Kevin's Watch

CovenantJr wrote:

Seven Words wrote:

Avatar wrote: Awareness of your self?

To paraphrase Bach again, the sky is always a perfect sky, and the sea a perfect sea. They're changing all the time, but they're always perfect. Perfection doesn't mean stagnation. In fact, I think it could mean the opposite. Just because perfection is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist...it just might be different for everybody.

--A

Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Xar wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:

Seven Words wrote: Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Then again, your concept of perfection and my concept of perfection (and so on) might simply be facets of a larger whole. The attributes you use for perfection are shared by my definition, although not entirely. I'm reminded (if you'll forgive my digression) of The Sandman, the comic book by Neil Gaiman in which Dream once entertains one of his servants with a cryptic (at the time) musing about gems and facets. He said (if I remember correctly) that if we look at a facet of the gem very intensely, we may be tempted to believe that is all there is to the gem, but turn it by just a little bit, and you will see an entirely new facet, which is however still part of the same gem.

This is similar to the example I provided earlier about the three-dimensional book seen in a two-dimensional universe: if God isn't constrained by the laws of the universe, there may be more to Him than we are able to imagine: it's the panentheistic view which is also present in the Kabbalah (where "panentheistic" means that the divine is more than the universe, in contrast to "pantheistic" which means that the divine is entirely identifiable with the universe)

In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

Seven Words wrote:Ah, now your LAST sentence there closely follows my own concept of the divine....that every religion on Earth is one facet of the divine. As far as Afterlife goes...I believe that if one is a Christian, and honestly upholds the teachings of the faith, then one goes to the Christian concept of Heaven. I simply believe that the exact FORM of one's beliefs is not important, but rather the SUBSTANCE of belief is what counts. So a Buddhist who strives to their utmost, follows the Noble Eightfold Path, will indeed achieve Nirvana.

There's no evidence to support this....but it feels right and true to me. The ONLY thing that will change my mind is objective proof, or my having a personal experience, to the contrary.

Xar wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:

Seven Words wrote: Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Then again, your concept of perfection and my concept of perfection (and so on) might simply be facets of a larger whole. The attributes you use for perfection are shared by my definition, although not entirely. I'm reminded (if you'll forgive my digression) of The Sandman, the comic book by Neil Gaiman in which Dream once entertains one of his servants with a cryptic (at the time) musing about gems and facets. He said (if I remember correctly) that if we look at a facet of the gem very intensely, we may be tempted to believe that is all there is to the gem, but turn it by just a little bit, and you will see an entirely new facet, which is however still part of the same gem.

This is similar to the example I provided earlier about the three-dimensional book seen in a two-dimensional universe: if God isn't constrained by the laws of the universe, there may be more to Him than we are able to imagine: it's the panentheistic view which is also present in the Kabbalah (where "panentheistic" means that the divine is more than the universe, in contrast to "pantheistic" which means that the divine is entirely identifiable with the universe)

In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

Seven Words wrote:

Xar wrote:In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

Ah, now your LAST sentence there closely follows my own concept of the divine....that every religion on Earth is one facet of the divine. As far as Afterlife goes...I believe that if one is a Christian, and honestly upholds the teachings of the faith, then one goes to the Christian concept of Heaven. I simply believe that the exact FORM of one's beliefs is not important, but rather the SUBSTANCE of belief is what counts. So a Buddhist who strives to their utmost, follows the Noble Eightfold Path, will indeed achieve Nirvana.

CovJr wrote:If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Cail wrote:I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not a theologian, and I speak for no one other than myself. I'm also not interested in changing anyone's mind. If someone does, it's on them.

iQuestor wrote:Cail, serious questions here, I ask because I don't know. : How can this be? I am a little ignorant of Catholicism -- Christians as you know beleive Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven. So those who don't accept Jesus as a personal savior and God's Son will go to hell. So according to them, Catholics are going to Hell. Is this your understanding of Baptists beliefs as well?

