Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JohnMichaels]

I alluded in another thread that in searching for a theistic religion, any teaching I couldn’t bring myself to agree with immediately got disqualified for consideration.
One person asked for a thread discussing some specific instances of this in regards to Catholicism. So, like, if nobody likes it - blame him

In this thought exercise, I’ll be operating under the following assumptions

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

While I expect this to spin into multiple directions ranging from morality to same-sex marriage to abstinence…I’m sure I can’t think of them all. Some of you feel free to bring something up & test how I’d feel.

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them
2. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior
   If there are others please list them

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

I clearly can’t state up front which I’ll be defending, if I don’t know which is official.
I’d also like to ask if the Church has an official position on what causes homosexuality?

I believe this is a fair launching point, no?
Any concerns to the rules? Maybe something to add, something that you see that might get in the way down the line?

Lets get it rolling

 

[Qoeleth]

Many cultures (in fact most) have had some form of prohibition on homosexual acts. A small number of cultures (some of the ancient Greeks, some modern Westerners) thought it was acceptable.

If a person has such tendencies, it would seem better not to risk eternal damnation for the momentary pleasure of sexual activity.

But then, even without acknowledge the possibility of God and eternal punishment, there is good evidence the homosexual is inadvisable. Ultimately, the pleasures it produces are going to be outweighed by the inconvenience, the expense, the loss of freedom, the emotional disturbances, as well, as I suppose, the social impediments in many cultures, etc. Even if this cannot be demonstrated conclusively, possibly it is true. Why take the risk?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )

+1 to the bold. That’s all I’d like to say for now . Carry on.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Many cultures (in fact most) have had some form of prohibition on homosexual acts. A small number of cultures (some of the ancient Greeks, some modern Westerners) thought it was acceptable.

If a person has such tendencies, it would seem better not to risk eternal damnation for the momentary pleasure of sexual activity.

But then, even without acknowledge the possibility of God and eternal punishment, there is good evidence the homosexual is inadvisable. Ultimately, the pleasures it produces are going to be outweighed by the inconvenience, the expense, the loss of freedom, the emotional disturbances, as well, as I suppose, the social impediments in many cultures, etc. Even if this cannot be demonstrated conclusively, possibly it is true. Why take the risk?

You just lost! You can mention hell, but you can’t know what it has in store. Why risk what? What’s hell like? I can’t have that debate this entire thread, see?

then you dismantle your own argument before i can even start to, and crutch it with eternal damnation again “Even if this cannot be demonstrated conclusively, possibly it is true. Why take the risk?”

you did a tl’dr didn’t you?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I alluded in another thread that in searching for a theistic religion, any teaching I couldn’t bring myself to agree with immediately got disqualified for consideration.
One person asked for a thread discussing some specific instances of this in regards to Catholicism. So, like, if nobody likes it - blame him

I’ll take the heat for it.

In this thought exercise, I’ll be operating under the following assumptions

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

Alright. Fair enough.

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

While I expect this to spin into multiple directions ranging from morality to same-sex marriage to abstinence…I’m sure I can’t think of them all. Some of you feel free to bring something up & test how I’d feel.

Having read through this post I can already say that your understanding of the teachings you’re addressing here is flawed. So without further ado, let’s get to it.

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them

This is a line you will only get from extreme fundamentalist sects who are more crazy than Christian.

1. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior

This is also incorrect.

If there are others please list them

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that God loves all human beings, regardless of their behavior, and He desires them all to turn from their sin and come to Him. In the Catholic view, God does not send people to Hell because He hates them. People choose Hell by choosing to reject God, who is the source of all good. This does not mean God does not love them. He respects the free will He gave them and He will not force someone who does not want Him to be with Him.

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

As a sacrament, marriage is between a man and a woman, for reasons we can address more fully as the thread develops. At this point, it will suffice to note that the religious practice predates the legal institution and the only reason marriages are legally recognized in the first place is because the state has a vested interest in the procreation and raising of children, as such is what builds and sustains a society.

The monetary and legal benefits bestowed upon a married couple are so given because the assumption is (or used to be) that a married couple would have and raise children, and thus provide a service to society. So the legal arrangement is kind of a tacit quid pro quo; in return for agreeing to stay together and provide a stable environment in which to raise the next generation of citizens, the state affords certain forms of monetary assistance in the form of tax benefits, etc.

