Evidence for God from Science

I just wanted to emphasize the correct MOTIVE (from the above Scripture quotes) for calling out false teachings and heresy:
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

So, far from being what the world would call as "judgmental," correctly implemented, the above is to be done out of love, concern and true faith. And the clear implication is also that to NOT correct where possible and in such a way would be a LACK of those attributes of the goal of the "COMMAND.

Is This Writing Heresy? http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 08#p174261

This then is now better understood as a topic of reason and understanding as heretical. Denunciation of an attribute of God with the implicit design to undermine another's faith and intentionally, without purity, good conscience or sincere love be judgmental to the point of calling that faith heretical for 2000 year old established beliefs he was personally aware of for 30 years as a residing Catholic himself.... shameful...

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

I just wanted to emphasize the correct MOTIVE (from the above Scripture quotes) for calling out false teachings and heresy:
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

So, far from being what the world would call as "judgmental," correctly implemented, the above is to be done out of love, concern and true faith. And the clear implication is also that to NOT correct where possible and in such a way would be a LACK of those attributes of the goal of the "COMMAND.

Is This Writing Heresy? http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 08#p174261

This then is now better understood as a topic of reason and understanding as heretical. Denunciation of an attribute of God with the implicit design to undermine another's faith and intentionally, without purity, good conscience or sincere love be judgmental to the point of calling that faith heretical for 2000 year old established beliefs he was personally aware of for 30 years as a residing Catholic himself.... shameful...

I would have to say no. It's not heresy. When we speak of God's omnipresence, we are saying that He is everywhere spiritually. For God is Spirit. Gendron is saying that Catholic transubstantiation teaches, among other things, that Jesus is physically present in each and every wafer. Denying that God is or can be physically present in a million wafers at the safe time, is not denying God's omnipresence.
And before someone says that Catholics do not believe Christ is physically present in the wafers, read this:

The Physical Reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist
To avoid misunderstanding this sacramental presence which surpasses the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind we must listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. This voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way Christ is made present in this Sacrament is none other than by the change of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and that this unique and truly wonderful change the Catholic Church rightly calls transubstantiation. As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new "reality" which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical "reality" is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.

http://www.adoremus.org/0302RealPresence.html

Heresy is the design to intentionally undermine Christian Faith. All those sects mentioned in the article, historically did just that. David Koresh, Jim Jones, in the modern era did just that. JW''s and Mormon's do just that.

That is the difference. The way modern people think is that all views have equal validity is error. That point of view is not based upon love at all but spiritual suicide.

The scriptures are filled with admonishments to avoid error, false teachers and prophets, legalism, false christs, bad doctrine, and a calls out to us to defend the faith, not to embrace every wind of doctrine that comes along.

The Holy Spirit, He is our teacher and guides us into all truth. He helps us discern error from warped truths and outright deception and lies. He uses the scriptures and then He speaks to us in many varied ways confirming the orthodox Christian faith as established in the scriptures.

A wrong view of who Jesus is often lads folks into the heresies mentioned in the article mention on page one of this thread - which is spiritual suicide. There are doctrines that Christian brothers and sisters squabble about that are not essential to who Jesus is, the Godhead, salvation, gifts of the Spirit to name a few. Brothers and sisters in any family squabble and it s the same in the church. We fuss over things like predestination, speaking in unknown languages, gifts of the Spirit, annihilationism verses eternal recompense to name a few. These are important but but do not subtract from the message central to Christian faith established in Eph 2:8,9,10. Heresies intentionally seek to undermine Christian Faith.

Heresy on the other hand seeks to undermine Eph 2:8,9,10 and have folks follow after a mortal leader whose views and doctrines replace the message of Jesus Christ. When that is found, true love will defend the faith to protect as Jesus would his own, not try to embrace all views as equal.

