ZYDOR POSTS #8



This reminds me of the contention that in a very short time scientists will be able to create life in the laboratory. You may have heard the story that came out of this as told my Dr. Robin Bernhoft,

"There was a very clever scientist who told God, "I don't need you anymore, I can create life." God asked him how he was going to do it. The scientist said, "I am going to do it just like you did. I am going to start with this dirt." God responded, "Not so fast--get your own dirt!"

Neat - hadnt heard of that one before   




Totally co-indidental- I hadnt even thought of that connection with that post. I am not arguing the hypostatic union, more the opposite I suppose, with a liberal dose of confusion and astonishment. The Chalcedon Council declared:

"...... that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Chalcedon Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete"

In one breath it states two natures united in one person, and the next states each was distinct and complete - the latter being a different inference from the word "united". Here was the fudge that had to occur at the Council in order to align the four main strands of previous theological thinking at the time. In the end of course the Oriental Orthodox Churches pulled out in the Great Schism.

So we had "mortal man" deciding what the correct devine theological theory was 400 years after the death of Christ. When during that time totally different theories existed in the main christian religions when compared to each other, and the Bible had not yet been fully collated and approved. Conceptually I have a problem with "mortal man" deciding what devine theory is correct, that at the very least places mankind at the same level as god if we have the authority to decide who and what god actually is - particularly when previous "truths" were held up as immutable.

Thats not to say I am attacking anything, I promise you, its pure thought process on my part, nothing more. I cant get my head around the concept that mankind has the right to dictate the nature of a supreme deity. That Council meeting profoundly changed the nature of christ in theological thinking. From my understanding of it - and many others I have spoken to have the same issue - there was not easy agreement, a lot of horse trading went on over the final wording. I am not using it to prove that god does not exist (nothing can do that, you cant prove a negative), but it does provide a powerful mental block for anyone trying to get into the core of christianity. We are not gods and never will be - even the Pope is elected by Cardinals and Bishops - not devine intervention.


That I regret to say is very true of many zealot atheists, which is sad, debate should be about understanding elements of the dilema, not demonstrate "right and wrong". The nature of this dilema means ultimately there has to be a leap of Faith else you will not get there, because no matter where you come at it from, there is no substantiated so called "evidence".

Ultimately the whole thing needs that final leap of Faith, and at the end of the day is that not what Christianity is about? Having Faith? If one does, then that individual should be inwardly content, and not be riled by zealots. If one doesnt, well thats their problem, but for their part they should leave it there, you never know, one day something may change their mind.....

These four comments are, in a nutshell, the problem ..... and also point to the solution.

The Bible as it is now is a misrepresentation of God and His religion. not that it, the Bible, is totally false. It is not. The last comment said what happened and describes why the current confusion exists. Then, to take that same Bible that we know how it was generated and start arguing about God based on it is not really fair at all. Dont blame God for the confusion of some.

The solution, however, is to apply the first comment: GO to the source that is has not been corrupted by "the mortal man". At least that is what it claims about itself.

Judging anything, particularly God and religion, based on what you yourself say is not reliable sourse is not a reasonable way to reach a fair decision.

There exists a text, Qura'an, that claims that it is the direct words of God: uncorrupted, unedited and never mixed with anything else. Discussing the topic without taking what that text say into consideration is simpley incomplete and distorted argument. That is my opinion anyway for whatever it is worth.

It is amazing, at least to me, that some people who seem to be honestly looking for a logical answer only concentrate on what they read in a document they know it is not reliable.

Very admirable of you to search and question, just dont restrict that to one book. Read and explore what is available out there.

I sent Dawkins' book to my husband in Iraq. Whenever the hell he gets home I will read it and hopefully have some insight to add to the conversation.

You mean the Bible? Why not, isnt that what I am trying to wrap my head around ? Or did I miss the point you made ..

Lula, the problem is not Darwin or his theory. as you pointed out, He never claimed taht his theory excludes the Creation or the existence of A God. The problem is that you are saying that Humans came to exist on earth only 6000+ years ago. That is when you start facing the problem created by the way the Bible was put together.

If you separate what God actually said from what others wrote the whole issue will resolve itself.

But you insist on treating everything written in the Bible as Divine. That is the Problem.

You certainly did. The Bible is NOT the only book around. Have you read #33?

I take your point - the Qura'an

That introduces another dilema - Christ is treated as a Prophet in the Qura'an, but as a devine entity in the Bible. At the moment I have an issue trying to get my head round the existence of a supreme deity at all let alone draw a distinction such as the two different discriptions of christ in the Bible & the Qura'an, and following on from that just who or what God actually is.

