Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Heretics - Dialectic Reasoning

[TOmNossor]

I mentioned in another thread presumably started by a philosophically minded fellow, that it is the philosophical underpinnings of Catholicism that I consider to be problematic to a disqualifying extent. I believe that Catholic doctrine has developed significantly, but many Catholics acknowledge this and still believe. I believe that the monoepiscopate developed from local churches originally lead by a group of presbyters, but many Catholics acknowledge this and still believe. I believe that the primacy of Rome developed only after a number of centuries, but many Catholics acknowledge this and still believe. I also believe that Catholic apologists, including folks like Patrick Madrid and Jimmy Akin are either unaware of the degree to which the above issues are true or so deemphasize it in their writings that I could think they are unaware. All that being said, I probably could be a Catholic like Cardinal Newman (development), Father Sullivan (mono-episcopate), and Robert Eno (Papacy). I do not believe I possess more evidence than these Catholic men, I just believe I see an option few of them consider. And, the Protestant option is IMO so in opposition to the evidence that I couldn’t choose it. So for all these issues, I could still be a Catholic, I think.

The philosophical problems present when dialect reasoning is applied to the various council decisions however are insurmountable IMO. If dialectic reasoning is to be employed as a tool, and I believe it was at basically every council, then I believe Catholic theology is irreformably contradictive. Aquinas as brilliant as he was includes contradictory thoughts that he does not solve IMO. This means whatever merits are present within Catholicism it is fatally flawed as a religion/theology and cannot be true.

About 6 months ago as I was studying Easter Orthodox thought I began to see an increasing volume of EOs specifically and boldly rejection dialectic reasoning in favor of anti-dialectic reasoning paradox. I personally identified with the problems they saw in either/or thinking because the developed Catholic positions were mutually contradictory in both of our opinions. I have two problems with the EO position:

• While I am certain that I am not sufficiently intelligent to define God, I do not believe we should accept the conclusion “A and not-A” just because the subject is God. Thus, I think dialectic reasoning has a place in weighing the various theological claims of opposing religious views.
• I believe that EOs as a product of accepting the first 7 councils, are married to dialectic reasoning anyway.

My hopes for this thread are as follows.

Here are 4 positions:

• Dialectic reasoning is important and dialectic reasoning is integral to those who accept the first 7 councils.
• Dialectic reasoning is not to be applied to God and those who accept the first 7 councils can do so without embracing dialectic reasoning.
• Dialectic reasoning produces hopeless contradictions for those who embrace it within historical Christianity.
• Dialectic reasoning does not produce hopeless contradictions for those who embrace it within historical Christianity.

I hope to defend position 1 and 3, and welcome any heretics to do the same.
I would expect that some Catholics will defend position 1 and 4.
I would expect that some Easter Orthodox Christians will defend position 2 and 3.

Now, I could in fact be in error as to the EO position. I could of course even be in error as to the Catholic position. So that may be the path walked and I will listen. I hope I am not wrong.

I desire to frame the discussion as above because I would hope that the above discussion will illuminate some of the problems I see with being a Catholic (and being an EO) without me being the only one arguing for 1 and 3 as a hopelessly confused heretic.

These are probably wild hopes, but we will see.
Charity, TOm

 

[East_and_West]

First, I would like to know what are the hopeless contradictions that you see in Catholicism?

 

[theistgal]

Are “Easter Orthodox” anything like “Christmas Catholics”?

 

[TOmNossor]

ToM - Please explain why you think Catholic theology is “illogical.” Thanks!

1. It is easy to say, “the Bible says, ‘call no man father,’” Catholics call men “father;” therefore, Catholicism contradicts the Bible while claiming to embrace the Bible.
2. How about this, Catholics believe that God the Father is non-begotten and non-proceeding, God the Son is non-proceeding but begotten, and God the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How is it possible that these three are co-equal? Or co-eternal?
3. How is it true that God is impassible and unchanging and yet He love us individually.
   Or
   3a. How can we freely choose between two available options and God know (before or after our choice it does not matter) what we did choose and yet He is impassible.

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here).

Two is more complex, but I am not convinced there is no way out of it.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.

1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.