The idea of marriage as a primarily emotional arrangement is an entirely modern one that undermines the very stability and reason-for-being of the institution. We cannot blame gay marriage advocates for this, however, as this mentality came first from the culture of contraception. Nevertheless, gay marriage illustrates in stark colors the absurdity of such an arrangement: why should the state recognize people’s personal feelings in a binding, legal institution? Why should tax payers fund someone’s romance?

It simply doesn’t make sense. And the numbers show it. In countries where contraception is embraced, marriage rates plummet and divorce rates skyrocket. If gay marriage is later embraced, the numbers get even worse. This is not to say that gay marriage is the cause. It is, rather, the symptom. As we should all well know, feelings are fickle, and the more emotionally driven a society becomes, the more unstable it becomes. Gay marriage is the illogical conclusion of a society whose understanding of marriage has become completely illogical.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I clearly can’t state up front which I’ll be defending, if I don’t know which is official.
I’d also like to ask if the Church has an official position on what causes homosexuality?

The official position of the Church is:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

In other words, the Church doesn’t pretend to know why some people have these desires. But she understands that those who do are just like the rest of us: fallen people struggling with disordered passions.

I believe this is a fair launching point, no?
Any concerns to the rules? Maybe something to add, something that you see that might get in the way down the line?

Lets get it rolling

Are we rolling yet?

 

[bzkoss236]

First, I’ll say that I think it is foolish to dismiss a faith just because you don’t agree with a doctrine with your current understanding. Truth is not always apparent immediately. As evidence, just look at many crimes. Some, the criminal is caught red-handed and is swiftly brought to justice. Other times, the criminal gets away, and for justice to be done, the true criminal needs to be brought to justice. Evidence must be searched, gathered, and researched before the truth is found. So, to immediately dismiss a faith just because you don’t immediately understand an argument means that you could be dismissing truth. And claiming ignorance won’t work because you had the opportunity to look into it, because you didn’t understand it, but you chose not to look into for the purpose of remaining ignorant because you think you’ll be better off and can claim ignorance. There is way more culpability in willful ignorance than invincible ignorance. So, you would in fact be worse off.

Second, the Church has no stance on what causes homosexuality because that is not the Church’s domain. The Church defers to science to figure that out. Science cannot denote the morality of homosexuality, so that is deferred to the Church. And so the Church’s stance can be summed up with “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. Homosexual persons are not in sin just for having an attraction to the same gender, because you can’t help who you are attracted to, and as such, they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity just like everyone else. There may be some therapy that could help, but people are under no obligation to seek therapy. Homosexual acts, like gay sex and relationships, are sinful and should be avoided just like heterosexual sex acts outside of marriage are sinful and should be avoided.

Ultimately, the existence of homosexuality is caused by the fact that sin entered the world, but as to what causes it in an individual is left for science to determine. So far the prevailing theory, as far as I know, is that it involves epigenetics.

If you want, we can go into some reasons why the Church says that homosexual acts are sinful, but only if you request it.

 

[SweetieVietnam]

I alluded in another thread that in searching for a theistic religion, any teaching I couldn’t bring myself to agree with immediately got disqualified for consideration.
One person asked for a thread discussing some specific instances of this in regards to Catholicism. So, like, if nobody likes it - blame him

In this thought exercise, I’ll be operating under the following assumptions

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

While I expect this to spin into multiple directions ranging from morality to same-sex marriage to abstinence…I’m sure I can’t think of them all. Some of you feel free to bring something up & test how I’d feel.

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them
2. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior
   If there are others please list them

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

I clearly can’t state up front which I’ll be defending, if I don’t know which is official.
I’d also like to ask if the Church has an official position on what causes homosexuality?

I believe this is a fair launching point, no?
Any concerns to the rules? Maybe something to add, something that you see that might get in the way down the line?

