pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[tequilamac]

I’m not saying that pro actually believes that God can sin. Outside of his logical statements, pro’s made it very clear that he believes that God cannot sin. But it’s his wording of the statements that gives rise to the loophole that God can sin.

I’m trying to get him to understand this. If he makes the claim that God can do any thing, then he claims that God cannot sin, then he’s contradicting himself.

I’m making the claim that God cannot do any thing because God cannot sin. I’ve always held this view from the beginning. But it’s God’s inability to sin which makes him all-powerful-- and these are not contradictory statements.

In other words, God is not all-powerful because he can do any thing. The reason why God is all-powerful is because any thing he does is good.

That’s exactly what pro is trying to say too. But, when one examines his statements, he’s not doing a good job of saying this. In fact, using logic the way he does, he’s contradicting the very thing that he’s trying to explain to us.

Then you need to re word it. Obviously the problem is in the very word of sin. Perhaps it has emotional connotation that is messing you guys up. Why don’t you try this.

Again Aquinas-

Again, because power is considered as executing, the will as commanding, and the intellect and wisdom as directing; what is attributed to His power considered in itself, God is said to be able to do in accordance with His absolute power. Of such a kind is everything which has the nature of being, as was said above (3). What is, however, attributed to the divine power, according as it carries into execution the command of a just will, God is said to be able to do by His ordinary power. In this manner, we must say that God can do other things by His absolute power than those He has foreknown and pre-ordained He would do. But it could not happen that He should do anything which He had not foreknown, and had not pre-ordained that He would do, because His actual doing is subject to His foreknowledge and pre-ordination, though His power, which is His nature, is not so.** For God does things because He wills so to do; yet the power to do them does not come from His will, but from His nature. **"

So then in order to determine that God is all powerful one must necessarily look at the nature of God which of course is all perfection and truth. Whereas sin is imperfection and falsehood leading to the evil of nothingness.

So as Aquinas says:

Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Then you need to re word it. Obviously the problem is in the very word of sin. Perhaps it has emotional connotation that is messing you guys up. Why don’t you try this.

I think it’s the phrase 'all-powerful" that messing things up to be fair.

Why are you arguing with me on this tequilamac?

tequilamac:

Again Aquinas-

Again, because power is considered as executing, the will as commanding, and the intellect and wisdom as directing; what is attributed to His power considered in itself, God is said to be able to do in accordance with His absolute power. Of such a kind is everything which has the nature of being, as was said above (3). What is, however, attributed to the divine power, according as it carries into execution the command of a just will, God is said to be able to do by His ordinary power. In this manner, we must say that God can do other things by His absolute power than those He has foreknown and pre-ordained He would do. But it could not happen that He should do anything which He had not foreknown, and had not pre-ordained that He would do, because His actual doing is subject to His foreknowledge and pre-ordination, though His power, which is His nature, is not so.** For God does things because He wills so to do; yet the power to do them does not come from His will, but from His nature. **"

So then in order to determine that God is all powerful one must necessarily look at the nature of God which of course is all perfection and truth. Whereas sin is imperfection and falsehood leading to the evil of nothingness.

So as Aquinas says:

Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence.

Exactly. Regardless of how it is worded, God cannot sin. And if God cannot sin, then sin is something that God cannot do.

I don’t see the problem here.

Even if people’s free-will can reduce God’s grace in thier own lives and result in sin, God cannot fall short of his perfect actions.

God cannot sin. And if sin is something that God cannot do, then God cannot do all things. God can only do good things because God cannot fall short of his perfect actions.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, by arguing that sin is not a thing. See Aquinas, See Augustine. To say that sin is a concrete thing, and that God can’t do it, is to say that God is limited.

And saying that God cannot sin is a bad thing?

It seems that you’re hung up on the ‘all-powerful’ part and take offence to the suggestion that God cannot so something for some reason. In fact, it seems as though you’re suggesting that I’m in some way blaspheming God when saying this.

