I'm leaving Catholicism

[kapp19]

I see this thread has morphed into the old debate about omnibenevolence and “Why would God not fix problems if He can and if He is good and if He knows about them?”

Two brief points.

1 - The doctrine of the analogy of being… God is super-moral, not moral. He defines the terms for what is good. The goodness we seek is “like” the goodness which God possesses. And He is in fact the term and measure for goodness and moral action in the end. We are not in the same moral position as God - so we don’t get to act like Him in regards to the alleviation or avoidance of suffering.

2 - The suffering of the Messiah… The glorification of souls requires, typically, a conformity with the Incarnate Lord Who suffered so as to enter into His glory. Plato was not entirely removed from this doctrine (see the Phaedo, and the lines where Socrates has his chains removed)… But there is much to meditate on here. Wisdom is acquired by gaining perspective, and perspective is gained by subjecting the flesh to the spirit, and this is done on our side, at least in one mode, by enduring suffering. Why not some other way? Well, see #1…

 

[Wesrock]

None of those Biblical interventions involved removing free will from any member of humankind.

Regardless, Thomism provides an excellent theodicy against the problem of evil. It just requires thinking of God as something other than a human moral agent and a fuller understanding of what “good” is. And both are understandable and explainable, not just labeled as mysteries.

 

[MarkRome]

The problem of evil has never been resolved and continues to be a devastating attack against theism - especially Christianity.

Not at all. It is actually a devastating attack against atheism. For evil is a deprivation of good. Without God there is no way to define something as objectively wrong. It demands an objective moral standard of good such as God.

 

[EndTimes]

Some folks who attempt to disprove JESUS are 24/7 adrenaline junkies - addicts -

It’s beyond their wherewithal to cease posting their futile ineffectual comments

For, it is WHEN in doing so that they receive their next dose of adrenaline…

Of course… since we’re speaking of adrenaline - they can not see that -

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This is an anti-Christian viewpoint because according to the Bible God has intervened many time sin human affairs, even killing everyone except a single family.

Yes, it is true that God can indeed intervene but in a manner where free will has already produced consequences. There are certain situations where it is absolutely better for God to intervene, but He does not act before that situations comes and He acts in a sense in which He can (and should).

Those times when God intervenes “by request”, which you someone imply avoids the issue, introduces more problems because now you need to explain the mechanism or ‘rules’ whereby God can intervene. If they are not absolute, then there is no difference.

Rules? Result is absolute good, and that is rule. Objectively absolute, not subjectively and hence not dependent on any subjective definition, but on reality of goodness.

• Why can’t God compromise and stop some of the horrible evils we experience?

Because compromise would introduce something less than absolute good. If God does not compromise, absolute good will eventually come and that is the goal.

What about natural suffering that has nothing to do with free will (ie, disasters, famine, etc)

Original sin introduced that, so it does have to do with free will in Catholic theology.

What about the Problem of Hiddeness? Why can’t God at least explain why and show us there is a purpose to all this suffering?

Because that would make sin have more consequences and be judged in harsher way. More knowledge we have ,more responsibility we have. Which is why knowledge and responsibility come gradually and not at once.

Are you saying child abuse is warranted in certain situations?

No.

Deliberate infliction of pain on a fellow human being, much less a defenseless child, is not something I would promote if I were you, especially on a Catholic forum.

So parents should not discipline their children by any form of “suffering”, be it taking away computer, TV or minor slap?.. woah

Your direct quote was “death is not horrific”. I am stunned by such a blatant anti-Catholic sentiment. Please resolve your statement with various Catholic viewpoints regarding the sanctity of life.

Sanctity of life does not mean death is horrific. It would only mean that if life ended with death, which we believe it does not.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Remember, you made this statement in response to my comment that, in the Old Testament, innocent children were killed either directly by God or killed by his minions or followers at his bequest.

Well, God has right to do that because they are His creations (and by ending their life they get to be in Heaven anyway), but minions and followers are somewhat different story. I mean… technically knowing with full knowledge it is God’s will would mean that instead of using illness God uses humans to do the same thing, but there has to be certainty on side of follower.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Many Catholic scholars vehemently dispute the doctrine.

Wrong. Mere assertion as you are prone to say. Give me example of one Catholic scholar who is vehemently against the doctrine of simplicity. It is a Catholic dogma, which means it must be believed in to be a Catholic.

