Is Faith logical?

[grannymh]

Agreed, but is this not potentially the very point of the question: if Adam and Eve appear to have been as naive as suggested by the text, how might they have been guilty of the sin?

Might it be understandable why one might not potentially find it entirely satisfactory to merely assume their guilt and work backwards to prove their wickedness in spite of any apparent evidence to the contrary? Does one not find within the text:

1. A male and female apparently unaware that they are naked.
2. A tree given a label denoting the knowledge of good and evil will be learned once the fruit is eaten.
3. An incredibly intelligent serpent roaming about the garden, apparently at God’s behest, who quickly beguiles these humans with only the most surface of arguments.
4. An instant reaction on the part of the humans to the suggestions of the serpent with no apparent inner struggle, nor drawn out debate.
5. A subsequent attempt on the part of the humans to hide from an Omniscient and Omnipotent God, seemingly suggesting a lack of coherent forethought into how they might have planned to escape God noticing their transgression–further suggesting the activity of earlier in the day lacked premeditation. Either this or a lack of understanding of God’s role and/or abilities.
6. God’s slaying of animals in order to provide skins for the humans’ comfort seemingly suggests that Adam and Eve had no prior experience with fending for themselves–behaving more as would dependent children.

Let’s begin with point 6) “God’s slaying of animals in order to provide skins for the humans’ comfort seemingly suggests that Adam and Eve had no prior experience with fending for themselves–behaving more as would dependent children.”

We do know from Eve that they could eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden. Genesis 3: 2. It is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said to Adam: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.” Genesis 2: 15-17. And we quickly realize that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a day-by-day diary of what was happening and when. Instead, the important teaching is that Adam and Eve were dependent children as you mentioned in point 6.

My question to you, Jelrak TB, is how would you describe Adam and Eve’s dependence during their prior experience.

Starting with Genesis 1: 26, there is evidence of a strong relationship between God and Adam. We know from Genesis 2: 15-17 that Adam was to cultivate and care for the Garden of Eden. We also hear God giving a direct command to Adam. Eve repeats this command when she is talking with the devil. To me, all this signifies that the relationship between God and Adam is not a relationship between equals. Thus, dependency of some sort would be there. I do see Adam and Eve as dependent children so how would you describe this dependence?

 

[grannymh]

If focusing less on the substance of the imaginings, but more on the individuals so imagining, how is it possible to consider that a child’s fears of dark shadows may be equated with an adult’s inner yearning for peace and tranquility so as to compose the notion that both might be perceiving (however imperfectly) the spiritual realm? Why might a child’s perception of the spiritual realm appear to be largely negative and clearly more pronounced after witnessing a disturbing event?

There is no equating in your first question, because an adult’s inner yearning for peace and tranquility does not necessarily imply an awareness of the immaterial. A comfortable chair near a lake could work for peace and tranquility. And when it comes to a child’s fears, there first has to be an awareness of the possibility of something non-material. A child’s perception of the spiritual realm can only occur if the child has the ability to imagine such a supernatural realm.

What I am saying is that there is an inherent ability in humans which can recognize the supernatural as being something other than what is natural in their environment.

Might it not be as logical to assume that both the child’s and adult’s imaginings are perfectly rational extensions of experience coupled with an innate desire to escape danger?

While I agree with your comment per se, I have to point out that I am not talking about imaginings, I am talking about an ability not the results.

Might not such real dangers often have existed at night for the child and so a protection against same might have been a hypersensitivity to predatory shapes?

I don’t remember saying that the ability to think about the supernatural is the only ability humans have. Past experiences do affect us. The ability to remember past experiences and learn from them is different from the ability that lets us go beyond the material/physical world.

Might not an equal desire to escape harm occupy the mind of the adult, thereby leading him/her to long for a location where safety might be taken for granted?

Of course. What is very interesting about your question is that the location can be either material or spiritual. I am thinking about “sacred grounds” set aside by some tribes. Sometimes these grounds are considered to be inhabited or protected by spirits. This is because humans have the ability to understand the difference between a spirit world and an ordinary earth. Granted that spirits are not exactly like God as Catholics proclaim. But there is the perception that spirits have some power and they have some kind of relationship with humans. This openness to the spiritual is important especially since it is a kind of preparation for the acceptance of the Christian Gospel.

