pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[inJESUS]

if anything God does is by definition good, then why question Trinity? is it something “bad”?

 

[thistle]

salam

can someone please define wot a sin actually is please?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

THE DEFINITION OF SIN

CCC 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

CCC 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.” Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods, knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

CCC 1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world, the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

 

[exoflare]

salam

can someone please define wot a sin actually is please?

A sin is an act that is deliberately performed, which the person knows goes against God’s will.

EDIT: Oops, didn’t see that post before mine.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I have a quick question for y’all, why does anyone care why Pro left? His soul, his choice. The best thing we can do is pray for him.

I disagree in part.

While I agree that prayer allows God to bring forth his will to us more clearly, I strongly disagree with the idea that the only thing we can do in the end is pray.

I apologize in advance if I’ve misunderstood your post. But it seems to me that you’re suggesting that, when debates prolong past a certain length of time, they are essensially useless.

But if that were true, then why on earth did the early apostles engage so strongly in such vigorous debates with the Jewish population that Christianity emerged from?

Paul spent years in some areas, sometimes weeping for others, going over the same things over and over again in order to show people the truth of the Gospel.

So, if you’re saying that further debate between pro and I is a waste of time that should be just left to prayer, then I do disagree with you.

Certainly much prayer is necessary.

But no. I will not just throw my hands up in the air and say, “Why does anyone care why Pro left?”

The simple answer is that I do care about pro_universal even if others have washed their hands of him.

Like it or not, I’m quite sure that God cares deeply about pro_univrsal too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

God is always good.

Allah is evil.

Ergo: Allah is not God.

Thank you very much,
Rodrigo

Well now…I’m sure this peace of logic certainly accomplished a lot.

No. Allah is not evil-- especially not if Allah is merely the Arabic name of God which Arabic Christians use too.

Neither is Islam inherently evil. Neither are Muslims evil either.

Quite frankly, I don’t blame pro (or other real Muslims) for getting a bit ticked off when claims like these are flung in his face.

More to the point, you just made a very serious attack against the God of both Muslims and Arab-speaking Christians when you said this.

I might disagree with pro’s usage of logic. I might even taunt him tit-for-tat when he makes his claims against me that I don’t understand formal logic vis a vis the cobra vs. the mongoose analogy.

But, for the most part, pro has been rather respectful when presenting his thoughts. These kinds of debates usually have a bit of bite to them.

But stepping in and outright claming that “Allah is evil” goes way beyond anything that pro or I have levelled against each other when debating the finer points of logic to discern contradictory qualities about God based on what we believe God’s revealed to each of us.

If this is your idea of winning a victory against Islam, I’ll have no part of that. It’s incredibly insulting what you just claimed-- to both Muslims and Arab-speaking Christians.

No. I’ll just sit back and allow Wisdom to speak for herself. Wisdom is proved right by her actions-- and she is proved right by all her children, including many, many noble and peaceful Muslims throughout the world who do have a deep and reverant and authentic belief in God.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I disagree in part.

While I agree that prayer allows God to bring forth his will to us more clearly, I strongly disagree with the idea that the only thing we can do in the end is pray.

I apologize in advance if I’ve misunderstood your post. But it seems to me that you’re suggesting that, when debates prolong past a certain length of time, they are essensially useless.

But if that were true, then why on earth did the early apostles engage so strongly in such vigorous debates with the Jewish population that Christianity emerged from?

Paul spent years in some areas, sometimes weeping for others, going over the same things over and over again in order to show people the truth of the Gospel.

So, if you’re saying that further debate between pro and I is a waste of time that should be just left to prayer, then I do disagree with you.

Certainly much prayer is necessary.

But no. I will not just throw my hands up in the air and say, “Why does anyone care why Pro left?”

The simple answer is that I do care about pro_universal even if others have washed their hands of him.

Like it or not, I’m quite sure that God cares deeply about pro_universal too.

 

[tequilamac]

I disagree in part.

While I agree that prayer allows God to bring forth his will to us more clearly, I strongly disagree with the idea that the only thing we can do in the end is pray.

I apologize in advance if I’ve misunderstood your post. But it seems to me that you’re suggesting that, when debates prolong past a certain length of time, they are essensially useless.

