Identifying The One True God

[Aloysius]

carrderro, thank you for ridiculing our beliefs. we DO believe that a person's soul is tainted with original sin. not the holocaust or slavery, but yes: sin. There is a spiritual reality that transcends what your mere human reason indicates to you. We are born into the darkness, seperated from God because of the decision of our first parents. We must be baptized to become Sons of God, to escape the darkness and find the light. may I ask you carrdero, have you been baptized in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity? if not, I can definitely see why you are so easily deceived by whatever speaks to you claiming to be God. A baptized person has the Trinity inside them and thus are more able to recognize True Light from darkness (of course, if someone renounces their baptism enough through unbelief they too might fall victem to deceit)

God never changes. the assertion that God is perfect because He desires to be perfect and has had more time to become perfect is flawed. God is the Great I AM, the definition of Existence, the ONE who IS. He is unchanging for all eternity, the perfect Good.

[Quietfire]

Actually, unless Carderro wishes to correct me...I believe he was baptised in the Church.

But from what I understand from our conversations, he was dragged to Church as a child.

Did I get that right Pat?

Peace.
Oh and Pat, the little play wasnt necessary.
Original sin is nothing like what youve described.
Original sin is the sin of self above God.
Not the apple. Or Holocaust. Or slavery.

Edited August 9, 2004 by Quietfire

[Tora-Musume]

Thanks Quietfire. I got your message. I would like to Thank Everyone for responding to my question.

See you around! ~~<~<~{@ For All

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 9 2004, 06:57 AM']That's all right I will find you. You are not born a sinner. You are not born of Original Sin. I was not born of Original Sin. I am perfectly capable of creating and committing my own sins without having to rely on someone else'e, thank you. Imagine coming into a physical existence and your parents or loved ones saying to you;

MOM: Little PatricK.
LITTLE PATRICK: Yes, Mom and Dad, whats the matter, why are you crying?
DAD: Shoud I tell him dear?
MOM: (crying while nodding)
DAD: What your Mom and me are trying to tell you son, is that you are responsible/accountable/guilty for Adam and Eve's sin/ the holocaust/ slavery in the United States.
LITTLE PATRICK: No!! No!!! It can't be. If I knew this was going to happen I would have never been born. Well what do I do !?!? How do I get it off me?!?!?!
MOM: (still crying) We are going to take you someplace to get it washed off right now.

If this little dramatization seems absurd and ludicrous to you it's because it is. You are accountable to your own mistakes. You are to blame for your own mistakes. If you desire forgiveness the only place you should look for forgiveness is within. Do not let others tell you you are to be blamed for other people's mistakes. And as for baptism, well thats another thread altogether.[/quote]
Clearly, you still don't grasp the nature of the doctrine of [i]original sin[/i]. It is not an act on the part of Adam's descendants, and so no one but Adam is "guilty" of that particular act. But by his action, Adam lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for himself as well as for his descendants. The supernatural gift of [i]sanctifying grace[/i] had been given to Adam contingently, and alas, by his sin, he failed to pass the test of obedience to God. Now, if Adam had not committed the [i]original sin[/i] and had he thus remained in a state of deifying grace, he would have passed the state of [i]original justice[/i] (i.e., sanctifying or deifying grace) on to all his descendants, but as we all know from the narrative in Genesis, he didn't pass the test.

Moreover, Catholicism is not a form of Manichaean dualism, and so it doesn't see [i]original sin[/i] as a "thing" or "essence"; instead, [i]original sin[/i] is a privation of, a lack of, [i]sanctifying grace[/i] in the human person. This lack of grace is restored by Christ.

Now, I don't expect you as a non-Catholic to necessarily accept Catholic doctrine, but you shouldn't misrepresent what we believe as you have done with your little narrative between "little Patrick" and his mom and dad. One can only make an act of faith in God and the mysteries revealed by Him with the aid of His grace, so I certainly don't expect you to believe the doctrines of the faith because you've read my posts; but as I said above, you shouldn't misrepresent Catholic beliefs. You shouldn't accuse Catholics of believing something that we do not believe, as you do in your little narrative. Neither I nor anyone else on Phatmass bears any guilt for the Holocaust, and I doubt anyone here at Phatmass was even alive during the Holocaust, but regardless, we only bear guilt for our own actions.

So, let me reiterate for the sake of clarity, [i]original sin[/i] is a state of being, and so it is not an act on the part of Adam's descendants, and as a consequence, Adam's descendants don't bear the guilt for his action, but we do suffer the effects flowing from his choice to disobey God, in that he lost a precious gift that was meant to be ours (i.e., the state of sanctifying grace).

But as a Catholic, I thank God daily, because Jesus Christ has renewed the likeness to God lost by Adam's sin, and in the process He has restored the wonderful gift of [i]sanctifying grace[/i] to all who are incorporated into His mystical Body the Church.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 9, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

[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.