Supernatural: Catholic and Non-Catholic

[Sarcelle]

You are right Saracelle. On that topic, let me offer this: If something actually happens that is outside of daily or normal experience or customary understanding, then it’s natural nonetheless, not supernatural. Perhaps infrequent, perhaps unexplained, but natural.

Thank you,
Gary

Thank you.

What is your opinion on Occam’s Razor being used a guide for explaining phenomena, both natural and potentially supernatural?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thank you.

What is your opinion on Occam’s Razor being used a guide for explaining phenomena, both natural and potentially supernatural?

Well, it’s a preference for simplicity, and I am not opposed to it, but let me say that I think that there are limitations to any scientific method of inquiry that has been in place over the past 500 years and especially in western cultures. We have encounters with things that science hasn’t begun to explain, and we will never understand them using the methods we currently employ. We cannot answer simple things such as how hydrogen and helium in stars developed into more complex matter from dead stars that eventually made things that could look back at stars and wonder about stars and themselves. Simply put, we can’t even explain “us” and how we are sharing thoughts or even having thoughts.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Sarcelle]

Well, it’s a preference for simplicity, and I am not opposed to it, but let me say that I think that there are limitations to any scientific method of inquiry that has been in place over the past 500 years and especially in western cultures. We have encounters with things that science hasn’t begun to explain, and we will never understand them using the methods we currently employ. We cannot answer simple things such as how hydrogen and helium in stars developed into more complex matter from dead stars that eventually made things that could look back at stars and wonder about stars and themselves. Simply put, we can’t even explain “us” and how we are sharing thoughts or even having thoughts.

Thank you,
Gary

Another phenomena that cannot also be modeled is the multi-bodies in a gravitational field. We can approximate how a body acts in a multi-body gravitational field. This mere fact, has kept me employed for almost ten years. (I worked for NASA some time ago.)

When I hear people say that all we need is science to explain everything, I wonder to myself how much science do they really know.

 

[PRmerger]

This thread had been derailed.

I thought we were discussing supernatural events not Adam and Eve.

Maybe you guys should start another thread?

If someone wants to start it, post a link and I will join.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Angels are Love, and the Devil can appear as a Angel.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

In order for the Apostles to know that Jesus is God, one of two things needs to happen. Either:

1. Jesus states “I am God” (which He never did btw) OR
2. The Apostles already knew God before Jesus and therefore could deduce that He was God.

Do you have a reasonable alternative explanation?

It is clear that they saw Jesus as an “equal with God” (and rightly so, I believe that too) but not actually God.

Jesus never said, “Hey, everybody, listen up: I’m God.” Instead, He revealed this truth bit by bit…based on what the Apostles could handle. So,

1. Yes, Jesus did declare Himself to be God.
2. Yes, the Apostles knew God before Jesus, and accepted the revelation that Jesus WAS God.

Maybe Satan has succeeded in planting these seeds in you. Jesus never said He was God, so who are you following?

If Satan has encouraged anyone to become a Christian - with all that the faith entails - then he is working against his own interests.

Matthew 12:25-26
25And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26"If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

But Judaism does not believe Jesus is God. In fact Judaism denies any possibility that God can be made manifest in human form.

Yes, despite the fact that their own scriptures testify to the Messiah, some of the Jews did not recognize how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. Others obviously did. The latter group is in God’s will; the former group is not.

John 1:11-13
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

So I ask again, do you think that Judaism is Satanic?

No, Judaism is not of Satanic origin. Judaism, however, has been blinded by Satan to the fulfillment of God’s plan of redemption.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Baha’u’llah does not submit to anyone. He is the Return of Jesus in the glory of the Father.

No, he is just another in a long line of mis-guided souls who believe themselves to be divine. Satan uses these false prophets to mislead people. Mohammed, Joseph Smith and “the Bab” all claimed divine visitations as the basis for starting their new religions, and I don’t doubt that they saw something, but it wasn’t God or one of His angels. :nope:

However, Satan is far superior in intellect that we are, so the knowledge that he could share with a false prophets would make that individual appear quite inspired. Satan will tell 1,000 truths just to slip in one lie, and the followers of these new religions readily accept the 1,000 while missing the lie that makes the whole thing worthless.

Matthew 24:24
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Does the Father have to submit to an earthly authority?

Of course not. Silly question.

When Jesus returns He has to submit Himself to the Pope?

The Pope is the Royal Steward of the King. When Jesus returns, the Holy Father will hand back the keys first given to Peter (cf. Mt. 16:18-19), and Jesus will say, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

That won’t be happening in any Baha’i temples. :nope:

 

[Randy_Carson]

In order for the Apostles to know that Jesus is God, one of two things needs to happen. Either:

1. Jesus states “I am God” (which He never did btw) OR
2. The Apostles already knew God before Jesus and therefore could deduce that He was God.

Do you have a reasonable alternative explanation?

It is clear that they saw Jesus as an “equal with God” (and rightly so, I believe that too) but not actually God.

Is that REALLY what the writers of the New Testament - some of whom were Apostles - thought? Let’s examine what they wrote to determine what they thought.

Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture

The Bible is clear: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). We know Jesus is the Word because John 1:14 tells us, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” God the Father was not made flesh; it was Jesus. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word is God, and therefore, Jesus, the Word made flesh, is God.

In Deuteronomy 10:17 and 1 Timothy 6:15, God the Father is called the “Lord of lords,” yet in other New Testament passages this divine title is applied directly to Jesus. In Revelation 17:14 we read, “They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings.” And in Revelation 19:13–16, John sees Jesus “clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

The fact that Jesus is God is indicated in numerous places in the New Testament. John 5:18 states that Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus “because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” Paul also states that Jesus was equal with God (Phil. 2:6). But if Jesus is equal with the Father, and the Father is a God, then Jesus is a God. Since there is only one God, Jesus and the Father must both be one God—one God in at least two persons (the Holy Spirit, of course, is the third person of the Trinity).

The same is shown in John 8:56–59, where Jesus directly claims to be Yahweh (“I AM”). “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’ So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.” Jesus’ audience understood exactly what he was claiming; that is why they picked up rocks to stone him. They considered him to be blaspheming God by claiming to be Yahweh.

The same truth is emphasized elsewhere. Paul stated that we are to live “awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). And Peter addressed his second epistle to “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1).

Jesus is shown to be God most dramatically when Thomas, finally convinced that Jesus has risen, falls down and exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

Jesus did not correct or chastise Thomas for making a mistake; He accepted Thomas’ worship as God.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

When I hear people say that all we need is science to explain everything, I wonder to myself how much science do they really know.

I am fascinated by certain possibilities that science brings up, for instance, I have spent a long time thinking about Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment. Physics aside, personally I have wondered if it points to a primacy of consciousness over matter, or simply an inexplicable interdependency between consciousness and matter.

Admittedly, I have a limited comprehension of scientific detail though. I had to read the experiment 7 times to even understand it. It doesn’t stop me from trying.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Sarcelle]

This reminded me if the Pharisees demanding a sign from Jesus proving that he was the Messiah.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The heart is an organ, and our consciousness is not known to reside there. Writing is an epiphenomenon of language. Language was developed by humans. The organs of animals such as humans developed on the temporal scene before language and writing, therefore to speak of things being written by nature in or on organs such as hearts is not useful. Good and bad vary by culture and for the most part is a thing that is learned. As Christians we subscribe to the morality we have been taught, like any other culture. For instance, in the culture of the Jews, it was righteous and just to stone disobedient children to death and to do the same to adulteresses. The latter is still true in some cultures. It is plainly and obviously wrong in the culture I live in. Morality is not ubiquitous or inherited. It is learned.

don’t understand this statement. Einstein is the source of the theory of relativity, but this does not mean only Einstein had knowledge of it.

It means only he had knowledge of it until he published it.

As previously mentioned, this is incorrect. I suggest a perusal of the Catechism to clear up this and some of your other misunderstandings.

I have read the Catechism and can think for myself, as can anyone.

Incorrect. God is the source of possibilities, but not of all that proceeds from those possibilities. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as free will. The serpent attempted to corrupt Adam and Eve from his own free will, which God permitted, to allow Adam and Eve the opportunity to freely choose between doing good or not. The notion that God creates evil is a common but erroneous notion. You will not find a passage in Genesis telling you “And God picked up the serpent and plopped him down in the Garden to tempt Adam and Eve”, or anything along those lines.

The is no outcome without possibility. Every outcome is the fruition of a possibility, and therefore every outcome draws it source back to that which created the possibility. As for gardens and talking serpents, this is not a thing to invest grownup conversation on. At least not with me.

Once again your opinions are based upon misconceptions. We are not “blamed” for Original Sin, nor are we “marked” by it in any way. What we suffer from is concupiscence, a weakening of our full capabilities. That is, Adam and Eve lost their perfection, and the revocation of this privilege equally extends to their children (us). If a millionaire squanders his fortune and his young children grow up impoverished, we would not accuse his children of poor business decisions. They are merely the unfortunate beneficiaries of their father’s poor decision making. That they had no involvement in those decisions is irrelevant to the entirely natural consequence of losing their inheritance.

“They are merely the unfortunate beneficiaries of their father’s poor decision making.”

Perhaps, but we are not to call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for we have one Father, and he is in heaven (according to Matthew 23:9). Whose decision making are we beneficiaries of then?

I

imagine the narrative may indeed resemble a “strange loop” if one does not possess a proper understanding of the terminology and language used to describe the incident. Perhaps it is a similar experience to watching a movie in a foreign language. The question, then, is why one would not simply desire to turn on the subtitles, or in this case, look for answers in the Catechism.

I am open to a proper description of the proper understanding if you are willing to share it with me.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

NIV Gen 2: 15-17

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” NIV Gen 3:1-3

Is it your opinion that Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

All the best,
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Is it your opinion that Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

That is not Catholic teaching. We already had that knowledge infused in our hearts.

Eating from the tree was an act of disobedience and pride. It was an act that said, “I want my morality to be the way to go! I decide what’s Good and Evil! Not discern what is already Good and what is already Evil!”

 

[PRmerger]

If you are referring to me, I do not believe there was a garden or an apple or two people from whom all other people came. We are primates and we came from lower primates.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

There could have been a Garden without denying the fact that we are primates and evolved from lower primates.

 

[PRmerger]

As for third graders, Christians and Jews of every stripe are concerned, it is my observation that we have been well trained from early in life to accept what we are told and do what we are told. This is simply compliance with strongly reinforced social and cultural pressures, and does not necessarily imply truth.

It would also be a mistake to assume that what we were told in 3rd grade does not imply truth.

For example, I was taught in 3rd grade that the Scarlet Tanager is a North American bird.

I have never–not even once–knowingly seen the Scarlet Tanager in North America.

Yet I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that fact isn’t true.

All I do is trust Mrs. Kruse, who taught me that in 3rd grade, got it right.

What’s wrong with that?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

That is not Catholic teaching. We already had that knowledge infused in our hearts.

Eating from the tree was an act of disobedience and pride. It was an act that said, “I want my morality to be the way to go! I decide what’s Good and Evil! Not discern what is already Good and what is already Evil!”

I see. What particulars of morality did they want to change? It would be helpful to know the particulars as to why they would go through the trouble to make up new rules if the ones they had were working out alright. How can we say that they wanted to establish new codes of conduct if we don’t know what the proposal was?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

There could have been a Garden without denying the fact that we are primates and evolved from lower primates.

There certainly could have been, however, I am pretty sure it wasn’t replete with talking snakes and trees of knowledge. It was probably a jungle somewhere around modern day Kenya, and it was likely far from perfect.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It would also be a mistake to assume that what we were told in 3rd grade does not imply truth.

For example, I was taught in 3rd grade that the Scarlet Tanager is a North American bird.

I have never–not even once–knowingly seen the Scarlet Tanager in North America.

Yet I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that fact isn’t true.

All I do is trust Mrs. Kruse, who taught me that in 3rd grade, got it right.

What’s wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with you believing anything you chose to believe PR, and I haven’t to my knowledge been disrespectful of that. I am simply asking why I should believe it. If at any time the line of discussion becomes disagreeable with you, we can certainly stop. But if we are going to have a discussion, I can’t be anything but honest. And if you have the truth, it should be able to withstand anything a simple person like myself can throw at it. Because I have my own thinking on matters, and I do have questions about the ideas you are sharing. My questions are earnest, and I am simply unable to believe what you believe without being persuaded one way or the other.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Evening JReed: Other religions do in fact have saints. They call them saints and have had them long before there was a Catholic Church or even Judaism for that matter. About a billion people on this planet believe in them. The fact that your church and mine don’t recognize them is of no consequence to them, as are our saints of no particular interest to them. It’s just a matter of culture and religion. I was raised to believe in such people as St. Bernadette and someone else was raised to believe in people like Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa.

Now what I was raised to believe is one matter. What I believe in is me. And you. And all living things. There is no special status conferred on any living thing over another in my view. Likewise, there is no lesser status assigned to any living thing in relation to another in my view. if Christ is the vine and we are the branches, then we are all sacred. Because a vine is not something separate from its branches. In short, I don’t care much about saints.

