A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I thought all things were possible with God.Alan
- Status
I thought all things were possible with God.Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Joseph Bilodeau:
B
buffalo
Guest
AlanFromWichita said:
Alan
God cannot lie
God cannot turn truth into a lie
God cannot sin
Omipotence does not include doing things that are impossible.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Because that’s what we do.
It’s like sandbox 101. We can’t do ANYTHING until we have established the pecking order. We have to make sure we have found each others’ weaknesses so we can label them and “help” them by trying to fix them. This takes priority over finding each others’ strengths and seeing how they can be used in harmony for a good cause. :whacky:
Yes, those are good words.
We are one big dysfunctional family, and do occasionally share joy – even if at each other’s expense.
We are all sinners, and this is what happens. Since I’ve apparently appointed myself the Attitude Police of this thread, then I speak with presumed authority.
Pride is so deceptive to me, that I don’t even pretend to know when I’m being prideful or humble, or whether I’m teaching or ranting. That’s why I depend on others so much, trying to see and understand how they react to me, as possible mirrors of myself. Sometimes the best advice I’ve been given has been by “opponents” because my friends either didn’t notice a fault with me, they were not such good friends and let me persist in my folly.
Maybe opponents are like the second best thing next to teachers. After all, opponents are the ones to really apply the “logical consequences” of our actions, whereas the teachers mostly warn us and can only simulate “logical consequences” with “imposed consequences.” We all think we’re teachers, but act to oppose each other. Therefore if we do this right maybe we can harness this whole system somehow to build our strength to work our common goals? Perhaps that is where the Spirit make take us from here?
I’d like to express my joy and gratitude with all the posters here – you have all (fighting and all) been so valuable to my life I’d need to hire a poet to try to explain it.
Alan
J
javelin
Guest
Sounds good so far…
…as long as it is understood that the only “impossible” things are contrary to the very nature of God Himself. The only thing God cannot do, I believe, is cease being God. That being the case, He cannot exibit characteristics contrary to those that make Him God. Since God is Truth, God cannot lie (despite His omnipotence). Since God IS, He cannot cease to be. When God makes a promise, He cannot break that promise, for that is contrary to His Being. He may later show us that we misunderstood the promise to begin with, but He cannot break the promise.
Other than that, He can do anything.
Peace,
javelin
P.S. I must admit that it feels strange putting things like constraints on God, but these must be true if our understanding of God is True.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
It doesn’t?
Sorry, God, I guess I gave you too much credit.
If God can’t change truth into a lie, then can God change a lie into truth? If he can, then was it a lie in the first place, or a truth yet to be discovered? Then again, since God is outside time, maybe if he could “change” a lie to truth it would only be a human illusion as their eyes are opened because in God’s view of time maybe it was somehow both good and bad. That’s what I understand about us humans. We have elements of God within us by design, by baptism, and confirmation and Eucharist. We have original sin and faulty upbringing. We act in truth sometimes and in falsehood at others, do we think God’s love for us changes back and forth? Do we actually “become” truth and falsehood, as in the way Christ “became” sin for us?
Then again, he created satan, so although God cannot lie, I guess he can create a being who will then go lie – so that would mean that lies are not actually created by God, so therefore lies are outside God’s universe? Hmmm, does that mean that nothing I can perceive within God’s creation is a lie?
Maybe that has something to do with the temptation in the desert? I always thought it was strange that satan would offer Christ the world on a platter, as if Christ couldn’t have just taken it. Is satan truly the prince of this world and therefore had the authority to make the offer to give Christ “back” the world?
Alan
W
Wormwood
Guest
First off, let me say thank you Alan for your numerous responses and defense of my question while I was away on business. Obviously they are far too numerous to respond to individually. I will just say that this example of 2+2=4 is also faulted in that 2+2can =22 depending on the place value. Just because you know the truth, does not mean you know the WHOLE truth. Do you explain your daily activities to your dog? No. So it is safe to assume that there are elements of God’s plan which we can not know about. So what if God set up a correct church in asia so people on that side of the world could know his plan? It is just an exercise in thought, not at all as subversive or “stupid” as some would claim.
Well, actually I made the assumption that you guys would say catholicism is the first.Montie ClaunchFirst you already said was Catholicism. Second I would have to say is Catholicism.
