“As the Heavens are above the Earth, my ways are above your ways and my thoughts are above your thoughts.”
Please dont pretend Heaven being up in the sky is a new idea.[/quote]
I’m sure if you talk to a Jew 3000 BC, you’ll get someone to agree with you. However, Catholic theology puts God as everywhere, he is infinite, people used to think the Universe was infinite, but it’s not it’s ever expanding space and time. God is being, if earth is, then earth is in God. If the universe is, then it is in God, if humans are, then they are in God.
I don’t think Moses explaining astronomy and quantum mechanics to Jews at the time would have made much sense.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< The universe is a small part of God’s being. >>>[/quote]Could you please clarify this so as to save me from having to declare you a rank pantheistic lunatic who’s theology proper is not even squared away? Really Chris you ought not post after sneaking extra communion wine. I cannot believe this is what you actually meant to say.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< The universe is a small part of God’s being. >>>[/quote]Could you please clarify this so as to save me from having to declare you a rank pantheistic lunatic who’s theology proper is not even squared away? Really Chris you ought not post after sneaking extra communion wine. I cannot believe this is what you actually meant to say.
[/quote]
The universe is a small part WITHIN God’s being, the Universe isn’t part of God, as God is uncreated and the universe is created. And, Tirib, don’t insult me I would never do anything as sacrilegious and blasphemous as “sneak” extra wine.
Geeez, I was jist jokin with ya. I don’t understand how the universe can be “a part within God’s being”, yet “not be part of God”. It most assuredly is not part of God and yes, God is uncreated and the universe is created by Him. This is like Dr. Suess level theology for dummies which is why you’re still scarin me a bit with this “within God’s being” crack here. There has to be a better way to state this. Van Til would roll over in his grave and I know you wouldn’t want that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Geeez, I was jist jokin with ya. I don’t understand how the universe can be “a part within God’s being”, yet “not be part of God”. It most assuredly is not part of God and yes, God is uncreated and the universe is created by Him. This is like Dr. Suess level theology for dummies which is why you’re still scarin me a bit with this “within God’s being” crack here. There has to be a better way to state this. Van Til would roll over in his grave and I know you wouldn’t want that.[/quote]
Van Til may be a man after God’s heart, doesn’t mean he’s not a heretic.
Yes, it is Dr. Seuss (you spelled it wrong) level theology.
And it is hard to wrap your brain around, that is why it’s called a mystery.
Anyway, God is infinite, he is being. The universe was created, now if you understand the verb created as the Jews understood it and is meant in theology, created is not like GM created the Chevy SS. Properly, GM designed and built the Chevy SS not “created” it. When you create something, you make it from nothing, absolutely nothing. And, not like Christopher Hawkins says “nothing,” which is really something even though the mass may be very small. I mean absolutely nothing, the concept of nothing itself is hard as hell to understand because we have never seen nothing, because by definition and nature of nothing, nothing does not exist.
God created everything from “nothing.” So, his creations came from nothing, the universe came from nothing and is scientifically defined as the expanding of space and time, outside of the universe there is no space or time. That is how God can see Adam and the Last day (and beyond) at the same time, and be in China and in the Eucharist in Flagstaff at the same time, because God is not restrained by space or time, he created space and time, the creator is not limited by his creation. The master is not mastered by his slave.
So, the universe is not part of God (it would be eternal if it was), because if it was it wouldn’t have been created, it would have been begotten (or made of self) as the second person of the Trinity was begotten. However, because God is (or as I like to say “God be’s” infinite) infinite in being (he is not bound by space and time) we can not exist outside of him (because there is no outside of Him, there is only Him), because he is infinite and eternal, there was nothing before him and there is nothing after him. However, just because we cannot exist outside of him does not mean we ARE him, or part of him (although mysteriously we are the physical body of Christ).
Sorry if that made no sense, I just didn’t figure you wanted me to pull out the theological text on the existence of the universe and God.
I popped my head in this thread expecting to see all of the new converts to atheism based upon your “powerful” information. And (not) to my surprise not one Christian has changed his mind. Now what do you think of that? But many have spent hours refuting you. I wonder who wasted time, you or them? Perhaps both.
