I'm leaving Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheDefaultMan said:
I cannot reconcile the God of Classical Theism, who is absolutely simple, with a Trinity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you could coherently explain the Holy Trinity to me then I too might leave Christianity.
Can you do that?
Do you understand the Holy Trinity deeply enough to thoroughly reject the idea? Do you know so much about God that you are able to confidently declare that God can’t have a Son?

Many atheists ask me to define God. That surprises me. How can you be an atheist when you don’t even know what it is you dont believe in?
 
Last edited:
TheDefaultMan said:
So, while yes I could not completely understand the Divine Essence, much the same way a completely blind person could not fully understand what it’s like to see color, one thing I know God can’t be is be a composite, or contradictory.

That’s why I know that God isn’t a banana, or an apple, or a tree.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you are committing a logical fallacy, because it would only be a contradiction if the Triune God was: 1) a created being; and 2) was bound by the laws of physics. While bananas, apples, & trees are bound by those laws & are created, God is “not” created. Therefore, the rules of non-contradiction would not apply to God, since He exist OUTSIDE of our physical universe. So, a NON-physical Triune God, Who is not bound by the physical universe could include “Members” of that Trinity Who are the same GOD, but different “Persons” of that same God. The reason this appears to be a contradiction is because you are attempting to use examples in the physical realm (like bananas) & then apply them to a non-physical Entity outside of the physical realm. You cannot do this, since you cannot apply physical rules to non-physical examples.

Plus, it is illogical to believe there is no God, because you need an explanation for the existence of a finite universe, which the Creator itself would have to be infinite & non-physical, as well as exist eternally outside of the physical universe. If there is no God, there is no logical explanation for the universe, and therefore it should not exist.
TheDefaultMan said:
Maybe it was an alignment of highly improbable (but still possible) events of individuals having separate post-traumatic hallucinations (which, to my knowledge, has been documented in people who have lost loved ones).
Click to expand...
Hallucinations are individual experiences, not group ones. And the apostles eyewitnessed the Resurrected Christ TOGETHER at the same time. Plus, another 500+ eyewitnesses saw Him simultaneously. The reason they died excruciating deaths & did not recant what they saw, wasn’t because they were experiencing the EXACT SAME hallucination at the EXACT SAME time. It was because they eyewitnessed the Resurrection of the Triune God with their own eyes.
TheDefaultMan said:
The truth is I don’t know how to explain those events, and I promise to look into it more
Click to expand...
I would recommend “The Case for Christ” by former atheist Lee Strobel, who spent two years attempting to disprove Christianity, only to discover through his research that the claims of Christianity really were true.
 
Last edited:
Who can explain God? Not even the best of theologians can truly explain our Creator.
 
observing said:
Who can explain God? Not even the best of theologians can truly explain our Creator.
Click to expand...
Yes, my question to the op was

“Do you believe in God still? If so, in what form”

We can discuss what form we believe our Creator is in. 🐣
 
TheDefaultMan said:
I do understand that within God there is something like a Trinity,
but my problem is that there cannot be a real distinction between them
Click to expand...
Yes that’s your problem

Realize - come to see - we use human analogies to present spiritual realitieses, that’s your problem.

Trinity refers to relationships / distinguishments

Let’s say a Man is Created in the Image of God

And This Man Loves all Good things
This Man’s Heart/Spirit are on the Same Page as are His Actions/Words.
These Components of this Man are One… Are United.
The Man’s Heart/Mind and Word Spoken are never at Odds -
This Man’s very Word is His Bond.
They’re all always in 100% Agreement
This man is One man

There’s God the Father and God’s Word/Son
And God’s HOLY Spirit of LOVE flows in both.
God is One
 
Last edited:
TheDefaultMan said:
The truth is I don’t know how to explain those events, and I promise to look into it more,
Click to expand...
I would also encourage you to read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. He has a section in a chapter where he beautifully explains the Trinity in a logical way.
 
God contemplates God, God loves God.

There is the root of the doctrine. Opposing relations distinguished by origin are thus demarcated, and yet the Essence remains the same in each suppositum. The distinction is real but not absolute as with creatures.
 
jan10000 said:
Is God “infinitely merciful”? If so, then there can’t be a Hell.
Is God “omnipotent”? If so, then the cosmological argument cannot be used as a proof of his existence.
…and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...
…Are the people you’re arguing with high schoolers or something?
 
