Identifying The One True God

[carrdero]

The reason that I responsed to Tora-Musume is because she wanted a reply that made sense and she wasn’t receiving one. I offered her one of my beliefs. It was not an attempt to misinterpret/ misunderstand/ misquote Catholic/ Episcopalian/ Jewish/ Protestant/ Methodist/ Jehovah Witness doctrine even though some of you feel offended or ridiculed. How you arrived at these feelings or insinuations I couldn’t begin to comprehend.
I gave her an illustration that would help her not only to understand where I came from (for example- what I was told to believe from the many organizations I was involved in) to the knowledge that I have gleaned from present personal experience and personal discovery. The part of Little Patrick could have been played by Little Jimmy or Little Bobby the fact remains that this teaching is being implemented into society from somewhere and I believe it is not applicable to spiritual self-worth or personal responsibility.
In case if anyone hasn’t observed I do not interpret the story of Adam and Eve (and/or other Biblical parables for that matter) the way most people do because it does not resemble my current beliefs or my contemporary relationship with GOD nor could I recommend in good faith (or any faith) this teaching to anyone else.
The illustration or the teaching that “I” have come to K(NOW) from my past experiences about the Garden of Eden (however I arrived at this knowledge) I believe is illogical/unprovable/incomprehensible/ doubtful/absurd/ludicrous. This will not change unless someone provides a more logical line of reasoning that supports or contradicts my current standard of belief or provides irrefutable PROOF to shed this belief and bring it into a TRUTH. This has not been provided for me (socially or personally) so my understanding and my methods of understanding remain firm.
I cannot consciously encourage or support a lineage of sin that is untraceable or have another human being believe that they are lowly/ insignificant/ disobedient servants of GOD no matter whose religion purports this. So if some of you feel that I have touched a nerve (with your personal/religious faiths or beliefs) I will have to be honest-I feel more sympathetic than apologetic. Though there is no way I can assure you or make you believe the way that I do about the incidents that may or may have not happened in the Garden of Eden at least I can share in my knowledge with you that this is not how GOD ever thought about us.

Edited August 10, 2004 by carrdero

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 10 2004, 12:15 AM']The reason that I responsed to Tora-Musume is because she wanted a reply that made sense and she wasn’t receiving one. I offered her one of my beliefs. It was not an attempt to misinterpret/ misunderstand/ misquote Catholic/ Episcopalian/ Jewish/ Protestant/ Methodist/ Jehovah Witness doctrine even though some of you feel offended or ridiculed. How you arrived at these feelings or insinuations I couldn’t begin to comprehend.
[. . .][/quote]
Although, on the one hand, it was kind of you to offer your own personal belief on the topic; on the other hand, it also failed to really addressed the topic in question, since your own personal belief isn't Catholic, and Tora was asking specifically why Catholics have "two beliefs" on original sin. Tora was trying to get a response that clearly stated the official Catholic position on this topic. That being said, your personal belief, as presented in your "Little Patrick" narrative misrepresented the beliefs of Catholics, because the Catholic Church does not teach that [i]original sin[/i] is a personal action of every individual; instead, it teaches that it is the personal action of Adam, who acting as the head of the human race, lost the supernatural gift of [i]sanctifying grace[/i] for all of his descendants; but this has nothing to do with everyone bearing guilt for his action, nor with some bizarre concept of universal guilt. Each man bears the guilt for his own sinful actions. Thus, it is a misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs to insinuate that a Catholic of today bears any guilt for the Holocaust or any other event that occurred prior to his birth. But since I already went over this in my previous post, I'm not going to do it again.

In conclusion, I'm glad you felt compelled to give your "personal" take on all this, but that really isn't what Tora's original posts were about. Tora was asking why Catholics have "two beliefs" on [i]original sin[/i], and my answer to Tora was that we don't have "two beliefs" on [i]original sin[/i]. Moreover, the problem with your narrative, is that it actually reinforces the error that Tora was describing, and so I don't see how that can be understood as helpful.

