SAMT

Summary Against Modern Thought: The Filioque II

Previous post.

More on the filioque. While it’s important, consider it more of an intellectual exercise in our day. We have much greater things to argue over.

ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO WANT TO SHOW THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT PROCEED FROM THE SON AND THE ANSWERS

1 There are some, pertinacious in their willful resistance to the truth, who make some points to the contrary which are hardly worth an answer. They say that our Lord, speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit, says that He proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son. So one reads in John (15:26): “When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.” Hence, since nothing must be held about God which is not given in Scripture, it must not be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

2 But this is entirely frivolous. For, by reason of unity of essence, what is said in the Scriptures about one Person ought to be understood of another, unless it is repugnant to His propriety as a Person, and this even if some exclusive phrase is added. For, although it says in Matthew (12:27): “No one knows the Son, but the Father,” neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is, for all that, excluded from knowledge of the Son. Hence, even if it is said in the Gospel that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from any but the Father, this would not exclude His proceeding from the Son. For this is not repugnant to the propriety of the Son, as was shown.

Neither is there cause to marvel if our Lord said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, saying nothing about Himself, His custom is to refer everything to His Father from whom He has whatever He has. Thus, He says in John (7:16): “My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me.” Many things of this kind are discovered in the words of our Lord which establish in the Father the authority of the principle. And, for all that, in the passage just mentioned our Lord was not altogether silent about His being the principle of the Holy Spirit. He called Him “the Spirit of Truth,” and He had previously called Himself “the Truth” (John 24:6).

3 They further object that in certain councils one finds it prohibited under penalty of anathema to add anything to the Creed ordered by the council. In this, they say, there is no mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. And so they hold the Latins guilty of anathema because they have added this to the Creed.

4 But such arguments are inefficacious. For the declaration of the Synod of Chalcedon says that the Fathers gathered at Constantinople corroborated the doctrine of the Synod of Nicea. This they did, “not as though to imply that the doctrine was something less, but to declare by Scriptural testimonies the understanding of the Holy Spirit Of their predecessors against those who attempted to reject that understanding.”

One must say, similarly, that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is implicitly contained in the Creed of Constantinople, for the latter says that “He proceeds from the Father,” and what is understood of the Father must be understood of the Son, as was said. And the authority of the Roman Pontiff sufficed for this addition; by this authority, too, all the ancient councils were confirmed.

5 They maintain, also, that the Holy Spirit, since He is simple, cannot be from two; and that the Holy Spirit, if He proceeds perfectly from the Father, does not proceed from the Son; and other arguments of this sort. These are easy to solve, even if one is but little skilled in theological matters. For the Father and the Son are a single principle of the Holy Spirit by reason of the unity of divine power, and by one production they produce the Holy Spirit; thus, also, the three Persons are one principle of creatures and by one action they produce creatures.

Categories: SAMT

72 replies »

  1. F’ goodness’ sake! That the perfection of everything (God the Father) would NOT know the perfection of everything (Himself; God the Son) and They project that gift of Self (God the Holy Ghost) is only acceptable to creatures wanting to exalt themselves above their station. It is completely irrational to assert that the Father can do something independently of the knowledge of Himself (the Son) and thus “produce” another “thing” going around almost arbitrarily making “improvements” on an experimental prototype.

    Much is sometimes made of Jesus saying that when “these things” will happen is known to the Father in Heaven as if to say that Jesus didn’t really know where and how it was all going. I will contend that Jesus, God Man, or Man God, was just saying that it’s not for us Men to know just now.

    I suggest that anyone who rejects “Filioque” is proposing some kind of two or three headed specter pretty much consonant with the anathemas of Judaism and Islam.

  2. Vox Popoli on “The false doctrine of the Trinity”

    The eighth point in Jamsco’s attempted summary of my doctrinal beliefs is a succinct one. “8. The Trinity is obvious BS. It’s easily proved. [Direct quote from a comment here].” As it happens, he got that one entirely correct, which is not the case in two of the other ten points.

    Now, the falsity of the doctrine can be proved in a variety of ways, but since we’re dealing with mainstream Churchianity here, I’ll utilize the easiest and most obvious because those who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity also subscribe to the doctrine of divine omniscience. Note that since I am skeptical of both doctrines, this argument obviously does not reflect my own theological beliefs. Let’s follow the logic:

    1. The Trinity is God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. These three divine persons are combined in one being we call God.

    2. This one being is omniscient, and therefore knows everything.

    3. It is written, in Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient, and furthermore, do not possess the same knowledge as the Father.

    4. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal and consubstantial with the Father. They may or may not be co-eternal.

    5. Being neither co-equal nor consubstantial, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one being with the Father.

    6. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

    I further note that we can branch from (3) and prove the falsehood of the Trinity in a slightly different manner.

    4b. Since God is omniscient and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are God.

    5b. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

    It should not escape one’s attention that if one insists on clinging to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is necessary to abandon the doctrine of divine omniscience. Obviously, I subscribe to neither, but it is not possible to subscribe to both. My perspective is that divinity can be most usefully understood in a manner akin to human royalty. Prince Harry may be royal, but no one is under the impression that he is co-equal and consubstantial with his grandmother, the sovereign Queen Elizabeth. This is in keeping with the idea that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are Man’s advocates, they are not his judge

    +++++++++

    Vox (Theodore Beale) Popoli is possessed of a genius level IQ and one knows that because he tells his readers that frequently

  3. Beautifully said and written, dear St. Thomas Aquinas!!! Thank you!!

    And, Since Jesus is, and says, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, staying in disagreement with Him is foolishness to the utmost!

    God bless, C-Marie

  4. Oldavid is correct re the question to Jesus about when the tsunami of sin hits the judgmental fan…

    Acrd. To Cornelius a Lapide:

    My Father only: because from eternity He had determined in His own mind, and appointed this day, which He keeps secret. Now by the word only, the Son is not excluded, neither the Holy Ghost, for They know the day and the hour of the Judgment equally with the Father, since They have all the same essence, majesty, will, mind, power, understanding, and knowledge. For it is a theological principle, that if the word “only” be added to any of the essential attributes of the Godhead, such as wisdom, and be ascribed to one of the Divine Persons, it does not exclude the other two Persons, but only creatures, which are of a different nature and essence. But in Personal Attributes, the expression “only” does exclude two of the, Divine Persons, as when it is said, “The Father only begets;” “The Son only is begotten.”

