A
AlNg
Guest
Correct. If God exists, He is a being. Of course He is not just any being, He is the Supreme Being. The Baltimore catechism says so.
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
That is also what I thought. And that is what the dictionary says also as one of its definitions. A being is something that exists.
I guess that people can go around making up their own private definitions of words and saying that everyone else is wrong because they don’t accept their private definition of what a word means. Oh, and also it seems that they are reluctant to tell anyone what their private definition of the word “being” is.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Vico posted the catechism up thread.
And again, go to the library, hire the series Catholicism and watch episode 3.
I was in error, I thought God was a being, until I watched and learned.
It is a very grave error to say God is A being. This means, explains Bishop Barron, that we would be committing idolatry, we would be worshipping a being.
Instead , we worship being itself.
I will start a new thread later and use the explanation of the Bishop, as I have his series here.
It’s crucial we, as Catholic, understand the difference
Interestingly Bishop Barron says most of the explanation of God they cite and reject, we reject too
And again, go to the library, hire the series Catholicism and watch episode 3.
I was in error, I thought God was a being, until I watched and learned.
It is a very grave error to say God is A being. This means, explains Bishop Barron, that we would be committing idolatry, we would be worshipping a being.
Instead , we worship being itself.
I will start a new thread later and use the explanation of the Bishop, as I have his series here.
It’s crucial we, as Catholic, understand the difference
Interestingly Bishop Barron says most of the explanation of God they cite and reject, we reject too
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I think God can be called a being in a broad sense such as when we mean that God is something that exists. But, God is more than this and it is more correct to say that God is Being Itself and this I believe is what Reseeurekacross is getting at. For I’m a being, your a being, a dog is a being, a tree is a being but no creature is its own being so it cannot be said of any creature that it is being or existence. It can only be said of God in all truth that he is Being or Existence, or Being Itself, or the Supreme Being.Roseeurekacross:
I am certainly Catholic, I consider myself fairly well informed on the Church’s teaching. Could you point me towards a source besides a video that explains your point. Saying" God is being" is using the word as an adjective (which I certainly agree with and understand ). Yet I thought we considered God the Supreme Being, a noun. What is the correct definition of being? I though it was one who exists.
If the Church is careful on this point, just point me in the right direction. My understanding of metaphysics is admittedly limited, so if I am wrong I would like to know why. If God is being, how can he not be a being?
Without getting to technical at the moment with grammar, the parts of speech, etc. which I’m no expert on, though it is very important here and in philosophy in general, when we say that God is being or God is being itself we are not really talking about something that exists but about existence itself, the very idea of being or existing. The english word ‘being’ can be used as the present participle form of the verb ‘be’ and thus can function as a multipart verb used in combination with auxiliary verbs. So in the phrase or clause, ‘God is being’ taking ‘being’ here as a participle and ‘is’ as an auxiliary verb, I think we have something like ‘God is is’ which is true or ‘God is existence’ but it is better to say rather than ‘God is existence’ , ‘God is act-of-being (or act-of-existing)’ because existence is a noun while ‘is’ or ‘being’ as a participle are verbs which are action words.
The word ‘being’ in english can also be used besides a participle as a noun, adjective, or gerund. Latin is more precise in this respect since ens is the noun and esse (to be) is the verb and both are declined (I’m not sure at the moment what declined means in grammar). St Thomas Aquinas wrote in latin and he writes that God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens which means God is Subsistent Act-of-Being Itself. You see, to be (from esse) or is (from the english verb be) are verbs so acts. And so the idea of to be or the act-of-being (‘existence’ as it were) is not just an abstract thought in the mind but it is something real, real in God and a real metaphysical component of creatures. It’s an act or formal principle, indeed, that by which all things are made actual or by which they exists. In God, existence or rather the act-of-being is the same as his Godhead, the persons in God, and all his other attributes.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
I am getting at simply one thing.
God is not a being.
God is being itself.
Let’s forget the grammar and think about the difference here.
A being versus being itself.
God is not a being.
God is being itself.
Let’s forget the grammar and think about the difference here.
A being versus being itself.
T
tafan2
Guest
Really, the only source is watching a DVD? I get that God is being. Not arguing with that. I will certainly acknowlegde that saying God is being is definitely more precise than God is a being. But is idoltry to also say God is a being, yet my Baltimore catechism says God is the supreme being?
A little help with a source besides a DVD (I don’t even have a player) would really help. If it’s that critical, it has to exist. I am trying on my own, typical sources: Summa , Catholic Encyclopedia, CCC. No luck so far.
A little help with a source besides a DVD (I don’t even have a player) would really help. If it’s that critical, it has to exist. I am trying on my own, typical sources: Summa , Catholic Encyclopedia, CCC. No luck so far.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Did you read the catechism. It’s right in there. Bishop Barron did an educational series on Catholicism. It was a major product. It’s used in many places as an educational tool.
The Bishop explains it much better then I ever could. That’s his job. He went to seminary for years so he could teach us. And the Bishop explains the implications of it. And how the Church responds.
It’s a very good series running 10 episodes and covering many basic concepts.
Read what vico posted. He or she posted the catechism.
Maybe google the series. It might be available online as a stream. Episode 3
The Bishop explains it much better then I ever could. That’s his job. He went to seminary for years so he could teach us. And the Bishop explains the implications of it. And how the Church responds.
It’s a very good series running 10 episodes and covering many basic concepts.
Read what vico posted. He or she posted the catechism.
Maybe google the series. It might be available online as a stream. Episode 3
Last edited:
M
Mboo
Guest
Mathematically it’s wrong, nothing goes beyond infinity
M
Mboo
Guest
His reasoning is wrong, because he applies to infinity, operations that are defined only for finite sets
T
tafan2
Guest
Yes, I read it. It says in no way is God in man’s image. Which I am not claiming. I agree with you in saying God is being is the best wording. As to being guilty of idolatry for saying He is a being, I am still surprised the Church calls good the Supreme Being. But I do not have access, or time, to watch the DVD series. I am sure it is good. I am not really trying to defend my position, just hoping for more info. Have a good day.
K
KevinK
Guest
This sounds like pantheism.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
God is being itself. Read the Catechism. Learn how the Church describes God.
Pantheism is a new thread
Pantheism is a new thread
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
I am not and have not said God was in mans image ,nor refuted that.
Carols tonight, but I will start a thread when I have some time and give you Bishop Barron’s words.
Merry Christmas.
Carols tonight, but I will start a thread when I have some time and give you Bishop Barron’s words.
Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
- Status