So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.

BTW, I have read
Father Thomas G. Weinandy Does God Suffer?
Here is a brief essay, but I read the book to see if I could reconcile God’s impassibility and His love: http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml
And Eastern Orthodox Scholar: Paul L. Gavrilyuk** The Suffering of the Impassible God**

I cannot make it work.

Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here).

Two is more complex, but I am not convinced there is no way out of it.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.

1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.

So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.

BTW, I have read
Father Thomas G. Weinandy Does God Suffer?
Here is a brief essay, but I read the book to see if I could reconcile God’s impassibility and His love: http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml
And Eastern Orthodox Scholar: Paul L. Gavrilyuk** The Suffering of the Impassible God**

I cannot make it work.

Charity, TOm

ToM - Thanks for the link.
I think your questions are very thought-provoking and it led me to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church’s teachings on God, etc.
Have you read those teachings and compared them with the readings you have cited above?
If so, what are your thoughts?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm

-God is Love.
-God most certainly is moved. The evidence for this is Jesus Christ.
-Begin from the premise, the foundation, that God does indeed love you.

Recommended reading

.

The premise is not that God is unloving and it requires us to cause Him to love us. His nature is love. Freely given, never withheld. If He were to change it would be that He stopped loving us. Which, He has not, and never will. If He were not immutable, it would mean that we (the human we) could cause Him to stop loving us. He is moved by His Love for us, which is not a change in nature, or even a effect because of a cause, it is because it is WHO GOD IS. This nature is expressed in the words “I AM”.

RebeccaJ,
Thank you for your response. Let me start with a small disclaimer.
This truly is a big deal for me. I really think an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of who/what God is can create a problem with our worship/love of Him.

That being said, I believe you love God and I believe you conceive of God as, “God most certainly is moved.” I do not wish to convince anyone that they must embrace God in sterility because the philosophy of the Ecumenical Councils was founded upon such sterility. I think most folks who have looked at what I am talking about love God with a concept that does not flow from these philosophical principles.
Truth be told, I think most folks love God as I did when I was a young Catholic boy. I had an image of a young priest in a red robe with LOVE on his face. I knew he wasn’t God, but when I thought of God, I pictured God as this loving man. I think anthropomorphizing God is almost universal as we seek to love Him. And guess what, in some ways that Catholic priest’s image still is the image of God of which I think.

I like this from Stephen Robinson:
In 399, when a letter from Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, insisted that the biblical description of God was only allegorical and that the monks must not attribute to God any anthropomorphic characteristics, one Sarapion, an elderly monk of great reputation, found himself unable to pray to the new God, this God of the philosophers, at all. Falling on the ground he groaned: “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.”

Now, why I posted this originally was that I believe the impassibility, the immutability, the unmoved-ness, and … of God creates a contradiction with the love of God.
I also think there is a contradiction with God’s knowing what we freely choose to do.
I know many LDS who embrace contradictions / paradoxes and such is fine. But, I do not think if fair to condemn my church for these while they exist in the condemner’s church.

You said, “God is Love.”
Not only to I agree with this, but I believe this Biblical truth should underpin our concepts of God. The greatest commandment is to love God. The second is like unto it and it is to love one another. We are to love one another as God loves us. Therefore, we can love as God loves (else God would not command it).

You said, “God most certainly is moved. The evidence for this is Jesus Christ“
God is the unmoved mover. God’s impassibility is integral to the theological controversies that are documented in the first councils. Arius said Christ was but a man because He was clearly moved in many ways. Athanasius said Christ must be God lest he could not make us gods, but Athanasius and most folks who have wrote about his didn’t question the truth that God is not moved. Ultimately Chalcedon “solved” this problem by suggesting that there were two natures within Christ.
So, it seems to me that Aquinas’s unmoved mover is married to Catholicism through the ecumenical councils (not to mention perhaps Catholicism’s greatest doctor).

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

To RebeccaJ cont …
You said, “Begin from the premise, the foundation, that God does indeed love you.”
I do, but I do not get a logical picture of Catholicism with this as part of it.