It would depend on if the lion had a laser attachment…without a laser the lion is worthless. You have an interesting way of taking up space without actually saying anything.Care to speculate on the question?When a kid asks it, it’s cute. But that’s because they’re kids.
Hmm good job not being rude by the way…I thought you veiled that quite tastefully. Perhaps some people just don’t have the capacity for such exercises. This whole question arises from something that Jesus did, when he found two churches that were correct within his lifetime. So it is not so far outside of the realm of catholicism as you might think.
Better than most of the non resonses I have gotten.
Well hello Javelin we meet again. The last line of this post would seem like enough justification for me to ask this question. If the thruth was revealed to all men, why couldn’t taoists be correct according to THEIR revelation? I was curious if anyone would respond outside of the judeo-christian tradition. Outside of the 49ers this was the closest I saw:
Which was hilariously opposed to the nature of the question, but still well within the confines of that question. Touche.
W
Wormwood
Guest
Ok 2+2=4 is a pretty tired example, and I already discussed that just seeing the equation is not always enough information to solve it. What if you were adding 2(hours) +2(days)?
If that DOES equal 4 still, I ask you, 4 what? To say that religions exist specifically to conflict established doctrine is horribly inaccurate. Not only do you get into a chicken vs egg arguement (like what religion was the FIRST religion established to conflict with?) Not all other doctrines conflict what your church teaches. Also it is not impossible for two conflicting doctrines to be true.
I hand you a piece of paper with instructions to cut out the picture with your right hand, and I tell your friend to do it with his left…did you not accomplish the same thing through opposite instructions?
Is your cut out product or set of directions more true than your friends? No, just different.
Hmmm perhaps it is your reasoning that is faulty. The only reason the question appears to be erroneous to you is because you seem to be under the impression that catholicism is not only truth, but the ONLY truth, and that God has revealed the extent of his divine works through it. I respectfully disagreeThe notorious Ghosty:
But it’s your question that is faulty
An answer to an erroneous question is either an erroroneous conclusion, or it completely ignores the premise of the question. I don’t really see any way around that in this case.
Shintoism is nothing more than a reverance for anscestors. Prayers to the holy dead are comparable to prayers to saints and who was the ultimate ancestor? J.C. of course! See the religion is fine with christs teachings, you still have to obey an honor code as to not disgrace your ancestors or your descendants.
Really? So you are telling me if Jesus showed up tommorow “as you know him” you would be able to pick him out of a line up? Do you have pictures or something? Truth be told you know very little of what he looked like or what he was actually like, as such a very minute portion of his life actually got written down. I am sure you have all heard (and indignantly refuted) the history channel talking about the possibility of christ visiting a buddhist monistary, as the temple had records of a man from bethlahem fitting J.C.'s description, and this account was dated during the life time of christ. Whether it is true or not, Christs teachings do resemble buddhism more than judaism. The ultimate compassion and love is an attribute of the buddha, not the God of Abraham. I would say there are a billion buddhists and they have been around just as long as catholicism. Their books contain all of the same “truth” yours does, by that I mean they have a story which has been verified through a few historical consistancies and testamonials of their religious “power” by people outside of their faith even. The religion has not withered and died, but flourished throughout the centuries. In the same way that those are used as defenses of catholicisms “truth” you have to see that they can apply to other religions, unless you consider all of their visions and revelations to be false and made up.
Ok I’ll cry because you have no sense of humor or imagination. Or is it because of something else that I am to lament?
Well first let me thank you for lowering yourself to answer my “little question”. Secondly, and to answer your question, play my fiddle and watch it all burn I suppose
B
buffalo
Guest
Correct- except - Other than that, He can do anything He sets out to do.
In the Bible God is called almighty.
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
I found the question transparent rather than tough, the correct response seemed quite obvious.
Quite so, and now he knows.
Possibly, although it seems to me that the the question itself, by inviting speculations about Jesus likely to be contrary to the truth, has already brought its own sour tone.
Not necessarily. I answered the question without such a persupposition. Nor does it require a departure from ones normal mode of thought to acknowledge that other religions can have some elements of truth, just not the fullness of truth revealed to and handed on intact by the Catholic Church.
I never said otherwise. Did I demand that the question be removed?
In this, we disagree. It is not necessary for one to eat poison in order to appreciate wholesome food.
Agreed.
Creativity can be fostered without encouraging flippancy.