The latter gets into the nature of Mohammed, and at present being in a predominantly Christian country, I need to resolve in my mind the Christian version first, particularly as Mohammed was not born until 200 years after the declaration of hypostatic union, yet the muslim faith(s) existed way before then.

Not putting one above the other in a search for knowledge sense (steering delicately away from the obvious theological minefield for the moment, lets not ignite that one on this thread), but I have to start somewhere.

This post was meant to spark a debate on the relevance of the Bible and whether Dawkins (and Darwin , for that matter), were right or wrong in their assumptions or theories. We may want to divorce their works from what we believe but at the same time, realise, that we all have the right to question age-old thinking--as long as we believe there is a God in our lives. If there is no God in our lives that is for another debate.

Please continue to debate and thank you for taking part.

Zydor,

I shall gladly respond to your inquiry about the Catholic Church's doctrine concerning the mystery of the Hypostatic Union, which is that Jesus is at once and the same time, both of Divine Nature, that is True-God and of human nature, True-Man.

I would suggest that you read Aeryck's blog, Mysterious Bible Passages. I think you'll find the entire discussion (about 4 pages) enjoyable and interesting. Starting at #52, I describe the Catholic Church; # 78 Christ is God, and # 82, 86, 87, and 95,the New Testament doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, in One God there are three Persons was formally defined at Constantinople I and settled at the Council of Nicea in 325. ThinkAloud and I debate this...all good stuff.

I'll give it a whirl - keep the the Faith   

ThinkAloud posts #37



I disagree.

Please read post #23. There are social consequences to believing, i.e. putting your faith in Darwinian Evolution Theory. In my world, these of post 23 are all problems. ....and no one will ever convince me that believing, i.e. having faith in Genesis created these problems.

Think Aloud posts:


The Old and New Testament canons were finally assembled together by the Catholic Church. Scripture is the revealed Word of God, therefore, there are no problems with it or created by it. 2Tim. 3:16-17 tells us what Scripture is good for. "All Scripture, inspired by God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." The only problem that I know of with Sacred Scripture is man mis-interpreting, misunderstanding and misusing it.

I try my best not to do that. Just as the eunuch did with Philip, I appeal to the teaching authority of the Catholic Chruch to guide my understanding and interpretion of Scripture. Yet, the Church hasn't spoken definitively on every single passage, but leaves open permitting plenty of liberty.

The literalness of the Genesis 24 hour/ 7 days of Creation and the question of "age" is a case in point. The issue is far from settled.

After Scripture and faith comes reason which tells me the time frame is short, say 6,000-10,000 years, and not millions of years.

Genesis was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew word "yom" can mean either a day of 24 hours, or a period of longer than 24 hours. There are strong grounds on which to claim that a meaning of 24 hours harmonizes best with the Hebrew grammar of Genesis.
1--there are other Hebrew words that would have been more appropriate for referring to the longer periods of time.
2--since this is the first time the word 'day' is used, it seems implausible that it was symbolic of a long,long as in millions of years, but more deliberate to include light and dark in each rotational 24 hour day.
3---and this is what I find most interesting---God is truly omnipotent and He can create the time span that most pleases Him. He may have desired to create the universe in 6 days of 24 hours each to harmonize best with His highest creation--human beings. Remember that the concept of a seven days week comes ONLY from Genesis. God created for 6 days and "rested" on the 7th. Day, months, and years can all be derived from astonomy, but not weeks.

ThinkAloud,

And I'll insist upon it one more time, for it never tires me to remind you that every word in the Old and New Testaments is the revealed Word of God. Through the Holy Ghost, every single writer from Moses in Genesis through St.John in The Apocalypse was inspired to write down only what God wanted written.

And you in turn keep insisting that every word of Muhammad's Qur'an is of Divine origin.

ZYDOR POSTS: #2




Upon re-reading this, I'm tempted write my own blog about where we got the Bible and would if school wasn't starting next week cutting shorter my 'free' time to strike away at these computer keys.

If I did write, the blog would be base upon Henry G. Graham's 170 page book, Where we got the Bible? I highly recommend it. Some of the chapter titles are: the making of the Old Testament--the Church proceeds the New testament--the Church compiles the NT--deficiencies in the Protestant Bibles--the originals and their disappearance--our debt to the monks---Bible reading in the dark ages---vernacular scriptures before Wycliff--