Identifying The One True God

[MorphRC]

The Bible doesnt say a lot of things clearly Tora.

The Assumption of Mary aint biblical. Its traditional. Is just one example.

[carrdero]

MichaelFilo writes: That was my post. You repleyed to none of the points.

Let us see exactly what I have done.

MichaelFilo writes: The reason why I cannot accept your god as the true one is because god is not different to different people.

And carrdero explained: First I must again reiterate that I am not asking you to accept the realtionship that I have with my GOD.

MichaelFilo writes: However, no one has EVER told me of how you worship god.

And carrdero explained: I do not worship GOD. GOD has explained to me that he does not require worship. Worship is regarded for Beings connected with religion and as explained before, GOD is not our religions. Religions are man-made institutions. Man did not create GOD. GOD has been around long before man and established religion were created.

MichaelFilo writes: The fact that you limit your god to only answering you in the manner you contact him also makes me wonder.

And carrdero explained: I cannot K(NOW) how GOD responds to other personalities because I have never met or talked with anyone who has the same kind of relationship as I have.

MichaelFilo writes: Why would a singular True God, be so diverse in His personality types?

And carrdero explained: GOD does not change his personality when he talks with me.


MichaelFilo writes: This is very relevant to the protestants who thought God could tell them all something different, and they'd all be 100% right on the mark. The fact that we live in a Protestantized society leads me to believe that your god is just a product of this society.

And carrdero explained: : GOD is his own BEing with his own PURPOSE and his own agenda. GOD is not Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Born Again or Jehovah Witness.

This was your whole post MichaelFilo. As you can see I have effectively responded to everything you have asked for including respecting your wishes not to buthcher your quote. The only thing that I haven’t done (which was never my intention) is to validate your relationship with your GOD.

MichaelFilo writes: Have you in anyway made me believe your god is God? No.

I am not asking you to believe in my GOD. Why would I ask you to believe in an entity you have never met?

MichaelFilo writes: You have turned God into some commercalized, New Age love hippy. You aren't the first.

I have turned GOD into no such thing (he was like that when I got there ). I have not improved or made GOD worse. GOD is GOD.

MichaelFilo writes: I will ask you to look out of the pit you are in, but you believe that religion is a pit.

I never implied that but what I did imply is that you do not need religion to
K(NOW) GOD or that your relationship to GOD is not any more important depending what religion that you belong to or that GOD does not judge you for what religion you have eventually accepted.

MichaelFilo writes: I believe I will deny that as long as you live, and talk to this falsified god. I will not acknowledge he is not the real God.

You have that right to deny GOD but I assure you that GOD will love you and exist whichever decision you desire to make.

MichaelFilo writes: The God I love and worship sent prophets, and many times took matters into his own hands to lead His people.

The GOD that I have had a relationship with never spoke of prophecies or promises (well he did promise wisdom and good companionship) nor has ever over-extended his power or interfered with my life in any way. GOD has offered me guidance but ALL(WAYS) made sure to leave me the final decision or choice. As I explained before GOD will lead you to the door to understanding but eventually it is up to us to enter.

MichaelFilo writes: Your god was created in your mind, or is a demon out to trick you.

Actually my relationship with GOD took a very long time to come to the friendship that it is today. It is not easy to maintain a relationship with GOD. Also it is difficult to understand why you have the problem of accepting the way that I have come to GOD. Is it not the same way that the authors of the Bible conducted their relationship with GOD?

MichaelFilo writes: If God is what you say he is, then he has the mindset of today, since the beggining of time.

Actually I believe it took GOD many moments to come to the understanding of where he is now. It most likely was not easy to come by. We can probably use our own experiences that we are living now to understand how GOD came to such wisdom or understanding. Maybe, just maybe, this existence is a way for us to experience what it was like to understand how GOD came to understand. Also, contrary to popular opinion, GOD does have the freedom to change his mind.

MichaelFilo writes: If I am a god, then why am I imperfect?

Maybe you choose to be imperfect. Maybe you have no desire to be perfect. Do you want to be perfect? Why do you want to be perfect? I’m not to sure I understand your circumstances or how your life is going to fully understand the question but I do K(NOW) it is very difficult to be perfect and not really required of the experience of BEing human. I think that if we were all perfect humans this would remove all the drama from our lives and this would make for a very uninteresting experience.