Lets get it rolling

Sau m?t th?i gian bánh tráng bo Sweetie ra d?i, bên c?nh vi?c nh?n du?c r?t nhi?u s? ?ng h? t? m?i ngu?i, thì Sweetie cung dã vÃ* dang ti?p nh?n m?t s? góp ý c?a các b?n. VÃ* l?n nÃy, nh?m dáp ?ng nhu c?u c?a các anh ch? nhân viên van phòng, và các b?n h?c sinh, sinh viên b?n r?n, không có nhi?u th?i gian d? có th? thu?ng th?c món bánh tráng bo Sweetie cu?n. Nay Sweetie xin mang d?n cho m?i ngu?i m?t lo?i bánh tráng bo m?i - Bánh tráng bo tr?n.

NgoÃi uu di?m bánh tráng du?c tr?n s?n, phù h?p d? thu?ng th?c nhanh, trong th?i gian ng?n, bánh tráng bo tr?n Sweetie cung có m?t s? thay d?i v? thÃnh ph?n, dó lÃ* thay nu?c s?t me thÃnh hÃnh phi. Nhu v?y, thÃnh ph?n c?a m?t túi bánh tráng bo tr?n Sweetie s? bao g?m bánh tráng, bo, chà bông, hÃnh phi và mu?i.

Sweetie r?t hi v?ng s? ti?p t?c nh?n du?c s? ?ng h? c?a m?i ngu?i!

Giá:

• 25.000 VND /1 túi

Liên h?:
D?a ch?:

1. 66 Tân M? F. Tân Thu?n Tây Q.7
2. 2A/7 Nguy?n Th? Minh Khai F.Da Kao Q.1 (g?n c?u Th? Nghè, d?i di?n c?ng vÃo S? THÚ, k? bên ngân hÃng Quân D?i ( MB Bank))
   D?t tru?c 1 ngÃ*y d? luôn có s?n ph?m m?i.
   Trên 100k thì mình m?i giao nhé (có ship)
   Trên 250k thi mình s? free ship.
   Giao trong qu?n 1-3-4-7.

Liên l?c:
SDT: 01212.789.689
Website: sweetie.vn/shop/food/banh-trang-bo-tron/
Facebook: facebook.com/sweetievietnam

H?n s? d?ng:

• T? 3-4 ngÃ*y

Chú ý:

• B?o qu?n các thÃ*nh ph?n trong bao zipper.
• Bo ph?i b?o qu?n trong nhi?t d? phòng ( không d? bo trong t? l?nh)
• Nên dùng h?t t? 1-2 ngÃ*y sau khi dã m? bao.

V?i bánh tráng bo tr?n thì trên 4 túi Sweetie s? giao có tÃ*nh ship nha m?i ngu?i.
Trên 10 túi thi Sweetie s? free ship ^^.

 

[Qoeleth]

You just lost! You can mention hell, but you can’t know what it has in store. Why risk what? What’s hell like? I can’t have that debate this entire thread, see?

then you dismantle your own argument before i can even start to, and crutch it with eternal damnation again “Even if this cannot be demonstrated conclusively, possibly it is true. Why take the risk?”

you did a tl’dr didn’t you?

Didn’t you law down as your fourth ‘given’ that Hell is not to be assumed as known with any certainty. I also started from that assumption. Even if not known or accepted as a premise, the possibility is still there. Again, why risk it?

Am I missing something?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them
2. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior
   If there are others please list them

No Catholic holds either of these views. God loves everyone. God gives sinners grace to stop sinning.

I’ll be the first to admit that too many Catholics dislike homosexuals – and that is a very bad thing. But most Catholics have nothing against homosexuals. And no Catholics believe that God hates homosexuals.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them

God does not hate anyone. God does not even hate Satan, I’d imagine he pities Satan.

1. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior
   If there are others please list them

God loves them even if they do commit those acts. God does not love the sin, but he loves the sinner, unconditionally. This is shown many, many times throughout Jesus’ ministry. Homosexual people are called to chastity as are all unmarried people. When people engage in those acts, they are putting themselves before their creator, which was the principle sin of Satan, and the ultimate cause of the fall.

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

They should not engage in civil unions because it attempts to attribute marriage-like qualities to something that can, by definition of the action, never be a marriage.