But if that were true, then why on earth did the early apostles engage so strongly in such vigorous debates with the Jewish population that Christianity emerged from?

Paul spent years in some areas, sometimes weeping for others, going over the same things over and over again in order to show people the truth of the Gospel.

So, if you’re saying that further debate between pro and I is a waste of time that should be just left to prayer, then I do disagree with you.

Certainly much prayer is necessary.

But no. I will not just throw my hands up in the air and say, “Why does anyone care why Pro left?”

The simple answer is that I do care about pro_universal even if others have washed their hands of him.

Like it or not, I’m quite sure that God cares deeply about pro_univrsal too.

Again there is the old Catholic adage about obstinancy in sin. If you wanted to do pro universal a favor, you would pray without telling him about it that God will grant him final repentance. But putting him in the position of having to defend his error is wrong. And when you argue with him, that is what you are doing. Every time he defends his error, it becomes more deeply ingrained. This is truly not helpful to pro universal.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Again there is the old Catholic adage about obstinancy in sin. If you wanted to do pro universal a favor, you would pray without telling him about it that God will grant him final repentance. But putting him in the position of having to defend his error is wrong. And when you argue with him, that is what you are doing. Every time he defends his error, it becomes more deeply ingrained. This is truly not helpful to pro universal.

But then why did Paul and that other apostles debate and warn people for years at particular locations as recorded within Acts for example?

There are some cases where Paul for example left because of obstinance on the part of the listeners. But in most areas he stayed and vigorously debated literally for years…

This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

…and here…

Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

I’m not stretching anything by claiming these kinds of debates and instructions, on and of, took the span of several years to bring about conversion.

It’s true that there were many instantanious conversions by those who were already ready for the truth. Yet many others look a long time to see the light.

And while I’m sure that there were many, many prayers along the way (I’m positive of this), I’m also sure that many would not have accepted the Gospel over the long run if their prayer’s to God did not also fuel their passion and zeal to preach the Gospel for years at a time.

So this idea that we have to sit back and complacently commend all things to God, while I believe there is much truth to it, does not always apply to every situation.

Sometimes we do have to dig our heels into the ground, dig them into the serpent’s head, and get ready in prayer for a confrontation when someone is claming that something is contradictory to God’s will.

In fact, I’m positive that the early Church would not have spread as rapidly as she did if the apostles and disciples had simply commended all things to prayer without action.

If the Holy Spirit is on fire in someone, and they are more than equipped by God to stand their ground, they must stand up against when an injustice spoken against God.

Maybe pro will indeed dig himself deeper into his own position here. But maybe – just maybe – we’re supposed to confront his claims exactly like what I’ve been doing too.

And even if he does dig himself deeper, I’ve done nothing wrong by speaking the truth. Certainly other people can learn from me as I’ve learned from them. I’ve only challenged him to seriously think about what he’s claiming.

Indeed, if speaking the truth potentially leads people to sin, then when exactly are we supposed to speak the truth?

Think about it.

Pro’s basically clamied that I don’t know anything about logic-- and he was wrong when he made this claim. He actually went so far as to say that I’d never really considered logic before I entered this thread-- and he was wrong about that too. In fact, he’s been wrong about a lot of things he’s clamied.

But so long as he persists in debating with me about this, I’ll continue, by the Spirit, debating right back.

When we left off, I asked the following…
Mr. Ex:

If I say “a rock cannot talk”, is this a gross syntax error on my part?

If I say “an ameoba cannot do calculus”, is this a gross syntax error on my part?

If I say “a snail cannot fly by its own power”, is this a gross syntax error on my part?

If not, then why is it a gross syntax error on my part when I say “God cannot sin”?

I could be wrong, but I think these statements demolished pro’s last bit of resistance.

Nonethless, it’s completely his choice tequilamac. He can either answer these questions and prove me wrong, give up the debate entirely, or else finally admit he was wrong all along.

As far as I’m concerned, if we are not to allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil, then I don’t really see many other options here.

 

[pro_universal]

Alright, it looks like:

I’m never going to see anything remotely approaching a logical analysis of the statements. Maybe you did one, and saw that it laid the issue bare, and decided not to post it. Or maybe, as every single post seems to indicate, you don’t really have any idea how to do this. I don’t know why you’re so insistent on claiming you do, when you consistently fail to deliver the goods.