But I’m not blaspheming God when saying this. Even the Holy Scriptures say it is impossible for God to lie– so, unless the Scriptures are blaspheming God by saying this, saying that God cannot do something is not blasphemy.

pro:

Yes. The argument you are using is commonly used by atheists to “prove” that God can’t be all powerful yet all good.

I’m familiar with their arguments. And they’re partly right.

If all-powerful means the power to do any thing, then God can’t be all-powerful since he can’t sin. But God can still be all-good even though he’s not all-powerful. And saying that God cannot sin in no way renders God impotent either. It only establishes God in exactly the same way that the Scriptures portray him-- The God Most High.

As I said before, I have an all-good God who is powerful enough to create the heavens and the earth, sustain all things by his powerful Word, and rightly discern between good and evil in order to to justly reward all those who submit to God’s grace-- and allows others to damn themselves by rejecting God’s grace.

The Most High is not so powerful that he can contradict his own Word. God is limited by his own essense. So it is false to claim that God’s power is reduced because he cannot sin. Everything he did, he did without sin. So his inability to sin in no way impaired his own ability to do all these things I listed above. More to the point, the fact that God is all-holy and all-good (omnibenevolent to be precise) is what enables God to be the most powerful being ever. Since he is both eternal and infinite, his power is without end. And it is precisely because God is forever omnibenevolent which enables us to trust his word and understand the things he can do.

pro:

In other words, you’re saying that God is not infinitely powerful. God is limited, according to you. That is heresy, which is something if you talk to your priest, you will understand.

I do understand heresy-- and I’m not engaging in it.

My priest agrees with me that God cannot sin. So do all the Bishops. So do the Cardinals. So does every Pope agree with me since St. Peter right up until Pope Benedict XVI. And when you understand the nature of God’s holiness, you will understand that it’s God’s all-holy and all-good nature that makes him all-powerful.

It’s rather sad that people are more fixated on God being all-powerful than God being all-good. God as love is omnibenevolent. But God is, in the strictest sense that the world uses, not all-powerful-- because God cannot so all things since God cannot sin.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

If you’re saying that God is limited, you are well outside basic Catholic theology.

If I say that God cannot sin, then I am well inside basic Catholic theology. In fact, I’m resting at the heart of her bosom when proclaiming this, resting my head on the Lord’s Sacred Heart.

If you’re saying that God is not a Trinity, however, then you are well outside basic Catholic theology. But you already know this.

pro:

That’s a terrible argument.

Only because you, in a way similar to many Muslim theologians, take offense to the idea of God not being able to do something.

That’s your problem. Not mine.

“God sin” is not a thing; it’s a nonsensical, contradictory phrase that doesn’t describe any thing that exists. Here’s why, in very, very simple terms:

sin=“not God”

“God sin”=“God [not God]”. See how that works? It doesn’t make any sense to even posit “sins committed by God.” They are not a “thing”, but rather, a confused jumble of contradictory terms, fueled by the illusion that because you can say something, there must be a thing to go with the words.

If it doesn’t make any sense to even posit “sins committed by God”, then why do the Scriptures on more than one account specifically refute this claim.

If it’s a confused jumble of contradictory terms, fueled by the illusion that because I can say something, there must be a thing to go with the words, then why do the Scriptures say the following…
Job 34:10:

So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.

and again…
Psalm 5:4:

You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell.

and again…
Habakkuk 1:13:

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

As 1 John 1:5 declares, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”

pro:

I’ve answered this probably ten times already.

NO. And that’s not a limit on God’s power to do all things, because sin committed by God is not a thing.

Then with this capitalized “NO” you are, just like me, re-affirming tenfold that God cannot sin. In fact, there is no escaping this conclusion regardless of how you word your defense on this matter.

If God cannot sin then God cannot sin.