    You will say, Mark adds (xiii. 32), neither the Son, for so it is in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, Ethiopic. Various answers are given. The best is that which is common among the Fathers. It is that the Son, both as God and as man, by infused knowledge, knows the Day of Judgment and of the end of the world, for it pertains for Him to know this, inasmuch as He has been appointed the Judge of the world. But Christ denies that He knoweth this as man, and as He is God’s messenger to us, because He did not know it so that He could reveal it to us, or because He had not been commissioned by the Father to reveal it to us. As an ambassador who was questioned concerning the secrets of his prince would reply that he did not know them, although he did know them, because he did not know them as an ambassador. For an ambassador declares only those things which he has a commission to declare.

    Christ’s meaning then is, “God only knows what year and day and hour the end of the world and the Judgment shall be. And although God has caused Me, Christ, as I am man, to know the same, as I am that one man who is united to the WORD; yet as I am the Father’s ambassador to men, He hath not willed Me to make known that day, but to keep it secret, and to stir them up continually to prepare themselves for it.” There is a like mode of expression in S. John xv. 15.

    There are some who explain thus: that Christ, qua man, knoweth not the Day of Judgment; but that He knoweth it as He is the God-man. That is to say, Christ as man knoweth it not by virtue of His humanity, but of His divinity. So S. Athanasius (Serm. 4, contra Arian.), Nazianzen (Orat. 4, de .Theolog.), Cyril (lib. 9, Thesaur. c. 4), Ambrose (lib. 5, de Fide, c. 8).

  5. Cornelius a Lapide seems to have said what I was trying to say in much fewer words.

    [Vox Popoli on “The false doctrine of the Trinity”] Vox Popoli (populi?) on the other hand is expounding the hubris, the temerity, of the Modernists and the Talmudic Rabbis who like to assume that God is in a process of “becoming” or “self realisation” or, as one devotee of Teilhard de Chardin tried to teach my daughter in pre-school “God is making Himself”.

    Some of those Rabbis have the “chutzpah” to get together and “school God” on what He should be doing to realise their ambitions. They reckon that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah because He wouldn’t put Himself at their disposal; so they had to dispose of Him in the most ignominious fashion. Their bloody descendants (bloody as in “His Blood be on us and on our children”) are still at it although they’ve become more devious and sneaky.

    Anyhow, the most saleable alternative to the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent Creator is a god evolving out of the total consciousness of the Universe toward some “Omega Point”… a god (a nebulous “Grand Architect of the Universe”) only gradually coming to realise who he is and what he does.

    Any god that does not eternally know who he is and magnanimously give of himself to create everything but himself for his own good purpose is a Satan pretending to be a god.

    I reckon that to reject the “filioque” is repugnant to reason; it’s to imply that some impersonal “power thing” is just growing faces, or heads, or parts, or facilities… Deism devolving into an Hydra! an whole pantheon!

  6. The HERESY of the FILIOQUE is THE philosophical and GNOSTIC tactic to:

    1) change words and their meanings… which is in evidence all over the planet these days, with our various ‘genders, sexual persuasions, and ‘woke’ IDIOT-ologies. And to think, it all began with the Church of Rome wanting to supplant the Ecumenical Councils!

    2) Yes, YOU are at fault for EVERYTHING WRONG in the WORLD today, because of this verkachte Filioque!
    If you were one WHIT SERIOUS, you would procure a copy of Dr. Farrell’s ‘God, History, and Dialectic’ and

    DEAL WITH THAT… and not reposting the mental gymnastics of a heretic like Aquinas.

    3) Allowing this post would at least show you have a spirit devoted to the Church, and not just your own sectarian bias. ‘Rome was the first Protestant.’

  7. Dear Father John. The Catholic’s Dead Divine Doctor Aquinas could beat-up your Dead Expert Photius but your dead boy Photius is in hell with Mahomet, several Popes, many Bishops and prolly Abe Vigoda doomed forever to participate in an eternal election process for the office of Satan’s Chief of Staff.

    The process begins with the candidates (limited to 666 of them) delivering their campaign speeches (which takes a total of 1000 years each) after which everyone votes – with the exception of the liberal jurists who are in Hell’s prison screeching “I Object” incessantly – until Satan appears to announce There have been irregularities. We will vote again after the candidates give new speeches. And while we prepare Hell for another campaign and vote, I call upon Ruth Bader Ginsburg to perform nekkid on a pogo stick while we play The Benny Hill Theme song for 66 straight years. Enjoy…

  8. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    Christ’s meaning then is, “God only knows what year and day and hour the end of the world and the Judgment shall be. And although God has caused Me, Christ, as I am man, to know the same, as I am that one man who is united to the WORD; yet as I am the Father’s ambassador to men, He hath not willed Me to make known that day, but to keep it secret, and to stir them up continually to prepare themselves for it.”

    Question: Does Jesus have free will? It seems not under your proposal. If Jesus knows what God knows, including what he will choose to do tomorrow, then he can’t also be capable of making a different choice. (Note: I don’t believe in free will anyway, but I’m interested to know how you would reconcile this.)

  9. Dear Swordfish. Yes, as both God and Man He has free will.

    As a Divine person Jesus can not sin because sin is any thought, word or action opposed to the Will of God.

    You desire a Divine person who can sin, a Divine Person who can oppose God the Father.

    God the Farther also has free will otherwise known as Sovereign Liberty

  10. For those uninitiated in the constant attacks against Aquinas and The Catholic Church by the schismatic heretics of the east (Orthodoxy is the seedbed of iconoclasm and heresy) the linked to piece by Mr. Larson is useful as an introduction to the problem.

    It is not too surprising to find a schismatic heretic attacking St Thomas Aquinas as a heretic (psychological projection) but it is a bit surprising to read it in here as the post by Mr. Briggs has aught to do with the schismatic heretics of the east or their bizarre/gnostic theological and philosophical positions.

    http://waragainstbeing.com/partiii/

    Us Catholics know Jesus established His Church for two reasons

    Salvation
    Sanctification

    and the perfection of sanctification has its reward in seeing God as He is – The Beatific Vision.

    God made us for His Glory and our Happiness and we can not be happy unless are eternally in the presence of His Glory in Heaven.

    Few Catholics know the schismatic heretics of the east deny that will happen or could happen because their “vision” is one of blindness.

    Their theological ideology teaches the very best one can do is be aware of His energies, not to know Him or see Him as He promised us Christians we would in the Bible.

    Catholic Spirituality/ Theology is light, Eastern Schismatic Heretic is darkness.

    It is lucky for us Catholics they hate us so much because only a handful of Catholics know that absorbing them would be nearly fatal to the Faith.