As for this:

Every other time I see this kind of inference occuring it seems to represent a real and tangible limit on their ability to act.

If I say “a rock cannot talk”, I’m not asking “Can a rock do something without doing something?” I’m stating a rock cannot talk.

It’s a complete and total misunderstanding of the point. Your examples are examples of things where the ability cited is unconnected to the definition of the thing, which is NOT the case when you are talking about God and doing good.

A more appropriate example would be: “Can a rock be made entirely of jello?”

The answer is: No, because then we wouldn’t call it a rock. The definitions of the terms make the sentence nonsense.

You listed a series of examples that have to do with one tangible thing and a separate tangible ability. But that doesn’t accurately describe the issue with “Can God do other than good?” when “Good” just means “whatever God does.”

If you say, assuming those definitions, “God did bad”, you’ve said exactly: “God did (something that God didn’t do)”. Which is nonsense. If you define the term, and substitute in the definition for these examples, you’ll see why the question you are asking about “limits” is a question that doesn’t make any sense.

I see that your posts are growing longer, but the reason I’m not responding with long tirades is that the portions of your posts which actually address issues of logic are very small, and mostly grossly misguided.

If you don’t think it’s necessary to understand logic to look at religion, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t go around claiming to use it to analyze your beliefs when you don’t really know how.

 

[Valke2]

There are some cases where Paul for example left because of obstinance on the part of the listeners. But in most areas he stayed and vigorously debated literally for years…

Just want to point out that if the listener’s were obstinate, the speaker must habe been obstinate as well.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Just want to point out that if the listener’s were obstinate, the speaker must habe been obstinate as well.

Not necessarilly.

If a man is standing in the middle of the road, and a Mack Truck is bearing down on them, and they stand there saying something to the effect of “There’s no truck coming” or “I won’t get hurt”, they are being obstinant in disregarding the danger.

If a man is standing off the raod, and they see the Mack Truck bearing down on the man in the middle of the road, and they stand there waving their hands screaming “There’s a truck coming!” or “You’re going to get killed!”, they are being persistent in attempting to save their lives.

There’s a difference between obstinance and persistence.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Alright, it looks like:

I’m never going to see anything remotely approaching a logical analysis of the statements. Maybe you did one, and saw that it laid the issue bare, and decided not to post it. Or maybe, as every single post seems to indicate, you don’t really have any idea how to do this. I don’t know why you’re so insistent on claiming you do, when you consistently fail to deliver the goods.

They’re all a logical analysis of your statements.

pro:

As for this:
Mr. Ex:

Every other time I see this kind of inference occuring it seems to represent a real and tangible limit on their ability to act.

If I say “a rock cannot talk”, I’m not asking “Can a rock do something without doing something?” I’m stating a rock cannot talk.

It’s a complete and total misunderstanding of the point. Your examples are examples of things where the ability cited is unconnected to the definition of the thing, which is NOT the case when you are talking about God and doing good.

A more appropriate example would be: “Can a rock be made entirely of jello?”

No. You’re just shifting the terms when convenient for you to do so.

You said, “God can do any thing”.

But if God can’t sin, then God can’t do any thing.

More to the point, if God can’t do some thing, then God can’t do any thing.

This is formal logic.

You didn’t say, “God can be any thing”.

I’ve never said this either. And this is not formal logic.

I’ve only said that there are things that God can’t do-- something which you’ve consistently and unsuccesfully attempted to logically argue against by claming that I’m saying that God can’t be something that he’s not.

If I say God can’t sin, this is a specific limitation on his ability to act.

If I say God can’t sin, this limitation on his ability to act says nothing about God’s ability to be something other than God. It only says that God can’t sin.

Care to try again?

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

The answer is: No, because then we wouldn’t call it a rock.

Yes, and, according to your definition, if God can’t do any thing, we wouldn’t call him God. Yet there are things that God can’t do-- even you admit this.

Therefore, your statements contradict themselves.

pro:

The definitions of the terms make the sentence nonsense.

Yes. More nonsense like saying that God can do any thing except sin because anything God does is good-- and making the claim that God can still do any thing even though you admit there are things that God, by his very nature, cannot do.

Regardless of how you word it, this means that God can only do good and that he cannot do evil-- which means that God cannot do any thing as you initially claimed.

I’ve added nothing to your initial statements.

And this is a contradiction.

images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme…5/T065473A.jpg

pro:

You listed a series of examples that have to do with one tangible thing and a separate tangible ability. But that doesn’t accurately describe the issue with “Can God do other than good?” when “Good” just means “whatever God does.”

I’ve listed a series of examples which demonstrate the one thing’s inability to do other things.

Pretty simple.

pro:

If you say, assuming those definitions, “God did bad”, you’ve said exactly: “God did (something that God didn’t do)”. Which is nonsense. If you define the term, and substitute in the definition for these examples, you’ll see why the question you are asking about “limits” is a question that doesn’t make any sense.

Are you actually reading your own posts here… :whacky:

sigh

No. I’m saying God cannot sin.

If you agree with this, regardless of how much you try to reword it in order to make it say something it doesn’t, then you also agree that God cannot do any thing.

Therefore, you are contradicting yourself.

pro:

I see that your posts are growing longer, but the reason I’m not responding with long tirades is that the portions of your posts which actually address issues of logic are very small, and mostly grossly misguided.

No. The reason your posts are growing shorter is because you really can’t actually defend your own argument-- although you do seem to love to claim to be able to do so (and you really enjoy telling other’s they can’t).

like…whatever…

You are consistently contradicting yourself over and over again, digging yourself deeper and deeper each and every time, firmly burying yourself in a grave of logical inconsistencies.

pro:

If you don’t think it’s necessary to understand logic to look at religion, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t go around claiming to use it to analyze your beliefs when you don’t really know how.

You’re the one tap-dancing around in this thread pro.

You love to claim stuff without actually claiming stuff in order to prove things you haven’t even proved.

You can either answer these questions and prove me wrong, give up the debate entirely, or else finally admit you were wrong all along.

As far as I’m concerned, if we are not to allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil, then I don’t really see many other options here.

Good luck. I’ll be waiting.

 

[pro_universal]

Mr. Ex Nihilo,

The basic problem is that your reasoning is so consistently faulty, it’s actually tiresome to keep responding. Especially when every time I do, you clearly fail to comprehend the point. That’s why I keep asking you for a symbolic version of your claimed “contradictions” in my statements; I certainly don’t see it in the text.

They’re all a logical analysis of your statements.

So, since you claim to know how, just humor me on that one. I’m just going to assume you can’t if you don’t do it this time, and disregard all statements to the contrary.

I’ve only said that there are things that God can’t do-- something which you’ve consistently and unsuccesfully attempted to logically argue against by claming that I’m saying that God can’t be something that he’s not.

Uh, the “be” had only to do with your example of a rock. The “do” is in my statements about God, and the point stands: you’re taking things that are nonsense, asking them in the form of a question, and then concluding: “See, there’s something God can’t do!”

For example, sin=whatever God does not do.

So, to ask: “Can God do sin?” is to ask “Can God do (whatever God does not do)?”

See the problem? It doesn’t make any sense, and it doesn’t represent a “thing” that God can’t do because of it. You haven’t identified some real thing that God can’t do, you’ve just made up a nonsense claim in the form of a sentence and then claimed that God can’t do that non-thing.

Yes, and, according to your definition, if God can’t do any thing, we wouldn’t call him God. Yet there are things that God can’t do-- even you admit this.

Okay, I’ve been denying this specifically for umpteen posts now.

More nonsense like saying that God can do any thing except sin because anything God does is good-- and making the claim that God can still do any thing even though you admit there are things that God, by his very nature, cannot do.

This is just bizarre. I don’t know how many times I’ve said exactly the opposite.

I’ve listed a series of examples which demonstrate the one thing’s inability to do other things

And I’ve explained to you why those examples didn’t apply. That you choose to ignore it tells me you don’t really have a position, but just want to be the last to post…“for the glory of the holy mongoose”, or whatever it is that’s motivating this pseudo-logical discussion.

As far as I’m concerned, if we are not to allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil, then I don’t really see many other options here.

And this is the funniest part: you’re recognizing at least one read (in your own eyes this may be the only one, but that’s not necessarily the case) whereby the definitions are consistent. Yet you devoted pages to claim the opposite.

