It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Catholic Church No Longer Swears by Truth of The Bible

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
What a big crock!
[edit on 7-10-2005 by resistance]


Yeah, and beleiving that the earth was created 6000 years ago with the garden of eden and that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve is not a crock.

Right...





posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by resistance
What a big crock!
[edit on 7-10-2005 by resistance]


Yeah, and beleiving that the earth was created 6000 years ago with the garden of eden and that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve is not a crock.

Right...



No, I DON'T think it's a crock. Why should I? I suppose you are referring to the scary dinosaur movies like Jurassic Park, and that man cannot live where these creatures live. Well, in the Garden of Eden there were no meat-eaters at all, and all the animals were gentle. After the fall, God cursed the earth and cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden. That's when the thorns and thistles grew up, the mosquitos started stinging, the snakes started biting, and SOME (not all) of the dinasaurs started eating each other for lunch.

We have wild animals today that are man-eaters -- lots of them. That does not prevent life from going on. Florida thinks big hungry vicious reptiles are "cute" and have laws against killing them. I think that's weirder than the idea that dinosaurs could have coexisted with humans.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Actually the Earth felt its end on 16 July 1776.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
No, I DON'T think it's a crock. Why should I?...

We have wild animals today that are man-eaters -- lots of them. That does not prevent life from going on. Florida thinks big hungry vicious reptiles are "cute" and have laws against killing them. I think that's weirder than the idea that dinosaurs could have coexisted with humans.


Having laws against killing endangered species is completely different than living with and inhabiting the same space as those endangered species. This is the garden of eden we're talking about here right? Not the house of eden or the highrise apartments of eden, eden wasn't a metropolis it was a garden. Yes, there are laws against killing some alpha predators, but that's not the same as having those alpha predators live in your house. And just because there are laws protecting endangered species that doesn't mean the entire state that has those laws thinks that they are necessarily "cute" as you put it. I dont think laws that protect endangered species are "weird" ideas, I think they make perfect sense, though I'm not sure how much sense they make to you.


Well, in the Garden of Eden there were no meat-eaters at all, and all the animals were gentle. After the fall, God cursed the earth and cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden...


So what did they eat? Fruits and vegetables? Teeth of purely carnivorous animals (such as a T-Rex for example) are very maladapted to eating vegetation. I dont think they've ever found a Tyranosaurus fossil with a mouthful of molars. If you really want to claim that they were "created" (I beleive in a God that created the universe too, but I think that evolution is not mutually exclusive to that god) then God made them very ill suited to be eating vegetables instead of the type of food their teeth are meant for.

You seem the type that would literally interpret the bible. Well try and wrap your head around this: If God created everything and is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing -this includes knowing the future and past) then God is the one that created evil. How you might ask? By not stopping his creation, Satan, from bringing evil upon the world (actually in the case of an all powerful and all knowing God, the actions of Satan were pre-ordained by God before he even created him). God might as well have created evil himself instead of sublimating it to Satan. If God is really 100% good, with no evil at all then he would not have been able to create evil, or create something with the capacity for evil. If God created evil then he is, at least in part, evil. No matter how you cut it, there's no way around this conundrum. Actually wait, let me rephrase that, there's no logical way around this conundrum.

And what kind of God would create people as imperfect beings and then condemn them to hell for all eternity for not accepting Jesus (what about the people who live and die without ever hearing about Jesus? what about the souls of animals?) as their lord and savior? A really sadistic one.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Surrealist
Actually the Earth felt its end on 16 July 1776.


This makes me want to puke... you know, nevermind, I dont know why i bother, isnt this board supposed to deny 'ignorance' not freaking perpetuate it?

Anyway when you take the bible literally you eliminat an important part and thats faith...



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB


so perhaps another contributor can explain what, if any, is the significance of this document in regards to any change in stance from the church official hierarchy.

Hmm, Im no expert either...but I think I have an axample of what they mean. I think according to the bible, the Earth/Man is only 6,000 years old....but obviously we're much older than that and the Church knows this...so they're sending this document to let people know that some things in the Bible are not at face value...or something like that.

Im all confused now


They conviently leave out Gap theory. Im personally appalled by the Catholics lack of faith. after all, how can you not believe the bible but still use it as justification for anti birth control that only helped the rightwing IMF WB privitization schemes of african and south american countries via encouraging over population and diesease. This kind of chaos only serves to empower the rogue armies and terrorists and dictators.

not all xtains believe the earth is 6000 years old, or that the bible says its so. I guess Im one of them.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
lets go to the seven hills scripture. Im clarifying this point of xtain scripture so this Rome = babylon doesnt keep taking over all discussions of the vatican. Im sorry if you consider this thread hijacking. I hope this helps.



Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

alot is said in these two verses. basically it makes the old powers , the nwo, and satan one and the same.


Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


that links them all together. the other that has not yet come (satan post millenial) is of the 7 (the current one being the NWO, as john's time of writing is in the Lords Day/millenium see rev 1:10). the operative phrases are the continuing of a short space.

Also see this equation. 7-1+4 = 10. you have 7 horns in rev 12. the biggest one from the goat (daniel 8) breaks up into 4 after he crashed into the ram. This creates the 10 horn beast of revelations 13 at the first 3.5 years of tribulation. of those 4 come the little horn, who is also satan=antichrist. 10-3 =7. your back to the 7. the eigth also being satan as mentioned in revelations 17.

Rome is only a daughter. Babylon is ALL of the mysteries. also instead of 7 hills in rev 17:9 its mountains. mountains are symbolic of nations/countries. The NWO rests in the power of 7 countries or leaders (perhaps the UN. dunno). at most the church would be the false prophet religious system head in revelations 13 (which is a lamb/ram that speaks like a dragon).



Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuTroll
Im personally appalled by the Catholics lack of faith.
after all, how can you not believe the bible but still
use it as justification for anti birth control


Amazing generalization statement.
So you personally attest that the one billion Catholics on the
planet lack faith??


The Catholic faith is based on Scripture and sacred tradition.
The Catholic Church put the bible together ~ 350 A.D.
I have already listed, too many times to count, exactly
when each of the books came into acceptance. Check BTS
for the facts on them if you are interested.

The Catholic stand on birth control comes from the text in
the old testament in which Onan was slain by God because
he didn't fulfill the law - which was that he had to marry his
dead brother's wife and have children with her. He 'pulled out'
and spilled his seed. This was an offense that God punished
with death and hell.

THAT is where the 'no birth control' comes from. Onanism.
I disagree with the interpretation of it, but it is based on
scripture. Also, until the early part of the 1900's all Christian
Churches in America agreed with that interpretation.



[edit on 10/8/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I've never understood this argument, sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin in the church, a pious and obedient catholic would break that rule, commit that great sin, but not use a condom? They'd be ok with breaking the rules about having sex, but not about using contraception? Perhaps its less of an issue with respect to married couples tho.
I've never understood this arguement. Premarita


Just to clarify here, "Perhaps its less of an issue with respect to married couples tho.", in fact it is only an issue for married couples if we are discussing the Catholic Church teachings, since no one else should be having sex.


As for "sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin in the church,", not exactly. The Church recognizes other aspects of marital relations as being important in the marital realationship. It's just that every act between the couple must be open to the opportunity of procreation.

As for the topic, this is nothing new at this point, just a clarification. Probably being clarified so that the faithful do not get caught up in the prolific trend lately of other christian denominations who have been spouting their "literal interpretations" which are often flawed (as they are influenced by a particular persons perspective).

[edit on 10/8/2005 by Relentless]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
They have always said their tradition and the pronouncements
of the pope trump their "bible."

Uh ... nope. The Catholic faith is based on scripture and sacred
tradition. Sacred traditions that have been passed down for
two thousand years. Scripture does NOT hold all of God's truth.
Scripture says so. It also says to hold onto holy truths and traditions.
This is what the Catholic church does.

John 16:12 - I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot
bear them now.'

John 20:30 - Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the
disciples, whoch are not written in this book.

John 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did,
were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written.

Acts1:2-3 - To the apostles he presented himself alive after his passion
by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of
the kingdom of God (see also Luke 24:15-16, 25-27)

So ... these are just a few of the MANY passages that tell us that there
are truths OUTSIDE of the bible. Some truths are lost, and some have
been passed down through tradition.

1 Cor 11:2 - I commend you because you remember me in everything
and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thes 2:15 - Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught
by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thes 3:6 - Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and
not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

The traditions and teachings of the Church do NOT go against
scripture. This has been OVERLY discussed in BTS and there
are many threads that will educate you on exactly what the
Catholic church really teaches, and why it does so.



The former pope issued a decree endorsing evolution.

He said that it is okay to believe that evolution happened, as
long as you believe that God was the author of it... that God
used evolution to form man and that at some point he had
Adam and Eve. He said you don't have to believe in Evolution
but if you do, it's okay as long as you believe God was the
author.


The Catholic church through the ages has kept the bible
locked away, not wanting the commoner to have a peek at it.

Uh .. no. The bible was available for everyone to read. It was in
LATIN and the common folk were not educated enough to read.
The bible was available for any university student.


The Catholic church is thought by many to be the whore of
Babylon spoken of in Revelation, the beast who sits upon the seven hills.


Only those who use Jack Chick tracts for their education.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think you must reside on the moon, if you don't understand the importance of this document. The literal interpretation of the Bible ruled Western Civilization for millenia, impeded the advance of science, and is at the heart of school curricula debates throughout the land. How many heretics were burned at the stake, literally and figuratively, for believing that the earth is round or that the earth was not the center of the universe? This doesn't really come as a surprise, since the church some while back issued an apology to Galileo.

www.beliefnet.com...




(Minus the insult.)

Grady's got it. Accepting that the Catholic Church does not have the influence it once did, this still is an earthchanging event.

.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The Catholic Church does not allow birth control because simply put it would in time decrease their congregation. And decrease their money.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
They have always said their tradition and the pronouncements
of the pope trump their "bible."



by Flyersfan
Uh ... nope. The Catholic faith is based on scripture and sacred
tradition. Sacred traditions that have been passed down for
two thousand years. Scripture does NOT hold all of God's truth.
Scripture says so. It also says to hold onto holy truths and traditions.
This is what the Catholic church does.



Nobody's saying there is no truth outside the Bible. Quite obviously we can learn lots and lots of things outside of Scripture, things that are good and are true. The point is, we are to use the Scripture as the plumbline. Scripture says that even if an angel of light should appear and tell you somehting contrary to the scripture, you are to reject it.

This is what the Catholic church does not do. It accepts whatever "angels of light" so-called say. If the pope says it, doesn't matter if it contradicts scripture. If some apparition comes along and says do this or do that, doesn't matter if it contradicts scripture.



The former pope issued a decree endorsing evolution.



by Flyersfan:

He said that it is okay to believe that evolution happened, as
long as you believe that God was the author of it... that God
used evolution to form man and that at some point he had
Adam and Eve. He said you don't have to believe in Evolution
but if you do, it's okay as long as you believe God was the
author.


The Pope did not say it's "okay to believe evolution happened." The Pope said evolution DID happen.



Uh .. no. The bible was available for everyone to read. It was in
LATIN and the common folk were not educated enough to read.
The bible was available for any university student.


Why wasn't it made available to the common man? The Catholic church burned Tyndale at the stake, confiscated all his translations and destroyed them, tried to bomb the English Parliament to prevent the Bible from getting into the hands of the people. Once the English Bible was printed and distributed and the Catholic church could see there was no stopping the common man from having the Bible, they still delayed almost 100 years before printing their own (per)version to distribute to their own people.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

by Shaky:

You seem the type that would literally interpret the bible. Well try and wrap your head around this: If God created everything and is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing -this includes knowing the future and past) then God is the one that created evil. How you might ask? By not stopping his creation, Satan, from bringing evil upon the world (actually in the case of an all powerful and all knowing God, the actions of Satan were pre-ordained by God before he even created him). God might as well have created evil himself instead of sublimating it to Satan. If God is really 100% good, with no evil at all then he would not have been able to create evil, or create something with the capacity for evil. If God created evil then he is, at least in part, evil. No matter how you cut it, there's no way around this conundrum. Actually wait, let me rephrase that, there's no logical way around this conundrum.

And what kind of God would create people as imperfect beings and then condemn them to hell for all eternity for not accepting Jesus (what about the people who live and die without ever hearing about Jesus? what about the souls of animals?) as their lord and savior? A really sadistic one.


Shaky -- This is Calvinist nonsense. God created man with a free will and put him in a paradise -- no suffering, no death. Same with the angels -- gave them free will, no suffering, no death. Just like some of the angels chose to rebel against God, so did the first man and woman.

God is not interested in creating a bunch of wind-up robots that say "I love you, God; I love you, God." God wants real creatures who he can fellowship with who will really and FREELY love him.

But if man and/or angels will not obey and love God, then that means we now have murder, mayhem, torture, cruelty and wickedness. God did not invent these things and these things are nowhere in God's will -- in spite of what people may say about yin/yang, positive/negative, all that claptrap. Evil is evil, and God hates it.

But even when man went bad, God still loved his rotten creation. He made provision for people to repent, to get right with God, to restore the lost fellowship that results from sin. So God Himself came to earth to take the punishment Himself. So if people are willing to stop sinning, to turn away from their selfish and wicked ways, accept the payment God made for them,HIMSELF taking the punishment, God will forgive and restore them.

So yeah, God could crunch the devil, and he COULD obliterate all of us, and he COULD just keep the good angels who never rebelled and call it quits. But God is merciful and kind and full of love and goodness and gentleness. Don't mistake his kindness for weakness. And don't mistake his strength for evil. God is a gentle giant, God is good, and God is someone you can trust, someone who sticketh closer than a brother as Scripture says.

Any other questions?

[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Shaky

If God created everything and is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing -this includes knowing the future and past) then God is the one that created evil.



Shaky, here's the thing that Calvinists just can't understand about God. They think if God knows what's going to happen that means God made it happen, that that's the only wayGod could know what's going to happen.

Well, that's just not true. There are many psychics who have glimpses into the future. They are not causing the future to happen. It's just that they are able to see ahead to what will be happening as though it had already happened.

You see, it's a matter of time, not control. God is outside of time, and God is the creator of time. So God can step outside of time and look at the big picture. But just because God sees it happening does not mean God is making it happen or even that God could change anything from happening that he saw. Why? Because if he changed it, it would not be, and therefore how could he see it?

For example. What if someone was psychic and could predict the winner of any football game that came along, tell you the score even. Hey, why not just not play the games and save the effort of playing the games, right? since we already know how it's all going to turn out. Nope. Doesn't work that way. If the games aren't played, there will be no score and no winners.

NOW do you understand? Think about it for a minute.

The Calvinists hate God and tell lies about him which causes people to turn away from God, to withdraw their faith in Him. Kinda like the parable of the sower, how the first example shows the birds coming along and eating the seeds before they have a chance to sprout. Satan is a liar, and he will steal whatever little faith you have if you listen to His lies. Instead, soften up your heart a bit so the Word of God can take root. Don't let Satan steal your faith with his lies.

You get what I'm say? Think about it.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
resistance, you are completely ignoring the logic behind everything I've said. Though, that's not to say that I didn't expect you to.


Originally posted by resistance
Shaky, here's the thing that Calvinists just can't understand about God. They think if God knows what's going to happen that means God made it happen, that that's the only way God could know what's going to happen.


No, I preceded that statement with an important qualifier, that if God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he is not both of these things then he is not responsible for evil, but if he is then there's no way around the fact that he is responsible. If he know's what's going to happen, but he didn't make it happen or he cant stop it from happening that means that he's omniscient but not omnipotent. If he does have the power to stop it from happening but does not then that means that he chooses to let it happen.


...There are many psychics who have glimpses into the future. They are not causing the future to happen. It's just that they are able to see ahead to what will be happening as though it had already happened.


None of those psychics are all powerful, if they were, then seeing the future and not doing anything to change it (because you have the ability to do anything and cause anything to happen if you're omnipotent) would make them responsible (at least partially if not fully) for what happened because of their lack of action.

Let's look at it this through an example. Say you're a psychic and you live next to some train tracks. You have a vision one night where you see a baby being tied to the train tracks and left there for six hours, finally after the six hour pass a train comes and runs the baby over, flattening it like a pancake. You know for a fact this event will come to pass in a week. A week goes by and you look out your window to see a mysterious figure leaving the tracks behind your house and a wriggling bundle tied to the tracks. The baby is tied to the tracks with normal rope and you have plenty of wire cutters and heavy duty scissors in your toolbox. You know that there will be six hours that go by before the train comes and actually runs over the baby.

If you do not take your wire cutters, cut the rope, and rescue the baby then aren't you at least partially responsible for letting it die? In this example I didn't even make the psychic all powerful, but I put the event within his or her power to change. If we want to look at this scenario through your view of time, then the baby will die regardless of whether anyone knows it will happen or not because it's an event that has been preordained. And the psychic (who can be likened to God surveying time) is powerless to change anything (therefore making God in this example not omnipotent).


You see, it's a matter of time, not control. God is outside of time, and God is the creator of time. So God can step outside of time and look at the big picture. But just because God sees it happening does not mean God is making it happen or even that God could change anything from happening that he saw. Why? Because if he changed it, it would not be, and therefore how could he see it?


So you are saying that time is unchangeable? If so that means that we have no free will because all our actions are predetermined. If we do have free will on the other hand, then nothing in time is decided until we actually make that decision and therefore God could not see it happening.

You also assert that God is the creator of time, and that he can step outside of time and look at "the big picture" (which I'm assuming you're referring to all the events that happen in your predetermined view of time). This means that when he created the universe he also preordained all events in history by creating (your version of) time, essentially deciding what would happen and when. If God lacks the ability to change things in the time stream then he is not all powerful. And if there are creatures with free will in God's creation that also means that he is not all powerful (and it also means that events cannot be preordained).

You say it's a matter of time and not control. I say it's a matter of both. If God created everything out of nothing and if God created time that means that he at least had control of it when he created it. If after words he can't change something he created then he is no longer (which calls to question whether he ever was in the first place) omnipotent. And once again, if God can step back and look at "the big picture" then no one has any free will (including God according to you) because no matter what you do things will still turn out to be the same, meaning that all the people that go to hell were specifically created by God for that very purpose, being tortured for all eternity. Also if we look at the logical consequences of what you're asserting then Time>God.


Scripture says that even if an angel of light should appear and tell you somehting contrary to the scripture, you are to reject it.


The scripture says things "contrary to the scripture", by your logic we should reject the bible because of all the contradictions...


The Calvinists hate God and tell lies about him which causes people to turn away from God, to withdraw their faith in Him. Kinda like the parable of the sower, how the first example shows the birds coming along and eating the seeds before they have a chance to sprout. Satan is a liar, and he will steal whatever little faith you have if you listen to His lies. Instead, soften up your heart a bit so the Word of God can take root. Don't let Satan steal your faith with his lies.


I don't hate God at all. I have a strong faith in God. But unlike you I don't believe that "Satan" whispers in my ear, lies to me, and causes me to sin. The idea that evil exists outside of us is a comforting thought, but the truth of the matter is we are all partially good and partially evil just from our souls having taken birth as human beings. Evil is a part of us, not because "Satan" came to earth and tempted Eve, but because we're born that way.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
resistance, you are completely ignoring the logic behind everything I've said. Though, that's not to say that I didn't expect you to.



Originally posted by resistance
Shaky, here's the thing that Calvinists just can't understand about God. They think if God knows what's going to happen that means God made it happen, that that's the only way God could know what's going to happen.



Shaky:
No, I preceded that statement with an important qualifier, that if God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he is not both of these things then he is not responsible for evil, but if he is then there's no way around the fact that he is responsible. If he know's what's going to happen, but he didn't make it happen or he cant stop it from happening that means that he's omniscient but not omnipotent. If he does have the power to stop it from happening but does not then that means that he chooses to let it happen.


Yes? And if he chooses to let it happen that means he's responsible for it? I don't see that. You're saying that God should have wiped out the entire earth at the flood and just wiped out Satan and his rebelling angels and just went with the good angels he had in Heaven?


...There are many psychics who have glimpses into the future. They are not causing the future to happen. It's just that they are able to see ahead to what will be happening as though it had already happened.


Shaky:
None of those psychics are all powerful, if they were, then seeing the future and not doing anything to change it (because you have the ability to do anything and cause anything to happen if you're omnipotent) would make them responsible (at least partially if not fully) for what happened because of their lack of action.

Let's look at it this through an example. Say you're a psychic and you live next to some train tracks. You have a vision one night where you see a baby being tied to the train tracks and left there for six hours, finally after the six hour pass a train comes and runs the baby over, flattening it like a pancake. You know for a fact this event will come to pass in a week. A week goes by and you look out your window to see a mysterious figure leaving the tracks behind your house and a wriggling bundle tied to the tracks. The baby is tied to the tracks with normal rope and you have plenty of wire cutters and heavy duty scissors in your toolbox. You know that there will be six hours that go by before the train comes and actually runs over the baby.

If you do not take your wire cutters, cut the rope, and rescue the baby then aren't you at least partially responsible for letting it die? In this example I didn't even make the psychic all powerful, but I put the event within his or her power to change. If we want to look at this scenario through your view of time, then the baby will die regardless of whether anyone knows it will happen or not because it's an event that has been preordained. And the psychic (who can be likened to God surveying time) is powerless to change anything (therefore making God in this example not omnipotent).


Well, God does intervene sometimes. Sometimes God does not intervene. I really can't second-guess God in his decisions to intervene or not. God has a way of working all things out to good, and Scripture says "be sure your sin will find you out," and it's obvious God does not sit back and do nothing. He's always intervening in the affairs of men. But he doesn't always, and not everything that happens on this earth is God's will, and it's certainly not all micromanaged by God.

But just because everything that happens is not God's will does not mean that God is without power. It just means that God gave man free will. It was either make man with free will or don't make man at all.


Resistance: You see, it's a matter of time, not control. God is outside of time, and God is the creator of time. So God can step outside of time and look at the big picture. But just because God sees it happening does not mean God is making it happen or even that God could change anything from happening that he saw. Why? Because if he changed it, it would not be, and therefore how could he see it?


Shaky:
So you are saying that time is unchangeable? If so that means that we have no free will because all our actions are predetermined. If we do have free will on the other hand, then nothing in time is decided until we actually make that decision and therefore God could not see it happening.


We have free will. God knows what we're going to do, but they're not done until we do them, and if we don't do them God won't see them being done.



You also assert that God is the creator of time, and that he can step outside of time and look at "the big picture" (which I'm assuming you're referring to all the events that happen in your predetermined view of time). This means that when he created the universe he also preordained all events in history by creating (your version of) time, essentially deciding what would happen and when. If God lacks the ability to change things in the time stream then he is not all powerful. And if there are creatures with free will in God's creation that also means that he is not all powerful (and it also means that events cannot be preordained).


There's power and there's power. If someone has a slave and monitors each and every movement that slave makes, that does not make that particular slaveowner more powerful than someone who has a slave and lets the slave have time to themself and decide what to eat for dinner, etcetera. This may be a bad example, because we are not God's slaves. But we are his creation, and if God wanted to he could make us all robots. The fact that he chooses not to do that does not make him weak or impotent.


You say it's a matter of time and not control. I say it's a matter of both. If God created everything out of nothing and if God created time that means that he at least had control of it when he created it. If after words he can't change something he created then he is no longer (which calls to question whether he ever was in the first place) omnipotent. And once again, if God can step back and look at "the big picture" then no one has any free will (including God according to you) because no matter what you do things will still turn out to be the same, meaning that all the people that go to hell were specifically created by God for that very purpose, being tortured for all eternity. Also if we look at the logical consequences of what you're asserting then Time>God.


I don't get what you're saying here. You can't make something not happen that's already happened. That is a feature of the phenomenon known as "time." God created time with the features time has, just like he created gravity with the features it has. They are just natural laws that exist by God's choosing. By creating gravity God is not to blame if a rock falls and hits somebody on the head. Likewise, just because God creates the phenomenon known as "time," God is not to blame for the things that happen over time.

God created beings and gave them free will. Over time these persons of their own free will did the things they chose to do. God did not make them do it. God is able to step outside his own created laws of time and see the beginning from the end, just like a psychic can occasionally do. That is part of God's omnicience, all-knowing nature. God does not turn into a weakling because he doesn't decide to obliterate time and all the people and all the deeds that would have occurred during that time. How can God see what's going to happen unless it DOES happen? If God obliterates everything, then God won't see anything happening anyway because nothing WILL happen.


I don't hate God at all. I have a strong faith in God. But unlike you I don't believe that "Satan" whispers in my ear, lies to me, and causes me to sin.


Well, you cause yourself to sin, and you're the one who chooses to believe Satan's lies. The Bible says Satan is a liar, that he's here to kill and destroy, and that he prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. So where do you think you are getting these ideas about God micromanaging everything and being to blame for all the evil in the world? Who else but Satan would say such an evil thing against God?

[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Yes? And if he chooses to let it happen that means he's responsible for it? I don't see that.


If you had AIDS and chose not to tell any of your sexual partners that you were infected wouldn't you be at least partially responsible if they contracted AIDS from you? Or would it be solely your partner's (partners') fault for not abstaining? Maybe the AIDS example is too unrelated. Going back to the baby example, if you saw a baby tied to some train tracks behind your house but you did nothing and let it get run over, then are you not at least partially responsible for it's death? Or is the blame solely on the person who tied it to the tracks?

I at least hope you see that.


You're saying that God should have wiped out the entire earth at the flood and just wiped out Satan and his rebelling angels and just went with the good angels he had in Heaven?


