WHAT HAS HAPPEN TO OUR LADY OF FATIMA SHRINE!!!!!

[DominusMah]

Lately what has happened to the Our Lady of Fatima at Portugal is FULL OF HERESY !!!! To place a hindu god in our Catholic Sanctuary!! worst part is Rome agree upOn this!!! wait and see one of this day or may be very soon that the ISlam is going to ask for a place at St Peter Basilica,,,never suprised Rome will allow that!!

Some how the Post Concilliar Catholic Church us playing with fire. IT IS A MATTER OF TIME THAT ROME IS GOING TO BE BURN BY ETERNAL FIRE!!!

[stuartcr]

I don't believe He is a jealous God. Why would you think God suffers from one of mankinds faults?

[stuartcr]

I do not have the same acceptance of the bible as you do, therefore I do not believe there has been a revelation. If you could offer some proof of this revelation, I would appreciate it.

[stuartcr]

Why can't the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything, contain an absence? Didn't God created all things? Wouldn't that include both good and evil? Why assign human traits and logic to God?

[ultima ratio]

In answer to your first question--When we say God created all things, we mean he created beings to exist. But evil is the non-existence of something. It is a negative concept, an absence, a void, a lack. When goodness is lacking, we say something is evil, since the goodness that ought to be present in something, doesn't exist in it. But since God is Existence Itself--which means all Goodness itself--He can lack nothing. There can therefore be no evil in Him.

In answer to your question about assigning human traits and logic to God, I have done just the opposite. Look at my post. I said God was not subject to our notions of right and wrong. As Creator He transcends morality. It is you who ascribe human traits to Him by asking why he permits the evils that occur--such as the Holocaust, etc., as if He is wrong to allow them. But since He is of a different order of Being from us, His ways are not our ways. We simply don't comprehend the divine arithmetic. So you are asking the wrong question.

[ultima ratio]

When I say He is a jealous God, I am using anthropomorphic Biblical speech. This is the description God Himself gave Moses. "I am a jealous God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me." God speaks to us in ways that we can understand--but these words are not to be taken to mean that God feels jealousy--or love--or anger--literally in the same way human beings do.

[ultima ratio]

You have claimed to believe in God, if I remember correctly. If so, then you should also believe it is possible for Him to reveal truths to humanity in some way. So at least we can agree that divine revelation is possible. And once you reach this conclusion, then it is inevitable that you should investigate the various claims of revelation. It is my belief that once you do so, particularly the claims made for the reliability of the Gospels, you would be convinced of their validity. In the examination of these texts, you would only have to use the same criteria for trustworthiness that you would use to test the historical value of any ancient document.

[stuartcr]

First of all, I am not Christian.

You assume that God respects freewill, Why?

I believe that we think we have freewill, but since God knows all, including the future, then whatever we do has already been pre-determined, and allowed to happen.

I believe people live the lives that we are supposed to live.

You say that suffering is still a mystery. Why is it, that the good things in life that are contributed to God, are believed so strongly as coming from God, but the bad things are a mystery? Perhaps, what we, as humans, perceive as good and evil, just are not the same to God.

[stuartcr]

I did say that I believe God to be all-powerful, but I did not say His acts have no pattern and can be whatever he decides at a particular moment (good, evil, etc.).

[stuartcr]

I do not adhere to the thinking that the bible is the infallible word of God. That is one of the reasons our beliefs/faiths are different.

[stuartcr]

You may say that God created only beings to exist, and you may say that evil is the non-existence of something, but, that doesn't mean you are correct.

I don't ask these questions of God, I ask them of the men that profess to know the way of God.

[stuartcr]

Our beliefs in the validity of the bible differ.

[stuartcr]

Yes, I believe that revelation is possible, and yes, I have investigated the various claims. That is why I believe as I do.

[ultima ratio]

You may agree or disagree, but that is the definition understood by philosophers and moral theologians, beginning with St. Augustine. Cold is the absence of heat. Shade is the absence of light. Illness is the absence of health, etc. Evil has no substance in itself. It is the hole in the donut.