I suggest that instead of racing to the next post hoping you’ll magically corner me, you take some time off to think about what it is your claiming, and to actually learn something about what it means to claim that a point is “logical” or not. The holy mongoose is clearly doing a bad job of teaching you logic, and it’s making the debate just plain strange.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo,

The basic problem is that your reasoning is so consistently faulty, it’s actually tiresome to keep responding. Especially when every time I do, you clearly fail to comprehend the point. That’s why I keep asking you for a symbolic version of your claimed “contradictions” in my statements; I certainly don’t see it in the text.

So, once again, despite what we have pointed out, you basically assert that we don’t know what we’re talking about. Since clear reason hasn’t opened you eyes yet, let’s get to the symbolic version of the “contradictions” in your statements.

pro:

So, since you claim to know how, just humor me on that one. I’m just going to assume you can’t if you don’t do it this time, and disregard all statements to the contrary…

…Uh, the “be” had only to do with your example of a rock. The “do” is in my statements about God, and the point stands: you’re taking things that are nonsense, asking them in the form of a question, and then concluding: “See, there’s something God can’t do!”

No. What I’m getting at is that by claming that good is “just whatever God does”, you are essentially invalidating your own logic by adding terms that go beyond your original statements.

pro:

For example, sin=whatever God does not do.

So, to ask: “Can God do sin?” is to ask “Can God do (whatever God does not do)?”

No. To ask “Can God sin?” is a valid question that reveals real and tangible limits to God’s ability, therefore proving that he cannot do any thing if one’s answer is, “No. God cannot sin.”

pro:

See the problem? It doesn’t make any sense, and it doesn’t represent a “thing” that God can’t do because of it. You haven’t identified some real thing that God can’t do, you’ve just made up a nonsense claim in the form of a sentence and then claimed that God can’t do that non-thing.

Yes. I see the problem.

You refuse to admit that God not being able to sin represents a real and tangible limit on his ability to do things.

pro:

Okay, I’ve been denying this specifically for umpteen posts now.

You can deny it all you want. But you haven’t proven why God not being able to sin does not mean that God cannot do any thing.

pro:

This is just bizarre. I don’t know how many times I’ve said exactly the opposite.

If you say that God can do any thing, and then you say that God cannot sin by claming that whatever God does is good, then you are admitting that God cannot do any thing because he specifically cannot sin according to your own definition.

In other words, if you claim that God can do any thing, and then you claim that God cannot sin because whatever God does is good, then you are saying that God cannot do any thing.

pro:

And I’ve explained to you why those examples didn’t apply. That you choose to ignore it tells me you don’t really have a position, but just want to be the last to post…“for the glory of the holy mongoose”, or whatever it is that’s motivating this pseudo-logical discussion.

More slander, eh?

pro:

And this is the funniest part: you’re recognizing at least one read (in your own eyes this may be the only one, but that’s not necessarily the case) whereby the definitions are consistent. Yet you devoted pages to claim the opposite.

I consider it a duty to speak out against a lie pro. And you’re lying a lot right now. So I’m standing up against your lies.

pro:

I suggest that instead of racing to the next post hoping you’ll magically corner me, you take some time off to think about what it is your claiming, and to actually learn something about what it means to claim that a point is “logical” or not. The holy mongoose is clearly doing a bad job of teaching you logic, and it’s making the debate just plain strange.

Actually, that old cobra is clearly doing a good job of teaching you logic pro.

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?

 

[tequilamac]

But then why did Paul and that other apostles debate and warn people for years at particular locations as recorded within Acts for example?

There are some cases where Paul for example left because of obstinance on the part of the listeners. But in most areas he stayed and vigorously debated literally for years…

…and here…

I’m not stretching anything by claiming these kinds of debates and instructions, on and of, took the span of several years to bring about conversion.

It’s true that there were many instantanious conversions by those who were already ready for the truth. Yet many others look a long time to see the light.

And while I’m sure that there were many, many prayers along the way (I’m positive of this), I’m also sure that many would not have accepted the Gospel over the long run if their prayer’s to God did not also fuel their passion and zeal to preach the Gospel for years at a time.

So this idea that we have to sit back and complacently commend all things to God, while I believe there is much truth to it, does not always apply to every situation.