  11. ABS

    What did Fish ever do to deserve ABS’s animosity?

    John B() is asking?

  12. On Jesus’ Free Will: In the Agony in the Garden, Jesus said to God our Father, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

    To ABS: 1. The Trinity is God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. These three divine persons are combined in one being we call God.

    Correction: The three Divine Persons are not combined in one God. Each Divine Person, Is God, complete. And Yes, there is Only One God. wThis is Known because God has revealed the existence of this Mystery of the Divine Trinity to humankind. He Is Love, that that is Him in entirety.

    Jesus revealed that there are three distinct, individual, Persons Who are each God, and yet there is only One God, here: “Finally, after His resurrection, Jesus revealed the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt., xxviii, 19). ”

    2. This one being is omniscient, and therefore knows everything.

    God is omniscient, and therefore knows everything.

    3. It is written, in Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient, and furthermore, do not possess the same knowledge as the Father.

    Correction: Jesus the Christ has two natures, one Divine and one Human. Jesus is fully human and He is fully Divine. The Son of God did not “access” His Divine Nature, once He was conceived in Mother Mary’s womb.

    Jesus could not have Died, if He lived His Life in the earth by His Divine nature. His death was the whole reason for the Son of God to take on human nature. No death! No Resurrection from the dead!! No salvation unto Eternal Life for humankind!!! For the absolute and complete rupture in humankind’s relationship with God, could only be healed in any measure, by the Death of One Who was utterly sinless and wholly untainted by sin in any degree.

    Do read the Gospel of John, especially the Last Supper in which Jesus Christ teaches of God our Father. Jesus in His human nature, is not omniscient. Jesus consistently spent His nights in prayer and talking with God our Father.

    4. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal and consubstantial with the Father. They may or may not be co-eternal.

    Correction: God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are co-equal and consubstantial and are co-eternal with God the Father. God the Son, since His conception by the over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit, in Mother Mary’s womb, has had two natures, and He will always have the two natures, one Human and the other Divine, for Eternity, because for us human beings, our salvation is in and through Jesus’ human nature … another Mystery!!

    5. Being neither co-equal nor consubstantial, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one being with the Father.

    Correction: And therefore, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are co-equal and are consubstantial and are One IN Being with God the Father.

    6. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

    Correction: God is One, and yet the Father is wholly God, and the Son is wholly God, and the Holy Spirit is wholly God. The Doctrine of the Trinity of Three Persons, each Person wholly God, One God, is true.

    ……….

    I further note that we can branch from (3) and prove the falsehood of the Trinity in a slightly different manner.

    4b. Since God is omniscient and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are God.

    Correction: Read and believe, the corrections above.. It comes down not to human reasoning, but to acceptance of God revealing Himself in the way that He chooses.

    5b. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

    Correction: Read without prejudice, and then believe, thencorrections above..

    ……..

    It should not escape one’s attention that if one insists on clinging to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is necessary to abandon the doctrine of divine omniscience. Obviously, I subscribe to neither, but it is not possible to subscribe to both. My perspective is that divinity can be most usefully understood in a manner akin to human royalty. Prince Harry may be royal, but no one is under the impression that he is co-equal and consubstantial with his grandmother, the sovereign Queen Elizabeth. This is in keeping with the idea that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are Man’s advocates, they are not his judge.

    Ssuggestion: Human reasoning can go only so far to explain Divine Revelation. Then Faith in the Triune God must take over. Much better to start with Faith, and then to work with God to gain understanding. Also, God is the most wonderful Father there ever can be and is and ever was, so do receive His fathering you and He will help you with understanding concerning His revelations.

    God bless, C-Marie

  13. Dear L. Ron

    There exists no animosity twixt ABS and Swordfish; did he say there was?

  14. ABS

    Tut! Up until ABS’s crack about poor Abe Vigoda, Swordfish hadn’t been part of the conversation

    Was it prescience or an invitation? I guess I haven’t paid much attention to perhaps previous ABS cracks about Honest Abe (First time in years that I feel good and it’s illegal)
    Unfortunately the line isn’t part of this segment – Jack Soo is brilliant as is Ron Glass
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BOxzp08jLM&list=RD0Zo2-DYLnos&index=17

    Is ABS happy to condemn all but whom ABS s”elect”s to Hell?

    ABS … Calvin … Aquinas … L Ron … meh … they’re not God

  15. L Ron Hubbard alias John B()

    [quote]

    ABS

    What did Fish ever do to deserve ABS’s animosity?

    John B() is asking?
    [/quote]

    Fair go, John Ron Hubbard, the underwater noise has been knocking or subtly deriding just about every Christian protocol that appears on these pages for yonks. He ought to be opposed by every sane Man.

    Here he goes again trying to depreciate the very notion of free will by subtly implying that the only way to have free will is to do bad things. A bit reminiscent of ole Luther’s maxim: “Sin valiantly only believe more valiantly”! Or the Fankist notion that the Messiah will only come when we’re all good or all bad; and since we all can’t (or won’t) be all good then we should be all bad; as in to defy every moral precept that requires virtuous self restraint. There are lots of diabolical variations trying to avoid the implications of moral responsibility for one’s own moral choices that go from the Calvinist notion of “Predestination” to Materialist determinism.

    Bah! God does what He does because it’s the best plan to ensure Justice and Mercy in accordance with His Divine Purpose that begins and ends in Himself. Jesus and His Great Mother didn’t do no sin because they couldn’t… it was/is because they didn’t want to. The whole economy of Life, Reality, Salvation, Heaven, Hell is what it is because that’s what suits the Purpose. Even if the totality of the Creation Economy and Method is not immediately known by us in it the bit that concerns us directly is…

  16. nows what God knows, including what he will choose to do tomorrow, then he can’t also be capable of making a different choice. (Note: I don’t believe in free will anyway, but I’m interested to know how you would reconcile this.)

    Jesus did not know what God knew and it is hinted at in the gospels. That Jesus is completely man. He is able to feel temptation, he is not all knowing, since he didn’t know calculus or quantum physics. He most certainly knew what would happen in part, as regards his own fate and purpose. yet he is Divine. So he was indeed capable of making a different choice. Just as we all are, nothing more intense, arcane, or strange as is implied around here.
     
    “Why do you call me Good? Nobody is good but God.”
     
    So the answer is that Jesus became what it is to be perfect and was the physical manifestation of God as man.