God bless,
Todd

[Tora-Musume]

I would just like to say that in my understanding of the answers you have all given me, I have not come to a conclucion of why would the same faith (Catholic) would teach two different teachings from (the Church), that you are born without sin and come to find out in here that you are born with sin until you are cleansed of sin when you are baptised. I have read Carrdero's post and find it that he is not ridiculing your beliefs because it is to my understanding that it is what it means. I wouldn't want to be brought into this world to find out that I have to pay for someone elses sin. I would prefer to believe that I should be brought into this world without sin until I have made my own sin to be cleansed of.
There has been so many threads that I have come across where I get confused because one would post one teaching and another would post another teaching. If all would read each thread, you would come to this conclusion too. Sometimes I would have to read most posts more than once to just try to understand what is being said. A lot of the times I would have to ask why one would say one thing and another would say another. This is where the confusion would take place for me.


Gotta Love Me!

[carrdero]

Apotheoun writes: I'm glad you felt compelled to give your "personal" take on all this, but that really isn't what Tora's original posts were about.
Tora was asking why Catholics have "two beliefs" on original sin, and my answer to Tora was that we don't have "two beliefs" on original sin.

The reason Tora-Musume was asking about two beliefs was because she [b]was[/b] receiving two different Catholic beliefs from two different Catholics.
The Apotheoun post (Posted: Aug 9 2004, 04:53 PM) doesn’t resemble the Aloysius response (Posted: Aug 9 2004, 02:32 PM. In fact the Aloysius response was very similar to the way I have understood "original sin" in the past)

Aloysius writes to Tora Musume (Posted: Aug 8 2004, 02:42 PM) The same faith doesn't teach two different things. It sounds like there was just some sort of misunderstanding.

There has been a lot of this brand of misunderstanding going around from people who claim to know the answers and are of the same denomination/belief/faith.
Now I really do not believe that it is the Catholic religion’s intention to breed confusion or misunderstanding but I can tell you that Tora-Musume is experiencing the same misunderstanding over in other threads under these same exact circumstances. I don’t believe it is a misunderstanding on Tora-Musume’s part as much as I am witnessing contradicting answers. Though I cannot help but wonder where everyone is arriving to their conclusions, I do
K(NOW) this is not very helpful or conducive to an individual who desires spiritual awareness or who desires to come to an accurate K(NOW)ledge of Identifying who GOD is.

To Apotheoun:
Though I respected your response and thought that it was well researched (although the belief aspects of this subject remain highly debatable/questionable) I would have preferred that you had gotten to Tora-Musume before I did but I do understand that people are busy and cannot stand vigilance over all the Phatmass topics all parts of the day. I don’t think that my post was misplaced (for example- interfaith debate on Identifying The One True GOD) because at that time that I received Tora Musume’s request, I believe Tora-Musume was looking for any answers at that moment and not necessarily a Catholic response (which at that moment was not helping Tora-Musume to come to a clear understanding).

Though many may not approve of the methods in which I use to assist other people when it comes to re-examining understanding, I must again remind everyone that I do not exist for anyone’s approval or acceptance.

Edited August 10, 2004 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

my response doesn't resemble Apotheon's because I'm not as smart as him.

simply as that

listen to Apotheon, i just made a surface answer and he went deep.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would just like to comment very briefly:

[quote]I don’t believe it is a misunderstanding on Tora-Musume’s part as much as I am witnessing contradicting answers.[/quote]

Carrdero, based on your posts, and extrapolating upon the above statement, it seems to me that if one person were to tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 when you were little, and then later on someone tells you that 2 + 2 = 4, you would recognise this as a clear contradiction and simply forsake math altogether.

The problem is that, just because one person gets something wrong does not mean that the objective truth doesn't exist. In the same way, there is an objective truth that is catholicism, and if someone teaches the wrong thing under its name, that doesn't mean that catholicism itself is wrong, just that the person is wrong.

Tora, there are not "two teachings" of catholicism. In your case, there is one teaching of catholicism, and one teaching of someone falsly claiming it to be catholicism, just like the person falsly claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 is a rule of math.

[carrdero]

JeffCR07 writes: Carrdero, based on your posts, and extrapolating upon the above statement, it seems to me that if one person were to tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 when you were little, and then later on someone tells you that 2 + 2 = 4, you would recognise this as a clear contradiction and simply forsake math altogether.

Not exactly. Actually I would accept both answers until further reasoning became available. I could actually do that. You also have to compound in the fact "do I desire to understand that 2+2 equals. Even the most hardened mathematician would refuse to be believe 2+2=4 if all he wants to do is believe 2+2=5. If someone told me that 2+2=5 I would believe them until I discovered (either from someone else or through my own experiences) that without a shadow of a doubt 2+2=4.

Though if you asked me what 2+2 equals and I didn't know, I would honestly tell you I didn't know. How you perceive me after that depends on you.