Sometimes we do have to dig our heels into the ground, dig them into the serpent’s head, and get ready in prayer for a confrontation when someone is claming that something is contradictory to God’s will.

In fact, I’m positive that the early Church would not have spread as rapidly as she did if the apostles and disciples had simply commended all things to prayer without action.

If the Holy Spirit is on fire in someone, and they are more than equipped by God to stand their ground, they must stand up against when an injustice spoken against God.

Maybe pro will indeed dig himself deeper into his own position here. But maybe – just maybe – we’re supposed to confront his claims exactly like what I’ve been doing too.

And even if he does dig himself deeper, I’ve done nothing wrong by speaking the truth. Certainly other people can learn from me as I’ve learned from them. I’ve only challenged him to seriously think about what he’s claiming.

Indeed, if speaking the truth potentially leads people to sin, then when exactly are we supposed to speak the truth?

Think about it.

Pro’s basically clamied that I don’t know anything about logic-- and he was wrong when he made this claim. He actually went so far as to say that I’d never really considered logic before I entered this thread-- and he was wrong about that too. In fact, he’s been wrong about a lot of things he’s clamied.

But so long as he persists in debating with me about this, I’ll continue, by the Spirit, debating right back.

When we left off, I asked the following…

I could be wrong, but I think these statements demolished pro’s last bit of resistance.

Nonethless, it’s completely his choice tequilamac. He can either answer these questions and prove me wrong, give up the debate entirely, or else finally admit he was wrong all along.

As far as I’m concerned, if we are not to allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil, then I don’t really see many other options here.

I am sorry, ex nihilo, but I don’t quite find your wordy arguments toward pro in the same category as St. Paul and the apostles. For one thing, it is all a waste of time without charity and a clue that charity is missing is your insistence on being found correct. your interest does not seem to be that Pro find his way back to God but that he admit he is wrong and you are right. There is spirit here, but I am failing to see the Holy Spirit in this argument. Sorry. If you were in the same category as St. Paul and the apostles, you would be speaking much more about God and much less about yourselves.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I am sorry, ex nihilo, but I don’t quite find your wordy arguments toward pro in the same category as St. Paul and the apostles.

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.

tequilamac:

For one thing, it is all a waste of time without charity and a clue that charity is missing is your insistence on being found correct.

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.

tequilamac:

Your interest does not seem to be that Pro find his way back to God but that he admit he is wrong and you are right.

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.

tequilamac:

There is spirit here, but I am failing to see the Holy Spirit in this argument. Sorry. If you were in the same category as St. Paul and the apostles, you would be speaking much more about God and much less about yourselves.

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.

 

[inJESUS]

well the question is : does Pro believe the Bible is corrupt?

because if , logically, anything that has the attibutes/deeds only God can have/do, then Jesus is God and Holy Spirit is God.

this is what the Bible says unless Pro believes it is corrupt, hence trying to refute what the Bible itself says.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

well the question is : does Pro believe the Bible is corrupt?

That’s a really good question. Since he feels that our discussion is illogical and we can’t demonstrate our points, but hasn’t really offered more than that, I have to honestly admit that I don’t really know.

I suspect, if he doubts the Trinity, then he must likewise have at least some doubts concerning the Holy Writ too.

inJESUS:

because if , logically, anything that has the attibutes/deeds only God can have/do, then Jesus is God and Holy Spirit is God.

True.

This is actually why I was trying to get him to offer more than what he offered and get into the nitty gritty of what he actually believed (and where he got these beliefs from).

It seems as though he did believe at one time. But, since applying his own contradictory version of logic, he has fallen into doubt about the Catholic faith in general.

pro:

this is what the Bible says unless Pro believes it is corrupt, hence trying to refute what the Bible itself says.

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.

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.

I could be wrong. But it seems possible to me that pro has simply given up this discussion for whatever reason. 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.

And I suppose, at least in this sense, sometimes silence is indeed golden.

 

[pro_universal]

well the question is : does Pro believe the Bible is corrupt?

because if , logically, anything that has the attibutes/deeds only God can have/do, then Jesus is God and Holy Spirit is God.

this is what the Bible says unless Pro believes it is corrupt, hence trying to refute what the Bible itself says.

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.