It tends to be how jan10000 argues. I had a long argument about how God being omniscient not negating free will, but even after the argument, jan10000 couldn’t make the connection that was there. Profile says cultural catholic, but tends to argue more like an agnostic or deist. Nothing Catholic about them. Like most who come here to argue, no point in arguing for it goes no where.
 
jan10000 said:
Seems like you are deflecting. Can you provide some attributes that God has?
Click to expand...
Thus spake your mistaken word.

JESUS is the Opposite of Deflecting.

He who faithfully sees the Word of God self-evidently directly knows some of God

_
 
Last edited:
God is God- He is who He is. There are no attributes God posseses per Divine Simplicity. We can make logical distinction between God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence but they are logical distinctions. They are not really distinct. In God, His attributes are same as He is as He is non-composite.
 
“Minds no longer object to the Church because of the way they think, but because of the way they live. They no longer have difficulty with the Creed, but with her Commandments, they remain outside her saving waters, not because they cannot accept the doctrine of Three Persons in One God, but because they cannot accept the moral of two persons in one flesh; not because Infallibility is too complex, but because the veto on Birth Control is too hard; not because the Eucharist is too sublime, but because Penance is too exacting. Briefly, the heresy of our day is not the heresy of thought, it is the heresy of action.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Communism and the Conscience of the West)
 
Advice regarding my disbelief of a virgin birth, in confession…

^pray on it.^, I did and it was soon resolved in Our Lady’s favour.

Good advice I received, yes.

String theory, whereby all things come from three vibrating strings. There is only one discipline, one love, one God. We are one. But this in no wise eliminates the possibility of all potentials.
God would nuke us by virtue of his omnipotence should we see Him.
Ergo, all God, all man incarnate shows us who God is.
And leaves the Advocate to help and guide.

I found Julian of Norwich very helpful in understanding this. When God shows her something the size of a golfball in her palm and says, “This is all that was ever created.”, and science says exactly that, before the big bang all matter was condensed into an infinitly heavy ball., … it just needed some leaven.
 
Or as Scotus states, we can make formal distinctions between His attributes, but not real distinctions or substantial distinctions.
 
jan10000 said:
If so, then God cannot exist as an omnibenevolent being would not allow the suffering that occurs in the world.
Click to expand...
Why? Why do you automatically categorize suffering as bad? On what basis?
jan10000 said:
You can;t say omnipotence and omnibenevolence are distinct and still claim divine simplicity. Clearly, we can conceive of being that is omnipotent but NOT omnibenevolent.
Click to expand...
Of course. That’s why claim is that in God, they are not really distinct 😃 that’s what entire doctrine is based on lol.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
Because I define a core attribute of “benevolence” as not allowing suffering to occur that you can prevent.
Click to expand...
In that case, God is not benevolent by your definition.
jan10000 said:
Go ahead, but you’ve got a strange definition of being “good”.
If you were walking by a baby being tortured by another person, would you do nothing?
Click to expand...
Being good means doing osmething for absolute good, not for momentary gain. Suffering works on basis of receptors and hence if we feel bad it is to alarm us about something. Suffering helps us grow and helps us accustom to outside effects. My definition of “good” is God.
 
Jupp said:
Do you ever choose to suffer? As soon as you will choose to suffer for no good reason, you will be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Oh no, that would be a thing if indeed I said suffering “for no good reason” was a good thing, or if I denied it is a bad thing. Read my posts carefully and don’t insert words I did not utter into my mouth please. I simply asked on what basis does one say that suffering is bad.

Anyway, suffering for no good reason is indeed bad because… well there is no good reason. Studying for no good reason is bad, eating for no good reason is bad, living for no good reason is bad. Anything for no good reason is bad by definition.

Suffering certainly has existence in the world as implication of free will. You can’t have both fully free will and absence of it’s effects. Suffering is effect of free will. I also do not think you will find completely meaningless suffering in the world. It all has cause and effect- which gives it meaning. I am not saying meaning of suffering is always good or makes suffering worthy to undergo (far from that) but if suffering exists for good reason (such as existence of free will) then no suffering is indeed for “no good reason”. Whatever it is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top