He travels a worldline. If Creation were a movie, he’d be seeing it one frame at a time, and not from the beginning of it.
By contrast, God sees “all that there is” all at once.
Time and space are part of the Creation, not properties of the Creator.
Thus only He knows objective Truth. He is. When He says a thing, it is.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
Sometimes posters around here nuance the words and say they believe “in” God because they can’t possibly understand Him. But what that really says to me is that the poster is throwing up his hands and saying that his own imaginings are the best that he can do.
Or to put it another way, he is trusting his own mind to figure God out (a futile task) rather than simply taking God at His word.
If the Law doesn’t hold consistently in the Creation, why would anyone think the Creator would have to comply with the Law of the Excluded Middle?
And yet there are beliefs which say that Jesus Christ must be either man or God. He can’t be both because of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Other beliefs say that because of the Law of Identity, the Father, Son and Spirit are separate Gods. And there are many other such examples that have led to various doctrines and traditions of men and disputes among the members of the body of Christ.
And from what I have read and heard and seen there are indeed many veils and wedges between God and man built into the dogma, doctrines, teachings and sacraments of the Catholic Church.
Considering my gift and calling is to encourage other Christians to focus on the one and only Great Commandment, to love God surpassingly above all else - I would do my very best to expose the wedges and veils and my presence would be rather disruptive. Nevertheless, if the Spirit led me to do it, I would.
You: Um, duh? But it IS the body of Christ, we think.
The body of Christ consists of all those chosen from the foundation of the world for redemption by the blood of the Lamb, regardless of when the person was, is or will be in the flesh.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 3:3
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: - Ephesians 1:4
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. – Ephesians 5:25-32
WONDERFUL BIBLICALLY TRUE exposition. Thanks Big
Whenever man - traveling his worldline - projects his own mind onto God he ends up anthropomorphizing God into a caricature, an imagining, a small “god” his puny, mortal mind can comprehend.
10-4 as far as it goes. I'd say reason is tainted and crippled, but not so damaged that it cannot be healed and cannot perceive SOME basic things about God. A lot (not all, just a lot) of the caricaturing is because people stopped thinking too soon.
It has served man well since the days of Aristotle.[and earlier] But even in observing the physical realm, the law does not hold. Whether one sees a particle or a wave depends on what he is looking for.
In the natural sciences that is a not a sign that the excluded middle doesn't hold but that the notion that something is either a particle or a wave needs to be re-thought. The apparent failure of the law just calls the premises that lead to that failure up for re-examination. And so we develop terms like "quantum" (literally "how much?" or "that much" )which implicitly acknowledge that the problem is not yet solved
And yet there are beliefs which say that Jesus Christ must be either man or God. He can’t be both because of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Other beliefs say that because of the Law of Identity, the Father, Son and Spirit are separate Gods. And there are many other such examples that have led to various doctrines and traditions of men and disputes among the members of the body of Christ.
Ah. we have a VERY different innerleckshual approach, and reach different conclusions. Heres how I consider the process which led to the Chalcedonian And Nicene definitions of two natures in one person, and three persons in one ousia (after the transubstantiation thread I ain't saying "substance" again without looking over my shoulder and checking my firearm):
It's a lot like what i just said about "quantum". Looka this: (1)If we say THREE Gods, well that's polytheism which reject because the Bible tells us so AND because it just doesn't make sense. (2)But if we say EITHER that IHS is not God OR that IHS is kind of mooshed in with the Father and the Holy Spirit that leads to other contradictions of what seems to be in Scripture AND, again, of thought. For example: "God so loved the world that he gave, well, one of the first things He made that all who believe in, well, something or other might be saved ... ." It just doesn't have the same zing, does it? Gos up in heaven saying, "Okay, I need a volunteer for a suicide mission. Which of you creatures will step forward"? And patripassionism just doesn't hold up against the seemingly incomprehensible but seemingly unavoidable assertion of the impasssability of God.
