Is God dead?

[Linusthe2nd]

Because there can only exist on unchangeable God otherwise you have to assume that God is changeable because it has to have two or more existences. That was one of my main objection to your picture.

Now Bahman, you are in our house. Our definition of God is that he is One, but that there are three Persons in God. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, assumed a complete human nature, but he did not lose his Divinity, and his Divinity was still united with the other two Persons. When Christ died, it was his human body which died and his human soul departed from the body. But his Divinity as the Second Person did not die. And when he rose again, it was his Divinity which brought the soul back to the dead body.

Now all of this is a matter of Faith, based on Divine Revelation and defined by the Magisterium of the Church. It would really help if you would read the New Testament, whether or not you agree. And it would help if you would read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

We cannot " prove " any of these things to you. They are not based on rational arguments from nature. We are sorry you don’t agree with anything, but that’s the way it is. I think we have done our best to answer your questions. What else can we do?

Linus2nd

 

[seagal]

I understand your set now but that is problematic since its main problem is that it requires two same Gods to coexist one always in heaven and another one always in either {null} or {creation}. Moreover, the idea where God knowledge and power comes from is still subject of discussion. On top of that the state {},{God}] is eternal meaning that there is no beginning for this state. This state {God},{God}] is also eternal yet you need a changes in state of God being which is logically wrong since God is changeless.

My suggestion however doesn’t have the old issues except the fact I assume that God is omniscience and omnipotence. Namely, {God}>>{null}->{null,creation} then {God}>>{God}->{null,creation} and then immediately {null,creation}->{God,creation} since {null}->{God} when there is not God so there is only and only one God always since the death and birth of God is at one instant.

If using sets as an analogy of God and creation is problematic, it’s because it can’t fully encompass the reality of God. It’s a failing of the analogy, not of God. God, as well as being omnipotent and omniscient is also omnipresent, able to exist everywhere at once. Why is it you readily accept the first 2 concepts but not the 3rd?

 

[Bahman]

If using sets as an analogy of God and creation is problematic, it’s because it can’t fully encompass the reality of God. It’s a failing of the analogy, not of God. God, as well as being omnipotent and omniscient is also omnipresent, able to exist everywhere at once. Why is it you readily accept the first 2 concepts but not the 3rd?

Because if God is omnipresent then he does not need incarnation. He doesn’t need virgin birth as he could be appear in millions different forms in different place in one instant and perform his teaching duty unless you limit God by considering him to be trinum.

 

[seagal]

Because if God is omnipresent then he does not need incarnation. He doesn’t need virgin birth as he could be appear in millions different forms in different place in one instant and perform his teaching duty unless you limit God by considering him to be trinum.

I don’t consider the triune God to be a limitation of God. You need to read the Bible and the Catechism to *understand *Catholic theology before you start attacking it. Or you could simply ask us questions that aren’t loaded with the pre-conceived assumption that we’re wrong. If you’re really interested in finding out what we believe, stop trying to set traps for us. If you’re just trying to prove that our conception of God is wrong then you’re proselytizing and that’s forbidden on these forums.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Because if God is omnipresent then he does not need incarnation. He doesn’t need virgin birth as he could be appear in millions different forms in different place in one instant and perform his teaching duty unless you limit God by considering him to be trinum.

Correct, it is we who need these things because we are human. He appeared in one place, in one form to lessen the possibility of people chasing after pseudo gods once they heard about the birth of his Son. Of course, human beings, being what they are have a penchant for " making " a god after the desires of their heart rather than accepting what is True.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I don’t consider the triune God to be a limitation of God. You need to read the Bible and the Catechism to *understand *Catholic theology before you start attacking it. Or you could simply ask us questions that aren’t loaded with the pre-conceived assumption that we’re wrong.

This is philosophy forum as far as I understand. I raise a question that you refuse to answer. The questions again: If God is omnipresent everywhere then why he needs a reincarnation? Couldn’t God as you suggested make outnumber copy of himself to perform his teaching if he is omnipotent?

If you’re really interested in finding out what we believe, stop trying to set traps for us. If you’re just trying to prove that our conception of God is wrong then you’re proselytizing and that’s forbidden on these forums.

God cannot be proven and disproven, yet can be questioned since without that we couldn’t know what truth is.

 

[Razanir]

Because if God is omnipresent then he does not need incarnation. He doesn’t need virgin birth as he could be appear in millions different forms in different place in one instant and perform his teaching duty unless you limit God by considering him to be trinum.

You are correct that he did not need the virgin birth to become incarnate. He still chose to do so, however, so his life could be like ours in all ways but sin. God wanted to become incarnate by being born.

 

[Bahman]

You are correct that he did not need the virgin birth to become incarnate. He still chose to do so, however, so his life could be like ours in all ways but sin. God wanted to become incarnate by being born.

The question is what is sin? Is an evil act is equal to sin? If not, what is the definition of evil?

 

[seagal]

This is philosophy forum as far as I understand. I raise a question that you refuse to answer.

Philosophy is built on questions. However, questions with built-in assumptions aren’t really open for discussion, are they?

The questions again: If God is omnipresent everywhere then why he needs a reincarnation? Couldn’t God as you suggested make outnumber copy of himself to perform his teaching if he is omnipotent?

If God is omnipresent why would he need more copies of himself? That makes no sense.

God became incarnate for us, not for himself. There are several reasons, here are a few, according to Catholic theology.

1. Humans have a hard time relating to an unseen God. Witness the Jewish people, God’s chosen people, and their on again/off again relationship with God. Jesus was God “in the flesh” for us.
2. Jesus showed us how to live with others in the way God wants us to.
3. Jesus also showed us how to relate to God as Father.
4. It was necessary to God’s plan of salvation that Jesus became the human Paschal sacrifice in order to institute the new covenant with us.

This is why I said before, it would help you understand our theology if you actually studied it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The question is what is sin? Is an evil act is equal to sin? If not, what is the definition of evil?

We distinguish between moral evil and natural evil ( accidents or oddities of nature like a two headed calf ).

A moral evil is an act that does not conform to the natural law as summed up in the Ten Commandments. For example, if I steal your wallet, that would be evil and a sin, probably a very serious sin. This act is a positive act since I actually did something. But as a moral evil or sin it is a negative, I shown a serious lack of charity, I have fallen short of what is good.

In the same way a natural evil is a lack of the good. In the example above, the two headed calf does not possess a perfect nature, or its nature is good but lacking in what it should rightfully be. It should be of one head only.

Linus2nd