 

[JohnMichaels]

First, I’ll say that I think it is foolish to dismiss a faith just because you don’t agree with a doctrine with your current understanding. Truth is not always apparent immediately. As evidence, just look at many crimes. Some, the criminal is caught red-handed and is swiftly brought to justice. Other times, the criminal gets away, and for justice to be done, the true criminal needs to be brought to justice. Evidence must be searched, gathered, and researched before the truth is found. So, to immediately dismiss a faith just because you don’t immediately understand an argument means that you could be dismissing truth. And claiming ignorance won’t work because you had the opportunity to look into it, because you didn’t understand it, but you chose not to look into for the purpose of remaining ignorant because you think you’ll be better off and can claim ignorance. There is way more culpability in willful ignorance than invincible ignorance. So, you would in fact be worse off.

Second, the Church has no stance on what causes homosexuality because that is not the Church’s domain. The Church defers to science to figure that out. Science cannot denote the morality of homosexuality, so that is deferred to the Church. And so the Church’s stance can be summed up with “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. Homosexual persons are not in sin just for having an attraction to the same gender, because you can’t help who you are attracted to, and as such, they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity just like everyone else. There may be some therapy that could help, but people are under no obligation to seek therapy. Homosexual acts, like gay sex and relationships, are sinful and should be avoided just like heterosexual sex acts outside of marriage are sinful and should be avoided.

Ultimately, the existence of homosexuality is caused by the fact that sin entered the world, but as to what causes it in an individual is left for science to determine. So far the prevailing theory, as far as I know, is that it involves epigenetics.

If you want, we can go into some reasons why the Church says that homosexual acts are sinful, but only if you request it.

But I did request it. You seem to be another tl’dr because you told me “claiming ignorance won’t work because you had the opportunity to look into it”
& that’s the entire point of the exercise. I am looking into it, & I have in the past. This thread is to combine what I know, with what I don’t know, & see if the choice I make is the same. Or if my mind can be changed on a given issue. Its possible, I don’t rule it out. Please, try again

 

[JohnMichaels]

Didn’t you law down as your fourth ‘given’ that Hell is not to be assumed as known with any certainty. I also started from that assumption. Even if not known or accepted as a premise, the possibility is still there. Again, why risk it?

Am I missing something?

I can still claim hell as non-existent or not as bad as scriptures say (as per the exercise)
ALSO, if your only argument is going to be "Yea, so you disagree, but why risk hell? it totally goes against this exercise where you’re suppose to defend the “rule” not ignore my concerns and just tell me “hell”

See how that defeats the purpose of this thread?

 

[JohnMichaels]

This is a line you will only get from extreme fundamentalist sects who are more crazy than Christian.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that God loves all human beings, regardless of their behavior, and He desires them all to turn from their sin and come to Him. In the Catholic view, God does not send people to Hell because He hates them. People choose Hell by choosing to reject God, who is the source of all good. This does not mean God does not love them. He respects the free will He gave them and He will not force someone who does not want Him to be with Him.
l.

I can rephrase that, sorry I got caught up in a technicality of “God hates” We’ll call that a rule change. I won’t assert God feels a certain way, instead in the future I’ll say “The Church feels God disapproves of…” is that more acceptable language?

Still doesn’t tell me what the Church wants them to do if they find themselves in this predicament. Onto the next…

**(1) **As a sacrament, marriage is between a man and a woman, for reasons we can address more fully as the thread develops. At this point, it will suffice to note that the religious practice predates the legal institution and the only reason marriages are legally recognized in the first place is because the state has a vested interest in the procreation and raising of children, as such is what builds and sustains a society.

**(2) **The monetary and legal benefits bestowed upon a married couple are so given because the assumption is (or used to be) that a married couple would have and raise children, and thus provide a service to society. So the legal arrangement is kind of a tacit quid pro quo; in return for agreeing to stay together and provide a stable environment in which to raise the next generation of citizens, the state affords certain forms of monetary assistance in the form of tax benefits, etc.

**(3) **The idea of marriage as a primarily emotional arrangement is an entirely modern one that undermines the very stability and reason-for-being of the institution. We cannot blame gay marriage advocates for this, however, as this mentality came first from the culture of contraception. Nevertheless, gay marriage illustrates in stark colors the absurdity of such an arrangement: why should the state recognize people’s personal feelings in a binding, legal institution? Why should tax payers fund someone’s romance?