From the way things went in the Baptist church I went to, it seemed like if you weren't attending the sermon, you weren't going to Heaven. I've never understood a lot of the hate towards Catholics from the various fundamental Protestant sects. I think it's a lack of understanding, but I honestly don't get it. The thing that I (now) find ironic about many of the fundamentalist churches is that they stress the importance of being "born again" in Christ, but they rely almost solely on the Old Testament, which is utterly devoid of His teachings.

iQuestor wrote:How do Catholics allow that Christians will go to heaven (salvation) if they (presume) falsly that Jesus is God's Son and therefore don do the things Catholics do (ie confession, etc) to make sure they have salvation??

I think there's a ton of confusion about the Trinity. The best way I can explain it is that God exists as more than one thing. God is God, yet he is also Jesus, who is also God's son. Jesus was both divine and human. It's that dichotomy that made the sacrifice so meaningful. God gave us His son, quite literally part of Him. He died horribly....as one of us. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go that way.

Anyhow, we (Catholics) do believe that Jesus was/is God's son. Yet He's also God. From the Profession of Faith:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made."


As far as the various sacraments are concerned, they are not a prerequisite in order to have salvation. They're important, and we (or at least, I) take them pretty seriously, but there's no checklist at the Pearly Gates.

iQuestor wrote:again, I ask because I dont understand and would love to. Because This is a big problem of mine. It appears to me that all religions claim salvation is available to everyone, but when you get down to it, if you arent part of their religion, you are out.

Again, I think this is yet another misconception. One of the first questions I asked of my Priest when I converted was, "Do you believe that Jews go to Heaven?". His answer (the right one) was simple. The New Testament speaks of "the new and everlasting covenant" that Christ declared His blood to be at the Last Supper. The old covenant never ceased to be....That is, the Old Testament promise made to the Jews.

Now as far as everyone else is concerned, there's this from our Profession of Faith:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen."

One God, period. One God who (being God) can manifest himself in many ways to many people. The God who made Heaven and earth has revealed himself to me as the God of the Catholic Church. To someone else, he's the Presbyterian God, to another he's Allah, and so on. No mortal can claim the knowledge of God, so who the Hell are we to say which faith is the "only" one and the rest are wrong?

One God, different ways of getting to Him.

Point is that anyone can achieve salvation. There is no single path.

Cagliostro wrote:Everybody loves to hear that they don't understand what they believe. Nice tactic, Rus.

Cagliostro wrote:Well, maybe I'm being naive and combative, but from my experience having gone to several churches, each one hits upon basic principles, but each also is run differently, depending on who is at the helm of passing the gospels down, if you catch my meaning. Then again, I'm not a regular church goer, and have only been in Catholic churches below the number of fingers on one hand.
But, my point is this - is there one single decided path of Catholicism that is well agreed upon on every topic of life, the universe and everything? I wouldn't think so, as interpretation is a part of faith - at least to my understanding. Saying that someone is "at odds with their own faith" seems ludicrious and offensive to me. Has God appeared before you and said, "Hey, Rus...let to clarify a few things to you. This is truly the way it is." If he has, then you are either someone very special, or a nut. And if a nut, then you are in good company here.
My limited understanding of Catholicism is that the Pope gives marching orders, but there are differences in interpretation between the Popes through the years as well. Therefore, and again, maybe I'm being naive, but there is no One True Path, and taking someone to task for worshipping the "wrong" way is silly.
And as a Discordian Pope myself, I would like to invoke my infallibility on this subject.

rusmeister wrote:In Orthodoxy, at any rate, you accept the Church and its teachings "whole hog" on faith, or not at all if you want to be Orthodox. That's why people usually spend a fair amount of time learning about the Church before being formally received into it (catechumens).

Avatar wrote:Thing is, how confident can one be that it is God's word? What about the Gnostic Gospels, excised from the bible on the order of the church? Do those form part of God's word?

--A