Posted on 04/23/2011 8:37:58 PM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
He did create perfection and it includes giving man a free will to stray from it.
We may be quibbling about things here. I was taking Kosta's point about men being imperfect - which is true - and I will also acknowledge that men are given free will - which is true as well. However, I will stand in the middle and say that men were created in order for them to exercise their free will however they choose. They are not robot slaves preprogrammed to mindless predestination. I am not perfect - I'll be the first to admit it. And that, ashamedly, is of my own choosing.
If I were perfect, then I could only choose perfection.
God is perfect. I am not.
I feel the same way dear friend.I seem to commit the same sins over and over even when I try not to. I am so very weak.
No, Mark, just specific questions to which I didn't get specific answers. :)
We have what God actually does, what He wants us to know is going on
How do you know that?
If God had wanted perfection, He would have created it; and most probably, would never have done it.
So, God who is perfect in everything he does, and never changes, created imperfection by design?
He is perfection in Himself. Man is not perfect. God considers man the pinnacle of His Creation. Why?
I am not familiar with any of that as a matter of first-hand knowledge; merely by a bunch of humans telling me that that this is so because they say so.
The Bible says image, not duplicate.
Yes, a reflection of God. Man cannot be Andrea Yates, or Adolf Hitler and still be an image of the Christian God.
I believe in my beliefs. I don't know. I believe. Why? Probably for a whole bunch of reasons
Are these reasons your choices or are they imposed upon you? If they are your choices then you decide what God is; you decree what is ''holy" and what is profane, what to believe, what to disbelieve, what to accept and what to reject. In other words, you create your own religion.
From the way you write, it sounds as if you '"dopted" the Catholic Church doctrine as true and that's why you believe in it. It;'ss till your deicsion what is "true" and what "untrue". You are just picking and choosing according to taste. What does the Greek or Polish peasant understand of the Church?
I don't know about Polish peasants but Greek peasants know how the Church worshiped for the past 1700 years, so he can spot a change. He doesn't have to understand the theology behind that worship.
How many theologians go off the rails because they get lost and sidetracked in minor details and lose sight of the Faith overall?
Mark, the procession of the Holy Spirit, the (un)created grace, the Limbo, the Purgatory, the Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, the Papal Infallibility, Christology, etc. are either dogma (that must be believed) or doctrinal pillars of the Church—and you call them "minor detail"?
The Three Hermits (thanks Kolo) is a very good short story which illustrates true faith.
Not really. I love the story, but these three hermits could have believed in anything. There was nothing Christian in their belief save for referring to their dirty as "three are we, three are thee".
Try hereditary hemachromatosis. No weakness there unless the accumulated quackery performs the usual treatment for it.
No, Mark, just specific questions to which I didn't get specific answers. :)
In that one specific instance, I would prefer that you ask it first, before I am expected to answer.
We have what God actually does, what He wants us to know is going on
How do you know that?
I don't know that. I believe it.
If God had wanted perfection, He would have created it; and most probably, would never have done it.
So, God who is perfect in everything he does, and never changes, created imperfection by design?
Let's look at that statement. We have the statement that nothing imperfect enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Okay, I can handle that. We look around us at humanity. Rather imperfect. We also have the statement that many if not most humans will be saved to eternal salvation ie entering the Kingdom of Heaven. If we put them all together, then we may be circumventing your proposal, or rendering it invalid anyway.
He is perfection in Himself. Man is not perfect. God considers man the pinnacle of His Creation. Why?
I am not familiar with any of that as a matter of first-hand knowledge; merely by a bunch of humans telling me that that this is so because they say so.
Ah, then we come back to the issue of belief. I do not recall any first hand Paulian style revelation of the Risen Christ blinding me and sending me on to Damascus to become a rabble rouser of the first degree. Yet, we have documentation that he did. I may be a rabble rouser, myself, but I consider myself a piker after Paul.
The Bible says image, not duplicate.
Yes, a reflection of God. Man cannot be Andrea Yates, or Adolf Hitler and still be an image of the Christian God.
Image is not duplicate. Image is likeness or representation. If you consider the soul to be the subject of the image of God, then that does encompass the likes of Andrea Yates or Tito or Mugabe.
I believe in my beliefs. I don't know. I believe. Why? Probably for a whole bunch of reasons
Are these reasons your choices or are they imposed upon you? If they are your choices then you decide what God is; you decree what is ''holy" and what is profane, what to believe, what to disbelieve, what to accept and what to reject. In other words, you create your own religion.
From the way you write, it sounds as if you '"dopted" the Catholic Church doctrine as true and that's why you believe in it. It;'ss till your deicsion what is "true" and what "untrue". You are just picking and choosing according to taste.
A whole package, possibly, but not picking and choosing according to taste. Perhaps whilst I was 'prodigaling', the little cherubs came and whispered in my ear during the night until I came to my senses. But yes, I accept it as true and my faith.
How many theologians go off the rails because they get lost and sidetracked in minor details and lose sight of the Faith overall?
Mark, the procession of the Holy Spirit, the (un)created grace, the Limbo, the Purgatory, the Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, the Papal Infallibility, Christology, etc. are either dogma (that must be believed) or doctrinal pillars of the Church—and you call them "minor detail"?
Well, maybe not minor. However, as the Church grew from its infancy, the great minds of the Church also began to realize things about Christianity such as the Trinity that were simply not fully realized or taught. That's fine and I can accept that too. At some point, we either accept things or not. Why not be Jews? Zoroastrians? Followers of the religion of the little blue men in prehistoric Britain who burned their sacrifices in wicker baskets?
That is not enough, you say? Perhaps not. But what separates me from some of my own kin that have either strayed from the Church or rejected it altogether? I cannot give you a definitive answer based strictly on the physical and real. There is a cultural aspect, sure, but why me and not them? I like to think that there is something more. Do I know? Nope.
The Three Hermits (thanks Kolo) is a very good short story which illustrates true faith.
Not really. I love the story, but these three hermits could have believed in anything. There was nothing Christian in their belief save for referring to their dirty as "three are we, three are thee".
That by itself is far more Christian in belief than many who post here purporting their own novel versions of Christianity. And their way of life is very NT Christian (a la Acts), would you not say? Didn't many of the early monstastic groups act in much the same manner?
Last time I checked (#37), Question No. 1 "Did the Fall happen or not? If so, was it God's will or not? Question No. 2 "In Genesis 6:6 he regrets having created man. Was that an afterthought or is the Bible just plain wrong?" Question No. 4 "How does a perfect creator create a perfect world, and then let is slip under his feet?"
How do you know that?
I don't know that. I believe it.
Okay, then why do you believe that?
[PS the way you worded it, i.e. "We have what God actually does, what He wants us to know is going on" is stated as a matter of fact rather than belief, imo.]
We have the statement that nothing imperfect enters the Kingdom of Heaven.
Are those in heaven going to have free will and, if so, what is supposed to stop them from committing sin (again) that didn't stop Adam and Eve? My understanding is that Adam and Eve were perfect, save for the potential to commit sin, something God (presumably) doesn't have. And if God doesn't have a potential to commit sin, then how could Jesus be the second Adam?
Yet, we have documentation that he did
We do?
If you consider the soul to be the subject of the image of God, then that does encompass the likes of Andrea Yates or Tito or Mugabe.
Why in the world would I consider "soul" the image (icon) of God?!? The Greek word for soul means breath or Latin anima, a force that "quickens" (moves) the body; it give it "life". It's a life force, what animates, and subsequently all who possess it are animalia. This somehow became expanded in the west to mean a 'self ', i.e. what the Greeks call the nous, or mind, as in noëtic, which is an altogether different concept.
No doubt, Andrea Yates, Tito and Mugabe were endowed with that same life force as the rest of humanity, but that by itself (i.e. you life) does not make you God-like. The Bible says and the Church teaches that all shall be judged according to their deeds and not their souls (life force); they will be judged according to how they conformed themselves to be Christ-like in their hearts and minds and works, not whether you have soul or not; all who live(d) have/had a soul, but not all are/became Christ-like.
At some point, we either accept things or not.
Based on what? You say faith, but is that faith blind? Or is it a conscious decision, an exercise of free will? If it is free will, then you create your own religion. If not, then your mind is hijacked.
That by itself is far more Christian in belief than many who post here purporting their own novel versions of Christianity
Or Tibetan for that matter...or even Mormon.
Didn't many of the early monstastic groups act in much the same manner?
I don't know.
Are those in heaven going to have free will and, if so, what is supposed to stop them from committing sin (again) that didn't stop Adam and Eve? My understanding is that Adam and Eve were perfect, save for the potential to commit sin, something God (presumably) doesn't have. And if God doesn't have a potential to commit sin, then how could Jesus be the second Adam?
1. Beats me. 2. Beats me, unless you have Jesus as the anti Adam, reversing the course, as it were.
Why in the world would I consider "soul" the image (icon) of God?!? The Greek word for soul means breath or Latin anima, a force that "quickens" (moves) the body; it give it "life". It's a life force, what animates, and subsequently all who possess it are animalia. This somehow became expanded in the west to mean a 'self ', i.e. what the Greeks call the nous, or mind, as in noëtic, which is an altogether different concept.
No doubt, Andrea Yates, Tito and Mugabe were endowed with that same life force as the rest of humanity, but that by itself (i.e. you life) does not make you God-like. The Bible says and the Church teaches that all shall be judged according to their deeds and not their souls (life force); they will be judged according to how they conformed themselves to be Christ-like in their hearts and minds and works, not whether you have soul or not; all who live(d) have/had a soul, but not all are/became Christ-like.
Again, we must come back to the concept of image. Notice how Paul calls for us to imitate Christ, not be an image of Him. Imitation is an indication of Christ-like, image may not be. What is the difference in a two dimensional image of a round object, versus a circular flat object held parallel to the viewing plane? None. Yet, that disk is not a round ball and cannot be mistaken for one, except via this particular image.
