Originally Posted by
gromitt82
Jakester, I also appreciate your comments.
Let me just say that whenever I remember to do it, I point out that I'm always prepared to accept that I may be wrong in my judgements.
Now then, when I say that "Jesus Christ is not GOD's appointed servant" I'm just expressing my belief that Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity (this is a dogma for us Catholics) and as such GOD himself. Therefore, Jesus being GOD cannot be GOD's servant.
This can be understood only if one accepts the idea of the Holy Trinity. I repeat for the RCC this is a canon we have to accept and, consequently, cannot be considered as a design of GOD but just as another definition of GOD.
As for what we could denominate GOD's designs meaning GOD wants this or that or intended to do this, or that we have no other alternative, I think, but to accept the many interpretations of the Sacred Texts, which have been made by men like you and I.
And, if I'm not worng, the one and only message delivered directly by GOD to man are the 10 Commandments dictated to Moses in the Sinai and, of course, the Gospels (Jesus' message to men).
I would never dream of denying “our rational minds the opportunity to pursue truth and discover the meaning of our existence”
I would even say that it is probably our duty to do this investigation work. Actually, this is what theologians job is supposed to be.
What I question, though, is when someone in this board or elsewhere actually affirm in an axiomatic way that GOD's will is what he/she is saying in the same way as he/she could assert President Obama's intentions are such and such, AFTER having actually spoken to him…
The Bible is, of course, the one tool we have at our disposal to be explored… and one tool that we believe to have been inspired by GOD… But, alas! To start with there are as many interpretations of the Bible as translations and some may greatly differ among each other…
You may find congregations that actually believe the Earth is only 10 or 15.000 years old and the Adam was actually the first Man in our Planet…, And they invoke the Bible to prove it!
I would say it is useless to start a debate over that point… as it is to debate as to how GOD created the Universe we know (and the eventual one that we do not know yet) or start discussing Darwin's evolution theory. Basically, because science is bringing in new evidence of things we just ignored a few years ago…
Galileo Galilei had to deny under oath that what he knew for sure was just a product of his imagination… And when I was a school boy I was taught that without any doubt the atom was the smaller particle there was. It was in 1942!
Still, I shall always defend your right to think otherwise as I see that you, so kindly, also accept my right to express my point of view!
Cordially,