If you asked me what 2+2 equals and I told you 5 and you asked me where I found my information and I told you that it was in this book I read. If I then proceeded to show you the book and the book did say 2+2=5 and you went on to explain to me that the book is incorrect that 2+2=4 then we are at an impasse. If I told you that my book was written over 2000 years ago and that 2+2=5 because this is the way that it has always been taught I still wouldn’t be CORRECT. Though I K(NOW) that you could easily explain to me why 2+2=4 using the method of say, setting up apples, I would probably step down from my position and thank you for showing me the error of my way. That is just how I am. Would I be interested in learning more or would I forsake math altogether? I would probably be interested in learning more, again that is just the way I am.

If you asked me what 2+2 equals and I told you 5 and then I noticed that you were unsure about it and I told you “don’t worry about it, 2+2 has always equaled 5, you’ll just have to take my word for it” I do not think you would just let the matter drop nor would you be any closer to proving what 2+2 did equal.. If I came over your house and I noticed you setting up apples and I figured out that you were indeed trying to figure out what 2+2 equals and I came over and swatted the apples off the table and asked you, what did you think you were doing and you explained that you were trying to figure out what 2+2 equals, what would you think of me if I said “didn’t I tell you that 2+2=5? It’s been like that for 2000 years, just let the matter drop” You certainly wouldn’t be closer to the actual TRUTH of what 2+2 did equal.

How would anyone feel if for 10/ 20/ 30 years you were led to believe that 2+2=5 and that you wholeheartedly based your life around this equation and all of a sudden someone came along and PROVED that 2+2=4. What would that do to someone’s belief system? What would that do to the way people perceive things?
Maybe this is a topic for another thread

JeffCR07 writes: Carrdero, based on your posts…….
I noticed that this is a careful consideration for you when you start any discussion with me. Though I understand our point of views are limited from just passing posts back and forth. The forum rarely offers an accurate opportunity to get to K(NOW) and understand each other. To K(NOW) how we think or how we arrive to our ideas or even why are personalities are they way the are (maybe Phatmass should hold an annual convention for it’s member if they don’t already have one. Remember, you heard it here first). I do not think you K(NOW) me Jeff but I also believe that based on my posts I may not be giving you that much information (though my typing fingers if they could talk would say differently).

Though the discussion of math is quite different from the discussion of religion and their methods of proof are likewise worlds apart (for example math is more tangible than religion) I understand where you are coming from.

JeffCR07 writes: The problem is that, just because one person gets something wrong does not mean that the objective truth doesn't exist. In the same way, there is an objective truth that is catholicism, and if someone teaches the wrong thing under its name, that doesn't mean that catholicism itself is wrong, just that the person is wrong.

Jeff, I have witnesses many organized religions raise their banners high, walking proudly, singing praises of TRUTH and displaying their exclusiveness that GOD has indeed chosen them as His people. But what I eventually learn is that most organized religions or not organized, they have no need to walk proudly, their songs of TRUTH are “off-key” and that they don’t represent what GOD’s chosen people would be if they were hand-picked by the Almighty himself. I have witnessed monumental scandals break out and inconsistencies in doctrine exposed in many religions where members would trade their banners in for umbrellas to hide behind, while they left the wrong doers out in the rain. All this I have seen and experienced in one lifetime.
That is why I chose to follow Patrickism because when I stand before GOD to talk to him (or to be “judged”) I do not want anyone representing me or anyone to be responsible for the mistakes or successes that I have made. Both you and I K(NOW) that GOD does not look upon people like this or that some religious organizations don’t look upon other people like this but for those people who do not understand and want to understand and for those people who are on the outside looking in and want to get in, this doesn’t make a good impression for most religions who are in the habit of recruiting new members or for the members who have been “baptized” in a particular religion and just want to continue a sincere, knowledgeable on-going relationship with a particular church. Patrickism isn’t like that. There isn’t any place to sign up and I do not want any members trying to act or believe the way I do. I have probably over-stayed this discussion and I apologize for giving you more than you asked for but I just wanted to tell you a little bit more about myself and to tell you that I do understand where you are coming from.

Edited August 10, 2004 by carrdero

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 10 2004, 10:19 AM'] I would just like to comment very briefly:

Carrdero, based on your posts, and extrapolating upon the above statement, it seems to me that if one person were to tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 when you were little, and then later on someone tells you that 2 + 2 = 4, you would recognise this as a clear contradiction and simply forsake math altogether.

