Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Did it ever occur to you that God may manifest Himself in that way to make it a little easier for us mere mortals to comprehend Him? To help us understand that God as Jesus is a separate manifestation of God, not a separate being?
Honestly, vmatt, on some things you can be so literal, and on others, so obtuse! :o)
I believe the English just "venerate" them. And watch how you throw the word "democratic" around. :-)
No, your assumption is incorrect. I accept the Nicean Creed, and I believe in the Tri-unity of God, which is commonly called the Trinity. I prefer Tri-unity, as I believe it more accurately expresses the tri-equal status of the Godhead, but also the Unity of the Godhead. I think what vmatt is not grasping is the difference in function of the three manifestations of God. Maybe I didn't state it as clearly as I could have. My reference to the Holy Spirit not receiving worship to Himself is in reference to His function in the Godhead. Certainly the Holy Spirit is as much God as the Father or the Son, but as they differ in function and their interaction, so it is with the Holy Spirit. From the various functions ascribed to the Holy Spirit through scripture, I believe it can be inferred that the Spirit does not draw attention to Himself, but directs attention to the Father and the Son. That seems to be a part of the function of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I agree. We are utterly incapable of pleasing God on our own. Apart from Christ, we're all lost, before we've even begun. I don't remember the exact book and verse, but in the OT (Proverbs, I believe), it says that even "the plowing of the wicked is sin". I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist, but I do believe this point.
I would cite all kinds of scriptural support for that belief but I have done it before and the responses are either silly,dismissive,pathetic and/or mean.I interpret that to mean that on this thread,it is not the right time to bring it up again. And that is a pity because many non-Catholiics on this thread would be great Catholics in that they are committed to Christ and the Gospels,whereas many Catholics lack that zeal for Truth. In these terrible times it is not worth arguing about something that is so terrifying to non-Catholics.We need to work together on those issues we can agree on.
The above should answer your question about whether I could agree about the Fellowship of the Faithful. No, I would not because all of the sincere,convicted Christians on this thread bicker and dispute each other on a regular basis. I don't see how a person who had no knowledge of God could figure much out at all especially if they met a couple of them in the same week.
I don't mind dissent at all if it will lead us to a better place. I see little reason to keep arguing the same points with the same people over and over again. I appreciate this thread because there are many things I want to know about people and their beliefs and how it affects their lives and so on. When somethings come up where I think an explanation may clarify something for someone I am happy to participate. Or when someone asks a question or says something that is simply opprobrious(to my thinking)I will comment but to argue that someones beliefs are wrong,its not worth it.
I spend much more time dissenting the modernists in the Catholic Church who use the Church and their membership in it as a vehicle for putting their silliness out in the marketplace when in fact they are probably less Catholic in their beliefs than a third of the non-Catholic posters on this thread. So while you may not call it dissent I spend time "disturbing" the self-congratulatory Catholics who pat themselves on the back for bravely speaking and acting contrary to the teaching of the Church to which they claim to belong.I fear those folks more than many other people who openly declare they don't like Catholicism.I guess you could call me a disturber of dissenters.
" to say something is with something and yet is that something is on the surface redundant and illogical"
In spiritual language it is said we see (or know) by use of three different kinds of eyes. Do you know what these are?
And again, my last question you didn't address: What is transcended by the transcendent?
And what does transcend mean?
Are you aware of the meaning of transcendent and immanent?
Exactly right, me too.
Elohyim, the hebrew word translated "God", denotes a plurality. The trinity theory depends on that distinction for it's viability. But that doesn't make the model of the trinity theory valid. It appears nowhere in the bible. It was a theory formulated by men.
There is another explanation that makes more sense.
But we were made in Gods image and likeness:
Gen 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Now this is very interesting to me. We were created in his image. Male and female. Adam and Eve, two people joined together as one. Mr. and Mrs. JohnnyM, two people joined together as one.
Now if we are created in his image, then it would seem that the essence of the real God would be the same. Two united together in purpose to become one.
Does this mean that God and Jesus are male and female? Since they are spiritual beings, there is no reason for them to be different sexes. The union of male and female on earth are the closest physical representation they could come up with. Both need each other. Both depend on each. Both are different, yet the same.
Incidentally, this would explain why Jesus is so adamant against divorce in Matthew 10. He knew marriage and the union of men and woman shadow the type of relationship God and Jesus have.
If God is capable of manifesting himself in a way we would understand, then why didn't he manifest himself as a man with three heads? Or 3 men bound together with a rope? Or some other image that would more clearly explain his essence?
Maybe the simplest explanation is that the bible is correct.
The answer is that Catholics worship God alone. If you find any evidence to the contrary in the on-line Catechism of the Catholic Church , let me know.
It begins at the Ascension or Pentecost, I suppose. Without Sacred Tradition the New Testament could not have been written, because the New Testament did not drop out of the sky at that time.
Uh, I was trying to point out the Scripture that could have been in the subconsciousness of the pagans when they came up with the different forms of mother/child worship. I had never thought of it the way you explained it. I always was of the opinion that since pagans did it that it must be of demonic origin.
What is the purpose of your existence?
If you read Ecc. 12:13-14 my(our) purpose is to fear God and keep His commandments(although not for Salvific purposes).
Why are you here on earth?
Well you see, around Christmas of 1966 my future mother and father………well you get the idea.
Do you have any obligations?
Yes.
If so,to whom?
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Who or what is the devil?
Well, he started out as the most powerful angel, Lucifer, the cherub that covered the very throne of God. Nowadays he is known as Satan, Beelzebub, the Devil, Pope So-and-So (kidding!).
What is he trying to do?
He is trying to stop the redemptive work of God. Throughout history you can see him always trying to destroy God’s chosen people, the nation Israel, this continues to this day. When Jesus was present during His earthly ministry, the Devil opposed His march to the Cross every step of the way. Now that the work of Redemption is complete in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, Satan is trying to keep as many people as he can from accepting God’s free gift of Salvation.
I believe that Satan is trying to accomplish this by “helping” to set up as many false religions in the world as possible. I have stated before that I see two religions in the world, Works-based and Faith-based. It is my contention that if the religion is Works-based then the founder of it is Satan.
Why?
Because Satan hates, and is jealous of God. So he is trying to destroy as many things that God loves as possible.
Thanks.
My pleasure, your welcome.
-ksen
Some of the posts in this thread must really drive you up the wall, eh?
LOL! How could I have missed this one yesterday?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.