The premise is not that God is unloving and it requires us to cause Him to love us. His nature is love. Freely given, never withheld. If He were to change it would be that He stopped loving us. Which, He has not, and never will. If He were not immutable, it would mean that we (the human we) could cause Him to stop loving us.

I believe that God is unchanging in His love for us too. But, it is an individualistic love that contemplates who we are as individuals. “The worth of the soul is great!!!” God knows this and loves us no matter what we do or don’t do. But it is not just our worth that leads to His love for us. It is us as individuals.

God IMO is not merely the Benevolent Ruler.
There is a kingdom of 1 billion Catholics. The Pope is a benevolent man who LOVES every one of them (indeed as he believes he is the Vicar of Christ for the world I hope he loves me this way too). The Pope makes choices and directs the Catholic Church so that he can express his love for the people of the world. But, he does not love me as an individual. He doesn’t know me, he is not moved by me. He may be unmoved and impassible in his love for me and I may not be able to do anything to get him to change in his love for me; but it is not an I-Thou love. Instead, he loves me as a nameless faceless IT. His love is an I-It love. God who is impassible and unmoved cannot love me as an I-Thou much more than the Pope can.

And, since I have spoke about this before, I believe that the Bible says we are to love one another as God loves us. I do not believe we are to love impassibly one another. Such would be so much more empty than the I-Thou love my son or daughter or wife and I have for one another.

He is moved by His Love for us, which is not a change in nature, or even a effect because of a cause, it is because it is WHO GOD IS. This nature is expressed in the words "I AM

".
As Pelikan said, the original Jewish understanding of God’s unchangeableness was that God was totally faithful to His covenantal commitments. For the Jews (and the first century Christians) God’s unchangeableness was not an immutability. So, God is the great I AM, but this IMO does not mean He is the absolutely unaffected, unchanging, immutable AM. He is constant, but engages, open, and loving!

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that. They are a little more complex than the problem of God’s knowledge and our freedom; but they are related and far more personal.
Charity, TOm

P.S.
I have so far enjoyed the part of the reading you offered me, but I do not yet see that they are going to try to reconcile God’s impassibility with His love.

 

[TOmNossor]

ToM - Thanks for the link.

I think your questions are very thought-provoking and it led me to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church’s teachings on God, etc.
Have you read those teachings and compared them with the readings you have cited above?
If so, what are your thoughts?
I have read many parts of the CCC, but probably not all of it.
If there were a handful of paragraphs you recommend, I would certainly read them.
My general impression of the CCC is that it is far more self-consistent and clear than the scriptures. It is thus far superior for defining what Catholics should believe than anything I could point to for my church (anything with any semblance of authority behind it that is).
It however does not approach the kind of systematization and completeness that I would think necessary to reconcile teachings on God’s immutability and unmoved-ness with God’s love.
But, I would be happy to read what you have in mind.
Charity, TOm

 

[gmcbroom]

This may sound silly to those that prefer the rational to the emotive person. However, there was a movie I really enjoyed in the past called,“The Prophecy.” In one scene of the movie Lucifer spoke to one of the humans and said, “God is Love. I Don’t Love you.”

Now that phrase got to me simply because it makes sense. I can’t explain how just that it feels right. It simply Is. I actually thought about being a priest after this movie. strange I know.

 

[RebeccaJ]

TOmNossor

To me, philosophy is the human way to attempt to categorize exactly to our understanding, which is of course limited by our human-ness (our nature).

While I find it intellectually enjoyable, it is like looking at a majestic mountain range and being simple awed and dumfounded at the beauty, then some smarty arse geologists friend standing there with you finds it humorous to point out that it is just a really big pile of rocks, of interesting sorts and layers, and then proceeds to move the conversation to formations, glaciers and river. When all along, I’m just thinking, what a beautiful mountain.

This is how your approach seems to me. You seem to find no beauty in philosophy. Which, is unfortunate. I too have had philosophy professors who were so sterile in their approach to philosophy, and so lacking in understanding of religion, that they fail to realize belief did not arise out of their sterile world. Rather, their sterile world fails to describe the beauty of religion. That it is unable, and forever will be, unable to describe God.

It is a narrow focus, useful in some ways, but really, who is taught philosophy in order to understand GOD?