[. . .] [/quote]
Jeff,

Your comment is very insighful.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 10 2004, 10:07 AM'] my response doesn't resemble Apotheon's because I'm not as smart as him.

simply as that

listen to Apotheon, i just made a surface answer and he went deep. [/quote]
Aloysius,

Don't put yourself down, you're quite intelligent. I've been reading your responses in the various Dairygirl threads, and you're doing an excellent job in them.

God bless,
Todd

[Aloysius]

i got this idea from Stargate SG1, lol, bear with me...
let me ask you this: two groups have a theory as to how people came to be on this earth. one believes aliens brought us here as slaves. another believes we were created here. now: the group that believes aliens brought us here started believing that recently, maybe last week or a few centuries ago, something like that they started believing this. The other group has about 6000 years of written history and a claim that they even have history back to the begining of the human race. which group is more credible? would you accept the historically-based claim over the recently formulated claim?

well that's just what this is: you have proposed a new idea of who the God who created the earth is. we have accepted the idea of who the God who created the earth is that has been around since the time the earth was created. which of us is more likely to have an idea of the God who created the earth, the one whos idea was formulated closer to the time of the creation of the earth, or the one who's idea was formulated recently? for this reason: i find it a logical fallacy to follow any religion other than Judaism, Catholocism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. It would be a logical fallacy to follow any other belief about the creation of the earth.

The majority of the world is logical and thus these 5 religions are the 5 major religions of the world.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 10 2004, 05:23 PM']i got this idea from Stargate SG1, lol, bear with me...
let me ask you this: two groups have a theory as to how people came to be on this earth.  one believes aliens brought us here as slaves.  another believes we were created here.  now: the group that believes aliens brought us here started believing that recently, maybe last week or a few centuries ago, something like that they started believing this.  The other group has about 6000 years of written history and a claim that they even have history back to the begining of the human race.  which group is more credible?  would you accept the historically-based claim over the recently formulated claim?

well that's just what this is: you have proposed a new idea of who the God who created the earth is.  we have accepted the idea of who the God who created the earth is that has been around since the time the earth was created.  which of us is more likely to have an idea of the God who created the earth, the one whos idea was formulated closer to the time of the creation of the earth, or the one who's idea was formulated recently?  for this reason: i find it a logical fallacy to follow any religion other than Judaism, Catholocism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism.  It would be a logical fallacy to follow any other belief about the creation of the earth.

The majority of the world is logical and thus these 5 religions are the 5 major religions of the world.[/quote]
Aloysius,

Are you saying that you don't count "Patrickism" as a major world religion?

[Aloysius]

haha.

well, more importantly: i'm saying it's not a historical representation of a God who's supposedly been around for all of history

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]If you asked me what 2+2 equals and I told you 5 and you asked me where I found my information and I told you that it was in this book I read. If I then proceeded to show you the book and the book did say 2+2=5 and you went on to explain to me that the book is incorrect that 2+2=4 then we are at an impasse.[/quote]

No, we wouldn't be at an impasse, the conversation doesn't just "stop" when two people disagree, but rather, continues on with even more fervor, for one can test, reason, and discuss the issue until the truth of the matter is found.

[quote]If I told you that my book was written over 2000 years ago and that 2+2=5 because this is the way that it has always been taught I still wouldn’t be CORRECT.[/quote]

No, you wouldn't necessarily be correct, however, you would be much more credible if your book had been consistently used, expounded upon, taught, and even questioned for the entirety of its 2000 year existance. Especially when compared to a book that didn't exist until recently. However, I agree entirely that age does not = infallibility.

[quote]Though I K(NOW) that you could easily explain to me why 2+2=4 using the method of say, setting up apples, I would probably step down from my position and thank you for showing me the error of my way. That is just how I am. Would I be interested in learning more or would I forsake math altogether? I would probably be interested in learning more, again that is just the way I am.[/quote]

Perhaps your posts [i]are[/i] a bad way to come to understand you, however, they are all I have to go by, and they would [i]never[/i] lead me to believe what you said above.

I have been constantly trying to engage you in an intellectual discussion, following logic and reason, but so far you will have none of it. When I metaphorically set up the apples, counted them, and came to the logical conclusion that the "god" you espouse is not God at all, the only thing I got was a prolonged editorial-style reply that didn't address any of the points that I brought up.

