"What did God do before he created the universe?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter WJL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James_S_Saint said:
As are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet you assume them distinct.

Distinct Yes: because It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.

**The Dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen (“In Ps. xvii”, 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
Code: 
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation. **
newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Generally its best not to think of me as “people”. 😉
Click to expand...
What you say here is a matter of prospective. You are after all a person who belongs to the greater group of people here.That in itself makes you distinct like the rest of us.
 
centurionguard said:
What you say here is a matter of prospective. You are after all a person who belongs to the greater group of people here.That in itself makes you distinct like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about “belongs”, but yes, I am distinct in that I am not one of those “people” who wants to argue over when the soul came into existence. Such isn’t my concern, nor do I think it should be of yours.
 
James_S_Saint said:
I don’t know about “belongs”, but yes, I am distinct in that I am not one of those “people” who wants to argue over when the soul came into existence. Such isn’t my concern, nor do I think it should be of yours.
Click to expand...
As I said before in a previous post: The Catholic Church teaches that at the very moment of conception that both the human Body and Soul exist simultaneously.

My belief in support of what the Catholic Church teaches on this matter is not solely because of my faith but because it makes logical sense. Can you at least agree that God creates both Body and Soul? Why not take that cognitive understanding one step further and understand that God can create both at the same moment as an extension of His Infinite Being. Even the separate biological function of a sperm and an egg coming together to form a human life is an extension of God in His Creation.

Some though believe in the arrogance of human science boldly stating that man creates himself. Puny rational thinking if you ask me.
 
centurionguard said:
As I said before in a previous post: The Catholic Church teaches that at the very moment of conception that both the human Body and Soul exist simultaneously.

My belief in support of what the Catholic Church teaches on this matter is not solely because of my faith but because it makes logical sense. Can you at least agree that God creates both Body and Soul? Why not take that cognitive understanding one step further and understand that God can create both at the same moment as an extension of His Infinite Being. Even the separate biological function of a sperm and an egg coming together to form a human life is an extension of God in His Creation.

Some though believe in the arrogance of human science boldly stating that man creates himself. Puny rational thinking if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I can agree to anything that is not contrary to God and even temporarily to a little that is. Man is certainly not the First Cause of himself, but he knows that. He just doesn’t want people to believe it.
 
James_S_Saint said:
I can agree to anything that is not contrary to God and even temporarily to a little that is. Man is certainly not the First Cause of himself, but he knows that. He just doesn’t want people to believe it.
Click to expand...
Man is certainly not the First Cause of himself, but he knows that.

Agreed; of course he isn’t. But not every man believes that, nor is willingly humble enough to admit to that fact.

He just doesn’t want people to believe it

Why? Because that would make man feel more vulnerable than he unknowingly realizes he already is?
Those who are puffed-up, filled with ego and pride rarely admit to few things especially the truths about God.
 
=surritter;No – that’s exactly what you were proposing, in different words. Your earlier post:
Click to expand...
“Because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal.”
Click to expand...
Think about that carefully. That implies that either the universe has always existed (and thus time has always existed, making the OP’s question a non-issue), or that God only existed once the universe was created. Neither of those make sense.
Click to expand...
I am saying that God existed (exists, or whatever tense you want to use) outside of time so the OP’s question is a non-issue. But that’s quite different than linking God’s existence with the existence of the physical universe.
Click to expand...
***Friend your assumption limits God, which is not possible for any and all GOOD.

You seem to hold that 1. God could not exist w/o the Universe [which omits that fact that God HAD TO exist in order to Create the Universe.
  1. That time somehow has revelance to God, the “Great I Am,” who always was, Is an Always will be." Time is ONLY PRESENT for God; no “past,” and no “furture.”
  2. That somehow God “needed the Universe” in order to be God. NOT TRUE, God Created [to make out of nothing] the Universe simply because God WILLED in His Perfect Divine Nature to do so. NOT our of any actual “need.”
Evidence of this can be discerned in the FACT that in all of the known Universe; only Planet Earth has the capabilities of supporting life. Can’t be accidential.***

Because we can’t understand something, does not mean its not true. How does wind move? What is the actual **origin **of sight and hearing?

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
James_S_Saint said:
Simple - You are not the only thing God creates.

*"The existence of straightness is what causes another thing to be curved. But the straightness did not bend through time, the thing that is curved. The fact of one, **causes ***the fact of the other instantaneously. "

God is the “Perfect” that causes the imperfect to know of its imperfection. But “perfect” is a comparative word meaning an exact match. One cannot say that something is perfect if it is the only existence. So if God is “perfect”, then to what is God an exact match? The answer to that is something I have been waiting to see if any Catholic can answer (there have been several threads expressing the perfection of God).

I agree that God is “The Perfect”. But an exact match to what? There IS a valid answer to that and that is what the atheist/Secularist needs to hear and isn’t hearing it, because no one is saying it. I am not certain that the Catholic Mass is supposed to know. I am not certain that the CC knows, but haven’t discounted that possibility.

Without the infinite, the finite would have no meaning. Without the Good, Bad would have no meaning. Without the Hope, Threat would have no meaning.

Without God, nothing at all has meaning. Without God, there can be no life. Without God, there is no cause. Without cause, there can be no affect. And without affectance, there can be no existence. God causes existence, but it all has nothing to do with time other than time being inherent as soon as any affecting occurs, which would be instantaneously.
Click to expand...
Your opinion that " But “perfect” is a comparative word meaning an exact match. One cannot say that something is perfect if it is the only existence. " is flawed and apparently without basis. You have a right to hold it, but do not be surprised if most people accept the conclusion that God is infinite perfection, in and of Himself in His three Divine Persons in One God. You seem to be relying on a very limited human understanding of “perfect” that also seems to implicitly deny the possibility of an infinitely perfect God that nothing can compare with. That might inadvertantly be doing the work of the devil?
Also, your idea that since God is the cause of creation, He could not ‘wait’ around to create and therefore creation is also eternal; seems to raise a question. If you admit that God has one, eternal, single, infinite, always in the present tense thougt (Word), and God’s thought does not change as time passes along, Why could not God also have the same thought, not affected by creating space and time? Or do yu imply that God’s thought is transient in time and therefore God thinks about one thing and then moves on to think of something else?
 
I am new, and hope this answer does not offend anyone… But when asked questions “trick” questions like this I often find it better to answer a question with a question or a joke. I am not saying that this is not a serious question, or that anyone is wrong by asking it, after all St. Augustine asked the very same question.

I am not smart enough to come up with the following answer, and forget which Saint did: God did nothing, because he didn’t have the time.

That answer has some more truth to it than may first meet the eye.
 
The answer I want to write would get me banned for life.
So, just use your imagination.
 
It is a very good question and we should ask Him when we get to Heaven.

Until then I will assume He was perfectly happy having many discussions with Jesus and The Holy Spirit. Then one day He decided to create man and hopefully we have read about our history up to present day.

Take care.
 
This is an older thread, so I’m sure it was said earlier, but here’s the answer:

When God created the universe, that’s when “time” was created. So the question in this thread’s title has no meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top