Our human nature is fantastic despite the flaws. I love the way Catholicism looks at human nature. We are so very precious that God sent His only Son to be among us as True God and True Man so that humanity could be reconciled with divinity. Catholics hold that God offers to each person the possibility of eternal peace and tranquility when we pass through the door of death. God does this in a way only known to God, not us. We know God seeks each person because the logic of our faith says that because Christ died for all, it follows that all will be offered the opportunity to respond to God. We are not to judge the merit of a person’s response. That is God’s job.

 

[grannymh]

Did God not clearly abandon them for several thousands of years before the incarnation of Jesus?

The part of this question I wish to answer is the “before the Incarnation of Jesus”.
Between Adam and Jesus there were thousands of years, but God did not abandon those ancestors of ours. When Christ died for all, all means all people starting with Adam. Therefore, in a way known to God, God calls all the descendents of Adam.

As I have said before, human nature includes the ability to recognize the reality of the supernatural. God, Who gives people that ability through the creation of each spiritual soul, understands the circumstances of each person’s life and is present to each person.

We do not know how God invites each person to live eternally with Himself. But we do know that God’s personal relationship with each person follows from the intention of God to have all humans share in His divine life. This is affirmed by the fact that all of Adam’s descendents are in the image of God because all of Adam’s descendents have both a material anatomy *and *a spiritual soul.

In ancient times there was the concept of Hades or Sheol which meant the abode of the dead. I am not sure of the different translation meanings, but I do know that the Catholic Church saw this as a place where souls of the just waited for the promised Messiah. We believe that Christ delivered these souls into the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven. Catechism paragraphs 631-637 address the issue of Christ freeing the just who had died before him. Please note that part of CCC 635 is in smaller type. CCC 20 explains: “The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.” Actually, it is a good idea to start with paragraphs 18-20 which are practical directions for using the Catechism.

As a child, I learned Catholic doctrines. I remember hearing the nun saying that Christ opened the gates of heaven. While I do not remember all the exact details, it seems to me that my imagination pictured all these people climbing out of Hades or wherever they were and then running pell-mell, being especially careful not to trip on their white robes. As best I can recall, a smiling Jesus was standing by the open gates. Most likely, He was saying – “This way!”

Sometimes children can go straight to the heart of an involved doctrine.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Not ready quite yet.

Your last three questions are biggies:

Is there time in Heaven?
Is one able to learn in Heaven?
Is one able to think in Heaven?

The thing that makes this so difficult is the fact that we are discussion another dimension entirely, from which people do not return, unless under special circumstances. And even when people do return from said dimension, it is with limited information. I am, of course, referring to private revelations from apparitions.

Nevertheless, I’ve scared up a good batch of results from your questions. Please do not ask anything further, until I am able to fully answer the first three, as I do not wish to be messy.

Also, we’ll continue to build up the axioms on which we mutually agree.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Let’s begin with point 6) “God’s slaying of animals in order to provide skins for the humans’ comfort seemingly suggests that Adam and Eve had no prior experience with fending for themselves–behaving more as would dependent children.”

We do know from Eve that they could eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden. Genesis 3: 2. It is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said to Adam: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.” Genesis 2: 15-17. And we quickly realize that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a day-by-day diary of what was happening and when. Instead, the important teaching is that Adam and Eve were dependent children as you mentioned in point 6.

My question to you, Jelrak TB, is how would you describe Adam and Eve’s dependence during their prior experience.

Starting with Genesis 1: 26, there is evidence of a strong relationship between God and Adam. We know from Genesis 2: 15-17 that Adam was to cultivate and care for the Garden of Eden. We also hear God giving a direct command to Adam. Eve repeats this command when she is talking with the devil. To me, all this signifies that the relationship between God and Adam is not a relationship between equals. Thus, dependency of some sort would be there. I do see Adam and Eve as dependent children so how would you describe this dependence?

If Adam and Eve may be viewed as dependent children, what further description of said dependence might be possible?

If child-like in relation to God, would this not require that the latter behave as a father? Yet what Earthly father might evict children who sought only to enlighten themselves about what it might mean to be adult?

Alternately, if the relationship between Adam & Eve and God might be likened to that of pet and owner, would not the brusque sending off of the offending pet appear to better align with the spirit of the narrative?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There is no equating in your first question, because an adult’s inner yearning for peace and tranquility does not necessarily imply an awareness of the immaterial. A comfortable chair near a lake could work for peace and tranquility. And when it comes to a child’s fears, there first has to be an awareness of the possibility of something non-material. A child’s perception of the spiritual realm can only occur if the child has the ability to imagine such a supernatural realm.

What I am saying is that there is an inherent ability in humans which can recognize the supernatural as being something other than what is natural in their environment.

While I agree with your comment per se, I have to point out that I am not talking about imaginings, I am talking about an ability not the results.

I don’t remember saying that the ability to think about the supernatural is the only ability humans have. Past experiences do affect us. The ability to remember past experiences and learn from them is different from the ability that lets us go beyond the material/physical world.

Of course. What is very interesting about your question is that the location can be either material or spiritual. I am thinking about “sacred grounds” set aside by some tribes. Sometimes these grounds are considered to be inhabited or protected by spirits. This is because humans have the ability to understand the difference between a spirit world and an ordinary earth. Granted that spirits are not exactly like God as Catholics proclaim. But there is the perception that spirits have some power and they have some kind of relationship with humans. This openness to the spiritual is important especially since it is a kind of preparation for the acceptance of the Christian Gospel.

Our human nature is fantastic despite the flaws. I love the way Catholicism looks at human nature. We are so very precious that God sent His only Son to be among us as True God and True Man so that humanity could be reconciled with divinity. Catholics hold that God offers to each person the possibility of eternal peace and tranquility when we pass through the door of death. God does this in a way only known to God, not us. We know God seeks each person because the logic of our faith says that because Christ died for all, it follows that all will be offered the opportunity to respond to God. We are not to judge the merit of a person’s response. That is God’s job.

OK

 

[grannymh]

If Adam and Eve may be viewed as dependent children, what further description of said dependence might be possible?

If child-like in relation to God, would this not require that the latter behave as a father? Yet what Earthly father might evict children who sought only to enlighten themselves about what it might mean to be adult?

Alternately, if the relationship between Adam & Eve and God might be likened to that of pet and owner, would not the brusque sending off of the offending pet appear to better align with the spirit of the narrative?

The first thing I learned in a logic course was this – “All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.”

We can find in God qualities that humans can imitate such as being a loving father. But there are times when one cannot reverse this. For example, God’s nature does not imitate the qualities of human nature.

It would be appreciated if you would chew on these thoughts for a bit and let me know your reactions. Your opening question – “If Adam and Eve may be viewed as dependent children, what further description of said dependence might be possible?” lighted my curiosity! My curiosity is intense since this is the first time I am putting into words my observations about human nature and the way we refer to God based on what we know about Earthly fathers.

What would be the logical way to view God in relationship to dependent children, first Adam and Eve and eventually their descendents, you and me?

 

[damian_clarke]

Regrettably, it appears the discussion of dinosaurs is a forbidden topic.

Alternately, is it more logical to conceive:

"Prior to nothing there was God. God was neither created nor began, but always was. The space/dimension in which God has always resided has equally always been. The universe did not always exist (for such might be considered illogical), but God created everything out of nothing (presumably using his very essence–which is non-physical–as the catalyst) in a manner in which it might appear to have been self-forming and self-replicating. He made certain to include laws in particle physics which might allow for vacuum fluctuations to create virtual particles in order to beguile physicists into considering that universes might self-create in this manner.

He created a trillion galaxies with a trillion suns in each. He created billions of planets, but preoccupied himself with one in specific. Upon this world his chief concern was to love the denizens within to such an extent that he enjoyed watching them cavort in ways he had specifically anticipated. He forbade them to do certain things, however, and placed such instructions in the hearts of desert nomads specific to one region of the globe. He then designed a dimension in which those who obeyed the teachings of these nomads might be set aside for an infinity of pleasure brought about by merely observing a vision of his splendor. He further created another dimension in which the beings who did not follow the dictates of the nomads might be tormented for an eternity by not being able to see his splendor ever again. He was truly sorrowful about them, but could not truly imagine any alternatives.