If you truly are the type of person who is not so attached to your ways as to hide behind them, then please, I beseach you to enter into an orderly, intellectual debate with me on the issue of whether or not the "god" you talk to is actually God at all. But, contrary to your statement I quoted above, you have as of yet refused to discuss matters in any way that even remotely attempts to seperate yourself from the bias of your opinion and to openly embrace objective reasoning.

[carrdero]

JeffCR07 writes: No, we wouldn't be at an impasse, the conversation doesn't just "stop" when two people disagree, but rather, continues on with even more fervor, for one can test, reason, and discuss the issue until the truth of the matter is found.

Though the above scenerio is an ideal situation, I have never been brought to the situation that you describe above where two people "continue with fervor". The only people who I have met are people that are to devoted to their beliefs that they cannot listen to reason or people who are not interested in the first place.

JeffCR07 writes: No, you wouldn't necessarily be correct, however, you would be much more credible if your book had been consistently used, expounded upon, taught, and even questioned for the entirety of its 2000 year existance.

But what if the book I was using was mistranslated, censored, abused, misinterpretated or rewritten? I could read and enjoy and glean something from a book that old but I am not going to put faith/ hope/ teaching in a book that I could not follow from its begining conceptions. 2000 years is just to long, there is so much that could have happened to the book in that time that humans today do not K(NOW) about.

JeffCR07 writes: Especially when compared to a book that didn't exist until recently.

Actually it would make logical sense to reveiw a current publication for further insight over a book that was written decades or centuries ago because this entails that the topic is being re-explored and there may have been new discoveries or new information. If you want to read about what is going in the world today you read today's newspaper not a newspaper that was written in the 19th Century.

JeffCR07 writes: I have been constantly trying to engage you in an intellectual discussion, following logic and reason, but so far you will have none of it.

The only thing other intellectuals that I met have ever tried to engage me in, is showing me just how intellectual [b]they[/b] are. Usually logic and reason were absent fron their discussions. This is an observation not a judgement. I am not intellectual. I never claimed to be. I am a reasoning Being with some extentions into logic but I can only expound on what I K(NOW) and those things I am ALL(WAYS) willing to share and explore to others that are intersted.

JeffCR07 writes: When I metaphorically set up the apples, counted them, and came to the logical conclusion that the "god" you espouse is not God at all, the only thing I got was a prolonged editorial-style reply that didn't address any of the points that I brought up.

This statement has the scent of another incident that took place I believe in this very same post thread with another Phatmass member. This member had tried using the same tactics by accusing me of dodging the "issue" and when I showed this member that I did indeed answer all their questions (requests) they "up and left" the thread. WITH MY APPLES!! I thought I had answered their questions succinctly (though I could be mistaken). What happen with this person I believe is that my reasoning did not match theirs and either they couldn't "keep up" (couldn't provide any more information to keep the debate going) or they just became disinterested/ disgusted.
I try to answer questions directly but when applicable I like to give additional information to remove any extra doubts some people may have. Again just an observation not a judgement.
Like I mentioned before to you Jeff you may be using human logic and human intellectual and human reasoning to arrive to the conclusions to what [b]you[/b] expect GOD to BE. For example you have been using the argument of 2+2=4 to describe a BEing who could very easily PROVE to you through his power (if we are to believe that GOD is Almighty) that he can make 2+2=5 or 2+2=6, etc. The fact that it doesn't follow your current earthly logic or the fact that you can still prove 2+2=4 in your own existence doesn't make GOD a fraud. If anything it should probably tell you that if anyone can make 2+2=5 or 2+2=6 it would [b]be[/b] GOD. This is the type of reasoning that I have been receiving from you. You have been discussing math and I have been discussing GOD.
Some people use to ask me that if they were to believe that I was in contact with GOD why haven't I been given the cure for cancer or why haven't I unfolded the equation of the Super string theory. I simply tell them that I am do not understand/have any interest in medicine or astronomy. Another favorite of mine is if I am indeed in contact with the ONE TRUE GOD pull a miracle out of my hat, I would then proceed to the nearest pew and bring anyone to the front of the room and tell everyone that this person is a miracle. It goes over very well. No one likes to be tested Jeff. I'm sure GOD recognizes it when it happens to him and I K(NOW)humans flat out do not care for it. I like to discuss GOD. I do not like to be tested on GOD because I K(NOW) I would need at least another few lifetimes to prepare for that exam.

