Jobar

Amos, if 7thangel isn't preaching, just what would you call it?

And while it's true that I am trying to decide the best place to put my chisel here, it also allows him to preach some more if he wishes to. Eventually, I will have to make him stop preaching and debate, but since he has only posted 33 times, and has been reasonably polite so far, I have not called him on what is technically a breach of the EoG rules.

Thanks for the support, jf. You have the attitude of questioning tolerance which will make you at home here. (Ah, I hasten to add that always supporting me is *not* a requirement- I am quite as capable of screwing up as the next guy. )

Sue Sponte

I don't mean this in an inflammatory way, but does this apply to child molesting priests as well? I presume the answer would be that pedophiles are not acting in God's name, but if some are not "holy", then does this not refute the belief that God is doing the choosing, or perhaps suggest that the choosing is not being done all that well?

Amos

Why not? The problem with 7thangel's statement ("And it is God who chooses who’s who in the body(Church) of Christ"), is that the Church is not part of the body of Christ . . . or there would be churches in the New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22). In other words, the body of Christ exists outside the church or son of man would have a place to lie his head.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sue,
The hidden assumption in your question is that God only chooses the worthy. He does not, as the Old Testament chronicles mercilessly in regards to His “stiff-necked” Chosen People.

The child-molesting pedophile priests are a part of the “New and Improved” Catholic Church (which I am no longer a part of) that metastasized out of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. This is largely an apostate structure as are most mainline Christian Churches today.

The old joke, “Is the Pope Catholic?” is now a legitimate question. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

My Religious Philosophy List

JEST2ASK

Excuse me Albert (& to a degree Amos) from an interested & biased observer, I am trying to understand how we got from the orginial topic to a personal defination of what is the meaning of the "True" (or Catholic) Church

I do have several questions regarding somethings posted earlier that I would like clarification on your personal views

1- It seems to me that Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 are actuall two separate creation stories do you agree?

2 - If yes which version (or some mix) of the creations of Humans do you believe is accurate? Were males and females created at the same time? Are females clones (?) or was there and orginal line of humans and Adam / Eve a subset (special creation placed in Eden)? That would explain where Cain's wife came from.

3 - In all versions (translations) I have read The Heavens & Earth (Day 1) were created before The Sun, Moon and Stars (Day 4), how does this fit with "normal" science?

4 - While not a direct part of the creation story the serpert in chapter, do you believe that snakes orginally had the ability to speak?

5 - What are your beliefs on the orgins / author of the first parts of (chapters 1 - 11) Genesis? Who wrote it? When and where was it written? Did other clutures have any effect on the stories, either during or after composition?

Respectfully ---

7thangel

Jobar,
With all honesty, as far as we talk about God, it is preaching. However, I am following guidelines and answering questions without adding things unnecessary to speak of my own topic. I apologize for some redundancies of words, I just want to anticipate not to be asked a question, and then quote again my very same words.

You said: what do you think about Hell, and eternal punishment

I believe that eternal punishment does not exists. It is too absurd, and is against the concept of predestination. As I was saying, everything is actually happening under the power of God, so why should He punish anyone eternally? And part to that, the reason why evil exists is for the chosen to have knowledge of good and evil, and therefore become in the image of God. And that in the end, even the evil things that God created will work for good to them who are chosen.

You said: And do you consider yourself a literalist- is, for instance, the tale of Noah to be taken as unquestionably true, or is it simply a myth with perhaps some value as a parable?

The story of Noah has a parable value just like the stories of Esau and Jacob, and Jonah, and others. But whether if it literally happened or not is just secondary to the main objective; as like the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. On one point, if the issue is all about supernatural powers, I guess God would have had been doing miracles openly even today. But our search of God is not just about His omnipotence, but also of our coming into understanding His judgment, of knowing His godhead, and therein we have peace. It is knowing the truth that sets us free.

You said: If you do not believe that the Bible is literally the "Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God" then how do you claim to know all these things you are saying to us?

The Bible itself says, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” But then, Apostle Paul taught about being not literal about the word of God. Also, I never thought that the doctrine coming from God is irrational. And that most of all, the Bible was not intended to be written to be understood easily. Probably, all those things helped me to believe what I believe now. But to tell you exactly, it is a gift.

You said: (I appreciate your calm and non-condemnatory way of preaching what you consider 'Gospel truth', but you must realize that we have here former preachers and Biblical scholars, who do not believe that any of what you say is true. You cannot simply preach to us as you would to someone who had never heard of Christianity; lots of us were Christians and then de-converted because of what we *know* about the religion, not what we do *not* know.)

Thanks for your positive comment. I am aware that some of you are former Christians, and I do not discount your knowledge of the Bible. I guess I know some of the reasons why some of you left your religion. And if ever I could be used of God to turn you again in the fold, why not? I guess my appeal unto everybody is to see the rationality of God’s doctrines.

God Bless

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jest,
I made a 12-word long joke at the expense of the Catholic Church. That does not constitute my changing the topic of this thread “from the original topic to a personal definition of what is the meaning of the "True" (or Catholic) Church.”

1) Yes, you could say that Genesis contains two creation myths just as the New Testament contains two genealogies of Jesus Christ. Like two facets of a diamond, it’s the same diamond without contradiction.

2) Catholic dogma insists upon a special creation of both Adam and Eve by God from pre-existing material (e.g., slime), not from pre-existing life forms (i.e., evolution). Cain’s wife, as all the wives of Adam’s sons were the daughters of Adam. Incest was not a taboo or a sin then, as our genetic code was robust enough to handle it then.

3) The first two verses of Genesis, the ones I have passed over in reverential silence, do not refer to this planet or our sky when it uses the words “heaven and earth.” What is meant by the term heaven and earth in this context which says “the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep” is chaos. The pre-existing stuff or potential for stuff that cosmologists today speculate still exists in other “branes.” They hypothesize that our three-dimensional surface reality is embedded in a five dimensional surface. When what’s called a “boundary brane” collides with another brane, you get the Big Bang and a mechanism for Big Bang inflationary theory. According to Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University as quoted by Science News magazine (9/22/01):

That state, the state in a state of anarchy which preceeded the Big Bang is what the first two mysterious verses of Genesis is referring to.

4) Language is a symptom of mankind’s devolution. So, no, in the beginning, it wasn’t that serpents could talk, but rather that they didn’t need to talk. Man and animals could communicate telepathically as was later demonstrated by St. Francis of Assisi.

5) Judeo-Christian tradition has it that Moses was the one who first transcribed the oral tradition of the first five books of the bible known as the Pentateuch. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
My Religious Philosophy List

Amos

Good observation Jest2ask. They are different! Gen.1 creates the essence of existence and Gen. 2 forms that which was created in Gen. 1. Notice "God said" in Gen.1 and "Lord God formed" in Gen.2.

Here you go wrong. "Man" was created and not "humans." I suppose you don't know the difference between these two?

Man was created "male and female," androgyne as such but with the potential to become either male or female.

Woman was taken from man to be the womb of man. This just means that woman has no corporeal body of existence but is the essence of man needed for the procreation of man.

Adam and Eve were never placed in Eden because they had no corporeal existence to be placed anywhere. Opposite this, they were the reason why man was expelled from Eden.

You should try to read this again and tell me where "Adam and Eve were placed in Eden" and also, tell me where "humans were created."

On day one heaven was juxtaposed with earth. These are literary concepts to indicate that earth is flat and heaven is round. The formless wasteland makes reference to the unexamined life that will remain covered with darkness while the mighty storms will prevail in such life.

Let there be light speaks of illumination by the celestial life out of which life is given to the living. Those who recognize this light will be illuminated by it while the rest will just see evening return after each day until the light of common day will not return. This passages comes full circle on the seventh day which is the day on which evening does not return (by inference).

No, and that should tell you that it is an allegory. However, since you haven't figured that out yet you are still under it's spell.It was written by mythmakers at about that time and they were smart enough to mesmerize a group of people to send them on their way towards becoming one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed. Clever, don't you think?

Jobar

Gentlemen, I realize that it has some relevancy to the topic here, but I suggest that the discussion of Genesis be carried on in the BC&A forum. And, unless I am badly mistaken, 7thangel is not a Catholic; that sub-topic should be split off to another thread here in EoG, IMO. If you want to make a final post on these topics here to wind up your points, that's OK- but if you think it worth extended conversation, please start new threads and let 7thangel have his say.

K

Albert:


It sounds like the Chinese creation myth is better than yours on this point. It actually calls chaos "chaos".

I just had to get in one parting shot before this discussion is moved elsewhere.