    Free will doesn’t come into the discussion with regards Jesus since he was fully man.
    So he had what man had but more
     
    The problem with the Trinity is the problem with the Trinity

  17. Fair copy:

    “Question: Does Jesus have free will? It seems not under your proposal. If Jesus knows what God knows, including what he will choose to do tomorrow, then he can’t also be capable of making a different choice. (Note: I don’t believe in free will anyway, but I’m interested to know how you would reconcile this.)”

    Jesus did not know what God knew and it is hinted at in the gospels. That Jesus is completely man. He is able to feel temptation, he is not all knowing, since he didn’t know calculus or quantum physics. He most certainly knew what would happen in part, as regards his own fate and purpose. yet he is Divine. So he was indeed capable of making a different choice. Just as we all are, nothing more intense, arcane, or strange as is implied around here.
     
    “Why do you call me Good? Nobody is good but God.”
     
    So the answer is that Jesus became what it is to be perfect and was the physical manifestation of God as man.

    Free will doesn’t come into the discussion with regards Jesus since he was fully man.
    So he had what man had but more
     
    The problem with the Trinity is the problem with the Trinity

  18. …and the problem with the Trinity. Those with the problem are those who profess it but don’t understand it due to over elaborate descriptions, arcane language and a general, prob erbium, not being God problem, which afflicts us all, sometimes!

  19. “over elaborate descriptions, arcane language and a general,, proverbial of [not being God] problem, which afflicts us all, sometimes!”

  20. The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. 52The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? 54Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word. 56Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. 57The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. 59They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    Back in the day Jews wanted to pick up stones to hurl at Jesus to kill Him whereas today His weaker opponents use words.

  21. Oldavid

    Thanks

    … L Ron Hubbard “clearing the planet” …

    Biblically, there are many examples of God “repenting” (changing His mind) when faced with a man’s intercession of will but the strongest Biblical evidence of Free Will (i.e., Man’s Will overarching God’s Will) is “Hezekiah’s Illness”.

    God’s Will for Hezekiah was that he die, evinced by a prophetic proclamation. God relented to Hezekiah.

    John B()

  22. Dear Mr. Briggs.

    I discovered you years ago (at least 5) googling about David Stove, one of the greatest loves of my life (to the extent that I recognized immediately your discussion of ““If Baby cries then we beat him” as an example of a failed formal transposition in the section 2.5 of your pièce de résistance “Uncertainty”. But I always wondered why someone so familiar with Stove’s work as yourself never mentions Stove’s s stance towards Catholicism. He has something intereting to say about the filioque in “The Plato Cult”.

    Please make no mistake: unlike Stove, I believe in our Lord Jesus. But to take the filioque seriously…

    Some Russians do, by the way. I have meet a couple of them.

    (sorry for my English, I’m not a native speaker).

  23. Diego,

    Stove’s opinion, though he never used the word, is that it is gibberish.

    His opinion of Catholicism was the opposite. He was, reports say, happy his student Jim Franklin embraced it. His own son, as is well known, is a convert. He thought, and it’s true, that religion brings great comfort to many.

    He dismissed, for example, the opening of John. But I don’t think he really tried to grasp it. The words on their face appear to be nonsense to some, and he never took it further.

    He claimed to love Hume, the arch skeptic. But it’s hard to find him not disassembling the arguments of his master.

    So he, like all of us, was a bundle of contradictions.

  24. One thing not yet noted here, that I have seen, is that Christians who genuinely seek a relationship with God our Father, will at times, interiorly, hear Him or Jesus speak to them. Other times, they will be given assurances or led of by the Holy Spirit to know or to do something. So, we are not alone, those who belong to Jesus Christ. His love allows joys, sufferings and pain, whch cause us to grow up in Christ, in patience, wisdom, and grace. So, just wanted to mention that.

    God really does see us through our ups and downs and all arounds, and He will give us to know what to do, how and when, though the why might be obscure for a while, or just not as we would do something. There is a gift named Discernment by the Holy Spirit. With this gift, one learns to wait upon God as needed. I have failed many times, but am determined to learn and live His ways.

    The point being, that Jesus was fully human as we are, and He did have the genuine Son relationship to God our Father, by Whom, God our Father, we become Father’s adopted children in and through Jesus, and Jesus spent much particular time with God. And, since He was like us in all things but sin, as St. Paul says, Jesus, too, received revelation by the Holy Spirit, I do think to say.

    Remember the Holy Spirit appeared as a Dove at Jesus’ Baptism when God the Father was giving witness to Jesus, His only begotten Son, Whose human nature was created by the Holy Spirit in Mother Mary’s womb.

    “9And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10And forthwith coming up out of he water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit as a dove descending, and remaining on him. 11And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 12And immediately the Spirit drove him out into the desert. 13And he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan; and he was with beasts, and the angels ministered to him.” Mark Chapter 1.

    And from there, Jesus was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit to be put to the test of faithfulness, which of course, He passed, perfectly!! It really is fun to read the Bible with an open heart and mind!

    God bless, C-Marie

  25. ABS

    Can’t disagree – we look at everything from Man’s viewpoint

    You’re telling me now that you do actually believe in free will

    That’s cool

  26. Oldavid,

    Here he goes again trying to depreciate the very notion of free will by subtly implying that the only way to have free will is to do bad things.

    No such implication was intended, I was thinking about the contradiction between freedom and omniscience. But it is similar to the objection that God/Jesus can’t be free to choose to do bad things if he can only do good things, which you may be referring to?

    (Note: According to the Bible, God does lots of bad things, like drowning babies, ordering slaughter, or condoning slavery, but that’s a different problem.)

  27. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    Dear Swordfish. Yes, as both God and Man He has free will.

    You haven’t addressed my objection: How can Jesus be free to choose any option if he also knows in advance what option he will choose?

    There exists no animosity twixt ABS and Swordfish; did he say there was?

    There’s none that I’m aware of.

