100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: My Epiphany | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
In the next place, as against Pantheism, the council (cap. i, De Deo) teaches that God, "since He is one singular, altogether simple and incommutable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed to be really and essentially [re et essentia) distinct from the world most happy in and by Himself, and ineffably above and beyond all things, actual or possible, besides Himself" (Denzinger, 1782-old no. 1631); and in the corresponding canons (ii-iv, De Deo) anathema is pronounced against anyone who would say "that nothing exists but matter"; or "that the substance or essence of God and of all things is one and the same"; or "that finite things both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things; or that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universe of things distinguished into genera, species and individuals" (Denzinger, 1802-4; old no. 1648). It doesn't matter. They've already recognized the existence of a pantheistic being in the God itself. If they want to go on from there and claim that we are "external pets" of that pantheistic entity, they can do that to their heart's content, it's doesn't change the fact that they already recognized a pantheistic entity in the first place. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This really is an epiphany for me. Even though it's basically just a different way of looking at something that I've already known for years. Here's the scoop,... From now on when a Christian asks me to explain the pantheistic view I'm just going to say,.... Imagine the biblical God at the beginning of creation before that God actually started to create anything. That deity is a pantheistic deity. The problem is how this god came to exist . It does not matter if you look at him in one direction or another . Once the issue of a god or gods is not resolved it makes it impossible to understand how life started . The I Am (awareness) of this being exists because it is impossible for NOTHING to exist. If you think it is possible for NOTHING to exist, then please describe it. After you describe this NOTHING, then tell me.... who is doing the describing? ....? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the next place, as against Pantheism, the council (cap. i, De Deo) teaches that God, "since He is one singular, altogether simple and incommutable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed to be really and essentially [re et essentia) distinct from the world most happy in and by Himself, and ineffably above and beyond all things, actual or possible, besides Himself" (Denzinger, 1782-old no. 1631); and in the corresponding canons (ii-iv, De Deo) anathema is pronounced against anyone who would say "that nothing exists but matter"; or "that the substance or essence of God and of all things is one and the same"; or "that finite things both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things; or that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universe of things distinguished into genera, species and individuals" (Denzinger, 1802-4; old no. 1648). It doesn't matter. They've already recognized the existence of a pantheistic being in the God itself. If they want to go on from there and claim that we are "external pets" of that pantheistic entity, they can do that to their heart's content, it's doesn't change the fact that they already recognized a pantheistic entity in the first place.
in your dreams boss. next time instead of using the pronoun "they" use the pronoun "you" in that way you also include me. because "they" are "me" as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a quote of Morningsong, a born again Christian. It seems to me she describes the pantheist nature of god in this statement. By the way, the bible says......" even the very rocks will cry out, if man shall not praise God...."
Meaning....even the very rocks are AWARE......meaning...everything that has life is AWARE of God's Presence....... ...and are therefore able to Praise God.
Some more examples in the bible ...of everything being aware and therefore Praising God .... " The stars sing......" " the trees of the field shall clap their hands......" Yep...all Life is AWARE of God..and All Life PRAISE their Creator.....in one way or another. But all Life has been created ,and made ALIVE by God, FIRST..in order to be Aware...and to be able to Praise God. I understand the meaning of "praising god." It is in inner joy of being. 
I applaud that. It was through my newness of understanding that I am not just me but of anothers thought. Through that I became aware of me, my surroundings with a new exuberance and joy. Excepting that awareness is knowledge. Being aware that karma and good deeds and loving thinking brings about change that is good. Loving life as it is for all beings is such a joy. Beauty is my earth and all that it inhabits. The universe that surrounds that beauty and lightens up the souls within. Isn't life great? What a wonderous world we live in. What a wonderful cicumstance it is. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The I Am (awareness) of this being exists because it is impossible for NOTHING to exist. If you think it is possible for NOTHING to exist, then please describe it. After you describe this NOTHING, then tell me.... who is doing the describing? ....? JB I think this is a very weak argument Jeannie. First off it's a bit erroneous because you are trying to speak in terms of the existence of nothing. Like as if nothing is a 'thing' that can exist in it's own right. Like as if 'nothing' would be 'something' (perhaps an empty void 3-dimensional spaces?) But even that very idea is thinking of nothing as being 'something'. (i.e. empty space sitting in time) Nothing would not 'exist', but rather if no thing exists, then there would be no thing. There wouldn't be anyone around do describe it. If no thing exists, then nothing wouldn't "exist" either. It would just be the absence of the existence of anything. It wouldn't be the "existence" of nothing. Do you see what I'm saying? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 06/18/08 06:24 PM
|
|
Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things 1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4]. 1783 [ The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and "omnipotent power," not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, "immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body" [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5] 1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, "reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly" [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For "all things are naked and open to His eyes" [ Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future. by Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger (1819 - 1883) ====================================================================================== In the next place, as against Pantheism, the council (cap. i, De Deo) teaches that God, "since He is one singular, altogether simple and incommutable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed to be really and essentially [re et essentia) distinct from the world most happy in and by Himself, and ineffably above and beyond all things, actual or possible, besides Himself" (Denzinger, 1782-old no. 1631); and in the corresponding canons (ii-iv, De Deo) anathema is pronounced against anyone who would say "that nothing exists but matter"; or "that the substance or essence of God and of all things is one and the same"; or "that finite things both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things; or that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universe of things distinguished into genera, species and individuals" (Denzinger, 1802-4; old no. 1648). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm This declaration, by the Catholic Church describes God as separate from its creation, hence denies the pantheistic view. It says that God is: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite. My question is: What happen to omnipresent? (Being everywhere) That would mean pantheism. Wasn't god described as omnipresent also? Jeanniebean |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in your dreams boss. next time instead of using the pronoun "they" use the pronoun "you" in that way you also include me. because "they" are "me" as well.