JeffCR07 writes: If you truly are the type of person who is not so attached to your ways

I am not attached to any of my ways

JeffCR07 writes:as to hide behind them

Hide behind them? Ask anyone in this thread they will convince you that I am very outspoken.

JeffCR07 writes: then please, I beseach you to enter into an orderly, intellectual debate with me on the issue of whether or not the "god" you talk to is actually God at all.

Orderly I can do. Intellectual-um I am not to sure.

JeffCR07 writes: with me on the issue of whether or not the "god" you talk to is actually God at all. But, contrary to your statement I quoted above, you have as of yet refused to discuss matters in any way that even remotely attempts to seperate yourself from the bias of your opinion and to openly embrace objective reasoning.

Probably one of the most difficult things to do when you enter a REALationship with GOD like the one I am trying to encourage is separating personal opinion/objectiveness with GODSPEAK. In every instances where it was appropriate I have tried to encourage people to develop their own realtionship with GOD because no one can explain it better to anyone else[b]then[/b] GOD. I will be the first to admit I am not a very good spokeperson for GOD but I will most certainly try to do my best.

[carrdero]

Aloysius writes: i got this idea from Stargate SG1, lol, bear with me...

What do you mean bear with you? Dude, I Love that show!

Aloysius writes: let me ask you this: two groups have a theory as to how people came to be on this earth. one believes aliens brought us here as slaves. another believes we were created here. now: the group that believes aliens brought us here started believing that recently, maybe last week or a few centuries ago, something like that they started believing this. The other group has about 6000 years of written history and a claim that they even have history back to the begining of the human race. which group is more credible? would you accept the historically-based claim over the recently formulated claim?

TV has a funny way of bringing certain things we haven’t much given thought about to our attention. I have heard this theory you are describing and it has been currently addressed and discussed in some circles of debate. It is not a new or original idea (though I thought the episode you are speaking of provided an entertaining perspective on it). This is a touchy subject and I will try to provide my experiences with it. One of the ideas that I have heard was that the Bible was the most incredible books to support the claim that UFOs exist. Examples like the Genesis account where Moses and his followers would follow the “cloud by day” and the “pillar of fire at night” some authors would claim that these are UFOs. The account in the beginning of the book of Ezekiel where he describes the “angelic” visitation some researchers have concluded that this is evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Because the authors of the Bible did not K(NOW) or understand the terms “flying saucer’ or “UFO” this was the way that they had to describe their visions of GOD.

There is another story that predates around the 12th century (please do not quote me on the date) that says at one time the only people who could afford or have versions of the Bible were heads of the state or wealthy rulers. There is also mention that in the original text of The NEW TESTAMENT authors (Matthew, Mark, John) had originally spoken about the TRUTH that Jesus put forth about reincarnation and the fact that when we die we can return to an earthly existence. Well the heads of the state were furious about this teaching and changed (omitted or rewrote) it because if the common people knew that they would come back to earth in another lifetime they would not obey the state and its laws and rules would diminish and become ineffective. What would be the sense of fearing authority and death if you knew all you had to do was reincarnate and do it all over again? It makes you wonder what other teachings/scriptures/proverbs scholars and translaters omitted or rewrote to accomodate their present society standards and practices.

I would like to see people who desire to K(NOW) where we came from, take a serious study with present technology and reason and try to conclude this for everyone.
Me personally, I have a problem with a book that was written by authors who have a 436-1 BC, 1-637 AD perspective. First of all, I do not live in that time period, I cannot PROVE that those people existed or that those events ever happened. I live in the NOW. Second, on some matters it would just be easier to PROVE some of the answers or TRUTHS (TRUTHS are evident and available everywhere not just in the Bible) ourselves and write our own Bibles on matters that we can utilize today (and this has already been going on). Some people get so “hung-up” and so obsessive about what theory is CORRECT-evolution or creation or “where did we come from?” that they sometimes overlook the more important issues like “where do we want to go? And how do we get there?”.

Edited August 11, 2004 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

simply question: if the God you claim to have met has existed through all history: why is there no mention of His existence in history?

that stargate episode i watched i thought tended to try to make creationism out to be a crazy thought, but I thought of it differently: figuring that the people who claimed they came from the aliens had been making that claim for thousands of years since the time they actually did come from the aliens, it's not like they just thought it up, they would go back further into the past towards the begining of that race's life on the planet. The same theory could be applied here to show that we actually have references to this God that date back to the begining, and you don't have any references to your god that date back to the begining. Thus: it is more likely that your god is a creation of your mind while Our God has existed from the begining.