  28. Swordfish

    Thanks for re-entering here at this point (I really would like at least one level of reply)

    The penny just dropped and I realize I have NO idea what any one has really been saying or talking about or to whom nor about whom

    It never occurred to me when ABS mentioned Abe Vigoda that he meant you
    Then after Oldavid “explained”, I think I got confused further
    (You hadn’t even taken part in the past three “Sunday” discussions … so why attack you now? …
    … and then lordy, there you were …)

    In reading ABS
    August 8, 2021 at 3:05 pm
    I misunderstood his reason(s) for posting –

    I’m not sure that C-Marie
    August 9, 2021 at 4:55 pm
    understood him either since she address her comment “To ABS”

    ABS August 11, 2021 at 7:05 am didn’t realize (or perhaps care) that in my comment
    August 10, 2021 at 7:46 am
    that I’d enquoted the word repent and I used the word “intercession” almost in the same vein as ABS’s link

    If I’d been Oldavid, I’d have used the word ‘deprecate’ rather than ‘depreciate’ (there’s a nuance)

    ABS speaking in the third person ranks up there with pronouners

    ’nuff said, I’m confused ’nuff

  29. ABS and ABE (Sorry – couldn’t resist)

    I would say that condemning someone to hell or inferring such condemnation is animosity
    (Even if that some one doesn’t believe in a doctrinal “Hell”)

  30. “I would say that condemning someone to hell or inferring such condemnation is animosity
    (Even if that some one doesn’t believe in a doctrinal “Hell”)”
    It isn’t the first time, and it won’t be the last, has done so to me and others, as with too many Catholics who think they’re going to heaven and everybody else is going to hell.
    As for animosity, Swordfish is being kind.
    When one piles in, the rat pack join in and nobody does a thing, all pretend to be at an all night movie.
    Lastly,
    Just as you discovered with your ‘fish’ conversation, you did the same thing when I said,
    “some old doily”
    about your friend from church who was female.
    You know the rest.
    There’s just too much animosity in general lurking beneath the surface and it is tedious to go about on eggshells the whole time.

  31. You haven’t addressed my objection: How can Jesus be free to choose any option if he also knows in advance what option he will choose?

    Dear Swordfish. The angels had free will as do all of God’s creatures. Some of them exercised their free will wrongly and will be in hell forever at the end of time

    Adam and Eve could have been created without free will and their descendants could have then lived forever in paradise but God created them with free will and we all suffer as a consequence of their free will choice.

    Jesus chose to die for sinners. He was not compelled to do that. He did not have to take on human flesh, but He did.

  32. I was thinking about the contradiction between freedom and omniscience

    God id infinitely Merciful, He i infinitely Just and He has sovereign liberty but there is truth not a contradiction.

    Because God who is all good always chooses the Good makes some think He has no free will but was He constrained to create?

  33. To repent also means to change one’s mind, though the word is commonly associated with turning away from sin with sorrow for having committed sins, which are trangressions of God’s commandments. So, when the word repent is used meaning that God repents, it means that He changes His mind about something due to very specific reasons, and there are ever so many examples in the Bible which speak of that happening.

    Note that they all, I think, have to do with judgments due to sin by His people, having been proclaimed by His prophets, and then the people repenting of their sin with their hearts, and of the judgment not taking place, or of them refusing to repent and God does not allow His protection for a time.

    With Ninevah, God sent Jonah to warn the Ninevites that:

    “1And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: 2Arise, and go to Ninevah the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. 3And Jonas arose, and went to Ninevah, according to the word of the Lord: now Ninevah was a great city of three days’ journey. 4And Jonas began to enter into the city one day’s journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and Ninevah shall be destroyed.”

    “5And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. 6And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninevah from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. 8And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. 9Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish?”

    “10And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.”

    Then Jonah became exceedingly angry at God for what appeared to be making a fool out of Jonah. And God said: “11And shall not I spare Ninive, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons that know not how to distinguish between their right hand and their left, and many beasts?”

    And about 100 years later, the people of Ninevah lapsed back into great sin without repentance, and the whole was destroyed. Sin … Judgment … Genuine repentance … Judgment stayed … 100 years later … Sin again worthy of Judment … No repentance … Judgement of 100 years ago comes to pass.

    Genuine repentance prayer can accomplish much. It can cause judgments which God has proclaimed, to not be carried out because the people have genuinely humbled themselves before God. This is much more, people fulfilling with their hearts, God’s requirement of us for obedience to His commandments, rather than God changing His mind, because He decides to do so. He has laid out for us His requirements and we are obliged to fulfill them.

    Once God proclaims something, it will come to pass, unless genuine repentance takes place.. He does send out His prophets, even today, with warnings of judgment which will come to pass, if repentance is not done by His people, just as He has done for America over these last fifty years or so. And yet look and see: all has only gotten much worse. People make themselves their own god, Jesus is denied, babies are murdered every day, His creation of human sexuality is mocked as is marriage in may cases, and more.

    God bless, C-Marie

  34. This,

    “Catholic Spirituality/ Theology is light, Eastern Schismatic Heretic is darkness.

    It is lucky for us Catholics they hate us so much because only a handful of Catholics know that absorbing them would be nearly fatal to the Faith.”

    Recently YOS was plugging the Eastern orthodox church while randomly claiming that I “dissed” it, which is weird because I’ve never even mentioned it! So my guess is also that ABS is angling, in the fishing sense, to trigger YOS into some kind of debate. This won’t happen because it gives the impression that Catholics are not of one mind…one front
    God doesn’t care about any of this. The truth is not so petty

  35. ABS

    Not very helpful, but thanks for playing

    C-Marie

    Love Jonah – the original Prodigal Son story

  36. [quote=noisyfish]
    Oldavid,

    Here he goes again trying to depreciate the very notion of free will by subtly implying that the only way to have free will is to do bad things.

    No such implication was intended, I was thinking about the contradiction between freedom and omniscience. But it is similar to the objection that God/Jesus can’t be free to choose to do bad things if he can only do good things, which you may be referring to?

    (Note: According to the Bible, God does lots of bad things, like drowning babies, ordering slaughter, or condoning slavery, but that’s a different problem.) [/quote]

    Even in our limited sphere of knowledge and act it would seem that a certain amount of prescience is necessary to make a moral choice between possible alternatives. For example, how can one choose to obey or disobey an edict without knowing the possible consequences of it as in pleasure or pain, most simply? An automaton will always just go where pushed like “worship Caesar and go along with his perverse demands for ease and comfort or stick to notions of truth and virtue and become lion food.” I contend that omniscience is a bit more than “a certain amount of prescience” and makes the act of will more profound in that the result of the act is certainly known even though not caused by the choice.

    As far as the Biblical reports of God “changing His mind” goes it’s important to to recognise that inspiration is not the same as dictation. In inspiration an idea, or picture, is planted in the inspired mind and, for the most part, the “seer” is left to describe it in his own language, idiom and custom. The general message that God is “in charge” is the important part, the anthropomorphic depiction of God is to make the message more intelligible to a serially recidivist “stiff necked and rebellious” people.

    Anyhow, don’t take my word for it, there’s a history of 2000 years of erudite saints, scripture scholars, philosophers and theologians who bear signs of Divine approval that have thrashed all these questions into answers. Go and look them up yourself if you want answers; if you only want to avoid the answers keep doing what you’re doing.