Okay, then why do you believe that?
I'm not sure that I have that 'why', and certainly not to what I imagine would be your satisfaction.
Based on what? You say faith, but is that faith blind? Or is it a conscious decision, an exercise of free will? If it is free will, then you create your own religion. If not, then your mind is hijacked.Based on what? You say faith, but is that faith blind? Or is it a conscious decision, an exercise of free will? If it is free will, then you create your own religion. If not, then your mind is hijacked.
Ah, the either/or. Let's just say that I reject that viewpoint. I accept the Faith; it is not something that I made up, neither am I hijacked. I cannot quantify it, neither can I prove it; I simply believe it and I accept that belief.
"God can't" is an oxymoron. The only divine reason is he won't.
1. Beats me. 2. Beats me, unless you have Jesus as the anti Adam, reversing the course, as it were.
If they have free will in heaven they can repeat the Fall and heaven will not last forever. If they don't they are and will be robots forever.
Notice how Paul calls for us to imitate Christ, not be an image of Him. Imitation is an indication of Christ-like, image may not be.
Imitation of Christ is being Chirst-like, reacquiring the likeness of God. The image is an icon, so that when we look at man we recognize God, and the quality of man is the likeness of God (just, free, compassionate, etc.). So, man not only appears like God but is like God in how he acts (accoridng to his created purpose).
I'm not sure that I have that 'why', and certainly not to what I imagine would be your satisfaction.
You don't know why you believe?
Ah, the either/or. Let's just say that I reject that viewpoint. I accept the Faith; it is not something that I made up, neither am I hijacked. I cannot quantify it, neither can I prove it; I simply believe it and I accept that belief.
But it's your decision and you judge it "true." What proof, if any do you have that your faith is true? Or do you just blindly believe whatever, for no reason whatsoever?
"God can't" is an oxymoron. The only divine reason is he won't.
Okay, agreed. He doesn't because in order to do it, we would be changed so that we could understand Him. We were created this way. To give us divine understanding would be eating further of the fruit of the tree, I suppose.
1. Beats me. 2. Beats me, unless you have Jesus as the anti Adam, reversing the course, as it were.
If they have free will in heaven they can repeat the Fall and heaven will not last forever. If they don't they are and will be robots forever.
More either/or? You have become very black and white, my friend. There are other possibilities.
Notice how Paul calls for us to imitate Christ, not be an image of Him. Imitation is an indication of Christ-like, image may not be. Imitation of Christ is being Chirst-like, reacquiring the likeness of God. The image is an icon, so that when we look at man we recognize God, and the quality of man is the likeness of God (just, free, compassionate, etc.). So, man not only appears like God but is like God in how he acts (accoridng to his created purpose).
I imitate Christ, albeit rather poorly. Many people would not see the likeness of God within me. The image is not an icon, by my understanding. Satan, for instance, is the most beautiful of Creation, yet is the father of lies. Lies are deceit; they present an image to the viewer. The imitation that I speak of is the how, the doing, the actions. The image I speak of is the visual, the emotional, the convincing. A politician, in fact. An individual presenting himself as God.
That is why I like the English "imitation", rather than the English "image". I think that it is far closer to the commands of Jesus.
You don't know why you believe?
Let's just say that I really doubt that I could convince you of why I believe.
But it's your decision and you judge it "true." What proof, if any do you have that your faith is true? Or do you just blindly believe whatever, for no reason whatsoever?
Either/or? Black and white? I am not given to visions along the road to Damascus or hands in the open wounds. I have not the proof that you would like. Neither do I blindly believe. I am convinced, shall we say?
So, God of love prefers ignorance?
We were created this way. To give us divine understanding would be eating further of the fruit of the tree, I suppose
But why not make man worthy of such knowledge if man is worthy of being an image and likeness of God? Do you want children who just obey you but can never understand you? Those are not children but pets, Mark!
You have become very black and white, my friend. There are other possibilities.
Such as? A little free will and a lot of blind obedience? Or mostly robots, but occasionally free-willed? Or, half and half, depending on which day of the week it is...?
I imitate Christ, albeit rather poorly. Many people would not see the likeness of God within me.
but that's not your created purpose, Mark. Man was created to be an image and likeness of God and then, somehow, things just happened...the Fall; and, btw, you never answered that question for me: was it ordained or did God just not see it coming?
Let's just say that I really doubt that I could convince you of why I believe
I didn't ask you to convince me, Mark; just why you believe. :)
I am not given to visions along the road to Damascus or hands in the open wounds. I have not the proof that you would like. Neither do I blindly believe. I am convinced, shall we say?
That is obvious, but you must know that what the Church teaches is rather fantastic and doesn't reflect the real world. So, what gives?
My personal opinion is that God knew from eternity that those in heaven are so filled with divine love that they would never CHOOSE to leave this state,thus free will is still maintained.
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.