To Melanie and readers: When you love someone very much, and that someone wants to play inside a pit of vipers, would you say, "Oh go ahead, I love you, and respect you - go ahead, your opinion is valid as I will never judge you!" or would love shout, "NO!!!!" and tackle that someone keeping them from being killed?

Which of the two loves more?
-
-
-

RickD wrote:
And before someone says that Catholics do not believe Christ is physically present in the wafers, read this:

Of course Catholics believe Christ is fully, physically present in the host... now you Protestants should brush up on your own omniscience of God beliefs...

Got Questions wrote:
Omnipresence is God's characteristic of being present to all ranges of both time and space. Although God is present in all time and space, God is not locally limited to any time or space. God is everywhere and in every now. No molecule or atomic particle is so small that God is not fully present to it, and no galaxy so vast that God does not circumscribe it. But if we were to remove creation, God would still know of it, for He knows all possibilities, whether they are actual or not.

God is naturally present in every aspect of the natural order of things, in every manner, time and place (Isaiah 40:12; Nahum 1:3)

Used Got Questions so you'd be more comfortable with the source.

And, as a reminder of his words...

Catholics view transubstantiation as the greatest of all miracles. Almighty God, who once humbled Himself to become man, now transforms Himself into lifeless, inanimate wafers. “Every consecration, is a miracle, greater by far than any other, really: for God to come into matter and transform it into himself is far greater than His creating that matter in the first place.”[5] “The body and blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.[6] Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.


polytheism is a heretical view, from Catholic or Protestant teachings... Christ unable to be in more than one place at a time(physically and or spiritually) is disavowing His omniscience and, as I said, furthermore, he has 30 years of Catholicism under his belt... he knows this is not how we feel or view the host. His words are intentionally inflammatory and reek of disparate faith based disruption.

Ok ES. As I'm not Gendron, I can't speak for him. I can only try to understand what he's saying. With that...

RickD wrote:
And before someone says that Catholics do not believe Christ is physically present in the wafers, read this:


ES wrote:
Of course Catholics believe Christ is fully, physically present in the host... now you Protestants should brush up on your own omniscience of God beliefs...

OK, good. Then we're in agreement at least with the idea that Catholics believe Christ is physically present in the wafers.

Got Questions wrote:
Omnipresence is God's characteristic of being present to all ranges of both time and space. Although God is present in all time and space, God is not locally limited to any time or space. God is everywhere and in every now. No molecule or atomic particle is so small that God is not fully present to it, and no galaxy so vast that God does not circumscribe it. But if we were to remove creation, God would still know of it, for He knows all possibilities, whether they are actual or not.

Used Got Questions so you'd be more comfortable with the source.

That's fine. In most instances, I agree with GotQuestions. And I really don't have a problem with their definition in this case.

God is naturally present in every aspect of the natural order of things, in every manner, time and place (Isaiah 40:12; Nahum 1:3)

I'm not sure if I agree with this or not. I'd have to see the context, and know what they mean by "naturally".

And, as a reminder of his (Gendron's) words...

Catholics view transubstantiation as the greatest of all miracles. Almighty God, who once humbled Himself to become man, now transforms Himself into lifeless, inanimate wafers. “Every consecration, is a miracle, greater by far than any other, really: for God to come into matter and transform it into himself is far greater than His creating that matter in the first place.”[5] “The body and blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.[6] Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.

Ok. I see a basic disagreement here, between Gendron and you. You understand Christ's presence in the wafers as his omnipresence. Gendron sees it as Catholics believing hundreds of Christs are physically present in hundreds of separate wafers.

ES wrote:
polytheism is a heretical view, from Catholic or Protestant teachings... Christ unable to be in more than one place at a time(physically and or spiritually) is disavowing His omniscience and, as I said, furthermore, he has 30 years of Catholicism under his belt... he knows this is not how we feel or view the host. His words are intentionally inflammatory and reek of disparate faith based disruption.

As to the underlined in your quote above:
1) Christ unable to be in more than one place at a time(physically and or spiritually)
I disagree with what you think Gendron is saying here. I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ is unable to be in more than one place. I think he's just saying that the Catholic belief that Christ is in each wafer, is polytheism. And as I noted above, you two are in disagreement.

2) he knows this is not how we feel or view the host.
How you feel or view the host, is irrelevant to Gendron's point. He may agree that you don't view the host that way, but he'd say you view it wrong.

As someone who came out of Catholicism, he disagrees with much that Catholicism teaches. Apparently, He disagrees enough to assert that Catholicism isn't a Christian denomination. Like he said, he sees Catholicism in the same light as Mormonism, and JW.

As one who has come out of the Word Faith movement, I can speak out against some of their doctrine. When I speak out, i'm speaking against what I see as unbiblical doctrine. And I think Gendron believes he is doing the same with Catholicism.

To sum it up, I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ cannot be physically present in hundreds of wafers. I just think he's saying that Christ is not physically present.

I don't think there's a real disagreement in regards to God's Omnipresence. I just think you misunderstand what he's actually saying. I think the disagreement between Gendron and you, lies in the Catholic doctrine.

Rick, please don't spin this ... you've basically said you agree I disagree with Gendron but haven't shown why. Only that we disagree.... come on...

I agree with GotQuestions. And I really don't have a problem with their definition in this case.

Then how can you disagree that Christ is present in all things, down to the molecules that make it sll up and not believe he's in the Eucharist ? HOW ? It can't be that He's in everything... you know, except those Catholic wafer thingies... you'll need to make up your mind, either you agree with the definition of omnipresence or you don't. But if you don't, you'll need to explain what omnipresence is in it's apparently weakened form.

I'm not sure if I agree with this or not. I'd have to see the context, and know what they mean by "naturally".

Get back to me on this. I'll find it interesting to hear a different explanation than what Isaiah says here.

You understand Christ's presence in the wafers as his omnipresence

No, absolutely not. I see His attribute of omnipresence as His ability to be anywhere at anytime simultaneously, including the Host.

Gendron sees it as Catholics believing hundreds of Christs are physically present in hundreds of separate wafers.

Yeah... see the definition of omnipresence Mr. Gendron. He's everywhere at all times... including the Host.

Got questions wrote:
The prefix omni- comes from the Latin meaning “all.” So, to say that God is omnipresent is to say that God is present everywhere. In many religions, God is regarded as omnipresent, whereas in both Judaism and Christianity, this view is further subdivided into the transcendence and immanence of God. Although God is not totally immersed in the fabric of creation (pantheism), He is present everywhere at all times.

So tell me, what is the difference between God physically and God spiritually ? Remembering of course that He is God and capable of all things... spiritually and physically, simultaneously

I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ is unable to be in more than one place. I think he's just saying that the Catholic belief that Christ is in each wafer, is polytheism. And as I noted above, you two are in disagreement.

So it's not that He can't be in more than one place at a time it's just that he can't be in each wafer at the same time... which, by definition is in more than one place at one time...

As one who has come out of the Word Faith movement, I can speak out against some of their doctrine. When I speak out, i'm speaking against what I see as unbiblical doctrine. And I think Gendron believes he is doing the same with Catholicism

John 6:55-59 ... John 6:60-64 ... John 6:54 ... and you know there are a dozen more biblical references to His command, "Eat my body, Drink my blood" Whether you or he wish to take the command seriously or not is your decision... but don't call it unbiblical where truth prevails within the bible.

To sum it up, I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ cannot be physically present in hundreds of wafers. I just think he's saying that Christ is not physically present

So now He can be physically present but Gendron says He chooses not to be.... as if that's a decision he could make for God ? Gee, who should I believe, Christ with 2000 years of Christian ethic or one who has a hard time figuring out which faith after only 50 years of earthly, spiritually confused life.

