Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter C2M2C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, there’s no “thing” he cannot do.

What is a stone? A stone is an object, which can be lifted if one is strong enough. God is all-powerful and thus strong enough to lift a stone no matter the size of it.

So what is a “stone that God cannot lift”? It’s an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, a non-object. There is no such thing as a “stone that God cannot lift”.

Can God create liquid ice?

Can God create a square circle?

Can God create a new “God” that is bigger than himself?

The obvious answer is no.

God can do all things, but He can’t do nonsense.
  • CB
 
PaulDupre said:
It doesn’t say that Stephen saw the Father. It says he saw Jesus “at God’s right hand”. To be at someone’s right hand is a term of art meaning “in the place of honor”.

Nope, whom they saw was the pre-incarnate Christ. God the Father never appeared to anyone. All theophany in the OT was the pre-incarnate Christ. Didn’t the LDS used to believe that, too?

Nope, Revelation 22 takes place after the final judgment depicted in Rev 20. So these are they who have already died and been resurrected (or were translated) and admitted into the presence of God.

Nope, you believe the bible insofar as it supports Joseph Smith. Your church has always taught that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy, full of omissions, additions, errors and intentional distortions.
Click to expand...
The quotes say what they say. You will do what you want with the interpretation. Obviously, we disagree, but don’t tell me the bible does not show people seeing God.

I cannot for the life of me imagine looking into heaven knowing that you were about to die and saying

Acts 7
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Meaning “I see the Son of man standing in a place of honor”?

Duh, He’s already in heaven, of course he is in a place of honor!
He’s the Son of Man, the savior! I would hope He was in a place of honor!.

Notice he was “standing” on the right hand of God. Not sitting, not just a nebulous vision of a face, but standing in a spatial relationship. Why would he be “standing” if the idea being conveyed is just that he is in a place of honor?

Oh well, interpret it as you will. We disagree, surprise surprise.
 
Contrabass101 said:
No, there’s no “thing” he cannot do.

What is a stone? A stone is an object, which can be lifted if one is strong enough. God is all-powerful and thus strong enough to lift a stone no matter the size of it.

So what is a “stone that God cannot lift”? It’s an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, a non-object. There is no such thing as a “stone that God cannot lift”.

Can God create liquid ice?

Can God create a square circle?

Can God create a new “God” that is bigger than himself?

The obvious answer is no.

God can do all things, but He can’t do nonsense.
  • CB
Click to expand...
Exactly. And that is why He is not an “unmoved mover”.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Well, these folks clearly do not understand the doctrine of Geographic Positioning.
Click to expand...
Actually, this raises an interesting question.

Jesus and Mary have physical bodies. Yet most of Catholic doctrine as I understand it, says that being physical is a limitation.

And having a body requires that it be “somewhere”

How does Catholic theology answer these questions?

I have raised this with at least one priest who could not answer it.

I guess one answer would just be “we don’t know” which I guess would be understandable. But certainly the physicality as a limitation I would think would be something that has come up in theology before. It is used often to explain why God could not have a body. But I have not seen an answer to why having a body would limit God, but seems to not limit Jesus.

Any thoughts?

And of course related to this is the idea of motion. Jesus can move, so how is he an “unmoved mover”?
 
Ah… I think I see where you are coming from now.

An unmoved mover is something that moves other things, but is itself unmoved. It is necessary philosophically, since things obviously move, and you cannot havce an infinite regression of movers.

It may not be totally clear what we mean by Immovable Mover, but it is at least clear, that the alternative is not a very good one.
  • CB
 
mfbukowski said:
Actually, this raises an interesting question.

Jesus and Mary have physical bodies. Yet most of Catholic doctrine as I understand it, says that being physical is a limitation.

And having a body requires that it be “somewhere”

How does Catholic theology answer these questions?

I have raised this with at least one priest who could not answer it.
Click to expand...
Are you asking where Jesus’ and Mary’s bodies are. If so, Jesus ascended into Heaven, Mary was taken up into heaven (the Assumption).

As to have a physical body is a limitation…I don’t know what you are referencing…care to expand?
I guess one answer would just be “we don’t know” which I guess would be understandable. But certainly the physicality as a limitation I would think would be something that has come up in theology before. It is used often to explain why God could not have a body. But I have not seen an answer to why having a body would limit God, but seems to not limit Jesus.
Click to expand...
I have not heard that having a physical body is a limitation. Maybe more info would help me understand where you are coming from.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
And of course related to this is the idea of motion. Jesus can move, so how is he an “unmoved mover”?
Click to expand...
I think you are not understanding “unmoved mover”.
 
Contrabass101 said:
Ah… I think I see where you are coming from now.

An unmoved mover is something that moves other things, but is itself unmoved. It is necessary philosophically, since things obviously move, and you cannot havce an infinite regression of movers.

It may not be totally clear what we mean by Immovable Mover, but it is at least clear, that the alternative is not a very good one.
  • CB
Click to expand...
What is that alternative, and why is it not good?

And why would the “good alternative” lead to a position that is unclear?

In my view, these are prejudices of the Greeks which should have never been, and have now been fossilized in Catholic theology.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Are you asking where Jesus’ and Mary’s bodies are. If so, Jesus ascended into Heaven, Mary was taken up into heaven (the Assumption).

As to have a physical body is a limitation…I don’t know what you are referencing…care to expand?

I have not heard that having a physical body is a limitation. Maybe more info would help me understand where you are coming from.

I think you are not understanding “unmoved mover”.
Click to expand...
So heaven is spatio/temporal?