I dont think anywhere in my post did I mention the flood, or the rebel angels, or what God "should have" done in any circumstances. I'm simply trying to convey to you the implications of your own faith which comes from a literal interpretation of the bible.


...and it's obvious God does not sit back and do nothing. He's always intervening in the affairs of men. But he doesn't always, and not everything that happens on this earth is God's will, and it's certainly not all micromanaged by God...


Nor anywhere in my post did I mention micromanagement by God. But let's look at your assertion that "God is always intervening in the affairs of men". How does God decide which metaphorical babies (from my train example) are worth saving and which ones aren't? And off course you're not going to second guess God (what the church and the bible have told you about God), because let me guess: "God works in mysterious ways" right?


We have free will. God knows what we're going to do, but they're not done until we do them, and if we don't do them God won't see them being done.


So God knows what we're going to do huh? And if we don't do it then God won't see it?

Well what if we get to that point in time and decide to choose an alternative to the decision that God foresaw?

If it was set in stone beforehand and forseen what we were going to choose then is it really a choice? The answer is no. If things are predetermined then we only have the illusion of choice; things were going to happen one way no matter what.


I don't get what you're saying here.


And I don't get why you don't.


You can't make something not happen that's already happened. That is a feature of the phenomenon known as "time."


Just to clarify this statement (and your other statements regarding time), part of your definition of time is that all things have already happened and you cannot change time because according to you "You can't make something not happen that's already happened."


God created beings and gave them free will. Over time these persons of their own free will did the things they chose to do.


How do beings have free will if according to you all events (including choices) have already happened and cannot be changed. If the choice is already made before you even get to that point in time how can you argue that you actually made that choice when there is no alternative to your decision (because according to you time can't be changed)? In order to truly have a choice there have to be multiple outcomes that could possibly result from the result of your choosing. If there is only one possible choice which you were going to take regardless, then it's not really a choice, it's a predetermined event.

If all events are predetermined and we cannot change what will happen then we don't have free will.


God does not turn into a weakling because he doesn't decide to obliterate time and all the people and all the deeds that would have occurred during that time.


I never said that God "turns into a weakling because he doesn't obliterate time". What I'm saying is that if beings have free will then God is not omnipotent because the decisions of those beings are outside of his control or power. And if God is both omnipotent and omniscient then people don't have free will because the future is set in stone and all their actions have already been foreseen by God. One could extrapolate from this that beings are created specifically to do what their predetermined fate is in life. Such as Satan, when God created Satan he already foresaw that Satan would rebel. If God is all knowing and all powerful then Satan was created by God specifically for the purpose of rebelling. On the other hand, if Satan was created with free will then God could not have foreseen his rebellion.


Well, you cause yourself to sin, and you're the one who chooses to believe Satan's lies. The Bible says Satan is a liar, that he's here to kill and destroy, and that he prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. So where do you think you are getting these ideas about God micromanaging everything and being to blame for all the evil in the world? Who else but Satan would say such an evil thing against God?


Just because I'm questioning your flawed beleif system doesn't mean that "Satan" is lieing to me and causing me to sin. I'm sure that when Galileo asserted that the Earth moves around the Sun and not the other way around there were plenty of people just like you denouncing Galileos ("Satan's") lies.

We now know who was lieing and who was telling the truth...

[edit on 8-10-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Shaky -- Since you stated on another thread that you are a Buddist or Hindu anyway, I guess this whole discussion is moot anyway, yes? I'd be running away from God too if I thought he was the way you describe him. And the Buddhist/Hindu religion is atheist, said to be atheist by the courts. So why are you posting on this thread about the Catholic church if you don't give a rip for Christianity anyway?



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I'd be running away from God too if I thought he was the way you describe him.


I'm not "running away from God" and I don't know where you got that idea or what you're trying to say about me.


And the Buddhist/Hindu religion is atheist, said to be atheist by the courts.


Exactly what "court" are you referring to, care to sight any specific examples? If you think the Hindu religion is atheist you have no clue what you're talking about.


So why are you posting on this thread about the Catholic church if you don't give a rip for Christianity anyway?


Dont back out of an argument just because you've been logically cornered.

And if you recall, I first posted on this thread because you had the balls to assert that evolution was a "crock". But as we've seen, you've neither presented any scientific evidence to substantiate this claim, nor have you addressed in a rational way any of the logical extrapolations of your own beleif system that I've put forth.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join