I

don't think there's a real disagreement in regards to God's Omnipresence. I just think you misunderstand what he's actually saying. I think the disagreement between Gendron and you, lies in the Catholic doctrine.

I don't think he has a clue of God's omnipresence. He can't have it two or more ways and your explanation of his comments aren't improving his situation. The Catholic Doctrine is sound and full and ongoing for 20 centuries. His disparate attempts at ungluing the fabric of His omnipresence by way of defining it as polytheism is so wrong that it defies the amount of time we have spent here debating. Black and white Rick... either He can be or can't be omnipresent... including the Eucharist.

ES wrote:
Rick, please don't spin this ... you've basically said you agree I disagree with Gendron but haven't shown why. Only that we disagree.... come on...

ES,

I'm not trying to spin anything. I thought your issue was that you believed what Gendron was saying, showed that he didn't believe in God's omnipresence. I attempted to show you that I don't think what he said calls God's omnipresence into question.
I think the disagreement lies in the doctrine. You believe it is biblical. He doesn't. There's the disagreement.

RickD wrote:
I agree with GotQuestions. And I really don't have a problem with their definition in this case.

ES wrote:
Then how can you disagree that Christ is present in all things, down to the molecules that make it sll up and not believe he's in the Eucharist ? HOW ? It can't be that He's in everything... you know, except those Catholic wafer thingies... you'll need to make up your mind, either you agree with the definition of omnipresence or you don't. But if you don't, you'll need to explain what omnipresence is in it's apparently weakened form.

I told you. God is Spirit. As Spirit, He is omnipresent. A Spirit isn't physically present anywhere. God can be physically present if He chooses, but just because He's not physically present everywhere, that doesn't mean He's not omnipresent.

God is not physically a book sitting on my desk. God is not the tree in my back yard. God is not hundreds of wafers in transubstantiation. None of that calls into question God's omnipresence.

RickD wrote:
I'm not sure if I agree with this or not. I'd have to see the context, and know what they mean by "naturally".

ES wrote:
Get back to me on this. I'll find it interesting to hear a different explanation than what Isaiah says here.

OK. The scripture you listed is Isaiah 40:12:
12
Who has measured the [a]waters in the hollow of His hand,
And marked off the heavens by the span,
And [c]calculated the dust of the earth by the measure,
And weighed the mountains in a balance
And the hills in a pair of scales?

Not sure what you're getting at here.

RickD wrote:
You understand Christ's presence in the wafers as his omnipresence

ES wrote:
No, absolutely not. I see His attribute of omnipresence as His ability to be anywhere at anytime simultaneously, including the Host.

That's what I meant. But my point was that you see God being omnipresent in the wafers. Where Gendron doesn't. And my point on that, was that just because Gendron doesn't see God being physically present in each wafer, that doesn't mean God couldn't be physically present. He's not calling God's omnipresence into question.

RickD wrote:
Gendron sees it as Catholics believing hundreds of Christs are physically present in hundreds of separate wafers.

ES wrote:
Yeah... see the definition of omnipresence Mr. Gendron. He's everywhere at all times... including the Host.

But not physically everywhere. He is Spirit. See the difference?

So tell me, what is the difference between God physically and God spiritually ? Remembering of course that He is God and capable of all things... spiritually and physically, simultaneously

God is Spirit. He's not a physical being. Of course I agree that God is capable of manifesting (for lack of a better term) Himself physically, but He doesn't eternally exist as a physical being, or physical substance.

RickD wrote:
I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ is unable to be in more than one place. I think he's just saying that the Catholic belief that Christ is in each wafer, is polytheism. And as I noted above, you two are in disagreement.

ES wrote:
So it's not that He can't be in more than one place at a time it's just that he can't be in each wafer at the same time... which, by definition is in more than one place at one time...

Nobody is saying that God can't be in a wafer. Gendron just disagrees with transubstantiation, which says He is the wafer.

