A Working Definition of God

They "believe DIFFERENTLY" from me but they "profess the SAME trust in God's word?" And you say I'M confused???

quote:

---

Then you arrogantly deny your own vulnerability to this possibility, holding yourself above all the weaknesses man is heir to. Your blinders cause you to see only the Bible and to deny the community of mankind beyond the borders of your own blinkered faith community.

---

Those weaknesses are sins of all kinds and I certainly don't hold myself above all that by a long shot. My sins are different from my doctrine. My doctrine exposes my sins to myself all the time, but the doctrine is true.But let's have a test for who's arrogant here:My doctrine is that ONLY Biblical Christianity is the truth. I believe everybody needs to believe this to be right with God and sure of eternal life.Your doctrine is that there are many ways to God and that anyone who trusts only in the Biblical God is wrong, confused and arrogant and should believe there are many ways to God in order to be right with God and man.Which of us is arrogant? Which of us is dogmatic and insisting on our own personal view? You think your view is humble and mine is arrogant?

quote:

---

The huge variety of beliefs is in fact explained in the Bible and nowhere else.

​

I'm afraid there is far more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your Bible.

---

I'm afraid you are sadly wrong.

quote:

---

People's interest in spiritual things and gravitating to what they agree with is of course true, but there is no way to derive from that fact a determination of which views are true and which false.

​

Why, yes, of course! I must not understand what you're saying, because this appears to contradict your earlier statements that you know your views about God are correct.

---

You seem to be reading that statement to mean "there is no way to ...determine which views are true" AT ALL. That's not what I meant to say. My point was that not all views can be true as they all contradict each other so at most only one could be true, and maybe none. You can't have many roads to God if they all go different directions, but that is in fact what we have. As for my knowing my road is true, I believe the Bible. I have an authority. My authority is not myself, it's a time-honored collection of witness reports to God.

quote:

---

I can only say that, once again, the Bible is blinding you. It is interesting that all the hardness and coldness and rigidity is coming from the Christian side. God is understanding and forgiveness, not condemning others as possessed by the devil because they hold different beliefs. I suppose the certainty might attract some to this hard Christian position, but there seems little else to recommend it.

---

It's the sacrificial love of Christ who died on the cross to pay for the sins of us sinners to save us from a much deserved Hell and give us eternal life instead that draws people to Him, and there is NO OTHER WAY of salvation. Be sure you know what it is you are calling hard and cold and rigid, because this is it, this sacrificial love. He's the ONLY way to God, there is NO other, there is no salvation without Him, and THAT's the certainty you are calling hard and cold and rigid.

It is true that I have been distracted from the Great Debate and have lost my original inspiration. I expect it will come back as long as there is not a time limit on it. I have it bookmarked.

Not quite. Nonhuman death occurred before human original sin. Human oroginal sin occurred. Humans now die.Your scenario is a counterfactual, since it didn't happen. In CCC #390 we read, "The account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. "We are splitting hairs. And Faith's assertion that Catholic doctrine supports her hyperliteralism and YEC fails.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, but some of that evidence didn't last at all past the event.

quote:

---

But are you also saying that time has wiped out all physical evidence of all God's deeds in the physical world? I was assuming you weren't saying that because of the obvious contradiction with your position in other threads that you believe the geological layers represent evidence of the great flood of Noah.

---

The thing about the Flood of Noah is that I don't use it to prove God. I'm interested in the Flood itself, but mostly I'm interested in finding out all the ways the Geological Timetable is wrong. I don't have a well worked-out idea about how the Flood explains the Geo Column at all, just lots of impressions that I hope will become clearer over time.

quote:

---

Another problem with assuming this was your meaning is that it would assume you believed that God stopped performing deeds in the physical world some time ago in order for sufficient time to pass to erase the evidence, and I didn't think you believed God no longer performs physical deeds.

---

I can see that what I'm saying is confusing YOU and if that's my fault I'd love to be clearer, but I'm not the slightest bit confused myself. God stopped doing large scale miracles, yes. Also some of those miracles left NO evidence though you say it did. What evidence did Jesus' resurrection leave? The parting of seas? They returned to normal IMMEDIATELY after the event. Healings? How can someone judge healings who hasn't seen the person in both states?God does many things. He oversees EVERYTHING. He is in every physical and mental act on the planet and in the entire universe. Sparrows do not fall without his knowledge, neither does a tsunami happen or a person type a letter on a keyboard without his awareness and providence. He is in every part of nature. Nothing happens without him. But as I said, we don't notice these things. We attribute them all to the proximal cause, the laws of nature, of physics and so on. So we can't see God in them unless we have that special sensitivity some people have. Such as Brother Lawrence who simply laid his eyes on a tree coming into blossom in the Spring and fell head over heels in love with God and went into a monastery where his love of God grew and deepened over the years. God NEVER stops this kind of intervention in the physical world -- and the mental world and the psychological world and the spiritual world.Then there are the miracles described above which God performed on a grand scale up until the establishment of Christianity, all in order to demonstrate His character and intentions to the world. He performed them for the sake of His people the Israelites and oversaw their writing down for the sake of all of us who believe in it. They made a profound physical impact as you admit, but yes, it disappeared completely over time, in mere years in most cases, immediately in some.This is God's own religion. No other religion comes close.