Why anyone would take offense to this is simply beyond me. It makes perfect sense to say that God cannot sin. In fact, he wouldn’t be God if he could sin.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Modern science has done this also. That doesn’t mean that we were closer to the truth when we were rubbing salt into people’s brains to cure “demons” and theorizing that the earth had only three elements.

Our intelligence has impoved over the years to be sure. So, no, I don’t see people rubbing salt into people’s brains to cure “demons” much anymore today. And yet, when I look around the world today, I see more violence then I’ve ever seen in the past. I do hear reports of radicals shooting each other over religious doctrines. I also hear reports of millions of innocent babies being ripped apart in their mother’s wombs in the name of freedom.

While our intelligence has improved, our wisdom has not.

Intelligent people know that smoking is dangerous to our health.

Wise people don’t smoke.

pro_universal:

If I tried hard to think of a commonly mentioned, commonly misunderstood philosophical theory, I could not possibly come up with one that is more irrelevant to our discussion.

Then try thinking a little harder-- and use less words when doing so.

For all your logical words that you are using, your arguments can basically be reduced to the law of parsimony when you claim it’s more reasonable to believe in the “oneness of God” over the Christian doctrine of the “Trinity”.

In short, you’re allowing human reason to overide God’s revelation.

pro:

Well, move on please!

Is it ok if I review some more syllogistic rules for valid arguments?

For example, another rule for constructing a valid syllogism says that two positive premises must yeild a positive conclusion.

Likewise, a negative premise and a positive premise must yeild a negative premise.

The term that occurs in both premises must be modified by the words all or none at least once.

And a term that is modified by all or none in the conclusion must be modified by all or none in one of the premises too.

Do you disagree with any of this?

 

[inJESUS]

Then again, you can’t really say for sure whether the Scriptures are corrupted or not. Since you’re not able to clearly decide this matter, this too seems to indicate that you haven’t really examined Catholicism.

this says it all. If Pro argues agiants Trinity it is because he argues against the Bible authenticity

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

this says it all. If Pro argues agiants Trinity it is because he argues against the Bible authenticity

Amen brother!

 

[tequilamac]

I think it’s the phrase 'all-powerful" that messing things up to be fair.

Why are you arguing with me on this tequilamac?

Exactly. Regardless of how it is worded, God cannot sin. And if God cannot sin, then sin is something that God cannot do.

I don’t see the problem here.

Even if people’s free-will can reduce God’s grace in thier own lives and result in sin, God cannot fall short of his perfect actions.

God cannot sin. And if sin is something that God cannot do, then God cannot do all things. God can only do good things because God cannot fall short of his perfect actions.

Well, it does matter how it is worded though. Simply because proof in the logic comes from how it is worded. That is why no one has been ever able to best Aquinas. The logos must be specific.

Sin is nothing, sin is empty, sin is temporary and transient, sin is meaningless, sin is powerless, sin is finite, sin is ignorant, sin has no substance.

In other words, God cannot perform a non action. This does not mean that God is not all powerful. It simply means that God cannot do what does not exist in the first place. For something to be performed or put into action, it must first be created. God cannot sin for He has not created sin. God can do only what God creates.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, it does matter how it is worded though. Simply because proof in the logic comes from how it is worded. That is why no one has been ever able to best Aquinas. The logos must be specific.

Sin is nothing, sin is empty, sin is temporary and transient, sin is meaningless, sin is powerless, sin is finite, sin is ignorant, sin has no substance.

And yet sin exists. We see it everyday in the news whenever people lie or murder for example. We seen the biological effects of sin when we look at cancer and disease and death. These are all purely biological terms that indicate the net-result of sin.

It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from cancer has deserved it because of sin. It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from cancer has deserved it because of their parent’s sin either.

It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from disease has deserved it because of sin. It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from disease has deserved it because of their parent’s sin either.

It doesn’t mean that the person who dies has deserved it because of sin. It doesn’t mean that the person who dies has deserved it because of their parent’s sin either.