  37. Because there has always been what and chaff inside the Church it is true that all Catholics are not of one mind but in Heaven all will be of one mind and but not in Heaven will be uncountable numbers of those who claim they are Christians but refuse to join the Church He established, who refuse to receive the Sacraments He instituted to dispense His Grace and who regularly attack His church.

    Refusing to board His Ark of Salvation, denying the necessity of The Sacramental System, attacking the Teaching Church He created, yes nothing says Christian more than that

  38. Oldavid

    it’s important to recognize that inspiration is not the same as dictation. In inspiration an idea, or picture, is planted in the inspired mind and, for the most part, the “seer” is left to describe it in his own language, idiom and custom

    That doesn’t explain Hezekiah’s illness at all

  39. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    Because God who is all good always chooses the Good makes some think He has no free will but was He constrained to create?

    Yes. According to the ontological argument, something which exists is greater than something which doesn’t exist, so God is constrained to create the universe. (God has no free will.)

    Yes and no. Either creating the universe or not creating it must be the greater action, so God is either constrained to create it or constrained to not create it. It exists, so God must have been constrained to create it. (God has no free will.)

    No. “The Good” can’t be external to God (Euthyphro dilemma), so anything God does is The Good by definition. He is neither constrained to create the universe nor constrained to not create it. (God has free will, but how can he make a choice if every option is The Good? And how can The Good have any meaning if it can consist of literally anything?)

    Free Will [x3]

    These articles all seem to be about man’s free will, not Jesus/God’s. (Not that I accept free will makes any sense in either case.) I don’t seem to have had any answer specifically to how Jesus can have free will if he knows the future.

  40. Oldavid,

    For example, how can one choose to obey or disobey an edict without knowing the possible consequences of it as in pleasure or pain, most simply? An automaton will always just go where pushed like “worship Caesar and go along with his perverse demands for ease and comfort or stick to notions of truth and virtue and become lion food.”.

    It would be logically possible to program an automaton such that it considered any number of consequences and always chose the morally “best” or optimum course of action, yet it would have no free will.

    Go and look them up yourself if you want answers; if you only want to avoid the answers keep doing what you’re doing.

    I didn’t ask you any questions.

  41. ABS

    I read Hezekiah from Isaiah or Isaias

    But I’ll read your bit

  42. But you are losing the thread of the conversation
    How do YOU explain God “wasting” a prophecy and potentially a prophet (Isaiah could be killed for failing in a prophecy).

    God was pretty much showing “His Will” that Hezekiah DIE.

    Tell me how you explain or deny that

  43. Haydock says — The prediction was conditional, like that of Jonas;

    The Isaiah prophecy was NOTHING like the Jonah prophecy … There was nothing CONDITIONAL about it:

    From Kings AND Isaias
    “thou shalt DIE, AND NOT LIVE!” Isaias spoke of two outcomes: DIE and NOT LIVE

    IN those days Ezechias was sick [even/un] to death, and Isaias the son of Amos the prophet came [unto him,] and said to him: Thus saith the Lord [God]: [Take order with/Give charge concerning] thy house, for thou shalt die, and not live.

    [say to/tell] [Ezechias/Ezechias the captain of my people]: Thus saith the Lord the God of David thy father: I have heard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears

    God’s reasonable … He would have given Hezekiah enough time to call he lawyer, his accountant, his priest, whomever; … the time to sign this, amend that, wharever … But instead Hezekiah held a pity party?, I don’t see that as one of God’s conditions, do you?

    From Jonas

    Jonas 1:1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonas the son of Amathi, saying: 2 Arise, and go to Ninive the great city, and PREACH in it: for the wickedness thereof is come up before me.

    Jonas 3:1 AND the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: 2 Arise, and go to Ninive the great city, and PREACH in it: for the wickedness thereof is come up before me.

    Jonas 3:10 And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.

    One of these stories is not like the other …

  44. This is blardy tiresome. Some of you blokes seem to have taken your rhetorical techniques from Saul Alinsky; just keep hammering your opponent with specious (not explanatory) objections until he gives up in despair. As far as I can tell at the moment, your veiled assumption is that God is merely an invention in the image and likeness of yourself. Rooly, rooly stupid! It’s like saying that you are an invention of a photograph of yourself!

    God’s will (His intention to do good) is entirely free in that there is no one and nothing that can compel Him to do other than what He wills. But that Will is not capricious or arbitrary. He cannot not be what He is, He cannot not know what He knows and He cannot not do what He does; in other words, He cannot be a contradiction of Himself.

    All these anthropomorphisms that you love (because it makes you think that you can be “as God knowing good and evil”) are simply a human way of saying you get whacked because that’s what you deserve or you didn’t get whacked because you mended your ways… it doesn’t mean that God changed His mind; it means that you changed your mind; and because God eternally knows what the outcome is doesn’t mean that He forced it on you.

  45. Oldavid,

    I can’t tell if you’re replying to me or not, so I’ll just say that it’s amusing that you complain about God being anthropomorphised when it is claimed that he manifested himself in human form.

  46. swordfish

    He says “blokes” which really confuses the issue

    If he’s talking about me, he really doesn’t understand what I’m trying to say (or ask).
    (and I can understand that)

    back to ABS

    Haydock II … The prediction was conditional, like that of Jonas; otherwise it would have been sinful to strive to render it ineffectual.

    What or who was old George talking about with that “otherwise”
    Yeah! Jonas tried to make the prophecy ineffectual by not giving it. We know by the narrative that Jonas was sinning; but the comment was on Ezechias and Isaias. Is George finger pointing at Ezechias or Isaias? Why?

    Which brings up another Biblical prophesy that had no conditional; but also didn’t occur until somebody could utter it to the subject(s) of the prophecy … the writing on the wall

    ABS – this Site is all about how experts can get it wrong and the problem with appealing to authority

  47. Dear John

    Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority appealed to is God.

    Yes, prophecies are conditioned on the faithfuls response to it.

  48. The examples of free will being exercised are endless beginning before time, space, and matter were created by God.

    He chose to create. That is His fee will will . He could have chosen not to create. What He chose to create was also free will, He could have created otherwise.

    After He created Adam and Eve He placed then in paradise, told them what to do and told him not to do.

    They freely choose to do the wrong thing and were punished (as were we through them).

    When God created the covenant with the jews He set good and evil before them telling them to choose, if they chose the good they would be blessed, if the chose the evil they would be cursed.

    There are endless examples but if one is ideologically opposed to free will one will be blind to reality

    C’est la vie.

  49. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority appealed to is God.

