pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[tequilamac]

Look pro. I am sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings in anyway. It wasn’t my intention. I’ve done my best to respect Islam in the process too.

But I did intend to debate with you concenring the logic of the Trinity. And I was actually discussing the logic of the Trinity with you.

So why are you still bringing this up?

I mean, there’s nothing really stopping you from thinking what you want to think, right?

So why don’t you just proceed to think what you want to think and leave it be?

Come away from him now if only temporarily. Give it a few days of silence so you can be sure you are not being baited. I doubt very much that pro will “go to hell” in the next few hours or days and if he does you did your best to stop it. Give it a rest for just a bit. And then see…believe me he’ll still be here. For yourself spend some time on Kings. Read about when St. Elijah ran away from God into the wadi. And how God found him in the silence. Maybe Pro needs silence in the wadi.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Like I said before, I’m just going to drop this one. I think pro is now causing division between Catholics. And for the sake of Catholic unity, I’m going to step out quietly before I offend one of my brothers in Christ.

God bless you richly in Christ tequilamac. I’ve meant no offense toward you.

I’ll reiterate… I think the debate was good. :clapping: There is no question that God has equiped you for just this kind of “battle”. Those who may be offended in any way can simply decline to read the thread. I say go for it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

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.

I beg to differ. No deity that uses a man like Muhammad as his prophet can be considered anything but evil in my book.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

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

Did I mention Muslims at all?

I do think Islam is inherently evil.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

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.

Do you think pro or other real Muslims are swayed by sweet words either? I don’t think so.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

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 don’t think the concept of Allah as the Muslims understand it is the same as the Allah that Arabic-speaking Christians understand it. The word is the same but they are obviously referring to different deities.
Mr Ex. Nihilo:

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.

Pro has not been the slightest bit respectful to me, so why do I even bother about respecting his feelings?
Mr Ex. Nihilo:

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.

You believe what God has revealed to you.

I believe Allah is evil from what I know of Islam and what Muslims have done in the name of their Allah.
Mr Ex. Nihilo:

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.

Read what I wrote above about arab-speaking Christians and their concept of Allah.

I tend to call a spade a spade. Nothing wrong with that.
Mr Ex. Nihilo:

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.

I don’t doubt you have wisdom but my wisdom tells me that Muslims are not swayed by sweet words. Try living under Islamic persecution and then you might change your mind.

 

[Ella]

Ex, you showed logic very well. Pro is being ugly. I really enjoyed your posts.
I’ve never seen Pro concede that he was wrong, about anything, ever. What he does instead is slink away without a reply. Which he would eventually have done here. Which he had done yesterday in the Australian sheikh thread.
After finding out that Pro is a lawyer, his posts and style or argument made more sense to me. He loves to argue. He might argue on another board about how wonderful Wicca is, for all we know. He also likes to divert the subject at hand. If someone brings up a bit of personal information about themselves, he’ll pounce on that and pick the person apart instead of focusing on the subject at hand. If he brings up a diversionary topic, like the topic of riots mentioned in the Australian sheikh thread, and others respond, he’ll happily lead them down that garden path and avoid the subject at hand. I post this only so others will also notice.

 

[eleonardo]

I do think Islam is inherently evil.

I believe Allah is evil from what I know of Islam and what Muslims have done in the name of their Allah.

I tend to call a spade a spade. Nothing wrong with that.

:tsktsk:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

After finding out that Pro is a lawyer, his posts and style or argument made more sense to me. He loves to argue.

Pro is a lawyer?

 

[eleonardo]

Pro is a lawyer?

So it seems!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

So it seems!

How did you find that out?

 

[eleonardo]

How did you find that out?

Well, he says he studied law in Australia. That’s one referrence I can remember. Not sure if he’s really a lawyer.

 

[Ella]

Well, he says he studied law in Australia. That’s one referrence I can remember. Not sure if he’s really a lawyer.

If you read some recent threads you will see that Pro says he has a law degree and has access to some resources online that only a lawyer would have… I can go look up the threads later or you can do a search. I have something to do for awhile so I can’t look 'em up right now.

I don’t know if he is currently practicing law but I do know he claims to have a law degree.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Interesting.

 

[Tietjen]

My reasons are as follows:

1. I simply do not perceive the hand of God in the Church anymore. When I was younger and understood less about the Church’s teachings, I felt more connected to God than I have as an adult Catholic. Learning more about my Church and history left me feeling less spiritually connected to God.

I’m sorry that you have gone through this. In my past, I found that when I was ignorant of what the Church REALLY taught, misunderstandings happened and I even left the Church for about 15 years because of these misunderstandings. It wasn’t until I decided to open myself up enough to talk with several priests and do much research on my own (thereby discovering for the first time what the Church REALLY says on these subjects) that I came back and the misunderstandings were laid to rest.

1. The theology itself was something I could not honestly believe anymore. The fact of the matter is, the trinity does not make sense to anyone who doesn’t already believe it. It is not a logical doctrine, and while I acknowledge that God is beyond understanding…this isn’t the case with the trinity. The trinity is easy to understand; it’s just contradictory, that’s what makes it so tough for outsiders to accept that it makes sense.

