the Word

[BrunoMaria]

Any civilized language which exists as high language for hundreds of generations, suffers presently sort of a decay. Listening to teenage slang or youth language - but also to the language used in certain primitive papers, makes you sick. Even in many forums “conversation” seems like barking one’s idea, instead of thoughtful exchange of insights. In our time of SMS with just five word uttering, language as such suffers.

But it’s the word that makes the difference between God-created humans or just simple beings - driven by spontaneous friendly or unfriendly barks, kind or unkind words in SMS-manner. Our Word ravages or raises our soal. It hurts or heals, demolishes or uplifts our next. Others might forget it; we though - even are our word ourselves, and it’s suitable to make us just „a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" instead of what God intended us to be, by giving us THE WORD no other creation owns: Our word was originally God’s breath of life to make us related with God. A relationship which St. John expressed in John 1,1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning.

But how extremely much synthesizing either the loving constructive word is; or how devastating a loveless with neither empathy nor sympathy spoken or written word is, and how much our word makes us to either humans in God’s likeness, or to just noisy beings, we all know without thinking twice about it.

1Cor 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Well, John was the closest to Christ, the one God had given the absolute comprehension and insight as to who Jesus Christ really was.
Such it was St. John, to whom later the to us still somehow veiled Revelation was „revealed“ - and sure John was the only one who fully understood again, but was ordered to pass on as he was told, as it’s not given to all to understand (the reason why Jesus often spoke in metaphors) - John, who realized the fathomless depth of his sentence: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God”.
Here of course „the beginning“ is the beginning of creation - not of God. I usually avoid John 1,2 for many are unable to imagine „no beginning“, as all we relate to, started and begun to be at some time. Even heavens and Angels did. But God has no cause, no beginning. We don’t have any category to fit God into.
Such John said: In creation’s beginning, the word was first, as the thought or spoken word is and means creating out of nothing, which God only can.
God of course always was; even at a timeless „time“ so far back we can’t even imagine.
But let’s avoid such „thoughts“ for else our imaginations get knotted and tangled up for good.
Jesus Himself said repeatedly: You won’t understand now, but you will…. among others in John 13.7

Hence let’s not worry, but trust - which is the foundation of belief. All disbelievers, gnostics and atheists relate God with secular thoughts; things we can experience with things God and God’s creation let us have and own, disregarding it’s origine. Just like if we’d say, when having a wonderful clear river right in front of our garden: „Fountainhead? What Fountainhead? I don’t need no Fountainhead! I got that wonderful river here“.

Yours
Bruno

 

[Bradski]

I’m a little lost as to the overall point. But I must insists that language never dacays. It changes. The words that you use and how younuse them are different to those your parents used, are different to those their parents used, are different to those that Shakespeare used, are different…well, you get the idea.

I’m something of a grammar freak so I find it diificult not to correct people when they write ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’ and ‘should of’ instead of ‘should have’.

But hey. It’s not the end of the world.

 

[seagal]

I’m a little lost as to the overall point. But I must insists that language never dacays. It changes. The words that you use and how younuse them are different to those your parents used, are different to those their parents used, are different to those that Shakespeare used, are different…well, you get the idea.

I’m something of a grammar freak so I find it diificult not to correct people when they write ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’ and ‘should of’ instead of ‘should have’.

But hey. It’s not the end of the world.

I agree Brad. Not to mention words used incorrectly or inappropriately. They are very good words but if used in the wrong way I’m left scratching my head until I figure out what the person is trying to say. The point is not the “word”, the point is communication.

 

[BrunoMaria]

The overall point is John 1,1, which actually is and contains a huge library of books.

Let language change as it might. Let’s even use it the poorest way possible. Take any language of the farthest tribe who never heard of “grammar”. Take the language of Angel-like persons mentioned in 1Cor 13:1, or that of the most rotten criminal among us who actually speaks in decayed utterings and rather barks instead of speaks.
All of them got their common trait in John 1,1. They all are the breath of God mentioned in Gen. 2,7: The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul; a human person. Not just a living being as all animals are as well, but human. None of these many living beings own this divine “Odem” - this breath of life THE WORD John mentioned in John 1,1: language. Language is one of the profoundest poofs of God’s being, His creation, His ruling - the lot. We use this language to be in unity with God, as much as we are allowed to here on earth. The Word enables us to communicate with God in a very personal way.

Now, Evolutionists, Gnostics, Doubters and Atheists are unable to provide a single convincing answer as to why among the many animals who lived ages before us, some of them even with a much bigger brain than we got, never developed THE WORD.
The answer lays in John 1,1 along with Genesis 2,7.

According to those who refuse God and His creation of mankind, the human being (not the human race, but being) developed or “evoluted” eventually of animals - apes. A huge insult of God!

John 1,1 - “THE WORD” doesn’t have anything to do with Luther’s great language-forming translation of the Bible, nor with any high literary language of Shakespeare, Dickens, Goethe, Washington Irving or Gertrude Stein. Nor is THE WORD subject of grammar. Prayers don’t care about grammar, but merely the crealness of our heart and soul.
If you study my “English”, you’d get a shock.

It’s The Word - our language - humans only got presented from God. It’s THE WORD that makes us human beings in God’s likeness (Gen 1,26). As to all other creatures; there is not the slightest other reason why they do not possess The Word - language - we are able to use either way; for or against God. Not the slightest other reason, why none of them owns language. The simple answer is the prove of God in John 1,1 + Genesis 2,7.

Yours
Bruno

 

[BrunoMaria]

I wrote above:
Prayers don’t care about grammar, but merely the crealness of our heart and soul.

It must of course be:
Prayers don’t care about grammar, but merely the cleanness of our heart and soul.

As I said: “My English…”

 

[BrunoMaria]

as to this topic, I received this PM (marked blue):

Well apart from it being unfathomably complex for my brain, I do feel the power of John 1:1. I feel God in those few lines.

Few Christians really got John 1,1 - the unfathomable depth of John 1:1 - to a great extent inwoven in Genesis as ONE. Many think John 1,1 is just the beginning of „The Word“= The Gospel, as manual for handling our life. But it’s a universe more than that. „In the beginning was the Word“ is a huge library of most far-reaching contents.

Jesus is God. John 1 leaves us in no doubt. By writing “In the beginning”, John immediately connects Jesus to Genesis and the creation of all things.

At Genesis, Jesus existed, as He said in John 8,58 - long before, Abraham came into existencem I am! This
„I am!“ is an explicit claim and unchangeable statement to Christ’s Deity. Though Christ existed when Genesis took place; in John 1:1. John referred to Jesus as God in ONE HOLY TRINITY, which John was told by Christ when He was among us

*Side remark:
When I was a kid, my parents taught me to always see God as ONE. The Holy Trinity is ONE as we all know. But even when we spoke about Jesus Christ, we always spoke about „DEAR GOD“ - referring to either - God The Father - God the Son - God the Holy Spirit. *

We also get to know that Jesus was both WITH God and WAS God. With the link to Genesis, we have the connection between Father, Son and Holy Spirit in John 1. The Holy Trinity is revealed to us.

True - always was - always is - always will be. We will see and understand as much as Angels are allowed to understand, after we died. Then we even might say to our Guardian Angel HI OL’ CHUM. He had the hell of a job to guide me! And he’ll be ever so relieved I finally arrived.
I wonder if he (after a recreation time goes on with the next client with us saying CU LATER

Other than that, John 1 blows my mind.

No! It definitely doesn’t. It doesn’t blow my little mind either, so it doesn’t anyone’s. Children grasp this very naturally (Mt 18,3) .
Yes I know, it has little to do with our earthly life; meaning our occupation life we spend most of our time, fills most of our life, but has little to do with our real life, which is connection to God. This however must be kept up and maintained at any situation in our life - any time!

Awesome is used too much in modern slang. It lessens the impact of the word. John 1 is truly what is meant by awesome.

Yes, it is indeed overwhelming, mind-blowing, awesome.

I read the Gospel of John when I feel weak and need spiritual strength. John, more than any other gospel, fills me.

Simply because John was the closest to Jesus Christ, and the only one who actually saw Christ’s Deity, long before Jesus asked Peter and His disciples in Mt 16,13: Who do people say that the Son of Man is?
Of course the world under hell’s influence today, misinterprets John’s relation to Christ in hellish ways. They do not know what they are doing.

As to language? It is constantly evolving to the needs of society. Our fast-moving society is less desiring of flowery prose. Takes too long to say what it needs to say. Books I like to read would ramble to a teenager. Sad, but you can’t stop “progress” as they say.

This kind of „progress“ of course are retograde steps. But it’s nothing new. It’s been like that at Jesus’ time here among us, all the same. It’s got it’s good sides too, as language is alive and very lively. It can however be used for as against God. for as against eternal life with God.

Yours
Bruno

 

[rossum]

Any civilized language which exists as high language for hundreds of generations, suffers presently sort of a decay.

Of course it does. Modern English has “decayed” from the original. For example, this is in original English:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice

Source: here

How sad it is that Modern English has decayed so far that we find it difficult to read the original.

rossum

 

[BrunoMaria]

Of course all languages change, same way we in perception and our culture changes und might do so in either way.
But that’s way off the topic. The idea is a very much different one:

We humans only got language. No other creature owns language - never received it from God, for God is the one and only origin of our language= our soal.
All or most alive creatures got some kind of signals, signaling (not saying) others of the species, what’s up. Simple or also more or less "complicatet signals for e.g. danger, source of food, thread or welcome, and so on. Very simple signals that didn’t change for ages. Even when they learned out of bad experiences, they can’t “in the light of their experiences” erect any culture on it.

If they had a language, they had a developing culture too. If they had THE WORD, they’d own intelligent, which then would make e.g. wales, not to wait to be slaughtered for hundreds of years, but develop strategies to fight whalers. Other animals alike. We then had the situation, that many various creatures with intellect, would reside on earth together with us, just like in some stupid science-fiction films - eventually even overcome us.

Now, what this thread is pointing at, is very simple:
Sure John, when he wrote in 1,1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning, had in mind Genesis 2,7: The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul; a human person. For it contains both. God owned The Word, and the Word was God, and God gave us The Word - wich is our soul, same as our soul is fully us ourselves. John here emphasized, that in „The Word was fully God“
The creation of man - which is not just the creation of another creature (as evolutionists say) but the creation of man in God’s likeness with THE WORD - THE LANGUAGE.
The matter of our earthly body, we just need as diving suit for us - our soul which we actually are - to get along in the world’s matter here on earth. We leave it behind, when we go to see God.

The language, our lanuage is our soul and the soul is the language - absolutely disregarding which language and what people made of their gift of the language The Word - what we made out of the gift of our soul. We were unable to live without a soul, unable think without language, unable to pray, unable to create any culture. We’d just live among the herds of other species if we had not the soul - which makes and is The Word.

Even a child like the fictional characters Mogly or Tarzan, without being taught would own language, for they, as also the least inhabitant of a unknown jungle-region who never saw a white-man has language, because God breathed the unique soul into them - The Word.

Without language we were without soul, and just another creature like apes, who never in one hundred thousand years erects any culture. Evolutionists got no answer as to why among thousands of species, humans only got the divine word. The answer is simple and lays in John 1,1 based on Genesis 2,7.

Now, I recently received a very silly answer to this - like: There are ill people, who got no language, can neither think nor speak. Are they no humans then? The answer is: Of course these poor people are human beings and probably even more loved by God than you and me!

Yours
Bruno

 

[animalis]

Any civilized language which exists as high language for hundreds of generations, suffers presently sort of a decay. Listening to teenage slang or youth language - but also to the language used in certain primitive papers, makes you sick. Even in many forums “conversation” seems like barking one’s idea, instead of thoughtful exchange of insights.

This condition of hostility is an often problematic condition of what Benedict XVI termed “the tyranny of moral relativism”.

You see if the objective standpoint pertaining to truth is missing - the framework of dialogue is impaired. For instance, if there is no value judgment on the contextual background in which ideas assume due consideration - then that context pertaining to the void has as a problematic causality. If everything on the subject of morality is neutral the dialogue will develop the following end in view - the demonstration of the theory that might makes right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

Something to consider for a knowledgeable judgment of the world we live in.

 

[animalis]

the demonstration of the theory that might makes right

Or better the praxis that might make right.

 

[BrunoMaria]

That’s right, but he who akts such, is wrong.

As to the core of this thread THE WORD, a friend and animal-lover living in Vienna; vegetarian and animal-protection activist wrote:

You really ought to see a film about „Intelligence of animals“ - then you would see that the animals are capable of drawing conclusions.

With these things though, we got to be careful! For precisely those are the arguments of the evolutionists who say: There is no creation, but everything has evolved from evolution, via chem. reactions, compositions of the air, fire, water and earth, (the ancient basic elements) then over algae and molluscs to the monkey from which mankind descends and ultimately versatile mind; intellect, spirit.

But: If the animals had the latter, they would have soul. If they had soul, God would not have said “slaughter and eat” (Acts 10:13). Why however, did not their „intelligentsia-intellect", as they were millions of years before us on earth, develop so far that they, like us, made their spirit and intellect to subdue the world and other creatures, but at least to form a state with common defense against human (and other creatures) enemies?
Why, on the other hand, did God tell us in Genesis 1,28: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” No SOUL can be according to God’s will, subordinated to the other. Animals do not own a soul - do not own the word of John 1,1 nor Genesis 2,7.

No animal is capable of INTELLIGENT conclusions, but only by experience and instict; eg. water is wet and one might drown in it, and this or that animal kills me; whereby no animal has an ego-consciousness, so does not think “me”, but is guided by natural flight- and other instincts, which work automatically, without the beast thinking. One of these reflexes are to shake water off their fur. No thought included, for they do so in the water too. All who got a dog saw this. Bears and any fur-bearing animals do too. We know what tis species will do and ow it will react, even before we ever saw it. Animals fight during rutting season sometimes to death, but are “best friends” in “community of purpose” outside this time. They kill and walk on. Where there is any soul?!

Gnus, though they carry very dangerous weapons - their sharp horns, if they had any thought, the whole huge army of them would not flee out of panic, but would turn around and destroy the much smaller pack of predators with ease. A deer or stag with it’s huge antlers, doesn’t even attempt to fight a wolf with it.

My friend continued:

The Spirit of God has not limited itself to men.

Why then do you think animals own The Word? Why then is Genesis 2,7 limited on mankind?

We would do a huge favor to evolutionists by statements about „the spirit of animals". I have always struggled against the adherents of pure evolutionism, especially with arguments resulting of John 1,1 in connection with Gen 2,7. As they always are very averse to the Old Testament, I took John of the New Testament; combined both - as it belongs together.
Evolution alone, is godless. Evolution together with creation is right. That’s what Pope John Paul II said in 1985 when he visited CERN: "God wrote 2 books; That of Scripture and that of nature.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Very interesting thread BrunoMaria

Can you offer some thoughts on the parallel between young children and animals and their seemingly shared inability to speak? If some being from another planet observed an infant and an animal they might find it hard to say which of them was the ‘dumb animal’.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Thanks dear friend. That’s an easy one, for firstly: There are no aliens - nowhere in space, for God only once said: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created… (Gen 1,26). If there where any other beings like we, Jesus had told us. The only beings like us, are the Angels. Of course without any sin! Creation of earth with it’s universe was for us exclusively. It’s silly and thoughtless, when evolutionists and science-fiction- adherents claim “this opinion is presumptuous”. It’s not - it contains a lot of thankfulness to God for His creation and His salvation.