Sorry. I didn't realize that you were a member of the council.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in your dreams boss. next time instead of using the pronoun "they" use the pronoun "you" in that way you also include me. because "they" are "me" as well.
Sorry. I didn't realize that you were a member of the council.
I'm a member of what the council represents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in your dreams boss. next time instead of using the pronoun "they" use the pronoun "you" in that way you also include me. because "they" are "me" as well.
Sorry. I didn't realize that you were a member of the council.
I'm a member of what the council represents.
Miguel..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This declaration, by the Catholic Church describes God as separate from its creation, hence denies the pantheistic view. It doesn't matter. They can deny pantheism unil they are blue in the face. They've already recognized a self-sustaining pantheistic deity in the very existence of their godhead whether they like or not. They begin with a pantheistic deity as soon as they have the spirit of God moving on the face of the deep. If that pantheistic deity then creates a physical universe and starts growing pets in it that's fine. All they have is a pantheistic entity growing pets. They still began with a pantheistic deity. There's no getting around it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a member of what the council represents.
Fine, then everything I said about the council is of concern to you I guess. I'm still going to refer to the actual council as "They" because I'm speaking of the actual council, not the followers who just happen to accept whatever the council says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a member of what the council represents.
Fine, then everything I said about the council is of concern to you I guess. I'm still going to refer to the actual council as "They" because I'm speaking of the actual council, not the followers who just happen to accept whatever the council says.
fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life is an amazing thing.....and it is rare to even find it throughout the universe....yet it exists, right here on planet earth....populated with people who have self-awareness....and with that awareness of who we are comes an awareness of something larger than ourselves....in our maturity we realize that each of us is a tiny pin point in this world....and life vibrates with power, energy, motion, thought.....and somehow this all comes together with coherence, with stability, predictability, and understanding.....
and yet our miniature minds can barely imagine how all this fits together.....people-kind, intuitively know that we are but a small piece of the puzzle.....whoever it is that works the control panel, he seems to know what he is doing...We have come to call that which we can't understand God....We really don't know much.....What we do know is that whoever is at the controls is doing a damn good job.... And what I know is that I can have a personal relationship with this God.....and you know what?...He knows my Name 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
his declaration, by the Catholic Church describes God as separate from its creation, hence denies the pantheistic view. It says that God is: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite. My question is: What happen to omnipresent? (Being everywhere) That would mean pantheism. Wasn't god described as omnipresent also? Jeanniebean what pantheists refuse to see is that God trascends His creation. it would be as simplistic as to say that man is also a computer since man invented (or created) computers. we can see the human component in a computer, yet the computer is not man. The creator cannot be its creation, we can see traces of the creator in its creation, yet its creation is not the creator. with all due respect to those who believe this, for me (and just for me) that seems to be a real delusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The I Am (awareness) of this being exists because it is impossible for NOTHING to exist. If you think it is possible for NOTHING to exist, then please describe it. After you describe this NOTHING, then tell me.... who is doing the describing? ....? JB I think this is a very weak argument Jeannie. First off it's a bit erroneous because you are trying to speak in terms of the existence of nothing. Like as if nothing is a 'thing' that can exist in it's own right. Actually I am saying that NOTHING is not a THING therefore it cannot EXIST. Therefore, SOMETHING must exist. The existence of both NOTHING and SOMETHING would cancel each other out. It is impossible for both of these conditions to occur. So you are left with SOMETHING. Now you have to imagine what this SOMETHING actually is. 
And you have to decide what a "thing" is. Thoughts are things, but what is the true nature of a thought? So the question remains, what exactly IS IT that does exist? It is something, yet no thing. It is a notion or idea to be. To be or not to be. That is the decision. That is the best I can do in describing what IT IS. Like as if 'nothing' would be 'something' (perhaps an empty void 3-dimensional spaces?) The only thing you might imagine is blackness. There is no 3-dimensional space, no time. No vibration. No light. There is only the notion to be... to exist or not. But even that very idea is thinking of nothing as being 'something'. (i.e. empty space sitting in time)
There is no empty space, and no time. There is only the "eye." It is the all seeing eye of the observer with nothing to observe. (Abstractly speaking) Nothing would not 'exist', but rather if no thing exists, then there would be no thing.
