pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[pro_universal]

Sadly, after reading all the contradictory assertions he’s made in this thread, I can’t really say for sure what pro believes. And if he’s claming that that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing, I have to conclude that pro himself doesn’t really understand his own faith very well.

Alright, since you are using my long posts to post longer ones yourself and evade answering the question, I’m going to ask only one question this time:

Where is your promised logical analysis of the “contradictions” in my posts? You’ve promised it several times. Where is it?

If you do not post it, then please explain why you offered it and then refused.

It would have been interesting to continue this debate by exploring trinities within the Muslim faith too. But i don’t think pro will actually give us this opportunity.

This would be nearly as absurd as St. Augustine’s chapter on the magical number six. “There are three branches of the US government…proof that that trinity is real because the most powerful government in the US has three branches!” et al.

Perhaps he might not ever see the truth regarding the Trinity. But, if he has gioven up, at the very least he wouldn’t be confusing others here with this contradictory information he calls logic.

Well, the list was pretty darn clear. If you’ve got a way to show that it’s not contradictory, I’d like to see it, and by all means…show it to some logicians and philosophers and theologians. I promise you that you’ll be immortalized in Christian history if you can do this.

 

[inJESUS]

That is quite possibly the most impossible to follow logic I’ve seen on the whole thread. Seriously.

“If the bible is not corrupt, then the Trinity is real and it is God.” Wow…just, wow.

the Trinity is taken from the Bible so if the Bible says Jesus had God’s attributes/deeds, and Holy Spirit has God’s attributes/deeds, then Jesus and Holy Spirit is God. Do you believe the Bible is corrupt yes or no?

 

[pro_universal]

the Trinity is taken from the Bible so if the Bible says Jesus had God’s attributes/deeds, and Holy Spirit has God’s attributes/deeds, then Jesus and Holy Spirit is God. Do you believe the Bible is corrupt yes or no?

I believe that is an atrocious argument.

There are so many other possibilities it’s just astounding that you’d even make it.

1. If the bible is not corrupted, that doesn’t mean that any interpretation of it is correct.
2. If the bible is not corrupted and interpreted correctly, that doesn’t make it true.
3. God’s attributes or deeds as defined by the old testament are clearly not even remotely like a human being.

This is really just bizarre. I’m baffled.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Alright, since you are using my long posts to post longer ones yourself and evade answering the question, I’m going to ask only one question this time:

Where is your promised logical analysis of the “contradictions” in my posts? You’ve promised it several times. Where is it?

Why should I even bother, especialy if anything I submit can be dismissed by yourself as being illogical?

For the record, I was actually getting to it (again) in this post…
Mr. Ex:

Anyway, since you’ve asked, let’s review this again.

---

Review Begins Here:

A syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion, correct?

In fact, a ‘categorical syllogism’ is one in which every statement has one of the following forms:

1. All A are B
2. No A are B
3. Some A are B
4. Some A are not B

In these forms above, the letters A and B are basically terms that represent various classes of things. These things could include things such as rocks, ameobae, snails, and God himself

The following argument is, as far I understand, is a good example of a valid categorical syllogism:

All mammals are warm-blooded.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans are warm-blooded.

As far as this review is considered, am I misunderstanding anything so far?

More to the point, the form of this syllogism is:

All A are B. All C are A. Therefore, all C are B.

Getting right back to the basics, am I right in saying that this syllogism is valid?

 

[inJESUS]

I believe that is an atrocious argument.

There are so many other possibilities it’s just astounding that you’d even make it.

1. If the bible is not corrupted, that doesn’t mean that any interpretation of it is correct.
2. If the bible is not corrupted and interpreted correctly, that doesn’t make it true.
3. God’s attributes or deeds as defined by the old testament are clearly not even remotely like a human being.

This is really just bizarre. I’m baffled.

it is a YES/NO answer. Do YOU believe the Bible is corrupt? regardless of what we are discussing.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

it is a YES/NO answer. Do YOU believe the Bible is corrupt? regardless of what we are discussing.

I think inJESUS has presented a valid question for you to answer pro.

His question may not be directly related to the question of logic that you and I have been discussing. But inJESUS’ question most certainly does apply to your reasons for leaving the Catholic Church.

The reasons for you leaving the Catholic Church was the OP of this thread, wasn’t it?

 

[tequilamac]

I certainly don’t think my posts carry the same authority as the apostles that’s for sure. That’s why I make an appeal to the Church. And many of my arguments actually come from the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas to be fair. I thought most Catholics would recognize this.

But it’s not my insistence on being found correct.

Pro is simply refusing to admit that God not being able to sin represents a real and tangible limit on his ability to do things-- and it’s essential that he understand this.

First of all, he is saying that God can do any thing.

Second of all, he is saying that God cannot sin by claming that whatever God does is good.

And then, thirdly, he is claiming that, since whatever God does is good, this somehow proves that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing.

You can’t get much more contradictory than that.

I’m sorry but this a gross violation of the logical process which God himself gave us in order to understand his revelations more clearly.

Besides that, take a good look at the litany of what pro claimed against me so far. It’s actually gotten worse from there to be honest.

This isn’t just about ‘me’ tequilamac. If it were about me, and I were just selfishly responding out of vain glory, then I would have been banned a long time ago by telling pro exactly what he can do with his contradictory usage of logic.

But I haven’t done that. Contrary to this, I’ve been rather charitable despite all things claimed against me-- and I’ve persistently stepped up to bat whenever he made a contradictory claim against God.

This isn’t about me. It’s about being open the the revelation that Christ himself gave to the Church by the Holy Spirit. It’s also about serious claims against the very logic which the Church has expounded upon the primal revelation given through Christ.