And the second reason why we are unique:
God’s salvation - God never intended to accomplish this twice! The one time God’s Son, God in the second person of the most Holy Trinity, God in God, Light from Light and true God from true God went through His Passion is so unmeasurably huge, vast, and indescribably epic, that we never will fully comprehend, what this deed - which even overcame hell, actually involves and meant to God and heavens.
Would we really imagine God would repeat this?! Definitely not!

A friend rote to me and to my claiming just we got soul and intellect and THE WORD:

The higher animals are indeed capable of intelligent conclusions<<

True, and confirmed everywhere like here for crows:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131128103835.htm

But that’s no argument to refute the biblical truth, that mankind only owns the God-given soul. Mankind only owns language and THE WORD directly given by God who is THE WORD in John 1,1.
Disregarding articles like these:
beforeitsnews.com/animals-pets/2012/07/14-stories-that-prove-animals-have-souls-2339596.html
Extraordinary performances of idividual specimen of a kind, do not mean “these animals got The Word - got a soul”. They still won’t ever say a single word, and after that super-achievement will go on living as the kind does - led by instincts.

StillI; f you google „Prove Animals Have Souls“ you get countless „proves“ that they do. Rubbish! For the breath of life in Gen 2,7, is nothing like animal life. It’s spiritual life. As the created human body in God’s likeness is so admirable, how much more so the soul with it’s innumerable connections to God the Bible tells us about.
But if we search in the net for whatever we want to get verified, we get our preferred answer and reassurance to all we want to hear. Like „THERE IS NO GOD“ such as this;

cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

where Stephen Hawkins makes it clear that “There is no God”.

Both (animals got same a soul as we do, as there’s no God) is as ridiculous as can be. Atheist Richard Dawkins; atheist Stephen Hawking, same as the legions of other atheists - they all will see Jesus Christ, but hardly will stay with Him. What’ll they say then? Like „Oh - sorry - I didn’t know?"

Stephen Hawking, this paramount spirit, had the God-fiven Chance to announce like; look at me, I really am in a terrible state, not worth living my way. But all in spite, I solemnly believe in God. And then, with his superior intellectual gifts, would have been able to explain God’s reality same as he gives us a clear understanding of space. But what does he say: „There is no God!“

Mt 10,33: Whosoever shall deny Me before people, I will deny him also before My Father in heaven!

I mean; take Proverbs 8. Is there any other creature but man, who can do as named in Proverbs 8?
Does any animal own „The Word“? Clearly NO! Since „THE WORD“ is the soul - no animal got a soul, hence no animal could ever as amphasized in Prov 8:

speak truth
hate wickedness
be righteous
nothing in the words twisted or crooked
eager find knowledge
receive instruction rather than silver, (food)
and knowledge rather than choice gold (food)
find knowledge and discretion
hate evil, arrogant pride and perversity
possess understanding
find wisdom as it surpasses all other values
walk in the path of righteousness

For THE WORD was appointed, presented, installed and set from God in eternity and realized in Genesis 2,7

Anyhow. As to the core of John 1,1 in connection to Genesis 2,7, not a single response arrived neither here in CAF, nor in any other medium I wrote about it. Instead almost all referred to the obvious word as language itself only, rather than the actual meaning of The Word in John 1.1; The Word given to exclusively the created human together with his soul, and the unworthy way we often use it.

Yours
Bruno

 

[Lion_IRC]

I don’t think we can conclude from scripture that God never ever at any time back in His eternal, perpetual past Created any prior beings or places.

Where Genesis says…in the beginning, that’s our beginning not His.

And whereas God may have only once said to us that He created us, I don’t think we can infer that’s the ONLY time He ever said the Words “Let there be…”
In fact I think scripture points us to the truth that there is an unknown infinity of things we don’t know about Him. (On top of the revealed truths we DO know about Him.)

Perhaps we should explore scripture further on this point to see if there is sufficient warrant to justify your idea that there are no other beings anywhere.