Depends upon your idea of what a "thing" is. There wouldn't be anyone around do describe it. If no thing exists, then nothing wouldn't "exist" either.
Exactly. It is impossible for NOTHING to EXIST. So the only thing left is SOMETHING. That something is the eye. It is the observer. Where does that observer come from? I don't know. Perhaps a black hole... another universe unknown. I don't know. Perhaps it just exists because it has to exist because NOTHING cannot Exist. That is a result of sitting around thinking about NOTHING and the non-existence of time and space for a long time. LOL 
It would just be the absence of the existence of anything.
It wouldn't be the "existence" of nothing. Do you see what I'm saying? The absence of the existence of anything is the same as the existence of NOTHING. Which is not possible. NOTHING DOES NOT, CANNOT WILL NOT EVER "EXIST" AS A "THING" Therefore, an observer without form, must exist. That's the best I can do. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whoever it is that works the control panel, he seems to know what he is doing...
What we do know is that whoever is at the controls is doing a damn good job.... I was agreeing with everything you said up to the following two sentences. One thing that troubles a lot of people (including myself) is the fact that we live in a dog-eat-dog world. I'm not talking about mankind's greedy competition with himself (although that's certainly dog-eat-dog too). I'm talking about the basic truth of nature. Animals eat other animals to survive. To the best of our knowledge this has been going on for millions of years (long before mankind ever even came onto the scene) I think this is difficult for everyone who would like to believe in a supreme designer. Why designe a dog-eat-dog world? Why make life a struggle and often a competition food. A daily struggle just to survive. Also, why make the range of conditions for life so small? Even living on this tiny speck of dust orbiting the sun we experience drastic weather changes, going through tough winters and overly hot summers. We need to seek protection just from the elements. If a supreme designer had designed all of this why not make a crystal clear distinction between plants and animals. Why not make all animals vegetarians? Why not make all plants edible? Why not make the weather nice and comfy all year around? Whey create such brutal hardships just for basic survival? You say that whoever created this place did a damn good job? I'm not so sure I agree. I think the conditions of a dog-eat-dog world that teeters on very small climate changes actually favors the atheists demand that it's all just an accident. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what pantheists refuse to see is that God trascends His creation.
Your concept of god is certainly not human,to be sure, and it certainly must transcend its own creations. There is a vast amount of information that went into all the programing of human DNA and evolutionary aspect of life in general on all manner of planets in the universe and probably many creators at work on these things that far surpass anything that mankind is capable of. But if you believe that we evolve spiritually, as pantheist must believe, or that we incarnate and learn and grow, then you must believe that one day human consciousness will transcend to an higher consciousness just as all degrees of consciousness transcend. It is called expansion and growth. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Wed 06/18/08 07:20 PM
|
|
That's the best I can do. Jeannie Well, it's not good enough. 
Actually I am saying that NOTHING is not a THING therefore it cannot EXIST. Therefore, SOMETHING must exist. I think your second use of the word "therefore" in the above quote is without merit. But owl accept the first therefore. Which is not possible. NOTHING DOES NOT, CANNOT WILL NOT EVER "EXIST" AS A "THING"
Therefore, an observer without form, must exist. Well, again, I don't see the justifcation of the term "therefore". Just because nothing cannot exist as a 'thing' doesn't automatically imply that something must exist. That's where lose me honey. 
Nothing can just "not exist as a thing" right along with everything else that's not existing.
I don't see where there's a problem with that. But clearly that's not what's going on. There is no empty space, and no time. There is only the "eye." It is the all seeing eye of the observer with nothing to observe. (Abstractly speaking)
Well clearly that's what's happ'in babe. 
But don't even pretend that you understand it logically or owl have to take you over my knee and give you much ado about "nothing". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's the best I can do. Jeannie Well, it's not good enough.
Actually I am saying that NOTHING is not a THING therefore it cannot EXIST. Therefore, SOMETHING must exist. I think your second use of the word "therefore" in the above quote is without merit. But owl accept the first therefore. Which is not possible. NOTHING DOES NOT, CANNOT WILL NOT EVER "EXIST" AS A "THING"
Therefore, an observer without form, must exist. Well, again, I don't see the justifcation of the term "therefore". Just because nothing cannot exist as a 'thing' doesn't automatically imply that something must exist. That's where lose me honey.
Nothing can just "not exist as a thing" right along with everything else that's not existing.
I don't see where there's a problem with that. But clearly that's not what's going on. There is no empty space, and no time. There is only the "eye." It is the all seeing eye of the observer with nothing to observe. (Abstractly speaking)
Well clearly that's what's happ'in babe.
But don't even pretend that you understand it logically or owl have to take you over my knee and give you much ado about "nothing".
Abra...do I need to buy you a room?
Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just had an epiphany of a third reason.
3) Ufo's brought us here. |
|
|
|
|