Then you are wrong.

My interest, indeed my hope and prayer, is that pro eventually find his way back to the God of Catholicism. However, I know that these things take time and usually happen in stages. And I also know that he won’t be able to do this so long as he keeps claiming that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing.

My interest is also placed in the prayerful hope that others who read his posts do not get swayed by his contradictory logic and lose faith in Catholicism. This is a spot for Non-Catholic religions-- but that doesn’t mean that we as Catholics should sit back and say nothing when someone says something contradictory about God.

When have I not spoken about God?

You realize that the entire basis of this thread comes down to the fact that God cannot contradict his own nature, right?

I don’t usually quote C.A.R.M. But this link above really stands out well for the sake of this discussion.

And I’m debating pro out of love whether you believe me or not.

CARM is a rather awful link to offer but I read it. One of the difficulties here is who pro claims to be. The info from Carm might have been useful if pro was a potential convert from a bizarre religion or if pro was an atheist. These types of arguments are not useful for someone who already knows the answer. Carm designed it’s page for those who “have not accepted Jesus.” This is not who pro claims to be. Pro claims to be a former Catholic. In which case Pro accepted Jesus than years later, completely rejected him. This then was not done from ignorance as he already “knew Jesus” nor was it done from faulty logic. Pro may very well know the arguments for Jesus better than the faithful Catholics on the board. Pro’s decision was a conscious and deliberate decision which implies anger and willfullness. Which is why I still believe your arguing will only make it worse.

 

[pro_universal]

Why should I even bother, especialy if anything I submit can be dismissed by yourself as being illogical?

Well, if you do it according to a form no one can argue with and everyone can clearly read, there’s certainly a point to be made.

Let’s see it.

More to the point, the form of this syllogism is:

All A are B. All C are A. Therefore, all C are B.

Getting right back to the basics, am I right in saying that this syllogism is valid?

Syllogisms are a cheap and old way of representing an argument, but yes, it’s valid. Let’s see the substance of the argument now.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, if you do it according to a form no one can argue with and everyone can clearly read, there’s certainly a point to be made.

Let’s see it.

Syllogisms are a cheap and old way of representing an argument, but yes, it’s valid. Let’s see the substance of the argument now.

tequilamac, should I respond?

 

[inJESUS]

tequilamac, should I respond?

you can wait till i get my answer

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

you can wait till i get my answer

ok.

 

[eleonardo]

it is a YES/NO answer. Do YOU believe the Bible is corrupt? regardless of what we are discussing.

BUMP

 

[pro_universal]

you can wait till i get my answer

I don’t see what you’re waiting for. I don’t know if the bible is corrupted or not, and I don’t think it’s all that relevant whether it is or isn’t.

 

[tequilamac]

tequilamac, should I respond?

This only my opinion but…

I follow pretty exclusively the Baltimore Catechism. Back in on those days, one had to be careful getting into arguments with people who were reducing the Godhead to the frivolous because one did not want to be found in a situation where God was being treated in an irreverant fashion. In this thread, pro has repeatedly manipulated people into the position where in the name of “saving Pro from himself”, God is reduced to a frivolous state. For what it is worth,
that is only my opinion. But see, the title of the thread itself is a manipulation. Pro is not looking for assistance with his faith. Pro is looking to justify blasphemy against the Church and God and looking to find supporters. How deep any faithful Catholic wants to delve is up to them- it is important of course for each catholic to put his own immortal soul first.

 

[pro_universal]

that is only my opinion. But see, the title of the thread itself is a manipulation. Pro is not looking for assistance with his faith. Pro is looking to justify blasphemy against the Church and God and looking to find supporters.

I didn’t start, or title, the thread.

 

[NickB]

I don’t see what you’re waiting for. I don’t know if the bible is corrupted or not, and I don’t think it’s all that relevant whether it is or isn’t.

I, have read almost all of the post and from what I have come to understand about classical logic…sounds like a logical question YES or No, you do or you don’t believe the Bible is corrupt.

 

[pro_universal]

I, have read almost all of the post and from what I have come to understand about classical logic…sounds like a logical question YES or No, you do or you don’t believe the Bible is corrupt.

Okay, so if I don’t know, I can’t answer “I don’t know”?

I don’t believe there is good information about the origins of every text in the bible. Hence, I don’t know if it’s corrupt.

 

[NickB]

Okay, so if I don’t know, I can’t answer “I don’t know”?

I don’t believe there is good information about the origins of every text in the bible. Hence, I don’t know if it’s corrupt.

Pro

Stop hedging, you have 2000 years of information, take a position one way or the other.

Pro, have you ever played Roulette? they have a safe bet for those who want to play but never want to lose, black and red, you want to play both colors, you want to win but never lose, but that’s not how the real world works…come on take a positon.

 

[pro_universal]

Stop hedging, you have 2000 years of information, take a position one way or the other.

You’re kidding right? 2000 years of information? You mean…I have some shreds of information which survive today from 2000 years ago. I don’t have 2000 years of information.

Pro, have you ever played Roulette? they have a safe bet for those who want to play but never want to lose, black and red, you want to play both colors, you want to win but never lose, but that’s not how the real world works…come on take a positon.

I don’t gamble, but I’ve seen roulette on television. This is a ridiculous comparison: demanding a yes/no answer to this question when “I don’t know” is clearly valid is just silly.

No hedging: I don’t know, and I don’t think there’s enough good historical evidence to know. I certainly don’t accept it as true just because you or anyone else says so (or not).

 

[inJESUS]

Mr. Ex-Nihilo, i think i got my answer you can go on