"And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present--namely, the diseases and wounds--go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, (2) but a defect in the fleshly substance--the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils--that is, privations of the good which we call health--are accidents. (3) Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else." (St. Augustine, Enchiridion, 10-11.)

[ultima ratio]

Let's talk about the Gospels. Have you investigated their claims? If so, what is it that elicits your disbelief? Do you reason they lack authenticity? Are they untrustworthy in some way as historical accounts? Why, exactly, do they lack validity in your opinion?

[ultima ratio]

"You say that suffering is still a mystery. Why is it, that the good things in life that are contributed to God, are believed so strongly as coming from God, but the bad things are a mystery? Perhaps, what we, as humans, perceive as good and evil, just are not the same to God."

This was my point in an earlier post when I said God transcends morality. You were the one who used your own human perspective to question why God permits evil. Now you are switching tactics and using the argument I presented against livius.

As for free will--it is self-evident. We are conscious of making choices all the time. All this means is that we are attracted to various goods simultaneously. When we choose to do evil, we are really choosing a lesser good. When a man cheats on his wife, he is choosing to have a good time at the expense of a sound marriage. He doesn't choose evil per se, he chooses sensual pleasure or emotional satisfaction--which are positives, not negatives. What results is an absence--of marital fidelity.

[stuartcr]

The definition, is still just a theory...neither proven nor unproven. Acceptance of a theory, does not make it so. Augustine assumes that God is supremely good.

[stuartcr]

I do not believe that anyone has come back from the dead, or has born of a virgin. As far as occurances, dates, battles, etc, are concerned, I imagine some are historically accurate.

[stuartcr]

As I said earlier, I do not question God, I question why some men believe as they do. Prior to your entering the thread, I had expressed to Bonaventura, my views on God and good and evil...I have switched nothing.

We certainly believe that we are making choices.

[Viva Christo Rey]

gbcdoj wrote:
I cannot understand how you can spout such nonsense. The Pope's catechism clearly teaches the true catholic doctrine of the Sacraments, as you very well know.

No heretic ever exposes himself unnecessarily. Even Luther began by attempting to remain a visible member of the Church - until it became impossible to maintain the pretence, due to his excommunication for obstinate refusal to bow to the teaching authority of Holy Church. All heretics are liars and deceivers of the naive. This is how they fool Catholics into following their errors. This trait is especially true of Modernists, as stated in the article on the subject in the Catholic Encyclopedia, as follows;

"...it is regrettable that certain avowed leaders of Modernism, carried away perhaps by the desire to remain within the Church at all costs - another characteristic of Modernism - have taken refuge in equivocation, reticence, or quibbles."
Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) v.10, p. 417.

"JP II" at first was very selective with his audience, etc. in espousing his numerous heresies but now he and his minions are so confident they spew forth their noxious filth at will. At times they issue documents that sound 'almost correct', but are never quite so, because they all contain error.

He merely follows the lead of his satanic master in encapsulating a grain of truth in a surrounding tissue of lies.

And so sadly, do all of his apologists - who even attempt to deny photographic evidence of the external expressions of his apostasy.

You have shown yourself to fall into the category above.

[AskStPhilomena]

"And so sadly, do all of his apologists - who even attempt to deny photographic evidence of the external expressions of his apostasy."

There are those who deny that the book the pope is venerating is actually the koran: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm
Even if the book is the koran (as the photographic evidence and eye-witness reports seem to suggest), we live in hope that the pope performed this horrendous gesture without actually realizing the blasphemy contained there-in.
For a detailed account of the teachings of the koran, please see:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
I personally suspect (without knowing the intentions of the holy father) that this public papal veneration of the koran was performed "in the spirit of Vatican 2" which teaches the lie that "muslims, together with us, worship one, merciful God" (Lumen Gentium/Nostra Aetate).