical laws are the same in all parts of the observable universe.
So perhaps we will just have to leave it at that.
If by "dismissed" you mean accepting the simple, literal acceptance of reaching out an plucking a physical, botanical fruit as the entirety of what Adam and Eve physically did then I suppose you are correct. However, if you will forgive me for thinking this to be a little to "simple-minded" (yes, I know what our Lord said about becoming as a little child, but little children always ask for more details), I explained my objections in The Original Sin. You have not expressed any objections in that thread.Catholic tradition on the Fall of Man has been dismissed.
You would expect the ancient Biblical author(s) of Genesis to consult their own Hubble observations, perhaps? This sort of information is only very recent, and in no way suggests that the physical laws of the universe vary from place to distant place. And if there happens to be life existing on a planet in a distant galaxy whose star becomes a supernova, is that not a physical evil? Yet our existence depends on those distant past supernovas - in this observable universe.The Catholic tradition of the Fall makes *no* such strong metaphysical assumption. So, there's no such assumption to work against! The Fall is about a very narrow - but vastly important - event. What went on around Betelgeuse or the quasars at the edge of the Universe is not discussed one way or the other.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests