C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
God would have intended that the universe follow his course, not the universe’s course. The universe would have no course without one being designed by God.
Humans, naturally, are part of the intended course.
Why doesn't God just not create the bad people to keep them from going to hell
- Status
Humans, naturally, are part of the intended course.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Time is the duration of that which changes. One necessitates the other. When something doesn’t change, there is nothing for time to measure. And if not measured, then time has no possible meaning.
The divinity is one simple eternal act without change, and therefore cannot be in time. If the dvinity is said to be in time then that necessitates change. The divinity cannot change for good reason.
The manhood(humanity) of Jesus was in time and subject to change. His Godhead(divinity) was not subject to change which was explained above. The only way to have change is in time. The divinity is outside of change, and therefore outside of time. Otherwise the divinity would grow old, even if for only a split second.
To the divine person God added a human nature.
The eternal divinity(2nd Person) outside of time touches us(operates) in his earthly humanity inside time.
Here is a summary:
“The human nature is assumed into the unity and dominion of the Divine Person, so that the Divine Person operates in the human nature and through the human nature, as its organ.” Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott, P.144 (under… teaching of the Church)
May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
O
oldcelt
Guest
All that you have spoken is a matter of faith, just as is my belief that God initiated creation. So far as the development of planets, solar systems, galaxies and so forth, quite sound scientific explanations exist.God would have intended that the universe follow his course, not the universe’s course. The universe would have no course without one being designed by God.
Humans, naturally, are part of the intended course.
My greatest variance is with those who view the universe as perfectly organized. Observation shows us a great deal of instability, collisions and ongoing creation. There are things that we call laws, but are not certain that they are without excetions.
Much remains to be learned and I personally doubt that I will live to see the final scientific resolution.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
They are sound to a degree. There are some explanations still lacking (whatever caused the Big Bang for example). What explanations do exist are possible because they follow certain laws that we are created to understand (the laws of logic, for example). If anyone wants to say that these laws that govern the universe exist quite by accident as the laws they are, and that we quite by accident were created to understand them, that for me is quite a hill to climb. There is certainly no sound scientific explanation to argue this.
This is what stumped Einstein, and this is why he referred to the existence of a deist God, and probably also why he repudiated all attempts to classify him as an atheist.
.
R
Richca
Guest
It can be philosophically demonstrated by the natural light of reason as St Thomas Aquinas does in his fifth proof for the existence of God that the order we kind in the universe among things which lack intelligence was put there by a being with intelligence. In Aquinas’s view, this is a metaphysical certainty the denial of which is incoherent and inexplicable.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You shouldn’t be surprised people are nonplussed by your hypothesis that God is an impotent and unimportant nonentity. “allowed” isn’t an appropriate term for a Creator who disappears from the scene straight after producing the Big Bang. It makes deism seem more like an excuse for evading atheism than a coherent explanation of existence.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The whole point is that he’s not an atheist! I’m not the one who has the false notion…
There’s a name for that…
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is what has puzzled me about Einstein’s deism. He could not stand the idea of a personal God, yet he refused to be an atheist. The only God left to him seemed to be an omnipotent Intellect that could create and order the laws of the universe, but that had no personal interest in its creation. Doesn’t creating and ordering signify “interest”? And even if we say that God is not a “person” in the same sense that we are, don’t we have to have a metaphorical term to use that sums up the nature of God beyond pure Intellect and Power?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is certainly inconsistent with his belief that “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man” ! Surely it is love that determines whether a being is superior but he succumbed to the occupational hazard of a scientist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-94#
Life is composed of far more than logic…
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I think this passage from a 1930 essay speaks volumes about why his God is not a personal God or a God of love.
“My passionate interest in social justice and social responsibility has always stood in curious contrast to a marked lack of desire for direct association with men and women. I am a horse for single harness, not cut out for tandem or team work. I have never belonged wholeheartedly to country or state, to my circle of friends, or even to my own family. These ties have always been accompanied by a vague aloofness, and the wish to withdraw into myself increases with the years…” Albert Einstein
F
fred_conty
Guest
That is interesting to learn. I feel sad for the man being so lonely for so long. Yet he did help us in his own way.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I don’t think he was necessarily all that lonely, Fred. He was so absorbed in his work and fascinated by it he was like a Carthusian monk who has found his vocation in solitude. We don’t have to socialise to benefit society.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thanks for that information, Charlie. I believe his introversion was outweighed by his dedication to social justice - which amounts to love and compassion for the victims of inequality and corruption.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
apologetics
the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.
I am not doing apologetics and I will attempt to do what I believe is “God’s Will” in my life, not your will in my life.
I have heard it said that Joseph in the OT should have kept to himself the dreams from God rather than speak to his brothers concerning them.
God the Father is the One Who made the decision to “reveal” Himself to me, why should I not speak of this?
There were those that wanted Jesus to shut up in His days, remember?
No, I am not saying that, how could you possibly come up with that question from what I wrote?
And as far as “And “regardless” would suffice; “irregardless” is not a word.”
ir-re-gard-less
Examples
Word Origin
adverb, Nonstandard.