Were I to serve with you, it would be a hung jury. So it’s probably just as well that no trial is actually involved.
Certainly, but it does no good to answer a question with such an unviable presupposition while pretending that the unviable aspect does not exist. It must be pointed out, then an ammended question can be asked which may be truly answered.
D
Donna_P
Guest
You ask a question where there is no answer. I know who is behind your question…do you?
You are asking devout Catholics to ignore their faith. That is WRONG.
Your question is like asking "hey, like I know you believe in Chastity, but like if you didn’t, which form of birth control would you use if you had like sex outside of marriage?"
Please be considerate that we are Catholic. Your question is irrelevant and highly anti Catholic.:tsktsk:
You are asking devout Catholics to ignore their faith. That is WRONG.
Your question is like asking "hey, like I know you believe in Chastity, but like if you didn’t, which form of birth control would you use if you had like sex outside of marriage?"
Please be considerate that we are Catholic. Your question is irrelevant and highly anti Catholic.:tsktsk:
W
Wormwood
Guest
Yet you missed the point and provided only predictable responses.
Well seeing as how no one knows the truth…that is why it is called speculation…so your “likely contrary to truth” arguement is equally unlikey to truth. If you found this benign post an invitation to bring a “sour” tone I assure you that stems from a personal problem, and not my intentions.
Yes way to point out your resounding lack of creativity…kudos. What you fail to mention is your basis for the assumtion that catholic doctrine is the only correct doctrine for everyone on earth. Maybe other religions don’t learn the exact same thing, but they may still be true as God’s nature can not be fully understood by humans. For all we know, hinduism is divinely inspired. You can not assume to know the mind of God and to do so would be foolish in my opinion.
Well if you weren’t quite possibly the most cynical person on earth, you might have realized (because i stated it earlier) that the point was to see what commonalities you found with the over all messege and the practice of that messege. If you think the small ceramonial stuff is the most important, then sure it is tough to play this game because a) you have missed the point and b) because ceramonies vary from region to region so you are confined to middle eastern doctrine that has been romanized which is a very small niche. If, on the other hand you were to be optimistic for a bit, you might try comparing Jesus’ words and actions to the dogma of other world religions, with quite pleasant results. It seems that you would simply rather participate without contributing, which is fine. It is like anything else in life, in that you get back what you put in. You don’t want to think about the decency of others, I am not here to make you.
Such an unviable presupposition you say? I got this scenario from the bible, as I have already stated. I simply applied the situation to today, with the twist option of being able to pick religions outside of the middle east. Surely he didn’t judge the two churches in question on their rituals, because the ritual traditions of catholicism had yet to be forged. Obviously it was on their actions and their teachings.
Teddy Ruxpin? Dick Clark? The boogey man ?
Think of it as a koan for christianity. The fact that it has no answer was the whole point of the question. The answers are reflections of the people giving them.
This is what I meant by “you get back what you put in”. You wanted to see ignoring catholic faith so that is what you saw. Some people used it as a chance to reflect on the similarities between faiths instead of the divide that causes so many problems.
Point one: I am not a 14 year old girl, nor do I speak like one. Point two: I am not saying if you didn’t believe in catholicism what religion would you be? What I AM saying is lost on you anyway so don’t worry about it.
Not so irrelevant that you could resist hitting the respond button, but “anti-catholic” enough to ensure you wouldn’t respond with anything similar to an answer for the question…is that it? The question is for people that LIKE to think…no one said you had to play. The catholic interpretation of revelation is pretty loose, so I really don’t see how it is “anti-catholic” to discuss what is admittedly hypothetical, and not even our true belief, about what you are allowed to speculate about anyway.
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
Wormwood,
I would consider it a great courtesy if you would would lay off the flaming and stick to the topic under discussion.
Thank you.
L
LSK
Guest
You are so obviously smarter than all of us. How gracious of you to tolerate our inferior intellect.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Joseph Bilodeau:
See I can play the “medical analogy game” too.
Actually I didn’t have an answer of my own to the question, I just like hassling people who answer questions by saying they’re stupid questions. Reminds me of too many bad times when I have been told my own questions are stupid, including several verbally abusive nuns I had for teachers I guess.
I plead guilty of being a baggage carrier. I have carried my bias against telling other people they are stupid or their questions or their intellectual exercises are stupid into this thread. I suppose you people saw what I didn’t; that his real reason for posting the question was to destroy the Church?