I guess I was right not to waste my time on your drivel.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Van Til may be a man after God’s heart, doesn’t mean he’s not a heretic. >>>[/quote]Heretics after God’s heart. Could you please point to one of these anywhere in scripture? That’s like really tremendous. I mean if you’re gonna be a heretic you may as well be one after God’s heart right? It doesn’t occur to you that declaring a man to be “after God’s heart” and a “heretic” at the same time is tantamount to calling God a heretic? That thought hadn’t crossed your mind? [quote]Brother Chris wrote: <<< Yes, it is Dr. Seuss (you spelled it wrong) level theology. >>>[/quote]Thank you for the correction. I haven’t seen my “Hop on Pop” (or hope in pope =] ) book in quite some time. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< And it is hard to wrap your brain around, that is why it’s called a mystery. >>>[/quote]It is indeed on both counts. I pray the Lord turn you on to some of His other mysteries just like this one.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Anyway, God is infinite, he is being. The universe was created, now if you understand the verb created as the Jews understood it and is meant in theology, created is not like GM created the Chevy SS. Properly, GM designed and built the Chevy SS not “created” it. When you create something, you make it from nothing, absolutely nothing. And, not like Christopher Hawkins says “nothing,” which is really something even though the mass may be very small. I mean absolutely nothing, the concept of nothing itself is hard as hell to understand because we have never seen nothing, because by definition and nature of nothing, nothing does not exist.
God created everything from “nothing.” So, his creations came from nothing, the universe came from nothing and is scientifically defined as the expanding of space and time, outside of the universe there is no space or time. That is how God can see Adam and the Last day (and beyond) at the same time, and be in China and <<<>>>> in Flagstaff at the same time, because God is not restrained by space or time, he created space and time, the creator is not limited by his creation. The master is not mastered by his slave.
So, the universe is not part of God (it would be eternal if it was), because if it was it wouldn’t have been created, it would have been begotten (or made of self) as the second person of the Trinity was begotten. However, because God is (or as I like to say “God be’s” infinite) infinite in being (he is not bound by space and time) we can not exist outside of him (because there is no outside of Him, there is only Him), because he is infinite and eternal, there was nothing before him and there is nothing after him. However, just because we cannot exist outside of him does not mean we ARE him, or part of him (although mysteriously we are the physical body of Christ). >>>[/quote]I fixed that one part, but I pretty much agree with this whole piece otherwise.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Sorry if that made no sense, I just didn’t figure you wanted me to pull out the theological text on the existence of the universe and God.[/quote]No need for apologies and no that made no logical sense at all because it is not possible to make logical sense of divine eternal truths. I posted a while back the following. I’ve said it many times over the years. God is both nowhere and everywhere, chronologically and spatially at the same time. He is in a very real sense nowhere because He created both time and space and is hence subject to neither. He is everywhere because as creator and sustainer He fills the whole of temporal history and the immensity of space. Do yourself a favor and lay off the “part of His being” statements. I would say this to anybody. They do not lend themselves well to a proper exposition of the nature of God and in my view at least are inconsistent with the essentially proper view you gave above.
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
For the most part we read the creation account as metaphor, as divinely inspired poetry, with the point being that all that exists is here because God created it. If that doesn’t do it for you that’s fine. Also I think you are making a contradiction where there is not one. Gen 1:3-5 talks about God creating light (the radiation), while 1:14-16 is about God creating lights (stars etc…).
The concept of original sin and how it affects entrance into eternity bugs me a bit.
Christianity proclaims that because the original ancestor of all man disobeyed God, we are all stained and, therefore, must be symbolically washed of that particular sin.
The acceptance of the actual story of Adam and Eve, however, is divided between those that take it literally and those that state it as allegory.
If the story is literal, things like a 6,000 year old Earth must be accepted as fact, since the Old Testament lineage can be traced back to Adam. Various disciplines of science have independantly arrive at the same approximate age of the Earth to be in the billions of years, though. That would make the infallible book fallible.
If the story is allegorical, then how can we actually be held responsible for an original sin that only exists in a story? And more importantly, what was the point of Jesus’ martyrdom if there was no real original sin?
