O
otjm
Guest
You really don’t like what I have said, it appears.
I don’t respond to challenges like you put down; guess you will have to read other posts I have made.
As I noted, God is not in time - and that is Church teaching.
As noted, speaking of what God did first and then second is using “time language” to describe a mystery, as God is not in time. It is an attempt to describe as best we can a mystery. It is like thinking that we have it down pat when we describe the Eucharist as “transubstantiation”, a philosophical term. Asking me if I accept the Church’s teaching on the matter misses entirely what I am saying.
I don’t respond to challenges like you put down; guess you will have to read other posts I have made.
As I noted, God is not in time - and that is Church teaching.
As noted, speaking of what God did first and then second is using “time language” to describe a mystery, as God is not in time. It is an attempt to describe as best we can a mystery. It is like thinking that we have it down pat when we describe the Eucharist as “transubstantiation”, a philosophical term. Asking me if I accept the Church’s teaching on the matter misses entirely what I am saying.
Last edited: