Ask Me Help Desk - When did the Redemption begin and.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

The OP, Tom. Why don't you try addressing the OP.

Well maybe if you get back on topic, we can all discuss it - how about that?

Yes please let us all get back to the OP.
It is very interesting.
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Well maybe if you get back on topic, we can all discuss it - how about that?

WE were discussing it. WE have been discussing it all along. I've read other posters to this thread address the OP. I haven't seen you do it. Site rules require that posters address the OP. If you are going to continue to post to this thread, you should probably speak to the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

WE were discussing it. WE have been discussing it all along. I've read other posters to this thread address the OP. I haven't seen you do it. Site rules require that posters address the OP. If you are going to continue to post to this thread, you should probably speak to the OP.

Then let's get back on topic. I see so many folk trying to argue that men become gods rather than the topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Then let's get back on topic.

Great. So what's your answer to the OP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Great. So what's your answer to the OP?

I'll join in when I see things are back on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

I'll join in when I see things are back on topic.

Riiight.

Quote:

When did the Redemption begin and did Christ die to redeem Creation or just man?

Just to stir the pot, I'll put an oar in the water and mix a few other metaphors into the soup. I'm voting for Creation because I'm proCreation.
I like the idea of redeeming gophers, whales, poison ivy, and puffballs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Just to stir the pot, I'll put an oar in the water and mix a few other metaphors into the soup. I'm voting for Creation because I'm proCreation.
I like the idea of redeeming gophers, whales, poison ivy, and puffballs.

I am decidedly pro-creation too, as you can tell. And, if I may be so narcissistic as to paraphrase my very own self, I think God is pro-creation too. We can love creation. But our love is profoundly limited in all sorts of ways. God's love is a far greater love, of course, and I see no reason to suppose that he has cut the creation off from the hope of redemption. Romans 8 and 1Cor.15 lend support to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

I feel as though I've learned quite a bit.

I'm wondering whether we need to define "redemption". What does it mean as it pertains to man and to creation?

And I'm wondering about the fact that God made man sovereign of this world. Did, in the fall of man, man take creation with him out of paradise?

Therefore, even though creation did not sin, when man is redeemed, creation is redeemed with him.

Just a question offered in hopes of reconciling with Joe's hypothesis.

I second this. Does "redemption" mean the same thing when applied to humanity as to the rest of creation? If so, does it mean something different for each individual? I ask this, because if union with God preserves difference, then by virtue of two individuals' differences from each other, one might expect their union with the Godhead to be somewhat different. If differences aren't to be annihilated, then the uniqueness of each person, and of each animal, is going to be in some sense preserved. Yes?

In some sense, clearly the fall did take creation out of paradise. Animals, who don't sin, nevertheless die. They experience decay and illness. They are victims of contingency just as we are.

So, with an eye to Joe's idea, I would suggest that creation does need redemption, only not a redemption from the sort of fallenness from which humanity needs to be redeemed. This suggests to me that "redemption" isn't applied univocally to every case. That said, the end is the same, "that God may be all in all".

Akoue,
It does seem to me that because animals die as does plants, people, stars and planets that redemption is universe wide.
But in reality I thinks that only God knows for sure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

Akoue,
It does seem to me that because animals die as does plants, people, stars and planets that redemption is universe wide.
But in reality I thinks that only God knows for sure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yeah, but what's the fun of that, Fred?

I suppose you're going to tell me that I shouldn't start a thread on the topic, "If God wore sneakers what would be his favorite brand?", on the grounds that only God knows for sure. And here I was all excited about it.

Kill-joy.

Akoue,
OOPS, sorry.
But really, how much do we really know about God. He seems to be pretty much hidden from us event though we have what we learned from the bible and his apostles.
The fun is still to speculated, ponder, discus and ponder, don't you think?
I'm off to bed now.
Have a great night.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

Akoue,
OOPS, sorry.
But really, how much do we really know about God. He seems to be pretty much hidden from us event though we have what we learned from the bible and his apostles.
The fun is still to speculated, ponder, discus and ponder, don't you think?
I'm off to bed now.
Have a great night.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was just kidding, Fred. But this

Quote:

He seems to be pretty much hidden from us

Would make for a really interesting question to discuss in its own right.

You do have a knack for asking interesting questions. And I'm glad you do.

If His life's work is the Creation, you should be able to infer something about Him from his Work. Yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

If His life's work is the Creation, you should be able to infer something about Him from his Work. Yes?

This is exactly St. Augustine's approach in the De Trinitate.

Quite a bit more has been learned about the Creation since Augustine.
If you extend his approach to current knowledge, what do you infer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Quite a bit more has been learned about the Creation since Augustine.
If you extend his approach to current knowledge, what do you infer?

My apologies, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could I trouble you to formulate your question another way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Yeah, but what's the fun of that, Fred?

I suppose you're going to tell me that I shouldn't start a thread on the topic, "If God wore sneakers what would be his favorite brand?", on the grounds that only God knows for sure. And here I was all excited about it.

Kill-joy.

So KNOWING that God has a thing about beetles*, for example, or that he balances cooperation and competition in his Work, and that He made lots of planetary systems besides ours--to name a few interesting tidbits out of several millions--what do you infer about the Artist?

*There are more known species of beetles (more than 350,000) than all species of plants together. Beetles make up more than a quarter of all animal species.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

So KNOWING that God has a thing about beetles*, for example, or that he balances cooperation and competition in his Work, and that He made lots of planetary systems besides ours--to name a few interesting tidbits out of several millions--what do you infer about the Artist?

*There are more known species of beetles (more than 350,000) than all species of plants together. Beetles make up more than a quarter of all animal species.

Thank you. That helps a lot.

I have to confess--and I'm not being coy here--that I don't see any straight inferential path from the arrangement of things in the creation to the nature of the Creator. In other words, I don't know what the vast array of beetle species or the conservation of angular momentum tells us about God. That isn't to say that these things don't tell us anything. It is quite possible the fault is mine, but I have never been very deeply moved by natural theology, principally because (as I say) I don't see any clear inferential path that leads from the one to the other.

I suppose this is why I found Fred's way of putting it so intriguing, that the Divine remains hidden from us in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't apply ourselves, that we shouldn't strive for a better and deeper understanding of the Divine. Only that I don't tend to find myself moved in one direction or another by natural theology.

Sadly, then, I am not really answering your question. Or, at least, not in as straightforward a way as I would like. But for reasons that I hope make some sense. I do not mean to challenge those who are moved by natural theology, nor do I wish to call that enterprise into question in any general way. I just am not a practitioner of it.

I hope that this makes sense, at least.