At any rate, I think until you can turn the layer cake over, and make the foundation what is beautiful, you will forever struggle with a sterile unloving idea that you believe is Catholicism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

TOm - perhaps Peter Kreeft’s “Fated and Free” will be of use for you.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor

To me, philosophy is the human way to attempt to categorize exactly to our understanding, which is of course limited by our human-ness (our nature).

While I find it intellectually enjoyable, it is like looking at a majestic mountain range and being simple awed and dumfounded at the beauty, then some smarty arse geologists friend standing there with you finds it humorous to point out that it is just a really big pile of rocks, of interesting sorts and layers, and then proceeds to move the conversation to formations, glaciers and river. When all along, I’m just thinking, what a beautiful mountain.

This is how your approach seems to me. You seem to find no beauty in philosophy. Which, is unfortunate. I too have had philosophy professors who were so sterile in their approach to philosophy, and so lacking in understanding of religion, that they fail to realize belief did not arise out of their sterile world. Rather, their sterile world fails to describe the beauty of religion. That it is unable, and forever will be, unable to describe God.

It is a narrow focus, useful in some ways, but really, who is taught philosophy in order to understand GOD?

At any rate, I think until you can turn the layer cake over, and make the foundation what is beautiful, you will forever struggle with a sterile unloving idea that you believe is Catholicism.

My favorite philosopher says what you said above like this:
Blake Ostler:
Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.

I definitely agree with him and you.
I stand in the presence of God. I have felt His love pierce my broken heart and heal my pain. I have stood in front of a class and spoken His words that were not my own. I have seen His glory in simple interactions with His people and in majestic sunsets.

It is also clear to me that God is beyond my comprehension. I do not know how He knows all He knows. I trust that “the worth of a soul is great,” but I do not grasp even part of this truth. I do not know what it is to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. I cannot fathom the type of reasoning I ascribe to God. There is much that I do not know. Still, I try not to postulate that God is “A” and “not A.”

Philosophy is just a tool, God is a person. In the other thread we began dialoguing down these lines because I was told that Mormonism is irrational. I have wonderful LDS friends who believe things that I do not find rational. They revert to “mystery” or “paradox,” but they KNOW God. I do not begrudge them this. Nor do I begrudge Catholics who also believe in “mystery” and “paradox.” But, I do have two things to say. First, I try not to do this in my own reasoning. And second, if one is going to enthrone reason to extract the LDS from the CoJCoLDS then they should IMO use reason on their own tradition.

So, the God I know is not sterile and unloving. The God I see detailed in the Eccuminical Councils is often necessarily sterile and unloving.

If God were to call me to be a Catholic, I would obey and embrace “mystery” and “paradox.” The God I loved would not be sterile and unloving, but I would not try to say that there is a rational way of reconciling God’s impassibility and His love; because I know of none.

Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

ToM- My response is going to be similar to Rebecca’s - it’s all in the POV of the person you are around or in this case, reading.
I’d like to quote some things from a book I recently finished reading by Philip Freeman (a professor of Classics at Washington University in St. Louis) entitled “St. Patrick of Ireland: A Biography.”
A brief history about the life of St. Patrick: He was born in Britain near the end of the fourth century. His family was well-off and Christian, however Patrick was not religious. At the age of 15 he was kidnapped by Irish pirates and sold into slavery. For six years he watched over sheep day and night for his master. He experienced a profound spiritual awakening that included dreams and warnings that he believed came directly from God. These messages led him on a journey to become a priest, then as the bishop, he would eventually convert numerous pagans to the Catholic faith.
What we know about Patrick comes from two letters he wrote himself, his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus and his Confession.
Patrick speaks of God: God used the time (as a slave) to shape and mold me into something better. He made me into what I am now-someone very different from what I once was, someone who can care about others and work to help them. Before I was a slave, I didn’t even care about myself.
Patrick says that he was once “like a stone stuck deep in a mud puddle, but then God came along and with his power and compassion reached down and pulled [him] out.”
Patrick refused to participate with some sailors in a pagan practice because he said he “feared God.”
The author tells us that “we have a good idea of the basic message Patrick preached because in his Confession he gives a creed or summary of his beliefs. This statement, though 1500 years old, is very similar to the words still recited by millions of Christians today”:
There is no other God-there never was and there never will be. God our father was not born nor did he have any beginning. God himself is the beginning of all things, the very one who holds all things together, as we have been taught. And we proclaim that Jesus Christ is his son, who has been with God in spirit always, from the beginning of time and before the creation of the world - though in a way we cannot put into words. Through him everything in the universe was created, both what we can see and what is invisible. He was born as a human being and he conquered death, rising into the heavens to be with God. And God gave to him power greater than any other creature of the heavens or earth or under the earth, so that someday everyone will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord and God. We believe in him and we wait for him to return very soon. He will
be the judge of the living and the dead, rewarding every person according to their actions. And God has generously poured out on us his Holy Spirit as a gift and a token of immortality. This spirit makes all faithful believers into children of God and brothers and sisters of Christ. This we proclaim. We worship on God in three parts, by the sacred name of the Trinity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My favorite philosopher says what you said above like this:

I like Kierkegaard’s three stages of life. The “religious” stage being a relationship with God. Much of philosophy seems to me to be stuck in the ethical stage.

If God were to call me to be a Catholic, I would obey and embrace “mystery” and “paradox.” The God I loved would not be sterile and unloving, but I would not try to say that there is a rational way of reconciling God’s impassibility and His love; because I know of none.

You are still turned upside down! Or as a friend of mine said to me, “You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope!”

 

[lax16]

cont’d
(I know this is lengthy - but I have no other way but to quote the book)

In his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, Patrick writes a heartfelt plea to Coroticus begging him to free some of the Christians that Patrick had baptized but were then kidnapped. He also writes of a powerful prayer to God for divine justice.

Patrick tells in his letters about God being compassionate, helping him and others find food when they were starving, how God would warn Patrick of impending danger and thus saved his life on numerous occasions.

Most interesting of all, is how Patrick returned to Ireland as a Catholic bishop to convert the pagans of Ireland. He felt that he was called to do this by God and that his time as a slave prepared him for the job. He thanked God for all that had happened to him to prepare him for his mission.

My point is that St. Patrick was a man that had a very deep, personal relationship with God. They conversed and Patrick felt that God was his constant companion as he roamed over Ireland converting pagans. God kept him safe in a barbaric place and Patrick was very confident in his mission because he said it came from God.

I don’t think Patrick got “bogged down with the details.” He acted on faith and he responded to God’s call.

 

[lax16]

I have read many parts of the CCC, but probably not all of it.
If there were a handful of paragraphs you recommend, I would certainly read them.
My general impression of the CCC is that it is far more self-consistent and clear than the scriptures. It is thus far superior for defining what Catholics should believe than anything I could point to for my church (anything with any semblance of authority behind it that is).
It however does not approach the kind of systematization and completeness that I would think necessary to reconcile teachings on God’s immutability and unmoved-ness with God’s love.
But, I would be happy to read what you have in mind.
Charity, TOm

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.
37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I stand in the presence of God. I have felt His love pierce my broken heart and heal my pain. I have stood in front of a class and spoken His words that were not my own. I have seen His glory in simple interactions with His people and in majestic sunsets.

Do you consider your personal experience as evidence?

It is also clear to me that God is beyond my comprehension. I do not know how He knows all He knows. I trust that “the worth of a soul is great,” but I do not grasp even part of this truth. I do not know what it is to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. I cannot fathom the type of reasoning I ascribe to God. There is much that I do not know. Still, I try not to postulate that God is “A” and “not A.”

The fact is if God could be fully comprehended by us, then He wouldn’t be God; He would be finite.

So, the God I know is not sterile and unloving. The God I see detailed in the Eccuminical Councils is often necessarily sterile and unloving.

What do you mean?

If God were to call me to be a Catholic, I would obey and embrace “mystery” and “paradox.” The God I loved would not be sterile and unloving, but I would not try to say that there is a rational way of reconciling God’s impassibility and His love; because I know of none.