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
For the most part we read the creation account as metaphor, as divinely inspired poetry, with the point being that all that exists is here because God created it. If that doesn’t do it for you that’s fine. Also I think you are making a contradiction where there is not one. Gen 1:3-5 talks about God creating light (the radiation), while 1:14-16 is about God creating lights (stars etc…).[/quote]
I have heard this response before, and have always been amused by it. When do you decide something is written as a metaphor and when something actually happened? Was Jesus actually killed on a cross or was that a metaphor, Was mary a virgin or was that also a metaphor? Seems too convenient to use that term wherever it fits in an argument. The Bible clearly states that the lights created on both days were used to seperate day from night and there is only one thing that can do that. We only have one sun.
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
For the most part we read the creation account as metaphor, as divinely inspired poetry, with the point being that all that exists is here because God created it. If that doesn’t do it for you that’s fine. Also I think you are making a contradiction where there is not one. Gen 1:3-5 talks about God creating light (the radiation), while 1:14-16 is about God creating lights (stars etc…).[/quote]
I have heard this response before, and have always been amused by it. When do you decide something is written as a metaphor and when something actually happened? Was Jesus actually killed on a cross or was that a metaphor, Was mary a virgin or was that also a metaphor? Seems too convenient to use that term wherever it fits in an argument. The Bible clearly states that the lights created on both days were used to seperate day from night and there is only one thing that can do that. We only have one sun. [/quote]
Well, if you’ve only ever interacted with protestant Christians about this I can see how this might amuse you, because given only the text who’s to say when it is metaphor and when it is not. Being a Catholic though we have a Church guided by the Holy Spirit, who being the author of Scripture is it’s most excellent and authentic interpreter. So, in effect I do not decide when it is metaphor and when it’s not.
As, to your other point. It says in the first part as I pointed out God created light and then in the second part he created lights. There is a difference. Also, you can look at what separates night from day two ways, ultimately light is what separates the two, and the sun is now it’s origin.
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
For the most part we read the creation account as metaphor, as divinely inspired poetry, with the point being that all that exists is here because God created it. If that doesn’t do it for you that’s fine. Also I think you are making a contradiction where there is not one. Gen 1:3-5 talks about God creating light (the radiation), while 1:14-16 is about God creating lights (stars etc…).[/quote]
I have heard this response before, and have always been amused by it. When do you decide something is written as a metaphor and when something actually happened? Was Jesus actually killed on a cross or was that a metaphor, Was mary a virgin or was that also a metaphor? Seems too convenient to use that term wherever it fits in an argument. The Bible clearly states that the lights created on both days were used to seperate day from night and there is only one thing that can do that. We only have one sun. [/quote]
Well, if you’ve only ever interacted with protestant Christians about this I can see how this might amuse you, because given only the text who’s to say when it is metaphor and when it is not. Being a Catholic though we have a Church guided by the Holy Spirit, who being the author of Scripture is it’s most excellent and authentic interpreter. So, in effect I do not decide when it is metaphor and when it’s not.
As, to your other point. It says in the first part as I pointed out God created light and then in the second part he created lights. There is a difference. Also, you can look at what separates night from day two ways, ultimately light is what separates the two, and the sun is now it’s origin. [/quote]
What is the difference between light and lights aside from the obvious (light comes from lights)? How was the earth lighted enough to have a day and night if he had not created the sun and stars until the 4th day? Does not make sense. What used to be the seperator of night and day before the sun? By the way, I used to be Catholic.
[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:
The concept of original sin and how it affects entrance into eternity bugs me a bit.
Christianity proclaims that because the original ancestor of all man disobeyed God, we are all stained and, therefore, must be symbolically washed of that particular sin.
[/quote]
OS is a huge topic, debated, argued, and fought over (with fists) for a long time. One of the most dialogged topic in Christendom. The best I can justify OS without giving you a treatise on it, is to explain it like this:
Adam is our forefather. He was given the family fortune (that was given to him without any work on his part, this is important), he went to the Lucky Fruit Casino ran by the Angel Lucifer. He decided to let it all ride on a crooked game, that he had no chance of winning. Of course, we know he lost the family fortune.
Now, that family fortune or initial grace, is not something you can work for. God gives it to you as he gave it to Adam. Now, there is a benefactor that is willing to give us back our family fortune or initial grace that Adam blew out of the water. We do this by baptism.
You have to differentiate between literalistic view and literal view. I take it from a literal view, that Adam lost the initial grace for all of man kind. If you want to understand the different layers you can pick up from the Genesis story you can read In the Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fal by Cardinal Ratzinger, it is about ten dollars, so it’s not too much of a financial burden if you want to understand the creation story.