[carrdero]

JeffCR07 writes: from what I have seen of his posts, Carrdero falls into the dilemma of accepting Revelation at the exclusion of Reason.

I guess from your point of view there would be nothing else [u]to[/u] see.

Edited August 7, 2004 by carrdero

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Tora-Musume' date='Aug 7 2004, 06:59 AM']She was my friends daughter and I highly dought that a woman in her 20's is going to misunderstand a teaching when she has read the Bible, but then again, she is taught that we are born without sin until we are baptised. I just would like to know why this teaching is like this. It's very confusing.  Her mother has also read the bible and has also wondered why a Catholic Religion would teach you 2 different faiths? When I was going to church with my mother, I was thought we are born with out sin. Now I am finding out that we are born with sin until we are baptised and cleansed of our sins. You see where the confusion is here? A catholic faith is stating 2 different beliefs. I was born a Catholic and went to church all the time. But when you are taught one thing and then again taught another, it confuses you.

Gotta Love Me!  [/quote]
Your friend's daughter may be in her 20s but she is confused. The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam was created naturally free and good and was given the additional gift of [i]original justice[/i], i.e., he was filled with the [i]supernatural[/i] gift of [i]sanctifying[/i] ([i]deifying[/i]) [i]grace[/i]. He was also given other additional gifts that exceeded his nature, and these four gifts are normally called [i]preternatural[/i] because they are not properly speaking [i]supernatural[/i], since only God is truly [i]supernatural[/i], but they are not natural to man either because they were added on to his nature and exceeded his natural capacities and were intended to adorn and perfect his nature. The [i]preternatural[/i] gifts are: integrity, immortality, impassibility, and infused knowledge.

That being said, when Adam committed the first sin, he lost nothing natural to his nature as man; instead, he lost the [i]supernatural[/i] gift of [i]sanctifying grace[/i], and the [i]preternatural[/i] gifts meant to adorn and perfect his natural abilities, so all of Adam's descendants are born without this [i]supernatural[/i] gift, and without the [i]preternatural[/i] gifts as well. This lack of [i]original justice[/i], i.e., the lack of [i]sanctifying grace[/i], is what is called [i]original sin[/i].

Now, it is important to note that [i]original sin[/i] is an act on the part of Adam, but it is not an act on the part of his descendants; instead, for Adam's descendants it is a state of being. [cf. [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], nos. 404-406] In other words, it is the state of existence brought about by the fall whereby men are born without [i]sanctifying grace[/i], and thus it is best described as a privation of a [i]supernatural[/i] gift. All men are born in this state of [i]original sin[/i], and the purpose of the sacrament of baptism is to renew the likeness to God deformed by sin, and make man a son of God in the only begotten Son of God, and in the process man is restored to a state of [i]sanctifying grace[/i].

Perhaps your friend's daughter was confused by the fact that [i]original sin[/i] is not an act on the part of Adam's descendants. A man can only commit [i]actual sins[/i] once he has reached the age of reason and can clearly determine right and wrong. Only then can his actions be imputable to him as a moral agent. Thus, the Catholic Church distinguishes between [i]original sin[/i], which is a state of being, and [i]actual sin[/i], which is the particular sinful action of a particular person who has acquired the full use of the gift of reason, and who has thus become morally responsible for his actions.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 7, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 6 2004, 09:11 AM'] are you telling me that the english word "god" originates from "Elohim"? [/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm"]Etymology of the word "God"[/url]

[Aloysius]

exactly my point, "God" has polythiestic ORIGINS as well, but it's just a word.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01316a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01316a.htm[/url]

[MorphRC]

God, as in One, Supreme being, COULD be traced back through the times, I know that many historians believe that Pharaoh Aknetan was the first monothiest believer, with the god Atun.

But we know that God Himself as a belief in monotheism cant be paganistic, if so, then we deny Adam and Eve.

[carrdero]

MorphRC writes: But we know that God Himself as a belief in monotheism cant be paganistic, if so, then we deny Adam and Eve.

Yes, but in the way that some organized religions conduct their monotheist belief in GOD they deny themselves. Which is the greater "sin"?

[MorphRC]

That wasnt the discussion

[carrdero]

My apologies then.