If God consists of a Trinity

This is wrong language. God does not consist of the Persons of the Trinity, as if they are each one part of God. Each Person is fully God, but have a formal distinction from the other Person, per Scotus. And while it may be possible that a unitarian God may better “resolve” under Simplicity, that is not what we as Christians have to work with. God is Trinity in Unity according to Divine revelation. So, while I can never fully understand the Trinity or Simplicity, for I am not triune or simple, I still must believe it since it Scriptural and Dogmatic of the Church.

one of the most prominent refutations put forth by Catholic scholars

You keep saying “Catholic Scholars”, but I don’t think you know what that means…

If God is all his attributes at once, there is no distinction between this attributes

Obviously you didn’t read the article that I linked. IF you did, you would never have stated such ridiculous things. Here is a quick answer: The attributes and persons are “formally distinct” from
the divine nature, and the attributes are formally distinct from one another. On
this view, there are “things” (formalities or intelligible contents) that, while really
identical or identical in being (i.e., not distinct beings, actualities, or potentialities)
are not identical in the strictest sense. We distinguish, for example, rationality and
animality in the one human form or actuality (the real principle in virtue of which
a human is a member of a kind) because they explain different effects of human
beings. But these are not two actualities, since then the human person would not
be actually unified. Nor is this a mere conceptual distinction. Rather, this distinction between rationality and animality is rooted in the intelligible structure of the
form, prior to our understanding, though these formalities are not independent parts
or principles out of which the form is composed.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

And: On Scotus’s view, A is the same
being as (or really identical to) B just in case A and B are the same being, or A and
B are (distinct or identical) formalities within a single being, or one is a being and
the other is a formality of that being. Identity is transitive when it is identity in the
strictest sense, that is, when things are formally identical, when they are the same
intelligible formality (or set of formalities). Identity in being is not necessarily
transitive, for it is not identity in the strictest sense.
Please, read the article and truly engage it. It answers your “refutations”.

then God must be an abstract entity, as these concepts are abstract (I cannot ‘touch’ mercifulness)

Haha, who ever said you could “touch” God? God is immaterial, as Mercy and Goodness are immaterial. But in God being immaterial, that doesn’t necessitate that God isn’t real. One cannot touch a soul, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. But, again, you have wrong view of simplicity, and you don’t understand formal distinctions and so forth. READ THE PAPER I LINKED ABOVE.

Lastly, you don’t think that thousands of years of philosophers and theologians haven’t considered the things your positing? Of course they have! And they have answered them completely. More research is needed to be done on your part. Many prayers your way to find the glory of God in the face of Christ. Only He can illumine you to the truth for He is the Truth.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Only if you are a Creationist.

Could you elaborate on that? I am not.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Nope not arguing with Catholic theologians since they believe in Divine Simplicity. Again you merely assert but give no evidence. The paper I posted answers your issue with attributes but obviously you didn’t read it.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I’m am answering your issues. The OP has been answered by multiple posters and Scotus answers him with Formal Distinctions. Do you know what a formal distinction is?
But it all boils down to one question with you: If God is not simple, how did his parts get put together? But knowing you, you’ll go on a ramble about something other than this trying to make your point that you can’t understand it. Please don’t ramble just answer the question

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If you subscribe to evolution or general scientific explanations for the world, obviously death, disasters, and suffering existed long before the first human being was granted a soul and sinned. Therefor, only Creationists can make that defense.

For sake of argument we could assume my imagined universe is creationist. In reality I think that first being to sin would be Satan and as such he brought evil to the world. Man brought it onto himself and us by transition.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

For example, the same rainstorm could kill one person and make the crops grow for another.

In that case, it could be explained that Satan is cause of the storm but God used it to also make crops grow. Basically “make best out of this bad thing” scenario.

 

[valencia]

Dont leave jt

 

[Uberdenker]

Hello. I’ve thought about these questions, too. St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas write extensively on these topics. Have you read their works?

How do we quote in the forum?

 

[Uberdenker]

I’ve thought about these questions, too.

 

[sharKByte123]

Hang In There
Wow believe me I completely understand the way you! I too was in a situation where I serious considering Judaism for literally the same reason. I don’t know how hard you may have dug into this question and I won’t be surprised at all if you are more knowledgeable than me but I must say we that it would be prudent to really take your time with this sort of thing because after all it is more than just an intellectual issue but a spiritual one. Do not worry I am not ignoring the importance of the intellect and honest peruse of truth but we have to be extra careful not to commit apostasy because of our issues so we must be extra through. That’s all I’m saying. I think you clearly are taking this serious and proceeding with prudence as you came here and probably else where seeking to see if someone else resolved this issue. Lets stick around and hash this out because I am confident that we can shift through this issue. Normally I like to type responses but there is a great video online that explains this question. I will paste the links below and we can discuss the entire thing!

Forgive me because it is long but on grave matters such as leaving the faith, I think it will be worth you time to give the Christ and His Church the time. Sort of like how we give an our for mass. I am not saying this is like the mass but this may be the means that you return to the mass once again to celebrate with the Lord!

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

As St Augustine says: “Since God is the highest good, he would not allow any evil to exist in his works unless his omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”

 

[Macino]

Isn’t the Trinity a mystery?

 

[Adamek]

I’m leaving Catholicism, and Christianity more broadly

I have a few technical question regarding the process of leaving Catholicism. The first has to do with the time frame. How long does it take to “leave”? Is there a target date and so forth. The next question has to do with awareness. How do you know when you have completed the task? When I leave my house, for example, I generally walk out the door and then I am out. Is there a symbolic “door” you go through on your way out. The finally question has to do with letting the world know. If you leave quietly, no one other than yourself will know. (God would too, but you are no longer acknowleging Him) So, do you send a message on trwitter, facebook? How do you do it?
And finally, how final is your departure? Can you envision a situation when you would want to get back in?