quote:

---

Whatever your answer, consider that once you accept that God performs his chores in a manner not outwardly apparent in the physical world and that the Bible is the story of a people and not the word of God...

---

God does His work in many ways, including the miracles discussed above, and most of it in a way that's not apparent.. It's both/and, not either/or. In fact nothing at all happens without him. But he had to do something special to get us to recognize him. That's what the Bible is all about.The Bible IS the word of the one and only living God who created the human race and who, after the human race disobeyed him and lost touch with him, chose a people to be His very own in order to train them in his ways and demonstrate His character and doings to the whole world, prophesied a Messiah to come through his prophets over all those years and then sent His Son as that Messiah, that Savior, to die to pay for the sins of those who believe on Him. He's offered. He's given the only way. You take it or you leave it.

quote:

---

...then all your contradictions and problems are explained and evaporate away.

---

I have no contradictions and problems at all. You are the one seeing contradictions and problems, not I.
------------
I hope this is coherent. I've been distracted throughout writing it. Well I'll post it anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 12:04 AM

YEC? That hasn't come up here. We're talking about ONE point: sin brought death into the world. The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees. Mag. Dev. proved the same point. The point is proved. Message 207This message has been edited by Faith, 04-22-2005 11:07 PM

Which is what I already pointed out.But this isn't what you said before in reference to the Pauline passage. The Catholic interpretation of this verse is that it refered to both a spiritual death and a physical death.We differ from others in the sense that we believe that death was already present prior to Adam and Eve's transgression -- and that their "original sin" open the door to death to claim them. Yes, symbolic and allegorical language is present -- for example, the days of creation are almost certainly not refering to literal 24 hour days.Likewise, it is almost rest assured that more than 6,000 years have transpired since the "event" in the "garden" -- whatever "garden" means.However, according to Catholic doctrine, Adam and Eve were still literal people who transmitted literal sin to their literal descendants -- and that's us my friend. But I'm not trying to defend Faith's understanding of the Scriptures. I've already politely expressed where I felt we disagreed.No offence, Faith, but there are some things that you've stated that I simply do not agree with...but my bringing this up is not to dispariage your view.Coming back to the point however, what I am trying to defend, paisano, is what you are refering to as "splitting hairs" -- which is not splitting hairs. Its taking a very careful look at our Catholic doctrine and comparing your statement to it.You seem to be implying that Adam and Eve are fiction according to Catholic dogma (and I apologize in advance if I'm incorrect), but the Catholic Church strictly teaches that they were very real people.For example, the article goes on to say: Consequently, the "full quote" of the Catechism states: I've bolded the part you left out before.Personally, if I'm understanding your position correctly, I think you're taking some liberties with doctrine here that Catholics are actually not advised to do.It doesn't matter if evolution was used to form our bodies or not. It doesn't matter if Adam and Eve's name wasn't actually Adam and Eve.But it does matter that humanity had two real parents from which all human life proceeded and inheritted original sin from. That is a Catholic dogma that is not up for debate.For example, in the area of theology, the Magisterium has warned against the teachings of the French paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who concocted from evolutionary theory a kind of process theology that, among other things, implicitly denies original sin and the existence of first parents of the human race who differed in kind from whatever may have preceded them.Also, as noted above, in Humani Generis, Pius XII condemned polygenism, championed by Teilhard, Rahner and other theologians, which holds that we are descended from multiple ancestors rather than from one historical person named Adam (no. 37).I'm sure that we both agree that the Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how he went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form.However, as an article at Catholic.net net notes: I just thought I should clarify these points. And, as a Catholic brother, I apologize in advance if I've offended you in any way -- or insinuated anything that you didn't actually intend.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 06:55 AM

Faith, I never said it did, I said we have no way of knowing that it's not a myth.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Though some threads have been open for years, and though there's certainly no time limit on replies, a Great Debate probably requires some immediacy and continuity. Determinate delays up to even a few weeks due to lack of time make sense, but indeterminate delays less so. The supposition is that one enters a Great Debate with all one's ducks lined up and that one won't need to go on searches for more ducks in the middle of the debate. Perhaps it would make sense to declare the current thread concluded. Another could be opened when inspiration returns. If I see no posts in the thread within the next few days we'll assume you're done for now. Another easy way to find it is to just to click on your name. All threads you've ever participated in are listed under your name, ordered by the date and time of your last post.--Percy