He then decided that his message was not being translated properly and so had himself born of a virgin (in order to mirror more ancient Egyptian mythological requirements) after decidedly severing his personality in a most peculiar fashion. He then strode about on Earth, recruited followers, gave them open-ended instructions subject to interpretation and then had himself viciously murdered by the beings he truly loved in order to save them from his own impending wrath. He then came back to Earth and loitered for conflicting periods of time before again departing. He then sent another split of his personality to enlighten the apostles in the guise of the Holy Spirit.

He then returned to Heaven, where he resides to this day, anticipating a time when he might return to provide some of his creatures a victory over others of his creatures. He will then reside on the tiny dot of Earth for the rest of time, or, alternately, create an entirely new Earth."

How might the above be more logical than any other alternate explanation?

For all other posters, kindly disregard the above narrative. It is not intended as an attack, nor is it meant to belittle. It purposefully appears in the same vein as Damian might construe the atheistic perspective in order to underline the degree to which caricature must certainly detract from a rational discussion.

Generally brevity is considered an important charateristic of wit and irony.

 

[pgnat1]

It is logical for an atheist not to believe in God because he/she takes the side of science. Science, by definition, is “solving problems that have yet to be answered.” An atheist will tell you it is very illogical to believe in the supernatural, or God. However, life will tell you otherwise. The fact that we as humans are here right now is amazing. We have evolved (science and faith finally coincide somewhat ) throughout millions of years to become what we are now. We differ from animals because of free will and full emotions. You might call this a soul . I think it comes down to the question, “Do you think all of this happened by chance, or did God have something to do with it?” And if that doesn’t convice you, God has even layed out guidelines for us on Earth to help us believe. The Bible, a faith book and the most popular book in history is a great example. It describes salvation history throughout time. Also, God gave us His Only Begotten Son, Our Lord, Jesus to us. Jesus died and resurrected in fullfillment with the scriptures. He is the center point of Christianity which includes over 1 billion followers.

I love my faith and cherish it. I believe we are all called to do God’s Will on earth. May the Holy Sprirt enlighten your hearts to believe in Him.

God Bless

 

[LaramieHirsch]

The idea of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology is a that the universe would attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).

You, Jelrak, seem to believe that this only happens in a closed system. And it seems as if you do not agree that the Universe is a closed system.

That depends. Some theorize that it is indeed closed, while others conceive that it is open (such as in Brane Theory). Certainly the Earth is an open system.

Am I correct in assuming that you do not think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be applied to the Universe, because the Universe is an open system?

If this is what you believe, then we have a *split in our Axioms *already.

So, just to clarify one last time:

You hold the Universe is an open system.

Therefore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the Universe as a whole.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Your last three questions are:

Is there time in Heaven?
Is one able to learn in Heaven?
Is one able to think in Heaven?

I do not definitvely know or pretend to know the answers to these three questions. As a flesh, blood, and spiritual creature of this dimension, I cannot imagine existence in another dimension.

Let’s assume the answer is “no” to all three questions.

Without time, learning, and thinking, if you are in Heaven, then you are in a constant everlasting state of perfection with God, and that is it. I liken this imagined scenario to being forever trapped in a painting.

I do not **believe **that God would create half-animal half-angel beings, raised with physical bodies within the confines of Time, only to uproot them and plant them in an entirely new existence altogether. It seems inconsistent with everything He is directing us towards.

Yet, things **will **change, when the transfer into Heaven is completed.

Knowing/Learning/Thinking
-One thing for sure is that the saints immediately (even in Hell and Purgatory) attain an instantaneous knowledge of the universe, history’s events, and much otherwise hidden knowledge. St. Maximus argued that people in Heaven will have perfect knowledge of all created things. A colleage told me recently that “St Gregory of Nyssa certainly seemed to believe that in Heaven we are in a constant state of improvement which never ends, constantly growing in knowledge, in love, in awe, in understanding of the inner realities of God.”