The story about the wealthy people editing the Bible is absurd. It would be unprovable either way if it weren't for a little gem we like to call the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. The most ancient manuscripts that have been found have no mention of reincarnation.

[b]436-1 BC, 1-637 AD [/b] Excuse me? Give me one credible source that says the scriptures were still being writtin in 637 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls predate that by centuries and they're the completed New Testament.

See, I have no problem with the witnes so of people from 436 BC (with stories that date back to 4000 BC based on a trustworthy oral tradition) to 2000 Anno Domini.

One more thing about the scriptures: it is absurd to think that the Bible talks about UFOs. First off: what in tarnation would aliens be doing talking to Ancient Israel? I'm sure you could come up with a Star Trekky answer, maybe they were observing us and their transporter broke so they had to get help from the Israelites by commanding them to leave Egypt and write down a bunch of stuff about morality and faith. err.. maybe not? The fact is: it is an improbable theory.

The only feasable argument all comes down to probability. It is more probable that the Ancient Israelites believed they were talking to God, and a span of over 2000 years of written witness to that same God gives it credibility and probability that this is truly the God who has been around throughout all of human history.

[carrdero]

Aloysius writes: simply question: if the God you claim to have met has existed through all history: why is there no mention of His existence in history?

Actually the question that I think you wanted to ask me was "if the GOD you claim to have met has existed through all history: why haven't I heard of him?"

The TRUTHs and descriptions that I have received from the entity that I spoke of can literally be traced throughout history (music, literature, movies) even the Bible. You just have to be aware of it (Life’s greatest gift-awareness). For example there is an old poet by the name of Rumi that had a very eloquent perspective on life and I believe that he had a relationship to GOD somewhat like mine (though he may have expressed it differently). If you do not know who Rumi is there would be know way of you knowing that the GOD I have spoken about was indeed present in older times.
Though the Bible contains different authors and relationships with GOD there is bound to be some differences to the GOD that I describe and the GOD that authors in the Bible described. Maybe they didn’t come to an accurate knowledge of GOD like I did (maybe they were describing another entity). Maybe they came to an accurate knowledge of GOD and I didn’t (maybe I am describing another entity). You also have to keep in mind that man put the Bible together, not GOD (I have yet to see anyone produce the printing bill for the Bible with GOD’s signature on it. Now that would be impressive!). I oftentimes wonder why the different books were compounded into one volume (what would be the reasoning for this) when they could/should very well stand alone by themselves. Can you imagine how many more religions there would be? Let’s see we could attend the Church of Ezra on Thursday Night. Pop in for a quick meeting over at the house of Corinthians Friday night.

As an after note I can assure you that there are many publications that have been/are being written and produced that are validating the same exact things that I have discovered through my relationship with GOD. This is a very exciting prospect for me. If you are not aware of my GOD or these other publications I do not believe you can share my enthusiams. Again this could just be an example of delusional/wishful thinking, shared consciousness, or a more modern accurate description of the GOD that has existed throughout history. In fact I am validating the existence of GOD everyday (not just every yesterday).

Aloysius writes: The same theory could be applied here to show that we actually have references to this God that date back to the begining, and you don't have any references to your god that date back to the begining.

But you do not have any references that date back to show that people were actually talking to or about GOD. I am not debating that the Bible does not exist, it does, I have one on my shelf, I am looking at it right now, there, now I am picking it up. That is not the issue or the problem that we are trying to understand. The issue is whether these authors of the Bible were actually in contact with the Being that you call GOD. You mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, well you can show me all the “wet papyrus/stone tablets/refrigerator notes” that you want the question remains; Were these authors in communion with the Being called GOD.

Aloysius writes Thus: it is more likely that your god is a creation of your mind while Our God has existed from the begining.

It could be said that all GODs are a creation of everyone’s mind too. Just curious but why is your GOD of the Bible more believable than mine? What is Moses your uncle? Do you owe Jeremiah or Isaiah money or something? Do you get financial residuals from every Bible sold? What is your reasoning behind this that makes you have to believe that those books are real? Because someone told you they were? I told you my GOD was real and you don’t believe me.

Aloysius writes: The story about the wealthy people editing the Bible is absurd.
One more thing about the scriptures: it is absurd to think that the Bible talks about UFOs.