John 6:55-59 ... John 6:60-64 ... John 6:54 ... and you know there are a dozen more biblical references to His command, "Eat my body, Drink my blood" Whether you or he wish to take the command seriously or not is your decision... but don't call it unbiblical where truth prevails within the bible.

ES,
you realize that Catholics interpret those verses literally. Where Protestants(in general) don't. The disagreement is that Gendron sees your Church's interpretation as unbiblical. That's why he speaks out against it. The fundamental disagreement is the doctrine. Catholicism teaches their interpretation as biblical. Where Gendron sees the Catholic interpretation as unbiblical.

RickD wrote:
To sum it up, I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ cannot be physically present in hundreds of wafers. I just think he's saying that Christ is not physically present

ES wrote:
So now He can be physically present but Gendron says He chooses not to be.... as if that's a decision he could make for God ? Gee, who should I believe, Christ with 2000 years of Christian ethic or one who has a hard time figuring out which faith after only 50 years of earthly, spiritually confused life.

You choose to equate your interpretation as correct. Gendron doesn't. It simply comes down to a difference in the belief that Catholic doctrine is correct on this.

RickD wrote:
I don't think there's a real disagreement in regards to God's Omnipresence. I just think you misunderstand what he's actually saying. I think the disagreement between Gendron and you, lies in the Catholic doctrine.

ES wrote:
I don't think he has a clue of God's omnipresence. He can't have it two or more ways and your explanation of his comments aren't improving his situation. The Catholic Doctrine is sound and full and ongoing for 20 centuries. His disparate attempts at ungluing the fabric of His omnipresence by way of defining it as polytheism is so wrong that it defies the amount of time we have spent here debating. Black and white Rick... either He can be or can't be omnipresent... including the Eucharist.

I disagree. As I said, I don't see Gendron's words as anything against God's omnipresence. I just don't see it.
I attempted to explain what I think Gendron is saying, from how I understand what he wrote. I could be wrong, and maybe Gendron doesn't think God is omnipresent.

But, I think it simply comes down to Catholic doctrine. Not God's omnipresence.

Got Questions wrote:
God is regarded as omnipresent, whereas in both Judaism and Christianity, this view is further subdivided into the transcendence and immanence of God.
In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where God is said to befully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways.

RickD wrote:
I think the disagreement lies in the doctrine. You believe it is biblical. possible .He doesn't.

RickD wrote:
I told you. God is Spirit. As Spirit, He is omnipresent. A Spirit isn't physically present anywhere. God can be physically present if He chooses, but just because He's not physically present everywhere, that doesn't mean He's not omnipresent.

No one has said He needs to be physically present everywhere. But that certainly does not preclude His ability to do so and notably, physically present in this debate only in the Eucharist. No where else (everywhere?) is required to partake of the Holy Communion, and that most assuredly does proclaim His omnipresence every minute of every day where mass is being said...

How do you explain the dual physical presence of God when Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove came from the sky? You do believe the Holy spirit is a person, yes? You do believe Jesus is a person, yes? If He can do two He can do an infinite number of physical presences, yes ? if He so desires... I believe in the transcendence and immanence of God, I believe in the possibility ... do you or don't you?

RickD wrote:
You understand Christ's presence in the wafers as his omnipresence

ES wrote:
No, absolutely not. I see His attribute of omnipresence as His ability to be anywhere at anytime simultaneously, including the Host.

RickD wrote:
That's what I meant. But my point was that you see God being omnipresent in the wafers.

No, again, you put the cart before the horse. I see Christ physically in the Host because of His omnipresent attribute, not as His omnipresence. His omnipresence is not explained by residing in the Host, it is exemplified, as the Host is only one of an infinite of locational possibilities proving His omnipresence. Does it make sense you'd say that's what you meant if you think omnipresence is a spiritual attribute only, which is all you have said to this point in the post ?

RickD wrote:
And my point on that, was that just because Gendron doesn't see God being physically present in each wafer, that doesn't mean God couldn't be physically present. He's not calling God's omnipresence into question.