Alan
That’s what I thought you meant. He said something sour first, so we respond in kind. I understand that strategy because I do it all the time.
No, but your immune system becomes stronger when it is vaccinated with small doses of the disease.
See I can play the “medical analogy game” too.
Actually I didn’t have an answer of my own to the question, I just like hassling people who answer questions by saying they’re stupid questions. Reminds me of too many bad times when I have been told my own questions are stupid, including several verbally abusive nuns I had for teachers I guess.
I plead guilty of being a baggage carrier. I have carried my bias against telling other people they are stupid or their questions or their intellectual exercises are stupid into this thread. I suppose you people saw what I didn’t; that his real reason for posting the question was to destroy the Church?
Alan
L
LSK
Guest
I am really really thinking. Here is my answer. REALLY…
If the Son of Man returned to earth tomorrow He would recognize the Holy Mother Church as the universal expression of Christianity. He would not recognize another ‘religion’, but - as per the Catechism - He would pronounce judgements and make decisions about people and their institutions that would be Truth and allow for salvation for any and all who deserve that salvation. It is not my job to decide who that is but it is my choice to be an obedient daughter of the Holy Mother Church.
Now, I know you commanded me to pick a second religion. I could not decide. You also told me to really think. I did. This is my answer. It is based on my experience, my strength and my hope.
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
Is this fair? I have stated that I find these sorts of hypothetical questions less than suitable for application to our Lord, and I have explained my reasons for thinking so, but where in this thread have I called the OP, his question, or any other person stupid?
G
Ghosty
Guest
I was talking about the question, which I certainly can observe. I’m not using mathematics to illustrate some ethereal point about God, but a direct point about the question and the Scripture to which it indirectly refers. Once again you’re taking off on a tangent that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. Interesting to some, I’m sure, but irrelevant.
Apologetics is about reason, and when a question shows faulty reasoning it must be exposed as such. Faulty reasoning can only lead to faulty answers, not brilliant apologetical defenses. As another posted has said, this question falls into the “when did you stop beating your wife” category; it’s a compound question that leaves no provision for a correct answer. People HAVE answered, but they have not answered the actual question, rather a twisted version that assumes an implication that isn’t present. In this case, the assumption behind the original question is that a non-Catholic faith could be completely true alongside Catholicism, which is impossible according to Catholic belief and teaching. That isn’t a matter of thinking inside or outside the box, it’s a matter of simple logic and logical fallacies.
This is a misunderstanding of what “all things are possible” is meant in this context. All things are possible because there are no outside constraints on God’s Will, what He wills, happens. The flip side of this power is that God’s Will is one, is united with itself, is absolute. God does not Will contrary to His Will, that is a contradiction in terms. If God says “I Will this”, then God Wills that, He doesn’t “maybe” Will it. When God Wills something, it does happen, but God has a single united Will.
And into self-contradiction and logical fallacy. Schizophrenia is also outside of the normal mode of thinking, and it’s also a disability. The person who answered Satan worship, for example, disregarded the actual practice of Satan worship in order to answer it, namely that worshipping Satan would provide some kind of lasting contentment and power, which is contradicted by Catholic teaching. If Satan worship, as understood by the believers, was purely about worshipping futily a being who would only bring you suffering, and would net you an eternity in Hell, then that answer would be correct. That’s not what Satan worshippers tend to believe, however, so the answer is false. It’s a perfect example of thinking outside the box leading to not thinking through the answer completely. That leads to very poor apologetics for obvious reasons.
God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
It’s not subversive, it’s just wrong in that it makes God out to be a liar. He stated that Christianity was the full revelation, that Jesus Himself is the full revelation. This is a fundamental aspect of both Jewish Messianic belief and the Catholic faith in particular. If there were other completely true faiths, Jesus would not have said “all who have seen and heard me have the truth”.
I wouldn’t call you stupid, because I don’t think you knew about that part of Judaic faith. It’s absolutely key, however, and can’t be thrown out without throwing out the faith altogether.
Then your question is respectfully faulty. You are ignoring Catholic and Judaic dogma, and asking Catholics to answer a question that denies the fundamental aspect of their faith. You are asking the wrong question to the wrong audience. You might be able to say that Catholicism and Shintoism are both true, but you’d be showing a gaping ignorance of Catholicism in saying so, since Catholicism fundamentally precludes Shintoism. You would be basing your answer on an incorrect view of Catholicism, plain and simple. You come by it innocently, and with respect to us, but without respect to complete understanding of what your asking.Hmmm perhaps it is your reasoning that is faulty. The only reason the question appears to be erroneous to you is because you seem to be under the impression that catholicism is not only truth, but the ONLY truth, and that God has revealed the extent of his divine works through it. I respectfully disagree
That being said, it’s still not clear if you mean “the only religion that contains truth”, or “the only religion with the whole truth”. That would completely change the nature of the question.
I grew up with Shinto practitioners and you’re leaving out the Kami of rocks, gardens, abstract principles, ect. You’d be hard pressed to show that the kami of my old house, which I saw people pray to, was the ancestor of anyone. Minimalizing Shintoism into non-Shintoism does not make Shintoism compatible with Catholicism, it erases Shintoism. It’s disrespectful, IMO, to reduce Shintoism, a faith that reveres many unique deities and abstract principles, to “nothing more than reverence for ancestors”. That’s no better than saying that Catholics believe Jesus was nothing more than a “good teacher”.
This question displays yet more ignorance on the nature of the Second Coming. The Second Coming refers to Jesus returning “in glory to judge the living and the dead”, and would not be as simple as a line-up. Coming in glory IS Jesus returning “as we know Him”, because that is how He said He’d return. If you mean coming back as “just a guy” then it changes the question, but again invalidates Catholicism automatically, leaving us with the same objection I’ve been raising to your question the whole time.
G
Ghosty
Guest
As a convert to Catholicism by way of Judaism, all I can say to this is that you apparently don’t know much about Judaism beyond what you’ve gleaned from a few stories in the Tanakh (and I don’t say this as an insult by any means). Nothing that Jesus teaches is actually outside of the Jewish faith on principle, and most of it was already set forth strictly and publically by the Pharisees, who are the spiritual ancestors of Modern Orthodox Judaism. If Catholicism wasn’t 100% an aspect of Judaism, I would never have become Catholic. That’s a discussion for another thread, however. In the mean time you might want to check out “Sayings of the Fathers”, a small Jewish work
Which Buddhism are you talking about? Therevada, Mahayana, Pure Land, Zen? Is Ravanna an illusion or a demon? Do people become saints (bodhisattvas), or do they disolve? Must people supplicate in temples, or are temples a lie? Will Amida wisk practitioners away to paradise, or will the truly enlightened become nothing and everything? Buddhism is a theme, not a religion, and the religions that fall within that theme, such as Therevada and Pure Land, directly contradict eachother.
Regardless, not a single Buddhist religion is compatible with Judeo-Christianity, as the underlying presumptions about the universe and the individual rule out a Judaic understanding. Jesus teachings on the permanence of the soul, and the reality of a personal Creator, do not square with any form of Buddhism. All connections between the two traditions are based on cursory and minimalistic readings of both.
You are an agnostic making agnostic assumptions and expecting Catholics to jump on board. Not only is your line of reasoning rejected by Catholicism on a fundamental level, it’s embodied by Pontius Pilate, one of the greatest villians of our Scripture: “Quid est veritas?”
I appreciate that you are agnostic, and you have agnostic viewpoints, but you must understand that not only do we, as Catholics, not share in your agnosticism, but the kind of agnosticism you are proposing is directly contrary to the Apostalic tradition. You ask where we get this, and that’s a question with a HUGE answer, best tackled by reading the Catechism. If you don’t already have one, I recommend you pick one up, or look online here. The Catechism gives an account of all that Catholics believe, and why. Any questions you have like this one should first be directed there in order to avoid offending the more hot-headed.
In the end, it’s fine that you’re agnostic, and I’m not suggesting that you jump ahead in swallowing Catholic dogma without actually searching and finding credible answers. My only concern is that you seem to be putting your own presumptions on us, and in this case your presumptions are not only “not ours”, they’re anathema. Having been an agnostic myself, I know the temptation to, the need to ask such questions, but I also know that ignorance is the foundation of agnosticism, and sometimes ignorance can become insult very easily.
I hope you continue to find answers that spark your interest, and if you want any elaboration or clarification on anything I’ve said, by all means PM me! Just because I think the question is poorly formed does not mean that I think the questioner is stupid or malintentioned
- Status