Charity, TOm

Do you believe that God is a person? God is infinite, meaning there are no limits. Since He is infinite, He cannot be changed. Yet He is a Person. (Well, three actually, but let’s keep it simple) His qualities cannot be separated since that would impose a limitation. Since God has no limitation, His love are wholly in His possession: He loves us infinitely. His love isn’t distinct from Himself (because that would impose another limitation if His love is distinct from Himself, then it is something He lacks and again, God wouldn’t be God.) It is Who He is: “God is love.”

I’d recommend, “Theology and Sanity” by Frank J. Sheed, especially the chapter called “How the mind works on infinity.” I found it online here.

 

[TOmNossor]

This may sound silly to those that prefer the rational to the emotive person. However, there was a movie I really enjoyed in the past called,“The Prophecy.” In one scene of the movie Lucifer spoke to one of the humans and said, “God is Love. I Don’t Love you.”

Now that phrase got to me simply because it makes sense. I can’t explain how just that it feels right. It simply Is. I actually thought about being a priest after this movie. strange I know.
I think that philosophy is a tool that can be used to compare one religion to another. I however think that God touches us in individual and personal ways. This is of far more value than all the reasoning in the world.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

In short, God doesn’t become. He is. God already knows your every need and desire. When He is moved by our nothingness He is not changed. This would imply that He was lacking in something before and acquired something new. God is infinite in His perfection. It is illogical to say infinite perfection can acquire more.

Christ Revealed to us our Destiny. It was there all along, it did not become. We were created by, and for, God. Christ does not say, “become perfect”, He says, “BE perfect”. (Matthew 5:48) Our nature is to be with God. He shows us the Way.

I thought last night of St. Therese:

“Just as the sun shines simultaneously on the tall cedars and on each little flower as though it were alone on the earth, so Our Lord is occupied particularly with each soul as though there were no others like it. And just as in nature all the seasons are arranged in such a way as to make the humblest daisy bloom on a set day, in the same way, everything works out for the good of each soul.”

I propose to you TOm that just as a blossom is destined to bloom, so all creation is destined for God. Like a blossom, the universe, the world, the Church, and all of creation is unfolding as it should.

I recommend reading all of Romans 8, in conjunction with Spe Salvi.

16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. 18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. 19 For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;20 for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; 23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. 26 In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. 27 And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will. 28 We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, how will he not also give us everything else along with him? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s chosen ones? It is God who acquits us. 34 Who will condemn? It is Christ (Jesus) who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. 35 What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[TOmNossor]

Lax16,
I enjoyed the reading about St. Patrick. I also enjoyed the section on reason from the CCC. But I do not know what to do with it.
If I decided the CoJCoLDS was so lacking that I couldn’t be a LDS, I would be a Catholic. As a LDS I believe the Book of Abraham is scripture because to reject it would be inconsistent with my belief in the BOM and the authority of the CoJCoLDS given by God through the restoration. As a Catholic I would need to believe in the things I mentioned at the start of this thread (at the start of this thread some 2 years ago). Things like developed authority and developed doctrine and an understanding of Tradition that does not seem to be what most Catholic apologists invite folks to believe about Tradition. I would also need to embrace various dogmatic truths that lead to paradoxical problems when reason (granted human reason, but that aided by whatever Grace God gives us is all we have) is applied.
This would be problematic for me, but I guess the beginning of this thread overstates how problematic. Were I to need to cease to be a LDS, I could be a Catholic and lovingly say, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” I would not understand and some things would not make sense, but God lives, God sent His Son for ME and I love and must express that love.
That being said, if I am to apply reason to this decision the barriers to Catholicism are much higher IMO than the barriers to Mormonism.
If I am to seek God’s will in prayer, then God has directed me down the path I walk (very imperfectly walk!).
Either way, I am a LDS.

Let me offer a quick disclaimer. Please do not mistake my attempt to be fair to Catholicism with me either being likely to become Catholic or me not being a LDS apologist. If you think I might be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, know that I am a wolf. I try to be honest about the strengths (and weaknesses) I see in the Catholic position. Long ago I thought about returning to Catholicism, but I find that quite unlikely now.
I still seek to engage the best Catholicism has to offer though.
Charity, TOm