Anyway, my question only used a hypothetical being from outer space. It doesn’t depend on there actually being such an onlooker. Consider this observer an abstract homunculus if it makes the question less problematic.

Can we return to the question? Animals and children and their similar apparent lack of words.

Also can you please consider Balaams donkey. (Numbers 22) And the animals in Revelation which can speak. And the words used by demons.

Do you think your idea/Op can be reduced to a question of logocentrism?

 

[BrunoMaria]

I don’t think we can conclude from scripture that God never ever at any time back in His eternal, perpetual past Created any prior beings or places.

Oh, we definitely can! There is not the slightest aspect in life we can not answer, regulate or master with this great manual God gave us at hand - the Bible.
God certainly also created prior beings before us; the Angels. We are acquainted through the Bible, with all there is and ever was. We know extremely much about God - at least as much as we can comprehend, extremely much of the Angels privacy before we where (Lucifer’s riot and fall) I often asked many: Name any reason, why in the often alleged assumption that God created a second earth holding people like us, why God would have kept this secret before us, when we anyhow know “all” about God. What then about a second salvation?! We such would presume, that God only told us halve the truth, and both I’d even see as a sort of blasphemy, for suchlike presumption encloses a certain distrust in God.
Now, of course we can’t ever know “all” about God. We will never really comprehend/understand God. Angels don’t either - nor ever will. But God did give us full comprehension of Himself as far as we as humans are able to conceive in our present state. We’ll know way more when we are in heaven. God did not keep secret from us facts of “other beings beside us”. It’s a merely crazy idea of sadly enough even so many scientists.

Where Genesis says…in the beginning, that’s our beginning not His

Precisely! And here we got THE WORD as our (very late) beginning, with the Receiving of God in a quasi alike way, as we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. We read in Gen 2,7: And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth(= adamah; translatable as ground or earth) and breathed into his, Adam’s face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
As God is the Word, His Breath is he Word and the life of as well the Angels as ours. (We had this theme years ago in MailCircle, where everyone is invited to).

And whereas God may have only once said to us that He created us, I don’t think we can infer that’s the ONLY time He ever said the Words “Let there be…”

Tell me any reason besides the childish reasons science keeps recalling, why God should have accomplished this twice. God neither created the Angels twice. And after the mess God saw is humans had wrought Gen 6,6: The Lord regretted that He had made humankind on the earth, and He was highly offended and grieved to His heart. So the Lord said: I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.

Similar God’s present of free will - which Angels and we only got - this was misused aeons before among the Angels under the leadership of Lucifer’s legions, which ended in the eternal disaster of condemnation for them. Gal 6,7: Be not deceived, God doesn’t let Himself be mocked.
Does anyone see any reason, why God should have in mind to create more than He did - including their salvation more than once?

In fact I think scripture points us to the truth that there is an unknown infinity of things we don’t know about Him. (On top of the revealed truths we DO know about Him.)

In His infinitive love, God did not veil such (to God) “simple” things as another world, other people out there in space.
Side remark: All of God’s creation is beautiful in sublime harmony. Nothing that exists is not from God. Why then should God create such ugly “people” as science-fiction paint?! It all extremely ridiculous ad even distrusting God.

it was all too long- so I copy+past the rest on next post:

 

[BrunoMaria]

Perhaps we should explore scripture further on this point to see if there is sufficient warrant to justify your idea that there are no other beings anywhere.

Definitely not. Let’s spare that energy to comprehend the sacred scripture at least double as much than we do - which is not even as much as mustard-seed.

Anyway, my question only used a hypothetical being from outer space.

Sure. But why do we cover the clearness of the Holy Scripture with human-made hypotheses and proposed explanations, which lead us away from God, instead of right up to God?!

It doesn’t depend on there actually being such an onlooker. Consider this observer an abstract homunculus if it makes the question less problematic.

It would actually complicate the thing ;-D

Can we return to the question?

Of course so, with greatest pleasure!

Animals and children and their similar apparent lack of words.