He is when he uses the word polytheism. He denotes a god is involved (theism) and the topic is God within multiple wafers. He uses Polytheism to describe our faith in God because he doesn't believe in the immanence of God.

How do you debate a point that says he doesn't believe in the physical presence in each wafer ... but... it could be he's physically present in each wafer and still say he's not calling God's omnipresence in to question ? That's having your cake and eating it too. He is most certainly saying the physical presence of God in multiple wafers is not real, and that denies the omnipresence attribute of God, which also denies the omnipotence and omniscience of God for obvious reasons. That's the problem with denial of any one attribute,it brings the whole house of cards crashing down.

RickD wrote:
Nobody is saying that God can't be in a wafer. Gendron just disagrees with transubstantiation, which says He is the wafer.

Gendron says He can't be in the wafer simultaneously without committing an act of polytheism. How else could he say:

Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.

This isn't just disagreeing with transubstantiation, its creating a withering branch of faith he calls polytheism in place of worshiping the One True god

Whether he agrees that "nobody is saying God can't be in the wafer" or not, the fact that he attests that to do so is an act of polytheism remains. You can't worship polytheisticly without the discernment that there are many gods involved, not just The God, Jesus Christ. He's not stepping on the toes of Catholics... he's dancing with the devil.

RickD wrote:
To sum it up, I don't think Gendron is saying that Christ cannot be physically present in hundreds of wafers. I just think he's saying that Christ is not physically present

Why would you say this ? Why do you think he thinks this ? Can you justify this biblically ? Is there a verse that states Jesus is not physically in the Host? If not, where does he get his doctrinal information as to the invalid teaching of Corpus Christi ? Why is Jesus not present in the Eucharist ?

RickD wrote:
God is Spirit. He's not a physical being. Of course I agree that God is capable of manifesting (for lack of a better term) Himself physically, but He doesn't eternally exist as a physical being, or physical substance.

What possible difference does this make if He can/does or does not exist physically eternally ? Even so, then how do you explain the physical Jesus. Whose physical body was broken for all ? Is Jesus not a physical being who is also God or is the Trinity in trouble here? You do believe Christ will live eternally, you do believe our resurrected bodies will return and live on eternally so why won't God, at least in one person live on eternally, physically. And how does that fact, in any way deter from the possibility of a physical omnipresence in multiple locations ?

RickD wrote:
But, I think it simply comes down to Catholic doctrine. Not God's omnipresence.

Catholic doctrine is not the post here. This man's views of the impossibility through the immanence of God that multiple physical presences of Jesus are attainable is. He's decided that, not only his way of thinking is correct, to the point of my way or the highway, it is ok to impune the faith of over 1 billion practicing Catholics, insult the transcendence of(supposedly his) God and with fore thought and malice refute a faith that has existed for over 2000 years... all on his say so. Turn the theistic faith of billions in to polytheistic faith without support or shred of evidence to support his claim.... just because he said so...

by B. W.
Heresy is the design to intentionally undermine Christian Faith. That is the difference. The way modern people think is that all views have equal validity is error. That point of view is not based upon love at all but spiritual suicide.

ES,

I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow. I don't know if it's because it's late, but your post is making my head hurt!

I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow.

There's no need. We're getting nowhere and the merry-go-round is depressing. There is no love in any of this and I'm dead dog tired of talking.

Take two aspirin and see your Dr. in the morning ... there's nothing more ... Ephesians 4:3-6 ... than this ... and goodnight.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow.

There's no need. We're getting nowhere and the merry-go-round is depressing. There is no love in any of this and I'm dead dog tired of talking.

Take two aspirin and see your Dr. in the morning ... there's nothing more ... Ephesians 4:3-6 ... than this ... and goodnight.