All the best,
Gary

 

[pablope]

=Servant19;12545393]In order for the Apostles to know that Jesus is God, one of two things needs to happen. Either:

Randy Carson already posted responses in post 111, so I will just complement what he has posted.

1. Jesus states “I am God” (which He never did btw) OR
2. The Apostles already knew God before Jesus and therefore could deduce that He was God.

Do you have a reasonable alternative explanation?

It is clear that they saw Jesus as an “equal with God” (and rightly so, I believe that too) but not actually God.

God has no equal, Only God can equal God. If Jesus is equal to God…then Jesus is God.

I will cite some points in this articel below:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/jesus-is-god
The First and Last Point

T*he final proof of Jesus’ divinity we will consider can be found in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 21:6-7, Almighty God reveals himself to us in plain terms: “And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’”

But then, in Revelation 22:6, 13, 16, we find Jesus revealing himself to be “the Alpha and the Omega . . . the beginning and the end”:

And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end . . . I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”
*

Maybe Satan has succeeded in planting these seeds in you. Jesus never said He was God, so who are you following?

Not by a long shot…try as Satan might. The CC is built on Rock…God is known as the Rock in the OT…and His church is built on the Rock of Peter…whom He prayed that Peter’s faith will not fail and to strengthen the others.

Your beliefs about Jesus as not God reflects very much the beliefs of the jehovah’s witnesses…among those sects who deny Jesus as God.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/jesus-christ-is-not-god.html

But Judaism does not believe Jesus is God. In fact Judaism denies any possibility that God can

be made manifest in human form.

So I ask again, do you think that Judaism is Satanic?

Not all…the very first Christians were Jews.

Thankyou yes, I never responded to this, my apologies.

Baha’u’llah does not submit to anyone. He is the Return of Jesus in the glory of the Father. Does the Father have to submit to an earthly authority?

Then you just have confirmed whyy Bahaullah is not who you claim he is…he is just another false prophet.,you just demonstrated the arrogance of Bahaullah:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

Luke 22:42

42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

And this is why 1john4 is important:from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

When Jesus returns He has to submit Himself to the Pope?? Heaven forbid…

When Jesus returns…it will be a noisy affair:

1 Thessalonians 4:16

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

He will say good job, my faithful loyal steward, to the pope…and take the keys He had handed down in Matth 16.

Has anyone dead risen to greet Bahaullah? Was an archangel announcing the coming of Bahaullah loudly and with the trumphet call of God?

 

[PRmerger]

I see. What particulars of morality did they want to change? It would be helpful to know the particulars as to why they would go through the trouble to make up new rules if the ones they had were working out alright. How can we say that they wanted to establish new codes of conduct if we don’t know what the proposal was?

Thank you,
Gary

I think it is a metaphor for all of us who want to change the particulars of morality to suit our own palates.

If your God happens to agree with every single thing you believe, Gary, then you have created a god in your own image. Just like A and E. You have attempted to eat from the Tree.

Remember, it’s just logically inconsistent that God would happen to have the very same views you do on…say, abortion, homosexuality, sex, women’s ordination, open Eucharist,divorce and remarriage, etc etc etc.

If you haven’t changed your views to conform to what God has revealed, then I propose that you are worshipping at the altar of the god of the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty.

NB: “You” is meant as a rhetorical “you”. Not a personal “you” here.

 

[PRmerger]

There certainly could have been,

Indeed. There is no logical contradiction between believing that which is revealed in Genesis is true and believing we began in the jungles of Kenya and evolved from primates.

 

[PRmerger]

If at any time the line of discussion becomes disagreeable with you, we can certainly stop. But if we are going to have a discussion, I can’t be anything but honest. And if you have the truth, it should be able to withstand anything a simple person like myself can throw at it. Because I have my own thinking on matters, and I do have questions about the ideas you are sharing. My questions are earnest, and I am simply unable to believe what you believe without being persuaded one way or the other.

All the best,
Gary

I’m not sure where this response comes from. Were you operating from the misapprehension that I begrudge you your questions? Isn’t that why we’re all here on the CAFs? To discuss religion? Someone poses a question. Others respond. Another question is borne from that. A refutation is offered. Insights are shared…

The above sounds to me like someone being on a Cruciverbalist forum spending an inordinate amount of keystrokes explaining why he likes crossword puzzles. Why in the world would he have to offer any apologia for that?