The effects on sin are the net-result of the devils actions. And many good people suffer bad things for reasons they had nothing to do with.

But, notwithstanding this separation from God due to sin, God can stilll use these things for good.
Genesis 50:20:

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

and again…
John 9:1-3:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

Saying that sin has no substance does not remove the fact that sin does exist. It also doesn’t remove the fact that sin is something that God cannot do even though he permits it to happen.

tequilamac:

In other words, God cannot perform a non action. This does not mean that God is not all powerful.

It means that God is the most powerful and there is nothing that escapes his will.

If people accept his grace, then they are saved. And it’s God’s will which allows this too happen.

If people do not accept his grace, then they are not saved. And it’s also God’s will which allows this too happen.

**Either way you look at it, nothing escapes God’s will. That’s all powerful. **

tequilamac:

It simply means that God cannot do what does not exist in the first place.

Exactly. God cannot do something. You just said so yourself.

tequilamac:

For something to be performed or put into action, it must first be created. God cannot sin for He has not created sin. God can do only what God creates.

Right. Therefore, God is all-good-- and yet sin exists.

In fact, sin is the reason people are separated from God. Therefore, sin limits the effectiveness of God’s grace.

Ie., God’s grace is super-abundant. But God’s will is all-powerful.

And God willingly allowing people to make choices to either accept of reject his grace in no way hinder’s the effectiveness of God will. Because regardless of which choice they make, God’s will is going to be accomplished.

You’re mixing up some terminologies here tequilamac.

Why don’t you understand this?

 

[pro_universal]

You’re mixing up some terminologies here tequilamac.

Why don’t you understand this?

Uh…no, he’s actually quite spot on.

Your problem is that you cannot see “sin” in any way other than the way you see it now. That’s fine, but we’ve already established that you don’t believe in an all powerful God.

If he wants to claim God is all powerful, there is no reason why he can’t define sin as an absence. If you consider the term in that light, there is no contradiction and your statements about what God “cannot do” are incoherent.

There is no thing God cannot do. Sin is not a thing. Hence, sin does not fall within the category of “things” such that God could theoretically do it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Uh…no, he’s actually quite spot on.

I could be wrong. But I don’t think that tequilamac actually agrees with you.

pro:

Your problem is that you cannot see “sin” in any way other than the way you see it now.

I can make the same claim pro. Your problem is that you cannot see “sin” in any way other than the way you see it now.

pro:

That’s fine, but we’ve already established that you don’t believe in an all powerful God.

I would be cautious about the ‘we’ part. tequilamac actually does believe that God cannot sin. So do you.

And I’ve established that you don’t believe God can sin.

pro:

If he wants to claim God is all powerful, there is no reason why he can’t define sin as an absence.

Sin can be defined as the absence of good. But sin cannot be defined as the absence of existence. If that were the case, sin would not exist. But sin does exist.

Sin is something that really does happen regardless of how much you reword it. Sin has tangible effects in God’s creation that do separate people from God. Sin is the reason Jesus came to die on the cross.

I know you don’t believe in the Trinity, but are you saying that Jesus died on the cross for nothing according to Catholic theology?

That’s nonsense.

pro:

If you consider the term in that light, there is no contradiction and your statements about what God “cannot do” are incoherent.

And saying that God can do any thing and that God cannot sin at the same time are coherent?

pro:

There is no thing God cannot do. Sin is not a thing. Hence, sin does not fall within the category of “things” such that God could theoretically do it.

And, in summary, all you’re really saying is that God cannot sin because God cannot sin-- therefore God can do any thing.

More to the point, in the end, all you’re really saying is that God cannot sin because sin does not exist-- therefore God can do any thing that exists.

The categorical analysis that sin is nothing is rendered absurd by the fact that sin exists. If sin didn’t exist, then sin wouldn’t exist. But sin does exist. And God can’t sin.

In fact, we wouldn’t even be having this debate right now if sin didn’t exist.

 

[tequilamac]

And yet sin exists. We see it everyday in the news whenever people lie or murder for example. We seen the biological effects of sin when we look at cancer and disease and death. These are all purely biological terms that indicate the net-result of sin.

It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from cancer has deserved it because of sin. It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from cancer has deserved it because of their parent’s sin either.

It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from disease has deserved it because of sin. It doesn’t mean that the person who suffers from disease has deserved it because of their parent’s sin either.

It doesn’t mean that the person who dies has deserved it because of sin. It doesn’t mean that the person who dies has deserved it because of their parent’s sin either.

The effects on sin are the net-result of the devils actions. And many good people suffer bad things for reasons they had nothing to do with.

But, notwithstanding this separation from God due to sin, God can stilll use these things for good.

and again…

Saying that sin has no substance does not remove the fact that sin does exist. It also doesn’t remove the fact that sin is something that God cannot do even though he permits it to happen.

It means that God is the most powerful and there is nothing that escapes his will.

If people accept his grace, then they are saved. And it’s God’s will which allows this too happen.

If people do not accept his grace, then they are not saved. And it’s also God’s will which allows this too happen.

**Either way you look at it, nothing escapes God’s will. That’s all powerful. **

Exactly. God cannot do something. You just said so yourself.

Right. Therefore, God is all-good-- and yet sin exists.

In fact, sin is the reason people are separated from God. Therefore, sin limits the effectiveness of God’s grace.

Ie., God’s grace is super-abundant. But God’s will is all-powerful.

And God willingly allowing people to make choices to either accept of reject his grace in no way hinder’s the effectiveness of God will. Because regardless of which choice they make, God’s will is going to be accomplished.

You’re mixing up some terminologies here tequilamac.

Why don’t you understand this?

Actually, I do not believe it is me mixing up terminologies. Let’s review what sin is: sin is false. Therefore sin is not true. Therefore not reality. Sin is falling short of an action. Therefore incomplete. Sin is temporary, therefore not having permanent effect. Sin is void of value, void of substance, void of truth, void of time. Sin exists only for us. Sin does not exist for God. It simply does not exist for God. If you stop and think about that, you will see that sin is non existent for God. Because God is all powerful, not an incomplete action, God is true not false, therefore all reality. But sin, for God is simply non existent. Does sin exist for us? Yes. In fact you just told me so. But God cannot sin simply because for God sin does not exist.

Try to remember: Adam and Eve clothed themselves in fig leaves because they realized they were naked and didn’t like it and judged it wrong, not because God did. Do you see now?

 

[tequilamac]

I could be wrong. But I don’t think that tequilamac actually agrees with you.

I can make the same claim pro. Your problem is that you cannot see “sin” in any way other than the way you see it now.

I would be cautious about the ‘we’ part. tequilamac actually does believe that God cannot sin. So do you.

And I’ve established that you don’t believe God can sin.

Sin can be defined as the absence of good. But sin cannot be defined as the absence of existence. If that were the case, sin would not exist. But sin does exist.

Sin is something that really does happen regardless of how much you reword it. Sin has tangible effects in God’s creation that do separate people from God. Sin is the reason Jesus came to die on the cross.

I know you don’t believe in the Trinity, but are you saying that Jesus died on the cross for nothing according to Catholic theology?

That’s nonsense.

And saying that God can do any thing and that God cannot sin at the same time are coherent?

And, in summary, all you’re really saying is that God cannot sin because God cannot sin-- therefore God can do any thing.

More to the point, in the end, all you’re really saying is that God cannot sin because sin does not exist-- therefore God can do any thing that exists.

The categorical analysis that sin is nothing is rendered absurd by the fact that sin exists. If sin didn’t exist, then sin wouldn’t exist. But sin does exist. And God can’t sin.

In fact, we wouldn’t even be having this debate right now if sin didn’t exist.

*NO.You don’t get it. Pro does understand exactly what I’m saying. Let’s try one more time. Let’s use an example on the existance of sin. I say to you sin exists only for us. Sin DOES NOT EXIST for God. For example again: Why did Adam and Eve clothe themselves in fig leaves? ***Because ***they *****saw that they were naked. God didn’t see their nakedness or anything wrong with no clothes. They did. And so they were evicted from the Garden of Eden. Because of their own thoughts and their own actions. Not because of anything God saw, thought, or did.

 

[tequilamac]

Mr. Ex Nihilio:

Eve bites the apple even though God said no. When she does her eyes are opened. Her eyes are no longer innocent. Adam comes along and joins her.

Together they make a decision within the walled garden of perfection, garden of Eden, Heaven.
They make the decision that something is wrong, something is bad, something is offensive, namely their own nakedness.

They are not any more naked after they ate the apple than they were before they ate the apple.

God created them naked and He saw that it was good.

But Adam and eve ate the apple and saw their nakedness and judged it evil. so Adam and Eve in the garden of good, garden of perfection, heaven, saw imperfection, saw evil, saw tht which was not good.

So they covered themselves with fig leaves, thereby signifying to God the next time He spoke with them that what he made was not perfect but evil.

They introduced evil to Heaven, they introduced sin to the GArden of Eden, not God.

It was not God’s eyes that opened and now could tell right from wrong but theirs.

It was not God’s nakedness they covered nor was it God’s judgement that being naked was a bad thing, but theirs.

So they effectively cut themselves off from God, not the other way around, for they introduced that which God did not create, was purely an imperfect man made creation, into God’s perfect creation.

And their creation was incompatible with that which God creates so they got the boot.

God forgave Eve in the future but he also addressed her sin by dressing her in leather clothes.

The First Sin as the Orthodox call it or the Original Sin as we call it, was entirely created by man.

God had no hand in the creation of sin.

Sin does not exist in God, is incompatible with God.

God cannot sin because sin does not exist for God because God did not create it.

Sin exists for us, but only because we are the creators of sin.

And what we create on our own by ourselves without God is powerless against that which He Himself creates.

Therefore God is all powerful.

 

[pro_universal]

I can make the same claim pro. Your problem is that you cannot see “sin” in any way other than the way you see it now.

That’s not the point. Defined as I have defined it, it’s possible to say “God is all powerful” and “God cannot sin” at the same time.

And I’ve established that you don’t believe God can sin.

But you seem incapable of understanding the reasoning behind the position.

Sin can be defined as the absence of good. But sin cannot be defined as the absence of existence. If that were the case, sin would not exist. But sin does exist.

No. I’ve said exactly the opposite: Sin by God DOES NOT EXIST. It’s not a thing. Seriously, go back through my posts and see how many times I’ve said that under my definition “sin by God” does not exist. It’s at least ten times now. Your position on this is approacing the level of invincible ignorance.

Sin is something that really does happen regardless of how much you reword it. Sin has tangible effects in God’s creation that do separate people from God. Sin is the reason Jesus came to die on the cross.

That’s because sin is the negation of creation. This is perfectly consistent with my definition of sin. It does not have to be “a thing” for this to be true.

I know you don’t believe in the Trinity, but are you saying that Jesus died on the cross for nothing according to Catholic theology?

That’s nonsense.

No. You do not understand the argument.

And, in summary, all you’re really saying is that God cannot sin because God cannot sin-- therefore God can do any thing.

No, I’m saying God cannot sin because by definition, if God does something, that thing is not a sin. Do you get it? ANYTHING that God does defines that which is good. If God does it, it is not a sin.

Hence, to say “God sinned” is to say “God did something that God did not do”, which is incoherent. I’m not sure what it is you’re not understanding about that point.

The categorical analysis that sin is nothing is rendered absurd by the fact that sin exists. If sin didn’t exist, then sin wouldn’t exist. But sin does exist. And God can’t sin.

Okay, that’s you making up your own definitions.

According to your view that sin exists, God is not all powerful. In which case, you have a limited God who cannot do all things. That means you are preaching heresy as a Catholic.

 

[tequilamac]

That’s not the point. Defined as I have defined it, it’s possible to say “God is all powerful” and “God cannot sin” at the same time.

But you seem incapable of understanding the reasoning behind the position.

No. I’ve said exactly the opposite: Sin by God DOES NOT EXIST. It’s not a thing. Seriously, go back through my posts and see how many times I’ve said that under my definition “sin by God” does not exist. It’s at least ten times now. Your position on this is approacing the level of invincible ignorance.

That’s because sin is the negation of creation. This is perfectly consistent with my definition of sin. It does not have to be “a thing” for this to be true.

No. You do not understand the argument.

No, I’m saying God cannot sin because by definition, if God does something, that thing is not a sin. Do you get it? ANYTHING that God does defines that which is good. If God does it, it is not a sin.

Hence, to say “God sinned” is to say “God did something that God did not do”, which is incoherent. I’m not sure what it is you’re not understanding about that point.

Okay, that’s you making up your own definitions.

According to your view that sin exists, God is not all powerful. In which case, you have a limited God who cannot do all things. That means you are preaching heresy as a Catholic.

Excellent answer Pro. The problem is so many Catholics have popular understandings of what the Church teaches. When they have to prove it, they can’t. We had a priest come to our parish one day last year who gave us a bunch of examples on Scripture. Common questions you know. And most got them wrong. There is what we think they say, what we want them to say and what they actually do say. What Mr. Exnihilio has is a popular understanding of sin and where it came from. And this is why he is having so much trouble with what the idea that God cannot sin because sin does not exist for God because he did not create it.

But your answers are correct. I would like to discuss the Trinity with you in the same vein eventually.

 

[tequilamac]

That’s not the point. Defined as I have defined it, it’s possible to say “God is all powerful” and “God cannot sin” at the same time.

But you seem incapable of understanding the reasoning behind the position.

No. I’ve said exactly the opposite: Sin by God DOES NOT EXIST. It’s not a thing. Seriously, go back through my posts and see how many times I’ve said that under my definition “sin by God” does not exist. It’s at least ten times now. Your position on this is approacing the level of invincible ignorance.

That’s because sin is the negation of creation. This is perfectly consistent with my definition of sin. It does not have to be “a thing” for this to be true.

No. You do not understand the argument.

No, I’m saying God cannot sin because by definition, if God does something, that thing is not a sin. Do you get it? ANYTHING that God does defines that which is good. If God does it, it is not a sin.

Hence, to say “God sinned” is to say “God did something that God did not do”, which is incoherent. I’m not sure what it is you’re not understanding about that point.

Okay, that’s you making up your own definitions.

According to your view that sin exists, God is not all powerful. In which case, you have a limited God who cannot do all things. That means you are preaching heresy as a Catholic.

Mr. Ex Nihilio:
This is why I warned you many posts back about arguing with someone like Pro on Catholicism. Pro has been catholic, has studied it, knows it and has left it. And as I told you before, he knows it better than you. His statements are right on the money here.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilio:

Eve bites the apple even though God said no. When she does her eyes are opened. Her eyes are no longer innocent. Adam comes along and joins her.

Together they make a decision within the walled garden of perfection, garden of Eden, Heaven.

They make the decision that something is wrong, something is bad, something is offensive, namely their own nakedness.

They are not any more naked after they ate the apple than they were before they ate the apple.

God created them naked and He saw that it was good.

But Adam and eve ate the apple and saw their nakedness and judged it evil. so Adam and Eve in the garden of good, garden of perfection, heaven, saw imperfection, saw evil, saw tht which was not good.

So they covered themselves with fig leaves, thereby signifying to God the next time He spoke with them that what he made was not perfect but evil.