It simply doesn’t make sense. And the numbers show it. In countries where contraception is embraced, marriage rates plummet and divorce rates skyrocket. If gay marriage is later embraced, the numbers get even worse. This is not to say that gay marriage is the cause. It is, rather, the symptom. As we should all well know, feelings are fickle, and the more emotionally driven a society becomes, the more unstable it becomes. Gay marriage is the illogical conclusion of a society whose understanding of marriage has become completely illogical

1. I’m OK with that, I’ll accept the historical value of marriage.
2. would a gay couple, without children, receive monetary assistance?
3. We do this ALL the time with heterosexual couples. 2 people who met each other yesterday can get drunk & have Elvis marry them at 2am in Vegas.
   Seems to me rather innocuous then excluding a couple because of their orientation

Your closing paints a totality. It is to insinuate that it will bring about the end of civilization. The population is so many times greater today than it was when these rules were enacted.

scottmanning.com/content/year-by-year-world-population-estimates/

I’ve read all the DOMA stuff I could get my hands on. My main opperating assumptions comes off this website
marriageuniqueforareason.org/religious-liberty-faq/
marriageuniqueforareason.org/faq/

The only things I was in agreement with, was the Church shouldn’t be forced to perform a gay wedding.

There is a slight chance this is going further than it needed to, you omitted a stance on civil union.
I said I couldn’t defend a position without knowing the clear position of the Church.

I was fine with Civil union.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

1. We do this ALL the time with heterosexual couples. 2 people who met each other yesterday can get drunk & have Elvis marry them at 2am in Vegas.
   Seems to me rather innocuous then excluding a couple because of their orientation

The fact that this is possible is almost as large an affront to the sacred nature of marriage as the concept of homosexual marriage.

 

[JRKH]

I alluded in another thread that in searching for a theistic religion, any teaching I couldn’t bring myself to agree with immediately got disqualified for consideration.
One person asked for a thread discussing some specific instances of this in regards to Catholicism. So, like, if nobody likes it - blame him

In this thought exercise, I’ll be operating under the following assumptions

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

Having not been involved in the other thread…I may be covering old ground…but given your title and what you post here, I think that I can posit that it is impossible to be a “non-theist” given the assumptions you present.
Everything else becomes a matter of how one views, worships, follows, understands etc. God and the (undefined but undoubted) revelation of Himself .

So - no matter what things you present from this point out…you cannot claim to be a “non-theist”.

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

Fair enough, and you will be justly and fairly judged by the Almighty.

As to the specifics - homosexuality or whatever…I leave that to others to argue…I simply wanted to address the contradiction that I saw between you title and your assumptions.

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

The fact that this is possible is almost as large an affront to the sacred nature of marriage as the concept of homosexual marriage.

If you agree with that, I can’t argue. I can only disagree. You provided no rational explanation.

 

[ColdComfort]

I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

This is where you part company with orthodox Catholics. Given what you say you know hypothetically does it make sense?

 

[JohnMichaels]

Having not been involved in the other thread…I may be covering old ground…but given your title and what you post here, I think that I can posit that it is impossible to be a “non-theist” given the assumptions you present.
Everything else becomes a matter of how one views, worships, follows, understands etc. God and the (undefined but undoubted) revelation of Himself .

So - no matter what things you present from this point out…you cannot claim to be a “non-theist”.

Fair enough, and you will be justly and fairly judged by the Almighty.

As to the specifics - homosexuality or whatever…I leave that to others to argue…I simply wanted to address the contradiction that I saw between you title and your assumptions.

Peace
James

It is not a contradiction
I said God was confirmed, not that he confirmed his still undying endorsement of any specific book’s words. The exercise then becomes you defending your belief in what the scriptures say, not just “But, God wants it that way” that isn’t part of the discussion

I’d in this case be a deist. I’d believe (Because it’s confirmed) that he exists
I would not be a theist, because I wouldn’t follow a specific dogma

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense,* theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity’s relationship to the universe*** ← I’m not operating under the second part

I’ll agree it’s strange, but try to use your imagination

 

[JohnMichaels]

This is where you part company with orthodox Catholics. Given what you say you know hypothetically does it make sense?

I realize that is where I part company. The point of this, is for you to tell me why my opinion is inaccurate. I fully admit I can change my mind in the face of evidence. Just has to be logical argument, not finite “God said so, you’ll burn” type answers