- regardless.
irregardless, regardless (see usage note at the current entry)
Usage note Expand
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
I look at language as an attempt at communicating not as trying to get an A in English Composition and like it or not (irregardless) is indeed a word.
No I haven’t but I have met Dad and I have met the Holy Spirit and I have met satan and I have experienced hell and I have experienced spiritual death, these are not all of the things that I have experienced but is a list of some of the things that I have experienced.
I did not say that heaven was veiled to those in heaven, I said that heaven is veiled to us on earth.
Jesus did say something about sending the Holy Spirit, didn’t He?
As far as “Or did Christ come so that we would know the truth?”, wasn’t it also to set US free?
As far as “I believe that Pepsi is better soda than Coke.”, what has this got to do with anything that we are talking about?
I happen to believe that (believe and know) are two different words with two different meanings.
Some seem to disagree with me on my belief concerning: (believe and know).
There are only a few things about God that I “know”, most things about God to me are “beliefs” (faith) and as it is written, or words to that effect, “faith is a gift”.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Allowed seems very appropriate when it is the creator who is doing the allowing.
A
Amandil
Guest
You certainly are not “doing” apologetics. Neither are you submitting to the teachings of the Church but rather placing your own opinions over and against Church teaching.
What you are doing is claiming that “God’s will” in your life is to contradict basic de fide Dogma regarding Christianity.
You are not Joseph. And your private “revelations” are necessarily subordinate to public revelation, and if they contradict public revelation they are necessarily to be avoided and considered as deceptions by the devils. That is in fact taught by Teresa of Avila, foundress of the Carmelites, doctor of the Church, and Spiritual Master.
Because your cognitive dissonance in this regard makes such “revelations” suspect to say the least.
You are no more Jesus than you are Joseph.
You need to look at your own citation. I highlighted it above. “Nonstandard” is a polite way of saying “it’s not a standard word” meaning it’s not a word. And composition, as well as grammar, is a rather important part of being able to communicate. Using double-negatives is a sure way of hampering, not bolstering, your ability to be understood.
There is a phrase by Emmanuel Kant that you might want to familiarize yourself with:
“…in respect of the moral laws it(experience) is, alas, the mother of illusion!”
I suggest that you begin studying Scripture and the Catechism rather than relying so heavily on your experiences.
Yes he did. What’s your point?
We become free by knowing the truth.
Nevermind…
Do you believe that, or do you know that?
Probably because your belief isn’t consistent. “To know” and “to believe” are acts of the mind. “To know” is to incorporate some object of knowledge into your intellect. “To believe” is to take that same object of knowledge and further incorporate it into the will.
The most common objections between “to know” and “to believe” is not the acts themselves but the objects involved in the acts.
Therein lies the problem. You have a lot of things that you believe about God without apparently consulting God about what He says about Himself through Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
There is a reason why St. Jerome said, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
God bless
O
oldcelt
Guest
Since this seems to be a personal conflict, I allow you to handle the last post.
Just as a point of information, what you read is one of the reasons that Deists view all revelation to be unreliable.Someone eventually has to be the judge of the validity of somebody else’s revelation; be they private or public.
Tom, I don’t know if you have had revelations, being that we don’t know each other. I will say this…if they give you comfort. that’s great. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for other Catholics to line up in acceptance of what they say.
Even public revelations go through a difficult “trial” before they are deemed worthy. Even then, I can’t think of one that became dogma. Massive public revelations like Fatima and Lourdes are deemed “Worthy of Belief,” but belief is not mandatory.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/ratzinger.html is a paper by the Pope Emeritus on this subject. I may not be a believer, but He is broadly acknowledged to be among the great theologians in Catholicism.
Just as a point of information, what you read is one of the reasons that Deists view all revelation to be unreliable.Someone eventually has to be the judge of the validity of somebody else’s revelation; be they private or public.
Tom, I don’t know if you have had revelations, being that we don’t know each other. I will say this…if they give you comfort. that’s great. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for other Catholics to line up in acceptance of what they say.
Even public revelations go through a difficult “trial” before they are deemed worthy. Even then, I can’t think of one that became dogma. Massive public revelations like Fatima and Lourdes are deemed “Worthy of Belief,” but belief is not mandatory.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/discernment/ratzinger.html is a paper by the Pope Emeritus on this subject. I may not be a believer, but He is broadly acknowledged to be among the great theologians in Catholicism.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you give no indication of the purpose of creating the universe your hypothesis is gratuitous.
O
oldcelt
Guest
How is my belief in God gratuitous and yours is not? I have given what I believe to Be God’s purpose again and again…it is God’s nature. From observation, He is still creating…just not here.To go any deeper than that cannot be supported by anything but supposition designed, I suppose, to make man feel more important.If you give no indication of the purpose of creating the universe your hypothesis is gratuitous.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
You wrote, “He is still creating…just not here.”
I disagree with this for the simple reason that I believe creation to be an ongoing thing, process, whatever.
In other words, I think of creation as being dynamic as opposed to static.
- Status