My references to your confusion were on other matters, but on this particular matter you do appear to have shifted to a more limited context at some point. Recall that I was speaking of the body of belief in God across all peoples of all religions. I specifically listed Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Some will grant that Unitarianism is a Christian religion, and yet I not only believe differently from you, I don't even profess the same trust in God's Word as you (though I at least capitalize "Word" when it is God's ). Now, tell me again who it is that causes people to perceive God differently from you? I believe it involved a character first introduced in 1 Chronicles 21:1, unless you believe the serpent of Genesis is the same character. I see. You're just the same as everyone else except that you keep sins and doctrine separate. And so for other people who perceive God differently from you, their sins are all intertwined with their doctrine, and so their doctrine is wrong. But you keep sins and doctrine separate so your doctrine is right. And yet you claim you don't hold yourself above other people. You're pulling my leg, right? You're not really saying this with a straight face, are you? Which of us is preaching intolerance and prejudice? Opposing such is not arrogant. Yes, Faith, I'm telling you that there are many ways to the Lord. I am happy for you that you have found one of them, but sorry for you that it is leading you into the sins of pride and conceit and intolerance. Long as the Bible is, there is much in the holy books of other religions that does not appear anywhere in the Bible. You are using your Bible as a tool of exclusion. Do not forget that God is everywhere. Just because someone else's path is not your path does not make it the wrong path. Thank you for providing this fine example of inflexibility, rigidity, wickedness and intolerance. If I can be forgiven a popular metaphor, do you really believe that when Moslems (and Unitarians, too, I suppose) reach the pearly gates they're turned away because they didn't find God via Jesus Christ?--Percy

Here is my 2 mites on the subject..Anyone who reaches these "gates" is given the option of accepting the gatekeeper for who He is. Be it the Dalai Lama, Ed Sullivan, Shirley McClain, or Kyle Gerkin! People at this point would be foolish to deny the gatekeepers position as well as His offer of relationship with them. (Yes, a narrow view) To be fair, however, I maintain that this gatekeeper is no more impressed with my Christianity than He is with anyone elses pet belief. The gatekeeper is only concerned with our honesty and willingness to be real with Him. He will not let you in as a detached observer, however. BTW Percy, I believe that nobody finds God...He finds them. There are no other gatekeepers besides His Son yet there are many paths to the gate!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-23-2005 05:16 AM

Very coherent, but it did feel like you drifted from the main point somewhere around Noah's Flood, leaving behind a contradiction that you never resolved. I'll make my point again here as I go along. Have you read Ptolemy's thread, SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible? He's not confused, either, or so he believes, but no one has the slightest idea what he's saying. He's ignoring the constant indications he receives from others that he's not making sense. You're doing the same thing here by declaring that the contradictions or confusions so obvious to others don't exist, including the contradictions with other religions, and the contradictions with most of modern science (from a computer, no less). Your views are contradicted by most of the rest of the world, but you see no problems. Sheesh!This ignoring of problems and contradictions is easier for you to perform than Ptolemy because your views are widely shared within the broader evangelical community, while his are pretty much unique to himself, but the lesson is the same. When you receive enough indications from others that you're not making sense, it's time to do some serious thinking and figure out why. Maybe examining some cults would help. What was the groupthink that led to the Jonestown and Branch Davidian disasters, and to the Heaven's Gate cult of Marshall Applewhite that committed mass suicide because they believed they would be transported to an alien space ship hiding behind an approaching comet. Understanding the strange beliefs that have accompanied some religious endeavors leads us to question how it is we know what we think we know, a constructive exercise for us all.The key point I was making was that if God performs physical deeds in the physical world, both now and in the past, then there should be physical evidence of those physical deeds. Where's the evidence?--Percy

A few points:1) Karl Keating's Website is not a Papal encyclical or conciliar document or even a document produced by a Vatican theological commission. He's entitled to his opinions, and he's certainly well informed on many issues, but he's a still a layman like you or I, and his opinions must be treated as such.2) I'm not advocating polygenism. There is no scientific evidence regarding the initial ensoulment of humans, and the questions is almost certainly not amenable to scientific investigation. However Pope Pius XII (IMO) did not out and out condemn it - he said it was by no means clear how it could be reconcliled with dogma, IIRC. A fine, but significant distinction. The distinction between difficult and impossible. I agree that original sin and its inheritance is de fide. There is, however, a distinction between two human parents in the sense of fully modern (morphologically, and even in sentience) homo sapiens, and two in the sense of ensouled and subsequently fallen. If A&E are indeed de fide, it is in the latter sense IMO.That's why I say this is hairsplitting.I recommend a look at the International Theological Commission document "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" ( I linked to this in a couple of other threads).Paragraph 70 seems to leave the door open a crack to polygenism: Keep in mind that this document came out last year, and was signed off on by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who had the authority to alter the language if he thought it needed altering. Agreed,and that's not what I am advocating here. Original sin is de fide. We agree on that. Of course. No offense taken. I think you're overemphazizing what I see as a very fine distinction at best. But no big deal.

Not exactly. You said Message 220 that without physical evidence it REMAINS a myth. A much more definite pronouncement than "no way of knowing."However, neither statement is true. As I said:

quote:

---

When all you have is witness evidence, your job is to judge its credibility.

---

Witness evidence requires a different thought process than physical evidence to determine its validity, but it is just as much evidence as physical evidence is.

Percy...chill...out...please...You're basically insinuating that Faith needs to study doomsday cults which have lead to terrible attrocities in order to understand her own position in regards to the Scriptures -- which is seriously in error on your part.Like you, I too agree that God hears all prayers -- including the Muslim, the Unitarian, the Buddhist, and the athiest in their quiet and private moments of personal doubt of materialism. But I don't see how casting Faith's perspective on the Scriptures to the same level as James Jones will accompish anything but increased insensitivities toward other faith systems.I've explained this very carefully -- and will do so in more detail if you wish. But I for one am getting very tired of the crap which you keep slinging in Faith's direction.If she wants to express her belief that it is only Christ who saves -- I too will agree with her. The difference between her and I is that I believe that their are many paths to Christ -- but that Christ is still the only way to the Father.Cardinal Francis Arizne demonstrates with clarity the Catholic position in regards to Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue: An extremely good article can be found here if you are indeed interested in some Christians views in regards to other religions:Magid | Safety at workIn short, it must be stressed that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions. The church has a high regard for their conduct in so far as she believes the Spirit is moving them according to the Lord's will. This high regard also includes those precepts and doctrines found within other religions which, although differing on many points from that which the church believes and propounds, often reflects a ray of the truth which enlightens all men.For example, theologians have noted similarities in primitive beliefs in an All-Powerful God. On the subject of human religion, some scholars have claimed that human history exhibits an evolution in religion -- from tribal gods to monotheism. These results, however, have been largely turned on their head.Contrary to this 'evolutionary' position, the lifetime work of Wilhelm Schmidt (published in his Origin and Growth of Religion: English Ed. 1931) found that, thoughout the world, primitive cultures have a notion of a supreme god. This god has the following characteristics - remarkably uniformly across the world: In tracing human history, it is generally believed that the primal knowledge of the Lord was often supplanted in religions by concepts of gods which are "more accessible." In doing such, the gradual monotheistic knowledge of a monotheistic God seems to deteriorate into a pantheon of divinities whose attirbutes seems to be defined more by nature and/or human characteristics.Even still, despite this supposed deterioration, these religions often carry a distant memory of this "Sky-God" whom they have lost most contact with.He is sometimes, on the surface, either perceived as 1) no longer caring or 2) so omniscient -- since he already hears and sees everything -- that there is no reason to talk to him.More specifically, with further inviestigation, he is often referred to as Father. Within this paternal context, he is generally conceived in one of three ways; either as 1) a transcendent principle of divine order; 2) a senile or impotent deity who has been replaced by a set of other, more active and involved gods; or finally 3) he has become so remote, having removed himself so far from human affairs, that he is all but forgotten.The obvious response to all these traits, when presented more respectably, is, "Where have I heard that before?" The more obvious answers is that it sounds suspiciously like the Christian, Hebrew and Muslim concept of God.It becomes, in the minds of many catholics, even clearer when one notes the various concepts expressed in religions around the world. As many critics have noted, there are many pre-Christian religions and philosophies which teach doctrines which bear a striking resemblance to doctrines within the church.Although some similarities are certainly hyperbole or exaggeration of the part of the critic, such as most of those commonly attributed to the cult of Mithras, there are yet certainly more than a fair share of similarities to Christianity expressed in some ancient religions.When applicable, the Catholic Church tends to view these similarities in the sense of a kind of dialectic process leading to the re-emergeance of a faith that once existed in its fullness in the beginning but was lost to our first two parents long ago.That's the Catholic Belief.

If that's how you want to do it. But remember I got into the Great Debate on others' suggestions as it seemed the best way to deal with the piling-on problem. In other words, I didn't enter it with a clear understanding of the intention of a Great Debate, merely as a way of dealing with the previous problems, so I was far from having any ducks lined up for the purpose. But it's your call. I am sure I will again connect with the issues there but I don't want to go back to it uninspired.