-It very well may be that we even continue to learn in Heaven. But I would not be surprised if that process were different from how we learn now.

-Sometimes, I think of how we are instantaneously informed by the Internet these days, and I reflect on how many hopeful technology enthusiasts talk about the day when we are able to download information into our brains. I sometimes liken this hope to the idea we will actually be “hooked up” to the real knowledge of the Universe, once we pass from this limited existence.

-Yet, in spite of the fact that we will be instantly informed, that does not mean we will cease thought. “Thought entropy,” will not happen, as God is limitless, and ever capable of adding new information into the multiverse. Furthermore, our concerns might actually turn toward events in the multiverse. Many things still have to happen, and who knows what happens after the “Last Days” of this dimension. Which brings me to Time…

Time in Heaven

-I **believe **there is time in Heaven. But there is a great deal of talk about this, and I do not settle on this. We know that Heaven has a history (fall of Lucifer and the angels), and that Heaven will be ended, after which, a new Heaven and Earth will be created. Furthermore, we know that saints in Heaven can pray for us there. We also know that Revelation mentions how there will be silence in Heaven for half an hour.

-Consider this. Perhaps time runs on a different course in Heaven. Perhaps in the dimension of Heaven, the residents there are able to look at events in our cosmos the way we look at a book or a computer program; this thought could help explain how God, angels, and any “programmers” outside of our “program” are able to interact with us at different points, seemingly as if no time passes. Perhaps while a century passes here, a minute passes there.

---

Either way, I do not settle on these thoughts I have, as I have not explored the possibilities of your questions fully. But also, I accept that I will not truly know the finer details of the next dimension. I figure we’ve been told the most critically important things, and we should focus on those for now.

 

[grannymh]

I do not definitvely know or pretend to know the answers to these three questions. As a flesh, blood, and spiritual creature of this dimension, I cannot imagine existence in another dimension.

Let’s assume the answer is “no” to all three questions.

Without time, learning, and thinking, if you are in Heaven, then you are in a constant everlasting state of perfection with God, and that is it. I liken this imagined scenario to being forever trapped in a painting.

I do not **believe **that God would create half-animal half-angel beings, raised with physical bodies within the confines of Time, only to uproot them and plant them in an entirely new existence altogether. It seems inconsistent with everything He is directing us towards.

Yet, things **will **change, when the transfer into Heaven is completed.

Knowing/Learning/Thinking
-One thing for sure is that the saints immediately (even in Hell and Purgatory) attain an instantaneous knowledge of the universe, history’s events, and much otherwise hidden knowledge. St. Maximus argued that people in Heaven will have perfect knowledge of all created things. A colleage told me recently that “St Gregory of Nyssa certainly seemed to believe that in Heaven we are in a constant state of improvement which never ends, constantly growing in knowledge, in love, in awe, in understanding of the inner realities of God.”

-It very well may be that we even continue to learn in Heaven. But I would not be surprised if that process were different from how we learn now.

-Sometimes, I think of how we are instantaneously informed by the Internet these days, and I reflect on how many hopeful technology enthusiasts talk about the day when we are able to download information into our brains. I sometimes liken this hope to the idea we will actually be “hooked up” to the real knowledge of the Universe, once we pass from this limited existence.

-Yet, in spite of the fact that we will be instantly informed, that does not mean we will cease thought. “Thought entropy,” will not happen, as God is limitless, and ever capable of adding new information into the multiverse. Furthermore, our concerns might actually turn toward events in the multiverse. Many things still have to happen, and who knows what happens after the “Last Days” of this dimension. Which brings me to Time…

Time in Heaven

-I **believe **there is time in Heaven. But there is a great deal of talk about this, and I do not settle on this. We know that Heaven has a history (fall of Lucifer and the angels), and that Heaven will be ended, after which, a new Heaven and Earth will be created. Furthermore, we know that saints in Heaven can pray for us there. We also know that Revelation mentions how there will be silence in Heaven for half an hour.

