I guess it would lead to saying that the man shouldn’t have been created with arms to use that chainsaw, otherwise God would be guilty of murder. Or maybe the man should be created blind.
There seem to be conflicting views on hell. St. Faustina, speaking about the tortures of hell said: “the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it, a terrible suffering, since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger”.
Not a problem.
What did your god create?
Just noticed that you’d highlighted the sentences. So I’m ok with that.
I know I havent been a part of this conversation, but was reading over some of these posts and felt like commenting…
This is not addressed to me but I DO get the difference and that is why God came up with a Plan even before creation itself since God “knew” that some would never repent this side of breath.What you are trying to do here is indict God for giving anyone the freedom to choose hell.
God **knows **where we will end up, but **he does not pre-ordain us **to where we will end up.
Do you get the difference?
CCC 1035 “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.”
You wrote, “Similarly, God’s design of man is faultless.”
If you went to hell for less than a nanosecond you would be sure of it.Those two short sentences I’m not sure about. The rest, yes.
Just how do you know “That is implicit in the behavior of sinners of all types.”?
I could be wrong but I would say that eschatology is NOT “a rather vague science”, I would say that eschatology is not a science at all, vague or otherwise.
I could be wrong here too but I think that “some” atheists don’t necessarily not believe in God but that they don’t believe in the “conception of God” that many have presented to them.And that is why, if you’re not infallibly certain of atheism, you shouldn’t be betting the farm against God.
If one believes that the Incarnation is true than wouldn’t that one also believe that God very much did live in time?
Exactly. Again, these time arguments are being used in an attempt to explain away so rather horrific behavior on the part of the Christian god. As a young Catholic I was taught that omnipresence meant that God was in all places at all times in human terms.
Time is not irrelevant to God because He created it. No one here has said that God is limited or restricted by time.
No, Tom and I just know what the term omnipresence means.
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIB
I don’t see the connection between these questions and my answer. I would be happy to clarify if you would tell me the connection.
I have repeated your citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Omnipresence with the part in blue which you excluded since not to do so would suggest the Catholic Church might be espousing a heretical form of pantheism.
Thank you, Charles.I have repeated your citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Omnipresence with the part in blue which you excluded since not to do so would suggest the Catholic Church might be espousing a heretical form of pantheism.
That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing — that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous — follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation — immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act.** But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.**
I left it out intentionally for the reason mentioned…that’s an entirely different and very complex issue all by itself. But, thank you none-the-less.I have repeated your citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Omnipresence with the part in blue which you excluded since not to do so would suggest the Catholic Church might be espousing a heretical form of pantheism.
That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing — that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous — follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation — immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act.** But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.**
It’s not “entirely different” at all. God is both Immanent and Transcendent. If omnipresence was meant as you seem to be implying it’d be suggesting that God is substantially present in a rock or a tree as He is in eternity which is absurd.
