Why is this the proper interpretation of this snippet of Scripture? Is it consistent with the rest of Scripture? Is it consistent with Church teaching?If God “fills heaven and earth”, than He is everything at once.
Firstly, you chose to use the word “fills” in a a particular way. I can say that a man fills in the potholes. In that case, “fills” is all encompassing. In this case, there was no longer a hole, but completeness. And I wouldn’t call such a verse a “little snipet”.Why is this the proper interpretation of this snippet of Scripture? Is it consistent with the rest of Scripture? Is it consistent with Church teaching?
The aroma of dinner cooking in my house, fills my house, but it never become my furniture nor any of my family members. My furniture and my family members remain separate and distinct from the aroma. Filling something and being something are very different things.
It is inconsistent with Church teaching to say that God is everything. That is a pantheistic notion, a concept the Church clearly defines as false.Firstly, you chose to use the word “fills” in a a particular way. I can say that a man fills in the potholes. In that case, “fills” is all encompassing. In this case, there was no longer a hole, but completeness. And I wouldn’t call such a verse a “little snipet”.
In addition, Col. 1:17 tells us that "he is before all things and in Him ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER ". Certainly this is in line with church teaching.
You cannot define God from such metephoric statements. The Church has defined the nature of God in so far as we can know it. Read the Catechism. He is not " everything at once. " That is pantheism. God is absolutely other than his creation, how could he be one with his creation?If God “fills heaven and earth”, than He is everything at once.
But creation cannot exist without his intervention!You cannot define God from such metephoric statements. The Church has defined the nature of God in so far as we can know it. Read the Catechism. He is not " everything at once. " That is pantheism. God is absolutely other than his creation, how could he be one with his creation?
Pax
Linus2nd:
Your right. I think I might even have some Gnosticism in there as well.It is inconsistent with Church teaching to say that God is everything. That is a pantheistic notion, a concept the Church clearly defines as false.
However you choose to interpret the word “fills,” it’s an active verb, not a being verb. The distinction is between is and does. The same distinction holds for the the word “holds.”
What is consistent with Church teaching is that God is the necessary being, not merely for the cause of the beginning of things, but also the cause which sustains things. That is the proper interpretation of “holds all things together.” But again, these are acts of God, which is something different than saying the result of that act is identical with God’s being.
Yes, that’s right. But in your own statement “creation cannot exist without his intervention” you make a distinction between Him and creation, which is correct and proper.But creation cannot exist without his intervention!
I believe you are likely correct. I was trying to make the point that God is everywhere. "Everything at once " sounds more than a bit New Age. However, technically God made everything, so his spirit is in all things at one time, but I could be wrong.You cannot define God from such metephoric statements. The Church has defined the nature of God in so far as we can know it. Read the Catechism. He is not " everything at once. " That is pantheism. God is absolutely other than his creation, how could he be one with his creation?
Pax
Linus2nd:
Can you tell me how God can sustain consciousness (us) being consciousness himself?Yes, that’s right. But in your own statement “creation cannot exist without his intervention” you make a distinction between Him and creation, which is correct and proper.
You’re incorrect in saying that we are consciousness. Rather, we have consciousness. We have this aspect of being in a limited, finite way. Moreover, our possession of it is a limited participation in God’s being. God is consciousness, which is why us having consciousness is a participation in His being.Can you tell me how God can sustain consciousness (us) being consciousness himself?
Very nice. I wonder if the “us” in “let us make man in our image” plays into this? It provides a recognition of self.You’re incorrect in saying that we are consciousness. Rather, we have consciousness. We have this aspect of being in a limited, finite way. Moreover, our possession of it is a limited participation in God’s being. God is consciousness, which is why us having consciousness is a participation in His being.
And that is really the answer to the question posed in the OP. God doesn’t have a self. God is self itself, and we have self only insofar as we participate in His being, in the limited fashion that we do.
That is incorrect. We cannot own consciousness! We cannot be responsible for our actions if you are not consciousness. That is you who experience and act. And this is very definition of consciousness.You’re incorrect in saying that we are consciousness. Rather, we have consciousness. We have this aspect of being in a limited, finite way. Moreover, our possession of it is a limited participation in God’s being. God is consciousness, which is why us having consciousness is a participation in His being.
And that is really the answer to the question posed in the OP. God doesn’t have a self. God is self itself, and we have self only insofar as we participate in His being, in the limited fashion that we do.
To be conscious is not to own consciousness from a theists standpoint. Consciousness is imparted to you by God, therefore removing ownership. We have been “bought with a price”.That is incorrect. We cannot own consciousness! We cannot be responsible for our actions if you are not consciousness. That is you who experience and act. And this is very definition of consciousness.
Have you ever think of yourself and all the complexities inside your body? What is the point of having a brain, a nerves system, senses, etc. If they are not utility of consciousness who is you then what is the purpose of having all of them?To be conscious is not to own consciousness from a theists standpoint. Consciousness is imparted to you by God, therefore removing ownership. We have been “bought with a price”.
None of what you state negates that God does not own you. Basically, we are on loan here. Yes, you are you, and part of a larger consciousness.Have you ever think of yourself and all the complexities inside your body? What is the point of having a brain, a nerves system, senses, etc. If they are not utility of consciousness who is you then what is the purpose of having all of them?
So, does God even sustain your consciousness?None of what you state negates that God does not own you. Basically, we are on loan here. Yes, you are you, and part of a larger consciousness.
You’re interpreting my saying “we have consciousness” as a matter of ownership, but that’s not the only definition of the term “have.” For example, I can say, I have vision, I have a body, I have a scar on my left cheek, I have ambidextrousness, I have intelligence, I have joy, I have peace, I have misery, I have animosity, I have fingernails, I have teeth. In none of those cases do I mean that those things are my possessions, or that I own them. Rather, I mean that they are aspects of my being, either temporary or permanent.That is incorrect. We cannot own consciousness! We cannot be responsible for our actions if you are not consciousness. That is you who experience and act. And this is very definition of consciousness.
You are free to do what you want in your conscious state, with consequences of course. The sustainer (God) simply allows the life force to continue.So, does God even sustain your consciousness?
He is the sustainer. He should know what you desire to allow it to happen. He on the other hand has no choice since otherwise it would conflict with your interest. So we have two options here: Either we are free hence God is machine, or God is free and we are puppets.You are free to do what you want in your conscious state, with consequences of course. The sustainer (God) simply allows the life force to continue.
Or true freedom is found in always doing the good and true, in which case both God and man are free, in a loving relationship.He is the sustainer. He should know what you desire to allow it to happen. He on the other hand has no choice since otherwise it would conflict with your interest. So we have two options here: Either we are free hence God is machine, or God is free and we are puppets.