-Consider this. Perhaps time runs on a different course in Heaven. Perhaps in the dimension of Heaven, the residents there are able to look at events in our cosmos the way we look at a book or a computer program; this thought could help explain how God, angels, and any “programmers” outside of our “program” are able to interact with us at different points, seemingly as if no time passes. Perhaps while a century passes here, a minute passes there.

---

Either way, I do not settle on these thoughts I have, as I have not explored the possibilities of your questions fully. But also, I accept that I will not truly know the finer details of the next dimension. I figure we’ve been told the most critically important things, and we should focus on those for now.

I liked the way you approached the original questions. Your serious work on this post is sincerely appreciated.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The first thing I learned in a logic course was this – “All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.”

We can find in God qualities that humans can imitate such as being a loving father. But there are times when one cannot reverse this. For example, God’s nature does not imitate the qualities of human nature.

If God is the originator of the concept of father and child, is it improper to assume he knows what he wishes to convey when claiming for himself the image of father of mankind? Is this image not further clarified given his claim of having created mankind in his own image?

It would be appreciated if you would chew on these thoughts for a bit and let me know your reactions. Your opening question – “If Adam and Eve may be viewed as dependent children, what further description of said dependence might be possible?” lighted my curiosity! My curiosity is intense since this is the first time I am putting into words my observations about human nature and the way we refer to God based on what we know about Earthly fathers.

What would be the logical way to view God in relationship to dependent children, first Adam and Eve and eventually their descendents, you and me?

Would not God’s own self-description of “father” suffice? It is not clear what more one might wish to add that would not necessarily risk being construed as conjecture.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Generally brevity is considered an important charateristic of wit and irony.

Ahh, but let us not forget the importance of the smiley to avoid the easy confusion between condescension and humor…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The idea of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology is a that the universe would attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).

You, Jelrak, seem to believe that this only happens in a closed system.

That is my present understanding.

And it seems as if you do not agree that the Universe is a closed system.

Specifically, there appears to be no means of being certain of either position.

As an interesting aside, might God have been able to inject the Holy Spirit into a closed system?

Am I correct in assuming that you do not think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be applied to the Universe, because the Universe is an open system?

If this is what you believe, then we have a *split in our Axioms *already.

So, just to clarify one last time:

You hold the Universe is an open system.

Therefore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the Universe as a whole.

It seems unfortunate to have arrived so early at such an axiomatic rift. May we agree first that the universe might be closed, with the understanding that we might also be in error?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I do not definitvely know or pretend to know the answers to these three questions. As a flesh, blood, and spiritual creature of this dimension, I cannot imagine existence in another dimension.

Let’s assume the answer is “no” to all three questions.

Without time, learning, and thinking, if you are in Heaven, then you are in a constant everlasting state of perfection with God, and that is it. I liken this imagined scenario to being forever trapped in a painting.

I do not **believe **that God would create half-animal half-angel beings, raised with physical bodies within the confines of Time, only to uproot them and plant them in an entirely new existence altogether. It seems inconsistent with everything He is directing us towards.

Yet, things **will **change, when the transfer into Heaven is completed.

Knowing/Learning/Thinking
-One thing for sure is that the saints immediately (even in Hell and Purgatory) attain an instantaneous knowledge of the universe, history’s events, and much otherwise hidden knowledge. St. Maximus argued that people in Heaven will have perfect knowledge of all created things. A colleage told me recently that “St Gregory of Nyssa certainly seemed to believe that in Heaven we are in a constant state of improvement which never ends, constantly growing in knowledge, in love, in awe, in understanding of the inner realities of God.”

-It very well may be that we even continue to learn in Heaven. But I would not be surprised if that process were different from how we learn now.

-Sometimes, I think of how we are instantaneously informed by the Internet these days, and I reflect on how many hopeful technology enthusiasts talk about the day when we are able to download information into our brains. I sometimes liken this hope to the idea we will actually be “hooked up” to the real knowledge of the Universe, once we pass from this limited existence.

-Yet, in spite of the fact that we will be instantly informed, that does not mean we will cease thought. “Thought entropy,” will not happen, as God is limitless, and ever capable of adding new information into the multiverse. Furthermore, our concerns might actually turn toward events in the multiverse. Many things still have to happen, and who knows what happens after the “Last Days” of this dimension. Which brings me to Time…

Time in Heaven

-I **believe **there is time in Heaven. But there is a great deal of talk about this, and I do not settle on this. We know that Heaven has a history (fall of Lucifer and the angels), and that Heaven will be ended, after which, a new Heaven and Earth will be created. Furthermore, we know that saints in Heaven can pray for us there. We also know that Revelation mentions how there will be silence in Heaven for half an hour.

-Consider this. Perhaps time runs on a different course in Heaven. Perhaps in the dimension of Heaven, the residents there are able to look at events in our cosmos the way we look at a book or a computer program; this thought could help explain how God, angels, and any “programmers” outside of our “program” are able to interact with us at different points, seemingly as if no time passes. Perhaps while a century passes here, a minute passes there.

---

Either way, I do not settle on these thoughts I have, as I have not explored the possibilities of your questions fully. But also, I accept that I will not truly know the finer details of the next dimension. I figure we’ve been told the most critically important things, and we should focus on those for now.

This is well thought out and reasonable. It was a pleasure to read.

Let us inquire further:

1. Does God have free will?

 

[grannymh]

If God is the originator of the concept of father and child, is it improper to assume he knows what he wishes to convey when claiming for himself the image of father of mankind? Is this image not further clarified given his claim of having created mankind in his own image?

Would not God’s own self-description of “father” suffice? It is not clear what more one might wish to add that would not necessarily risk being construed as conjecture.

Let us look again at the statement “All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.” Usually someone will point out that there are lots of things which are green but which are not grass. For example, a green shirt is not grass but it is in the image of grass because of its green color.

In order to answer the items in post 131, first, one needs to tell me if the nature of God is the same as the nature of humans just as the color green of the shirt is the same color of the grass.

God is the Creator. Claiming the image of His creation for Himself would indicate that the created existed before the Creator. Once one decides who came first, the Creator or the created, then one can look at the natures of both the Creator and the created. Catholicism holds the logical position that there is only one God so logically there would not be a created being equal to God. So what is it about man, which leads to the Catholic position that man is made in the image of God. Or is God made in the image of man? Does God have the same color skin as we do?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Let us look again at the statement “All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.” Usually someone will point out that there are lots of things which are green but which are not grass. For example, a green shirt is not grass but it is in the image of grass because of its green color.

Would it not seem unlikely that God might choose such an image so radically disparate from his intending meaning? If God might not be relied upon to accurately describe his intended association with mankind, how might one be plausibly expected to form a meaningful relationship with him while on Earth?

In order to answer the items in post 131, first, one needs to tell me if the nature of God is the same as the nature of humans just as the color green of the shirt is the same color of the grass.

God is the Creator. Claiming the image of His creation for Himself would indicate that the created existed before the Creator.

Would it not more accurately suggest that the image existed in the mind of the creator prior to the created? Surely it was not the created that provided God with this image?

Once one decides who came first, the Creator or the created, then one can look at the natures of both the Creator and the created. Catholicism holds the logical position that there is only one God so logically there would not be a created being equal to God. So what is it about man, which leads to the Catholic position that man is made in the image of God. Or is God made in the image of man? Does God have the same color skin as we do?

Given the extreme variance of beliefs throughout history, would it be that unlikely that God might be cast in man’s image? If not unlikely, is anything purported to be from God truly likely to be so?

 

[ChesterBeach]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

Credo quia absurdum

“I believe because it is absurd”

 

[grannymh]

So what is it about man, which leads to the Catholic position that man is made in the image of God?

It is our spiritual soul. Once we can accept that we are an unique unification of material anatomy and spiritual soul, then it is logical to seek our Creator. The Catholic position is that God calls us, the created ones, to share in His own life through knowledge and love. The Catholic Church provides what is necessary to seek God and then to have a personal relationship with God via the seven Sacraments. God, Himself, abides with us in the Catholic Eucharist.

Is the Catholic Church logical? I believe that it is and I invite all to find out for themselves.

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist is the Light, Strength, and Life of our souls.