There's plenty of love from my end. If I somehow came across as unloving, I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

Since you are the one who was asking the question, if you're content with ending the discussion, I'm fine with that too.

Or, if you want to continue at another time, I'm fine with that also.

God Bless, or Mary bless(whatever you Catholics say to each other)*, and goodnight.

* I get loopy when I'm tired.

RickD wrote: God Bless, or Mary bless(whatever you Catholics say to each other)...

RickD wrote: There's plenty of love from my end. If I somehow came across as unloving, I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

Go ahead then, answer my previous post. Show me the love... one Christian has for another...

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

RickD wrote: God Bless, or Mary bless(whatever you Catholics say to each other)...

RickD wrote: There's plenty of love from my end. If I somehow came across as unloving, I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

Go ahead then, answer my previous post. Show me the love... one Christian has for another...

Will do. But I need to get off my phone, and on my laptop. Won't be until a little later.

ES,

Sorry I haven't responded until now. I had every intention of responding last night, but my eyelids got really heavy, earlier than usual.

Got Questions wrote:
God is regarded as omnipresent, whereas in both Judaism and Christianity, this view is further subdivided into the transcendence and immanence of God.
In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where God is said to befully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways.


RickD wrote:
I think the disagreement lies in the doctrine. You believe it is biblical. possible .He doesn't.



RickD wrote:
I told you. God is Spirit. As Spirit, He is omnipresent. A Spirit isn't physically present anywhere. God can be physically present if He chooses, but just because He's not physically present everywhere, that doesn't mean He's not omnipresent.

ES wrote:

No one has said He needs to be physically present everywhere. But that certainly does not preclude His ability to do so and notably, physically present in this debate only in the Eucharist. No where else (everywhere?) is required to partake of the Holy Communion, and that most assuredly does proclaim His omnipresence every minute of every day where mass is being said...

OK. I see what you're saying...I think. After thinking about it more, I really don't want to speak for Gendron, as to if he thinks God cannot be in the wafers. I read what he's saying as a fundamental disagreement with the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. I don't think he's saying that God cannot be in each wafer if He chooses. But, maybe I'm wrong.

ES wrote:

How do you explain the dual physical presence of God when Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove came from the sky? You do believe the Holy spirit is a person, yes? You do believe Jesus is a person, yes? If He can do two He can do an infinite number of physical presences, yes ? if He so desires... I believe in the transcendence and immanence of God, I believe in the possibility ... do you or don't you?

Of course I do. But we're not talking about what I believe. I thought I was trying to try to understand what Gendron said, so I could give you an answer as to if I think what he said is heresy.

RickD wrote:
You understand Christ's presence in the wafers as his omnipresence

ES wrote:
No, absolutely not. I see His attribute of omnipresence as His ability to be anywhere at anytime simultaneously, including the Host.

RickD wrote:
That's what I meant. But my point was that you see God being omnipresent in the wafers.

ES wrote:
No, again, you put the cart before the horse. I see Christ physically in the Host because of His omnipresent attribute, not as His omnipresence. His omnipresence is not explained by residing in the Host, it is exemplified, as the Host is only one of an infinite of locational possibilities proving His omnipresence. Does it make sense you'd say that's what you meant if you think omnipresence is a spiritual attribute only, which is all you have said to this point in the post ?

I understand that's what you're saying, ES. I just worded it differently. And, I'm not saying omnipresence is only a spiritual attribute. I just said that God is Spirit. Whether He is physically a dove, or physically incarnated as Jesus Christ of Nazareth, really has no bearing on His omnipresence.

RickD wrote:
And my point on that, was that just because Gendron doesn't see God being physically present in each wafer, that doesn't mean God couldn't be physically present. He's not calling God's omnipresence into question.


ES wrote:
He is when he uses the word polytheism. He denotes a god is involved (theism) and the topic is God within multiple wafers. He uses Polytheism to describe our faith in God because he doesn't believe in the immanence of God.