I beg to differ with you on the issue of the Trinity being easy to understand. There is only One God. That One God is three Persons (Father, Son, & Holy Ghost). Each Person IS God, yet there is only One God. That is not an easy concept to understand. However, neither do I understand such things as how God infuses a soul into an embryo; yet I accept it. The fact that I am trying to get across is simply that we do not have to understand every aspect of our faith in order to trust God enough to accept it. The Church is described in the Bible as the “pillar of truth.” Since there were no other Christian Churches at the time, one should recognize that the Church is not lying (or misleading) it’s people. Some things, though hard to understand, simply need to be accepted, if for no other reason than through faith; even if logic might lead one to think differently.

1. The history of the Church does not seem to fit one that has the full truth of God. Too many wars, too many mistakes, and too much intolerance.

“Too many wars”? Well, I suggest reading up on some of these “wars.” I know of no war (or crusade) that the Church started. The Church, like each of us has a right to exist and defend itself. If it were attacked violently it would be acceptable to defend itself. History often slants the view of the crusades and tries to make the Church look as though it was starting these actions. Maybe, secular history books are inaccurate. There are books out there that reference many good sources that state the opposite. That the Church was defending Christendom and itself.
“Too many mistakes”? Yes, Priests, Bishops, and Popes have and continue to make mistakes. Since God has created everyone human, it is simply a fact of life to accept that we are not perfect. What is the alternative? Which Church would one turn to in order to find it’s members are actually perfect and don’t make mistakes?
“Too much intolerance”? This goes back to the “mistakes” issue. I submit that there has been “intolerance” within the Church over the last 2000 years. Some of it is justified and some probably is not. However, I would ask you this, how much more “tolerant” would you have today’s Church be? Is the Church intolerant against the actual person (IE – “you can’t attend Mass and are no longer Catholic”) or is it sin that the Church is intolerant of? If it is sin, what can one expect? The Church doesn’t embrace sin, its purpose is to guide people away from sin. How can it do that if it “tolerates” the sin? Having said that, it should be pointed out that the Church knows that we have all sinned and will sin again. Yet, despite that, the doors remain open to us.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)

 

[Tietjen]

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

1. The structure looks like “spiritual licensing” to me. I do not agree that God limits his substance and distributes it to authorized persons only, on the basis of ritual transfer.

What specifically are you referring to? Holy Communion? The Mass itself? Please forgive my ignorance and help me to understand what you mean by “ritual transfer.”

1. The behavior of the average Catholic is not remotely like anything a first century Jew would recognize as good and moral. I realize that times change, but it’s apparent to me that Christianity in general is simply debasing itself to the point that whatever morals rule the day, are the morals conveniently taught by Christianity.

By “first century Jew” are you saying, “first century Jew who follows Christ?” If so, I’d suggest reading about what the Church Fathers had to deal with concerning early Christians. Also, read many of the books written by St. Paul in the Bible. MUCH of what happens in today’s society is going on still today. Morals were, as they are today, under attack by society itself. Therefore, there were many immoral practices going on then as there are today. That is exactly why we need the Church. Because without it, who would be there to help us understand and overcome immoral actions? Society? The government? Your neighbor? We are assured in Matthew that the Church will remain until the end of time and not even the gates of Hades will prevail against it. This came out of the mouth of God (Christ) Himself. He was not mistaken when He made that statement.

Pro_universal, I really am sorry that you are going through this rough time. Many people go through it though and I hope that with time and a better understanding, you will become aware of the great gift has God left us, His Church. As I said, I went through it as well and left the Church for a long time. I explored several other Churches over those many years and found that I could not accept much of what they taught. I hope that you will not have to go through all that and so I am asking you to research those things that you are having trouble with concerning Church teaching. Make sure that you are actually understanding exactly what it is that the Church is teaching PRIOR to rejecting it. I’ll be praying for you. God bless.

 

[LilyM]

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
What specifically are you referring to? Holy Communion? The Mass itself? Please forgive my ignorance and help me to understand what you mean by “ritual transfer.”

Methinks pro is referring to the transfer of power to administer the different sacraments from bishop to bishop or priest by the laying on of hands.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I beg to differ with you on the issue of the Trinity being easy to understand. There is only One God. That One God is three Persons (Father, Son, & Holy Ghost). Each Person IS God, yet there is only One God. That is not an easy concept to understand.

But that’s the thing.

It’s not that difficult to understand.

Consider the nature of the time continuum itself

There is only one time continnum. That one time continuum is experienced in three perspectives (past, present, & future). Each perspective is the time continuum, yet there is only one time continuum. That is an easy concept to understand.

Explaining the physical qualities if time itself using a logical process that can be reduced to a purely mechanical process is the elusive part that is hard to understand.

However, if we look to the Catechism, we read the following…

266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

We don’t worship the time continuum.

But we do experience one time continuum in trinity and the trinity in unity, without either confusing the perspectives or dividing the substance; for the perspective of the past is one, the present is another, the future another; but the time continuum of the past, present and future is one, their state of high honor equal, their stateliness coexistant.