Same goes to any puppy of any species. They make funny noises, are even blind and absolutely helpless - except some like ducklings or flight animals, who have to try not to get eaten.
Humans though are far of puppies and in no way related to animals, even when they are and look like them - but do own God’s Spirit; THE WORD.

Now, the best known baby in heaven and earth is the Baby Jesus Christ. Even though this Baby was long before the earth was; John 8;58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am - He, though He gave us His Breath THE WORD, and He was The Word, He did not yet own language, as He was fully God and fully human. All the more Jesus did dominate and master THE WORD as a Child; teaching the Scribes when He was 12 and sure did not study the scripture before, as the scripture was His Word!

Also can you please consider Balaams donkey. (Numbers 22) And the animals in Revelation which can speak. And the words used by demons.

Who of us would think that this donkey would have spoken out of itself?! We know that an Angel hindered the animal to walk on - of course that Angel wade that animal “speak” the Angel’s words (simplified by remembering a ventriloquist). That donkey never said another word after.

Do you think your idea/Op can be reduced to a question of logocentrism?

We can’t reduce Divine things into the narrow worldly logocentrism respectively biocentrism. Both, worldly logic and divine truth have little to do with each other, but could well be connected, if only the world would be ready for Christ’s doctrine; ready to really accept it and believe.

Yours
Bruno

 

[Lucretius]

I’m something of a grammar freak so I find it diificult not to correct people when they write ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’ and ‘should of’ instead of ‘should have’.

I think your goin to kneed to get sum help with dat after Im don with u

Christi pax.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Bruno

On the matter of God’s theoretical prior creativity I understand your points but they seem to rest on an argument from silence. Yes, we can certainly ask people to justify their belief that God DID have prior creation. But that doesn’t alleviate our burden of persuasion if we beleive the opposite.

I just don’t think it’s an open and shut case either in the negative or the affirmative. Neither do I think we can reasonably argue that we have some theological ‘right to know’ whereby if God has done something, then He ought to have told us. And that if He hasn’t told us then the logical inference is that He must not have done such.

On the matter of animals and children you have a good point in that baby animals are similarly limited in their ability to communicate.
But they can surely communicate. Right?

What did you make of the Balaams donkey question?

 

[Lion_IRC]

I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse.

Charles V
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

 

[BrunoMaria]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Bruno

Tanks ol’Chum

On the matter of God’s theoretical prior creativity I understand your points but they seem to rest on an argument from silence. Yes, we can certainly ask people to justify their belief that God DID have prior creation. But that doesn’t alleviate our burden of persuasion if we believe the opposite.

Nowhere in the Bible we read about a prior= first creation, indicating there where several creations, which simply doesn’t make sense.
God created the Angels. They, created by God and living in heaven eternities before the creation of the world. Some became rebellious, because the highest grades were reached; further promotions not expected; so they revolted against God - wanted to be like God, as Satan tempted first people in paradise aeons later. There were pros and cons. The Contra party with it’s leader Arch-Angel Lucifer, wanted to be like God. God’s wrath hit the camp around Lucifer, the former light carrier (at least 5-star General) within the whole nine yards. The side of those true to God under same rank General as Lucifer, General and Arch-Angel Michael, won the battle, and God banished Lucifer’s host as Christ said in Luke 10,18: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven. First down upon earth - later into a specially created universe called the Hell, which was to exist in our neighborhood as long as the world had not yet been created, and with the end of that world will fall so far away from Heaven, that hell like their inmates themselves will not even come back into our memory… (Revelation and Is 65,17: …and the former things shall not be in remembrance… not be remembered - no-one will think about them anymore).
That’s how our dad explained to us children things before the creation of our world.
Then our world with it’s creatures and finally we where created.
Why and what for, would God accomplish the whole creation again.

I just don’t think it’s an open and shut case either in the negative or the affirmative. Neither do I think we can reasonably argue that we have some theological ‘right to know’ whereby if God has done something, then He ought to have told us. And that if He hasn’t told us then the logical inference is that He must not have done such.