SO in both cases the Church comes up with a "quantum": We don't know what it is, but the only way you can talk about it without leading yourself down the wrong path is "Two natures (not confused), one hypostasis" and that goes for "three persons, one God." It's kind of a negative approach: "We don't really get what these things mean, but It has to be like this."
So again, I don't think "quanta" or the great Dogmata are signs that reason is broken, but rather signs that Prayer, Scripture, Study, dialogue, all with frequent if not constant appeals to the Holy Spirit lead humanity, with reason on board, to the truth.
But it IS the body of Christ, we think.Um, that's what I said? sort of almost? Bearing in mind what I've written elsewhere recently about people who are members of the body but not "full" members?See, there’s a wedge right there. LOL!
The body of Christ consists of all those chosen from the foundation of the world for redemption by the blood of the Lamb, regardless of when the person was, is or will be in the flesh.
I see none of the quotes you put up as contradicting the assertion.
Also, is "exclusive" always, inevitably, by definition a bad thing? I don't think it's the RC exclusivity that's the problem. I think you don't agree with the standards, that you think they exclude for the wrong reasons.
I just say that because "exclusivity" is a buzzword and buzzwords are hints that we need to slow down and see what we really mean. To say "exclusivity of the 'club'" is, I think, really unfair -- a cheap shot. Are all organizations with standards "clubs"? Is it "exclusive" of doctors not to give me penicillin on the "clubby" grounds that I happen to be allergic to it? Is it exclusive not to compel people to receive the sacraments? Isn't it a tad rough to say, "I don't want to receive but you're wrong not to let me."
Am I exclusive because I don't have sex with the thousands of gorgeous babes who are constantly throwing themselves at me on the clubby grounds that I married the boss-lady and unto her only shall I cleave?
(Or am I just tragically deluded? Yeah, I think probably that.)
And this is where the dreadful name of "gnostic", whether rightly or wrongly, comes into the picture. And certainly there's a profound difference about ecclesiology, which means at least one of us is in error if not downright heretical.
From our POV, +Paul "touched back" NOT with the whole Church but with the leaders, "those who were of repute", in private conference, and laid before them what he had been preaching, lest somehow [he] should be running or had run in vain.]
Now people can talk about "edifice" all they like, but mockery and perseveration don't add a thing to the discussion. They rather hinder charity and clear thinking.
As we look back on the story in Galatians and Acts, we have no question that Paul (a) was confident he had a calling, and (b) was right to be so confident. But he, as I say, "touched back" some 3 years later with Cephas and then 14 years later, when presumably he was more mature in Christ, he touched back with what amounts to a committee of the Church leaders(can you say "curia?" - well sort of a proto- or embryonic curia, maybe) and is open to the possibility that he might be running or have been running in vain!
This is a remarkable act of humility, as admission that even the great Paul, with his unforgettable conversion experience, might still need to have his good work ratified -- even by those with whom he later quite pronouncedly and publicly disagrees.
There's no implication that Cephas is, himself and by himself, the bees knees. In fact Peter could be said to have be tossing up veils and wedges (I didn't know the apostle even WORE briefs -- and now you tell me they had wedgies.
No. wait.)
Ahem. To continue ... One can see that Paul had a stormy relationship with "those who were of repute", but still wanted his work to be checked by them.
(When rock climbing, I'd just as soon some suspicious, mistrusting guy checked my knots as someone who thought I was right all the time.)
Look at Cephas. He loved IHS yet denied Him. He had the vision of, ahem "inclusivity" and then wussed out before the Judaizing "circumcision party". It was to so weak a reed and his homies that Paul submitted his ministry for review.
Can we dare to think that our call and ministry is so certain, so much more certain than Paul's that we need not humble ourselves as he humbled himself? It was a very visible, all TOO visible, group of Church leaders to whom Paul went. Those clowns and yahoos were the then current crop of "those chosen from the foundation of the world."
The eternality of the call does not excuse us from dealing with, and submitting our call and ministry to the review of, the manifestly and obviously fallible and peccable (in their own persons) folks who bear the ministry of being our pastors. Otherwise we seem to be making ourselves greater than Paul.
P.S. I need you and Forest Keeper to talk about eternity.