Tietjen:

However, neither do I understand such things as how God infuses a soul into an embryo; yet I accept it. The fact that I am trying to get across is simply that we do not have to understand every aspect of our faith in order to trust God enough to accept it.

I agree with you here.

Explaining the physical qualities if time itself using a logical process that can be reduced to a purely mechanical process is the elusive part that is hard to understand.

We don’t understand exactly how the past becomes the future.

We don’t understand how the future was once the past.

When exactly does the past become the future and how long is the present which divides them?

Is there any real distinction at all?

We don’t understand how the present has always been experienced through the past and will always be experienced through the future and yet is always still the present either.

And yet, that is exactly how we do experience the time continuum.

One time continuum in trinity and the trinity in unity.

 

[inJESUS]

i like the time analogy i used it as well somewhere .

 

[pro_universal]

The time analogy is perhaps the worst one I’ve ever seen. (The best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy, but those fail anyway because they depend on a point of view-not something you want to do in explaining God.)

but the time continuum of the past, present and future is one, their state of high honor equal, their stateliness coexistant.

Ah, the stateliness and honor of time. Who could possibly read that and think “he’s really stretching it”

Explaining the physical qualities if time itself using a logical process that can be reduced to a purely mechanical process is the elusive part that is hard to understand.

In other words, you’re applying labels to a process you don’t understand in order to find a way to call it a “trinity.”

This method of proving the trinity borders on numerology. It’s certainly an old method though-Augustine wrote a whole chapter on the wonders of the number six in The Trinity.

If you are looking for a number to prove in nature, you can prove it with almost any example. That doesn’t actually mean anything though, except that you’re really trying hard to justify your preconceptions.

“Look, a fish: It has gills, eyes, and scales. Each is equal in the fucntion of the fish. Therefore, there is a trinity in the fish.”

The time analogy depends on you being the center of the analogy: past, present, and future depend on a you sitting here viewing them. And we could just as easily make it “distant past, recent past, immediate present, passing present, near future, and distant future” and then conclude that there’s actually a holy sextuplet mirrored in the nature of time.

The best analogies to the trinity are inaccurate. The really bad ones are borderline astrology.

 

[Image_of_God]

The time analogy is perhaps the worst one I’ve ever seen. (The best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy, but those fail anyway because they depend on a point of view-not something you want to do in explaining God.)

Ah, the stateliness and honor of time. Who could possibly read that and think “he’s really stretching it”

In other words, you’re applying labels to a process you don’t understand in order to find a way to call it a “trinity.”

This method of proving the trinity borders on numerology. It’s certainly an old method though-Augustine wrote a whole chapter on the wonders of the number six in The Trinity.

If you are looking for a number to prove in nature, you can prove it with almost any example. That doesn’t actually mean anything though, except that you’re really trying hard to justify your preconceptions.

“Look, a fish: It has gills, eyes, and scales. Each is equal in the fucntion of the fish. Therefore, there is a trinity in the fish.”

The time analogy depends on you being the center of the analogy: past, present, and future depend on a you sitting here viewing them. And we could just as easily make it “distant past, recent past, immediate present, passing present, near future, and distant future” and then conclude that there’s actually a holy sextuplet mirrored in the nature of time.

The best analogies to the trinity are inaccurate. The really bad ones are borderline astrology.

I am sorry for this pro_universal. You might have lost the hope as I have sometimes. But what is different is that you refuse to ask the trinity for help. Rather instead of appreciating the analogies that people are trying to help you understand God, you go on about how horrible they are, yet you do not care how Jesus feels about this. You do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Think about how bad he felt, because people thought it was all false, as you do, yet we see that when he rose again, it was proven true. Jesus was abandoned by everyone except for the Father, who loves him perfectly. So I ask you, instead of saying the trinity is this and that, why don’t you ask the Persons you do not understand to help you. You are actually running away from the misunderstanding rather than confronting it.

How hurt Jesus must be by the harsh things we say against Him. Jesus, who loves you as if their was no other thing on the face of the Earth. As far as I have seen, correct me if I am wrong, their are hardly any other religions that teach of God with a love so strong for every human being, so as to come and die for each one of us.

I suggest you do the Stations of the Cross, no I beg you as a brother, so that you may understand the Trinity. Please do not just sit around and say the Trinity is impossible. Ask the Trinity for help!

 

[inJESUS]

and Pro is turning and turning and turning …we showed that the concept is not a contradiction yet Pro attacks the analogy by any possible means

 

[Image_of_God]

and Pro is turning and turning and turning …we showed that the concept is not a contradiction yet Pro attacks the analogy by any possible means

Yes, but why doesn’t he just ask? Ask the Trinity to help him understand. Believing in the Trinity requires supernatural faith. Pro is looking for a way to believe in the Trinity be natural means. I can assure you that by those means, it is impossible, but not when God gives the soul supernatural faith. You have to ask. He is trying to find out God with natural reason, when it requires supernatural faith.