Literal vs. Literalistic. And, just to point out for clarity sake, the proper term is not infallible it is inerrant. Infallible deals with teaching. If you need more clarification on this, just let me know and I’ll go into it deeper.
I take the literal meaning of Genesis 1-3 (and the rest of the Bible), I just do not take the literalistic view of it. The difference is this, the literal view of the phrase “it is raining cats and dogs,” is it is raining heavy/hard. The literalistic view of the phrase “it is raining cats and dogs,” is it is raining cats and dogs. It takes in context or idioms that may have been in place when it was written.
[quote]
If the story is allegorical, then how can we actually be held responsible for an original sin that only exists in a story? And more importantly, what was the point of Jesus’ martyrdom if there was no real original sin?[/quote]
You’re putting a false dichotomy. Either the earth is 6,000 years old or there is no original sin. The answer is neither choice is correct (the 6,000 years is, my opinion based on science and logic, wrong; however, Catholics are free to choose either Young earth or evolution as long as it does not try to rule out the supernatural infusion of the human soul into the human body) and the universe is 13.5 billion years and the earth is 5 billion (is billion right or is it million) years old and there is original sin. Humans have been in existence not that long relative to the earth and especially to the universe. Again, original sin is again not something we ever did, it is not personal sin: it is just that our initial grace was never passed on, just like if our grandfather blew the family fortune we would have never had the chance to have it passed on to us.
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
[/quote]
How is it a contradiction?
“Two great lights”… God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them. Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis Chapter 1
[quote]
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
Look at the difference between v.3 and v.14:
3: And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
14: And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years
In verse three he created light, in the verse 14 he separated the light so there would be two great lights.
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
For the most part we read the creation account as metaphor, as divinely inspired poetry, with the point being that all that exists is here because God created it. If that doesn’t do it for you that’s fine. Also I think you are making a contradiction where there is not one. Gen 1:3-5 talks about God creating light (the radiation), while 1:14-16 is about God creating lights (stars etc…).[/quote]
I have heard this response before, and have always been amused by it. When do you decide something is written as a metaphor and when something actually happened? Was Jesus actually killed on a cross or was that a metaphor, Was mary a virgin or was that also a metaphor? Seems too convenient to use that term wherever it fits in an argument. The Bible clearly states that the lights created on both days were used to seperate day from night and there is only one thing that can do that. We only have one sun. [/quote]
Well, if you’ve only ever interacted with protestant Christians about this I can see how this might amuse you, because given only the text who’s to say when it is metaphor and when it is not. Being a Catholic though we have a Church guided by the Holy Spirit, who being the author of Scripture is it’s most excellent and authentic interpreter. So, in effect I do not decide when it is metaphor and when it’s not.
As, to your other point. It says in the first part as I pointed out God created light and then in the second part he created lights. There is a difference. Also, you can look at what separates night from day two ways, ultimately light is what separates the two, and the sun is now it’s origin. [/quote]
What is the difference between light and lights aside from the obvious (light comes from lights)? How was the earth lighted enough to have a day and night if he had not created the sun and stars until the 4th day? Does not make sense. What used to be the seperator of night and day before the sun? By the way, I used to be Catholic. [/quote]
He created the sun the first day or a general light. On the fourth day he order and distributed the lights so as it is said in verse 16 “God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars”
The first light just divided the day and night, the other time he divided and distributed the light so that both night and day were ruled by a great light, darkness having the lesser light. I have heard some people equate the lesser light as Mary. I would have to look deeper into it but when looking at Genesis 3:15 and Revelations 12:1-17 it seems there might be a case.
[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
So, I have not read all 600 something posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this one has been addressed already. Why does god feel the need to to create light on 2 seperate occasions? I started reading the Bible a couple years ago and within 5 minutes I had found a ridiculous contradiction. Genesis 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and Genesis 1:14, 1:15, 1:16.