    You’re not appealing to God, you’re appealing to human authorities who claim to know the mind of God. Meanwhile, they can’t demonstrate that God exists in order to appeal to him in the first place.

  50. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    (I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I’ll reply because theology is a fun diversion from real problems.)

    The examples of free will being exercised are endless beginning before time, space, and matter were created by God.

    Here, you confidently claim to know what was happening “before” time was created – something which doesn’t even make sense – and which the world’s top cosmologists don’t claim to know.

    He chose to create. That is His fee will will. He could have chosen not to create. What He chose to create was also free will, He could have created otherwise.

    But could he have, though? Surely, if God can only do “Good”, then it must be either Good to create the universe or not, in which case he actually doesn’t have any freedom? Likewise for any particular aspect of the universe.

    After He created Adam and Eve He placed then in paradise, told them what to do and told him not to do.

    I’m not sure why Christians keep referring to Adam and Eve as if they existed when we know from genetics that they didn’t.

    That aside, If Eve could have chosen not to disobey God in the situation that she was put in (including the state of her mind), then her choice couldn’t have been based on her situation, as a matter of basic logic. If so, Eve’s free will really just consists of a useless ability to make random choices for no reason.

  51. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    (I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I’ll reply because theology is a fun diversion from real problems.)

    The examples of free will being exercised are endless beginning before time, space, and matter were created by God.

    Here, you confidently claim to know what was happening “before” time was created – something which doesn’t even make sense – and which the world’s top cosmologists don’t claim to know.

    He chose to create. That is His fee will will. He could have chosen not to create. What He chose to create was also free will, He could have created otherwise.

    But could he have, though? Surely, if God can only do “Good”, then it must be either Good to create the universe or not, in which case he actually doesn’t have any freedom? Likewise for any particular aspect of the universe.

    After He created Adam and Eve He placed then in paradise, told them what to do and told him not to do.

    I’m not sure why Christians keep referring to Adam and Eve as if they existed when we know from genetics that they didn’t.

    That aside, If Eve could have chosen not to disobey God in the situation that she was put in (including the state of her mind), then her choice couldn’t have been based on her situation, as a matter of basic logic. If so, Eve’s free will really just consists of a useless ability to make random choices for no reason.

  52. Jesus Christ gave witness to that which happened before time … God’s creation, “in the beginning” … of man for woman and woman for man. He also gave witness to Jonah, Moses, Abraham, that God is our Father, that the same God is His Father, that He is God’s only begotten Son, that Satan is real, that He saw Satan fall like lightning, that He, Jesus, Is coming again. The Christian life is the most exciting that there is, if one stays close with God. Science is not needed for any of that. Faith in Jesus is the answer.

    Think about this. That just maybe, at the Tower of Babel, when God confused their language and dispersed the people all over the world, maybe He also changed facial features and skin color, and the skin ability through colour, thickness, thinness, and more, to tolerate heat, sun, the arctic, cold, warm, etc.

    God bless, C-Marie

  53. Dear Swordfish. It is clear you are a disciple of scientism but you do not explain why it is you believe that science is the best way to know anything.

    Can you show us all, using the scientific method, why science is to be preferred to all other sources of knowledge -especially divine revelation.

    You do not seem aware that many scientists admit a fundamental problem with science and its claims is owing to their philosophical orientation.

    Your attempted refutation of whether of not God chose to create based on your idea of good is strange.

    If God chose not to create, would He cease to be Good?

    Do you think He was constrained to create and if He didn’t He wouldn’t be good?

    You do not know what you are talking about.

    Yes, Adam and Eve existed and after complaining about others appealing to authority, here you are appealing to the putative authority of cosmologists

    That aside, If Eve could have chosen not to disobey God in the situation that she was put in (including the state of her mind), then her choice couldn’t have been based on her situation, as a matter of basic logic. If so, Eve’s free will really just consists of a useless ability to make random choices for no reason.

    OK…

    You have no idea of basic logic if that is your “argument”

    OK, today is a beautiful day, The first day of the week, Sunday, the Feast of the Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven.

    Maybe you and your scientist friends can tell us where Mary is buried and dig up her bones, you know, actually produces some reason to trust your unbelief rather than simply gainsay God.

    Adios

  54. Amateur Brain Surgeon,

    It is clear you are a disciple of scientism but you do not explain why it is you believe that science is the best way to know anything.

    If I’m a “disciple of scientism”, then you’re a disciple of ancient fables. Why is science the best way to know anything? Because it works. Evidence: The Internet. Washing machines. Vaccines.

    Can you show us all, using the scientific method, why science is to be preferred to all other sources of knowledge -especially divine revelation.

    How can you tell from divine revelation which is the correct divine revelation? You can’t, which is one of the reasons why there are so many religions. Science doesn’t have this problem as it can test it’s theories against reality.

    You do not seem aware that many scientists admit a fundamental problem with science and its claims is owing to their philosophical orientation.

    Most scientists are, if anything, methodological naturalists, so no such problem exists.

    If God chose not to create, would He cease to be Good? Do you think He was constrained to create and if He didn’t He wouldn’t be good?

    I’m saying it must have been *more* Good to create, or *more* Good to not create the universe. If both were equally Good, what did God use as a tiebreaker? (And again, to paraphrase Pixar’s The Incredibles, if everything God does is Good, then nothing is. It would be possible for God to create a world of maximal, gratuitous suffering and that would still be Good?)

    Yes, Adam and Eve existed and after complaining about others appealing to authority, here you are appealing to the putative authority of cosmologists.

    No, I was appealing here to genetics, not cosmology. When I appealed to cosmology, I was noting that cosmologists don’t know things you claim to know. Pointing out that authorities don’t claim to know something is hardly an appeal to authority. In any case, you’ve appealed to nothing here, and “they did exist, so there!” isn’t an argument.

    You have no idea of basic logic if that is your “argument”

    Then you didn’t understand my argument. Perhaps you can explain how it could be possible that the exact same situation could lead to two different outcomes, yet the choice between those outcomes is determined by the situation? Here’s the way I see it:

    1) The same situation always leads to the same choice. (So free will doesn’t exist.)
    2) The same situation can lead to different choices. (So free will choices are random.)

    If there’s a third option, I’m all ears!

    Maybe you and your scientist friends can tell us where Mary is buried and dig up her bones, you know, actually produces some reason to trust your unbelief rather than simply gainsay God.

    My unbelief is based on the lack of evidence for God. You are reversing the burden of proof here, which in itself indicates that you don’t have any evidence. Why don’t you tell me where Adam and Eve are buried? Or prove that Islam is false?