What can I tell you, these beliefs are being entertained in some discussion/research groups.

Aloysius writes: The fact is: it is an improbable theory.

It is ALL improbable theory.

Aloysius writes: The only feasable argument all comes down to probability. It is more probable that the Ancient Israelites believed they were talking to God, and a span of over 2000 years of written witness to that same God gives it credibility and probability that this is truly the God who has been around throughout all of human history.

It all comes down to preference. Which GOD (if any) do you want to get to K(NOW)? I am happy to K(NOW) this GOD because I put the time and effort to get to K(NOW) GOD. I didn't read about him. You will never K(NOW) about an entity from reading about them. You have to make the effort to engage in a worthwhile sincere realtionship.

Edited August 11, 2004 by carrdero

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

My thoughts on the question (even if not addressed to me)...
[quote]Just curious but why is your GOD of the Bible more believable than mine?[/quote]
Because He came into the world as a human being, performing miracles and other signs (and continues to do so) that so convinced people that He was God that they became martyrs for that belief. Is your god believable enough to die for?

[MichaelFilo]

[quote]This statement has the scent of another incident that took place I believe in this very same post thread with another Phatmass member. This member had tried using the same tactics by accusing me of dodging the "issue" and when I showed this member that I did indeed answer all their questions (requests) they "up and left" the thread. WITH MY APPLES!! I thought I had answered their questions succinctly (though I could be mistaken). What happen with this person I believe is that my reasoning did not match theirs and either they couldn't "keep up" (couldn't provide any more information to keep the debate going) or they just became disinterested/ disgusted.[/quote]

That was me, I was in too many threads, and had homework :ph34r:

[Aloysius]

The fact is, throughout history there is an unbreaking line of people who believe in a God who is Holy, who hates sin and calls us to be holy... there is not a line, nor even many people you could find in history, who believed in a God who just chilled and let you do what you want not calling you to change but understanding that that's who you are and letting it go... that's not who God is, that will never be who God is.

the fact is: there are so many other factors out there that we CANNOT simply try to ascertain who God is by 'experience' because our experience will always be clouded by our emotions, sometimes preconcieved ideas, our desires, our wants, our imagination, our experiences and personality. What happens when one tries to do this, is that they end up creating God in their image. rather than finding the ultimate Good who created the Universe, they form in their minds someone who will excuse them to allow them to do what they want, they form in their minds someone who is, in essence, just like them. but this is not who God is, God is infinitely higher than us. God calls us to be Holy like Him, to deny ourselves and take up our crosses to follow Him.

the fact is: we must rely on the REASON and LOGIC which God has GIVEN to us in order to prudently judge what the objective nature of God is in order to avoid inventing something that we want God to be (you can invent something in your mind and not be aware that you are its creator). God is not created by us, we are created by God. REASON and LOGIC tell us that the attributes which have been consistently attributed to God throughout all of history are His Attributes, because He's been around through all of History so He must have revealed Himself to others. Basing ourselves on the experience man has had with God through all of history, we are able to guard ourselves against a false image of God and be open to who He really is, and then His power will transform us and we will come to know all the Truth which He has revealed to mankind through the centuries.

The Bible was formed by God THROUGH men. It was compiled into one book so that the Christians would have an authoritative list of books they should read in the highest form of prayer: the Divine Liturgy, the Holy Mass. There was never any danger of a church of the gospel of mark and a church of ezdra and a church of the letter to the corinthians. again you ridicule what you do not understand. God inspired those words and they are free of error, God intended every word of every book in the Bible to be there. It is a testamony of God's contact with humanity throughout the first 4000 years of written history. The portrait it paints of God is what we should look to in order to discern between what it is we are making God because we want Him to be that, and what God actually is uninfluenced by our emotions and desires.

This stuff about your god being in art, perhaps the feelings you have given yourself through your imagined ideas of God can be found in the feelings art can portray, but you cannot show me a historical belief in a God who is not an all-Holy God infinitely greater than us who calls us to be better than we are and deny ourselves and sacrifice for love of Him. This is just not the way God has been revealing Himself to humanity, until you came along and all the sudden God told you that you need to be true to yourself and all that really matters is happiness while sadness is bad. I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. God has been around since the begining of the universe, and He's revealed a belief in Him to man through organized religion. He never intended unorganized religion, it's not historical thus the Historical GOD must not have intended it.