If you already made light on the first day, Why remake it on the fourth day? Was it not to your liking the first time? Do gods make mistakes? It clearly states that the light was made to seperate the day from night on both days. I know you are “supposed to read the Bible as a whole” But really? The very first page? Come on.[/quote]
For the most part we read the creation account as metaphor, as divinely inspired poetry, with the point being that all that exists is here because God created it. If that doesn’t do it for you that’s fine. Also I think you are making a contradiction where there is not one. Gen 1:3-5 talks about God creating light (the radiation), while 1:14-16 is about God creating lights (stars etc…).[/quote]
I have heard this response before, and have always been amused by it. When do you decide something is written as a metaphor and when something actually happened? Was Jesus actually killed on a cross or was that a metaphor, Was mary a virgin or was that also a metaphor? Seems too convenient to use that term wherever it fits in an argument. The Bible clearly states that the lights created on both days were used to seperate day from night and there is only one thing that can do that. We only have one sun. [/quote]
Well, if you’ve only ever interacted with protestant Christians about this I can see how this might amuse you, because given only the text who’s to say when it is metaphor and when it is not. Being a Catholic though we have a Church guided by the Holy Spirit, who being the author of Scripture is it’s most excellent and authentic interpreter. So, in effect I do not decide when it is metaphor and when it’s not.
As, to your other point. It says in the first part as I pointed out God created light and then in the second part he created lights. There is a difference. Also, you can look at what separates night from day two ways, ultimately light is what separates the two, and the sun is now it’s origin. [/quote]
What is the difference between light and lights aside from the obvious (light comes from lights)? How was the earth lighted enough to have a day and night if he had not created the sun and stars until the 4th day? Does not make sense. What used to be the seperator of night and day before the sun? By the way, I used to be Catholic. [/quote]
He created the sun the first day or a general light. On the fourth day he order and distributed the lights so as it is said in verse 16 “God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars”
The first light just divided the day and night, the other time he divided and distributed the light so that both night and day were ruled by a great light, darkness having the lesser light. I have heard some people equate the lesser light as Mary. I would have to look deeper into it but when looking at Genesis 3:15 and Revelations 12:1-17 it seems there might be a case.[/quote]
I take it that there were no light bulbs “in the beginning” so where else could light possibly come from on our planet other than from our sun. And if I am not mistaken, the way we tell night from day is by the earth rotating on it’s axis and the sun shining on one half of the earth and not the other. If god created a light to seperate night from day or dark from light then it had to be the sun. Period. If you already have a sun, why do you need to tweak your day and night situation? “The lesser light as Mary” really?! I love it!
I also love how much time god spent on creating the trillions of galaxies that totally dwarf our whole solar system. What was it half a day? But he needed a 2 whole days to create all of the wildlife on our tiny insignificant planet.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You have to differentiate between literalistic view and literal view. I take it from a literal view, that Adam lost the initial grace for all of man kind. If you want to understand the different layers you can pick up from the Genesis story you can read In the Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fal by Cardinal Ratzinger, it is about ten dollars, so it’s not too much of a financial burden if you want to understand the creation story.
[/quote]
I think you need to look up the word “literalistic” if you’re going to use it to distinguish interpretation. Literalistic is simply the adj. form of literal or literalism. When you say “literal” I believe you mean “figurative.”
Aside from that, I’d say your story would make a bit more sense if Adam had gambled into debt or taken a loan from a loan shark. Simply gambling the family fortune away would just leave us broke with nothing hanging over our head. With a debt, we’re punished for not seeking redemption.
If Catholics are allowed to choose a 6,000 y.o. or 4 billion y.o. Earth, what is their official stance on the Genesis account of Creation? Is Adam literally our father, or is he figuratively our father?
If he’s literally our father, the Old Testament’s lineage can be traced and the Earth would have to be accepted as 6,000 years old by ALL practicing Catholics. If it’s figurative, then why are we all paying back a debt from a figurative person in a story?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Heretics after God’s heart.
[/quote]
Why would it need to be in the Bible, we have one from the first couple of centuries.
The Greeks, Justin Martyr pointed out that their pursuit for truth was the pursuit of Christians, and their pursuit of the source and their love for the source of truth was the same as our pursuit of and love for Jesus, since Jesus is truth.
The Greeks were Christians without knowing it. Von Til may have been a man after God, like the Greeks after the truth (which is Jesus), both having heretical ideas does not disqualify them from being after God.
His pursuit may have been genuine, doesn’t mean he was right. Your knowledge of heresy is a little shaky it seems. Just because someone is a heretic (depending on what it is) doesn’t disqualify them from being someone who is after the truth, Jesus.