    It’s also disengenuous to ask for evidence which you know can’t be produced for practical reasons – how would we identify Mary’s bones if they were found? – and that wouldn’t disprove Protestant Christianity, or any other religion either. In fact, it wouldn’t even disprove Catholicism, as they’d just change their doctrine to suit the facts: “Um, er, Mary’s spirit ascended to heaven but her body stayed here.”

  55. How can you tell from divine revelation which is the correct divine revelation? You can’t, which is one of the reasons why there are so many religions. Science doesn’t have this problem as it can test it’s theories against reality.

    You can’t tell to the satisfaction of others and certainly not to either the dogmatic materialist or the dogmatic Christian. You will be persecuted for suggesting such a thing.
    The scientific method is not in conflict with God or God’s purpose.
    Seeking truth in all kinds of ways are compatible with Christian faith.
    There are cosmologists who b believe in God. I know of at least one world class Engineer who believe in God.
    So it’s a false dichotomy offered by some, that it’s one or t’other. If God created everything then he is outside and beyond all that we know as material.
    Beyond time, beyond matter.
    That there are bad examples is just the nature of almost any religion. (Since all tend to believe in the quest to lead the good life.) Human nature is not always good.
    There’s a lot of false and dangerous accusation thrown about by arrogant and proud Christians that implies that those with no faith can’t be moral or good.
    This is simply another example of Christian hypocrisy and the general cussedness of people. Some people don’t believe and saying they do would be lying

  56. Trying to depreciate God as the first and final cause (origin and purpose) for all that exists (other than Himself) seems to be a supranational sport where such protagonists try to outdo each other in subtlety or bombast without offering any reasonable justification (based in the foundational premises demanded by the rules of logic) for their gratuitous claims.

    Something fishy claims that “Science doesn’t have this problem as it can test it’s theories against reality.” without any real definition of “science” leading one (like me) to assume that “science” is anything at all that can be made to seem to support the fishy prejudice. If “science” and “reality” are inventions of a fishy convenience then we can have an endless succession of “just so” stories quite detached from, and “superior to”, any realistic and “commonsense” observations in accordance with premises demanded by the innately commonsense rules of logic.

    The fishy version of “science” is an infinitely variable mass of speculations which are all proposed as “true” if they suit the prejudices convenient to the ambient God usurpers. But they change and don’t change from moment to moment and according to political circumstance. Even the “science police” admit that their “infallible” and “certain” guesswork and propaganda is a mess of pottage:
    https://crev.info/2021/08/dont-follow-the-bad-science/

    A fundamental challenge to the fishy prejudice is to demonstrate a reasonable prognostication of just how Nothing can spontaneously turn itself into Everything. In short, tell us how “a thing that does not exist can cause itself to exist”.

    Madam Joyous, that humans are fundamentally flawed is a central doctrine of Christianity known as Original Sin. Being a “nice guy” for social convenience does not exempt one from the obligations described in the First Commandment. Your proposed ideas rather remind me of that odious smart arse Voltaire who said: “call me a hypocrite if you like, but I intend to go to Mass and receive Holy Communion while it is socially convenient to do so.”

  57. Madam Joyous, that humans are fundamentally flawed is a central doctrine of Christianity known as Original Sin.
    Yair thanks, old avid, we all know this and I didn’t read after that line.
    You are incapable of responding objectively or without insult.
    “bombast” Oldavid look in the mirror

    Re original sin.
    There are many interpretations of the idea of Original sin.
    The notion that we are all born in original sin is a tradition of the latin church.
    Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin.
    My remark, is based purely on observations made by pretty well anybody who is human, that nobody is perfect.
    We all commit sin, even you old avid.
    I do not believe that Adam and Eve’s story relates to a physical cause of sin in the world.
    I believe that it is simply allegorical and useful in that way as it has been used over the centuries.
    That you’re going to denigrate anything and any thought from someone else is yet another sign of human frailty and flaw.
    If you were ever able to strip out the BS from your comments you might actually learn something from individuals instead of projecting as you do, all the live long day.

  58. Oldavid,

    The fishy version of “science” is an infinitely variable mass of speculations […]

    You’ve avoided answering any of the questions I asked regarding free will, theology, or anything else, and instead launched into a rambling diatribe against science. Not sure why you bothered as, even if every scientific discovery ever made turned out to be wrong, that wouldn’t offer any evidence for God.

    In short, tell us how “a thing that does not exist can cause itself to exist”.

    Trying to reverse the burden of proof again I see. My response is that I’m not claiming that something can cause itself to exist. If anything, you are, as free will thoughts must cause themselves to exist. (^_^)

  59. To Joy: The following quotes are all in 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. Do they make sense to you regarding the effects of Original Sin being upon all of us, and the express need for Jesus Christ the Son of God to take on human nature so that He could die in our place for Original Sin which broke man’s relationship with God, and for suffering the punishment for all of the rest of the sins that were going to be committed? We are so loved by God!

    “20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,”

    “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  60. C Marie,

    To Joy: The following quotes are all in 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. Do they make sense to you regarding the effects of Original Sin being upon all of us, and the express need for Jesus Christ the Son of God to take on human nature so that He could die in our place for Original Sin which broke man’s relationship with God, and for suffering the punishment for all of the rest of the sins that were going to be committed?

    Not sufficiently.
    The bible also says that God saved al the world especially those who believe. Not just those who believe. I believe that God knows what you or I believe and there is no lying or pretence with God. There are too many who say they believe a thing when what they truly are doing is repeating a creed. That is evidence of obedience, of course but obedience to whom?
    So the notion that God ‘had to send his son to die’, to me, is cumbersome.
    I also don’t think it matters as much as you think it matters, which is not a criticism but an explanation. You can see the pickle we are in, before the discussion goes anywhere. Especially in the written word. I think a verbal discussion would be more fruitful.
    Happy to discuss but there is really difference only in how you and I come to our conclusions even though most of the conclusions themselves are the same.
    Add to this the fact that there are interlopers who misunderstand, it’s not con conducive to satisfactory discussion.
    I believe I know where you’re coming from, which is another reason for not wishing to waste your time or mine.
    It’s often interesting to hear why people think or believe the way they do.
    Jesus died because of our sin; who he was and how mankind behaves.
    So it isn’t that the death and resurrection is in any way diminished, with regards to Christian faith or salvation. It was bound to happen, which I am reliably informed is consistent with Thomas Aquinas…(not that approval should be sought for belief based on honest reflection. )
    Thank you for the response though, sorry for the late reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.