[Aloysius]

yep, we deny ourselves as Jesus commanded us
"deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me"

[Tora-Musume]

[quote name='Tora-Musume' date='Aug 7 2004, 08:59 AM'] She was my friends daughter and I highly dought that a woman in her 20's is going to misunderstand a teaching when she has read the Bible, but then again, she is taught that we are born without sin until we are baptised. I just would like to know why this teaching is like this. It's very confusing. Her mother has also read the bible and has also wondered why a Catholic Religion would teach you 2 different faiths? When I was going to church with my mother, I was thought we are born with out sin. Now I am finding out that we are born with sin until we are baptised and cleansed of our sins. You see where the confusion is here? A catholic faith is stating 2 different beliefs. I was born a Catholic and went to church all the time. But when you are taught one thing and then again taught another, it confuses you.

Gotta Love Me!

[/quote]
Still...My question was not answered. All of you have informed me:

[quote]Apotheoun Posted on Aug 7 2004, 11:28 AM
The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam was created naturally free and good and was given the additional gift of original justice, i.e., he was filled with the supernatural gift of sanctifying (deifying) grace. He was also given other additional gifts that exceeded his nature, and these four gifts are normally called preternatural because they are not properly speaking supernatural, since only God is truly supernatural, but they are not natural to man either because they were added on to his nature and exceeded his natural capacities and were intended to adorn and perfect his nature. The preternatural gifts are: integrity, immortality, impassibility, and infused knowledge. That being said, when Adam committed the first sin, he lost nothing natural to his nature as man; instead, he lost the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace, and the preternatural gifts meant to adorn and perfect his natural abilities, so all of Adam's descendants are born without this supernatural gift, and without the preternatural gifts as well. This lack of original justice, i.e., the lack of sanctifying grace, is what is called original sin.
Now, it is important to note that original sin is an act on the part of Adam, but it is not an act on the part of his descendants; instead, for Adam's descendants it is a state of being. [cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 404-406] In other words, it is the state of existence brought about by the fall whereby men are born without sanctifying grace, and thus it is best described as a privation of a supernatural gift. All men are born in this state of original sin, and the purpose of the sacrament of baptism is to renew the likeness to God deformed by sin, and make man a son of God in the only begotten Son of God, and in the process man is restored to a state of sanctifying grace. A man can only commit actual sins once he has reached the age of reason and can clearly determine right and wrong. Only then can his actions be imputable to him as a moral agent. Thus, the Catholic Church distinguishes between original sin, which is a state of being, and actual sin, which is the particular sinful action of a particular person who has acquired the full use of the gift of reason, and who has thus become morally responsible for his actions.
[/quote]

Which I appreciate you all clarifying. Still, my question was not answered. My friends daughter asked several members several questions including the question about the (being born with sin until baptised; being born without sin) and she had observed that all members differed from each other.

[quote]My quote: When I was going to CHURCH with my mother, I was thought we are born withOUT sin. Now I am finding out that we are born with sin until we are baptised and cleansed of our sins.[/quote]

I was actually taught in church that we are born withOUT sin until we are baptised. I had asked my mother questions about it and she had said the same thing. So when my friends daughter asks me this questions (because I am catholic), I am reticent. With the teachings that I have received before from our CHURCH and family to the information that is being given to me now, ...I am faithless. Since my question was not answered on WHY would the same faith teach you 2 different teachings, Moving on!

Gotta Love Me!

[Aloysius]

the same faith doesn't teach two different things. it sounds like there was just some sort of misunderstanding. the Catholic Church teaches that our souls are stained with original sin when we are born, and that baptism cleanses us from that original sin. when we are born we ourselves have not committed any sin, but our souls are stained with original sin. perhaps that's where the misunderstanding came? either that or there's some wolf in sheep's clothing there teaching heresy that we are born without any sin.

[Tora-Musume]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 8 2004, 02:42 PM'] either that or there's some wolf in sheep's clothing there teaching heresy that we are born without any sin. [/quote]
In a Catholic CHURCH?

Gotta Love Me!

Anyways, still does not answer my question...or . I guess this means that you can't really accept something as true or existing even in a church since it could be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Gotta Love Me!

[MichaelFilo]

I think every single person who answered this thread outside of carderro have said the same thing. We are born with sin, and until we are baptized, we have original sin on ours souls. This gets cleansed when we are baptized. However, you keep telling us about your friend, but we have all unanimously said the same thing. I am faily sure someone misunderstood the teaching. This is a very basic doctrine. We have given you what the Church teaches.

God bless,

Mikey