I believe it was the view of Aquinas that physical bodies were of necessity limited, so God could not have a body. This may not be the forum to address these issues because we are all somewhat theological “duffers” when it comes to Aquinas, but they will not countenance my questions on the scholastic forums.

I suspect it is because they don’t have the answers.
 
mfbukowski said:
So heaven is spatio/temporal?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I have never worried over it. Is it important?
I believe it was the view of Aquinas that physical bodies were of necessity limited, so God could not have a body. This may not be the forum to address these issues because we are all somewhat theological “duffers” when it comes to Aquinas, but they will not countenance my questions on the scholastic forums.
Click to expand...
I suspect it is because they don’t have the answers.
Click to expand...
I am duffer everything when it comes to Aquinas. He kicks my butt.

I don’t know what your experiences are with other Catholic forums. I suspect that you ask questions that are based on a false premise.
 
mfbukowski said:
What is that alternative, and why is it not good?
Click to expand...
An infallible regression of Movers. It is bad because it doesn’t really explain anything. The infinite chain of causes or movers would have to be entirely necessary or caused by something entirely necessary. God and all the Gods above him would still belong to the same category: caused things. There would have to be an uncaused cause *further above *the infinite regression of Gods.
And why would the “good alternative” lead to a position that is unclear?
Click to expand...
Mystery might be a better word than unclear. And it necessarily must be, since God is much above our understanding.

The baffling things are not so much that which is shrouded in darkness, but rather it is the blindingly bright illumination of Divine Revelation. So we confess our belief in One God, above space, before time, uncaused and immovable, the Creator and Purpose of Heaven and Earth. We admit to grasping only glimpses of His Divine Nature, but these glimpses leave us breathless.
  • CB
 
RebeccaJ said:
I have no idea. I have never worried over it. Is it important?

I am duffer everything when it comes to Aquinas. He kicks my butt.

I don’t know what your experiences are with other Catholic forums. I suspect that you ask questions that are based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
Not really important I guess. I am just looking for a way to explain my position better to a scholastic guy, but I think their brains have also fossilized into being unmovable.

Questions based on a false premise – certainly possible from their perspective, but they won’t even discuss it. It honestly is like I am speaking Chinese or something. Or maybe they are to me! I think that is it.

They seem to be so fossilized in their jargon and so comfortable with it that they can’t see anything another way.

Of course that is my opinion, and I am sure they see it differently.

Everything is relative 😉
 
mfbukowski said:
So heaven is spatio/temporal?

I believe it was the view of Aquinas that physical bodies were of necessity limited, so God could not have a body. This may not be the forum to address these issues because we are all somewhat theological “duffers” when it comes to Aquinas, but they will not countenance my questions on the scholastic forums.

I suspect it is because they don’t have the answers.
Click to expand...
Summa, Prima Pars Q 4, art 1:
For since matter as such is merely potential, the first material principle must be simply potential, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.
Click to expand...
  • CB
 
mfbukowski said:
But I have not seen an answer to why having a body would limit God, but seems to not limit Jesus.

Any thoughts?

And of course related to this is the idea of motion. Jesus can move, so how is he an “unmoved mover”?
Click to expand...
Jesus is unmovable in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is impassible in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is eternal in his divine nature, not in his human nature. And so on…
 
Contrabass101 said:
An infallible regression of Movers. It is bad because it doesn’t really explain anything. The infinite chain of causes or movers would have to be entirely necessary or caused by something entirely necessary. God and all the Gods above him would still belong to the same category: caused things. There would have to be an uncaused cause *further above *the infinite regression of Gods.

Mystery might be a better word than unclear. And it necessarily must be, since God is much above our understanding.

The baffling things are not so much that which is shrouded in darkness, but rather it is the blindingly bright illumination of Divine Revelation. So we confess our belief in One God, above space, before time, uncaused and immovable, the Creator and Purpose of Heaven and Earth. We admit to grasping only glimpses of His Divine Nature, but these glimpses leave us breathless.
  • CB
Click to expand...
Beautiful stuff, and I mostly agree. I choose to concentrate on the glimpses. Just don’t get hung up on the language and trying to impose logic where it doesn’t apply.

Forget causation, it is not important to this realm. In this rarified atmosphere, all we are going on is Faith.

Just say “God caused it (somehow)” That is all that is required by your faith in Him. You can’t know what is in principle unknowable.

That causation stuff is from the old Greeks in your blood. Western civilization. If you were Asian you would see the world very differently. And where did all these discreet events in eternal regress come from?

Were they successive “big bangs?” Maybe. How would we ever know that? Not possible.

It is all like a perfect river that begins and ends in the mists of the unknowable, but while it is in front of us, it is in principle perfectly knowable. It is experience – all of human experience, history culture logic and mystery. That is all we have. And it includes spiritual experience as well. We can only know what we can know. The rest requires faith.

Don’t get confused by language or try to characterize what is unknowable anyway. You will find yourself in paradoxes like the rock that God can’t lift, or unmoved movers. What color is courage? Let’s debate that. I say it is purple. What color do you say it is?

Because you can pose a question in language does not mean it has an answer. Stick with what you can understand clearly, and take the rest on faith.
 
Contrabass101 said:
Jesus is unmovable in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is impassible in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is eternal in his divine nature, not in his human nature. And so on…
Click to expand...
Sounds a little schizzy to me. Do you really understand what that means? What exactly is a “nature” and how can you have two of them? It reminds me of Star Trek.

They get themselves into this huge jam with no way out, and then somebody figures out if they just “reverse the coils” all the problems disappear.

Yep, positing two natures fixes the problem.

But what does that mean??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top