Ok. I guess we disagree as to what we think Gendron is saying here. And maybe I shouldn't argue for him, because I'm not him. Like I said before, I think he just makes the statement about it being polytheism, because he finds transubstantiation unbiblical. I don't think the issue is God's omnipresence/immanence. I think the issue is the fundamental disagreement of the Catholic doctrine itself. I don't think I can be any more clear on the fact that that is how I understand what Gendron is saying. And like I also said, I fully admit that I could be wrong about what he means.

ES wrote:
How do you debate a point that says he doesn't believe in the physical presence in each wafer ... but... it could be he's physically present in each wafer and still say he's not calling God's omnipresence in to question ? That's having your cake and eating it too. He is most certainly saying the physical presence of God in multiple wafers is not real, and that denies the omnipresence attribute of God, which also denies the omnipotence and omniscience of God for obvious reasons. That's the problem with denial of any one attribute,it brings the whole house of cards crashing down.

1) I agree that I understand Gendron is saying that there is no physical presence in the wafers. And I think he believes that because it's a basic Protestant belief. It's a disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on this issue.

2) I think that Gendron believes that God could be physically present in each wafer, if he thought transubstantiation were true. And since Gendron doesn't believe in the literal, physical presence of Christ in the wafers, then that is why Gendron doesn't believe Christ is present. And, I'd have to guess that is why he makes the polytheism claim. Just to give my 2cents, I'm with him in disagreeing that the presence of Christ is real/physical, but I haven't figured out how he gets to the polytheism claim. I've heard plenty of people that say they disagree with transubstantiation, but I believe this is the first time I've heard the polytheism claim thrown in.

RickD wrote:
Nobody is saying that God can't be in a wafer. Gendron just disagrees with transubstantiation, which says He is the wafer.


ES wrote:
Gendron says He can't be in the wafer simultaneously without committing an act of polytheism. How else could he say:

Since each Eucharist contains the whole Christ, and since upwards of hundreds of wafers are consecrated during each mass, hundreds of Jesus Christs become physically present. Although the Vatican would never acknowledge it, this is a form of polytheism, the worship of many gods.

This isn't just disagreeing with transubstantiation, its creating a withering branch of faith he calls polytheism in place of worshiping the One True god

Whether he agrees that "nobody is saying God can't be in the wafer" or not, the fact that he attests that to do so is an act of polytheism remains. You can't worship polytheisticly without the discernment that there are many gods involved, not just The God, Jesus Christ. He's not stepping on the toes of Catholics... he's dancing with the devil.

This isn't the first time that Catholics have been accused of polytheism. It's just not usually labeled as polytheism(as far as I've read). Catholics have been accused of worshiping Mary, dead saints, and even angels, as well as God. And most Catholics that have responded to these accusations, have vehemently denied worshiping Mary, dead saints, and angels.

I guess it's really not any new accusation against Catholicism, from someone outside the Catholic Church, is it?

Thanks for the reply Rick... afraid I'm going to have to pull a Tuesday night Rick on you tonight... crazy long day hauling 4x4x10', 5/4x6x10 ' deck material and all manner of guard rail and skirting and base material for a 10x10 deck,... all to build tomorrow with double 6 step railed entry. Friday have a 3x16' dock platform with 3 step double rail to do at camp and weekend is with grandkids at camp,so it may not be until next Monday, but i do have much to say....

In the short meantime.. understand that Gendron (ps; apologies, i never meant to include your thoughts as his here) is the one edging towards, if not completely leaning in to polytheism... the definition of which is: the worship of many gods. Not even he could admit anything other than Catholics worship Christ, as God. His mistake is ultimately in definition... not the one worship of many gods but worshiping one God many times (even if in many Hosts, it's one God worshiped)... do you see the difference ? Whether it's in the Eucharist or simply saying prayers, if you pray to Him more than once in one sitting ... you to are a polytheist, as are we all.

So much more to say...just tired and out...