They introduced evil to Heaven, they introduced sin to the GArden of Eden, not God.

When did I say that God made Adam and Eve sin? I know full well that Adam and Eve’s sin was their own sin. Not God’s. I’ve never said that God made Adam and Eve sin. It was entirely their choice to do so.

tequilamac:

It was not God’s eyes that opened and now could tell right from wrong but theirs.

But God did open their eyes to the danger that the tree presented to them, did he not?

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

And why did he make a tree called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then tell them not to partake in it anyway?

tequilamac:

It was not God’s nakedness they covered nor was it God’s judgement that being naked was a bad thing, but theirs.

Actually, God said the following…

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Please note that the reason why God banished them was one of mercy. If they had reached out and partaken in the tree of life in their sinful state, they would have become permanently corrupt just like the adversary who tempted them in the Garden was.

tequilamac:

So they effectively cut themselves off from God, not the other way around, for they introduced that which God did not create, was purely an imperfect man made creation, into God’s perfect creation.

There’s no doubt that they cut themselves off from God.

But God did banish them for more than thinking they were naked.

Did God not make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then tell them not to partake in it?

tequilamac:

And their creation was incompatible with that which God creates so they got the boot.

Yes. Their sin effectively drove them out from God’s presence. I have no doubt about this. But it was also God’s grace that drove them out too.

God wasn’t punishing Adam and Eve by driving them out of the Garden.

God was protecting Adam and Eve by driving them out of the Garden.

Many people think this is an example of God judging and Adam and Eve. It’s not. It’s God protecting them.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

tequilamac:

God forgave Eve in the future but he also addressed her sin by dressing her in leather clothes.

He also dressed Adam too. And I personally think Adam was more at fault than Eve to be honest.

tequilamac:

The First Sin as the Orthodox call it or the Original Sin as we call it, was entirely created by man.

God had no hand in the creation of sin.

Did Adam and Eve create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

tequilamac:

Sin does not exist in God, is incompatible with God.

I agree. I’ve never doubted this either.

Consequently, this raises a good point.

If sin does not exist in God and is incompatible with God, then how can God know about sin? Can God look upon sin? Can God even think about sin if sin does not exist in God and is incompatible with God?

tequilamac:

God cannot sin because sin does not exist for God because God did not create it.

Sin exists for us, but only because we are the creators of sin.

Who made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Who created the very thing that would eventually lead humanity to suffer death?

tequilamac:

And what we create on our own by ourselves without God is powerless against that which He Himself creates.

Did the tree of the knowledge of good and and evil serve any good purpose?

I tend to think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was ultimately created to be good. It was when man abused it that it became evil.

I’m serious too by the way.

tequilamac:

Therefore God is all powerful.

Yes. And I’ve said that God is all-powerful because he is all-good. In other words, whatever he does it good-- and good is all-powerful. I’ve never disagreed with this point.

You both agree with me on this.

Saying that God is all-powerful because he can do anything is severely missing the point though. It’s fixating on the power and missing the good.

And it’s not much different that certain religious leaders in Jesus’s time saying that Christ couldn’t heal on the Sabbath and claiming that he sinned because of it.

God didn’t sin because he healed on the Sabbath. The people who were claiming that Jesus healing on the Sabbath was a sin were the ones who were sinning against God.

Have I said anything evil against God by saying that God cannot sin?

Think about it tequilamac.

Have I said anything evil against God?

 

[tequilamac]

Did Adam and Eve create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

If sin does not exist in God and is incompatible with God, then how can God know about sin? Can God look upon sin? Can God even think about sin if sin does not exist in God and is incompatible with God?

Who made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Who created the very thing that would eventually lead humanity to suffer death?

Did the tree of the knowledge of good and and evil serve any good purpose?

I tend to think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was ultimately created to be good. It was when man abused it that it became evil.
QUOTE]

So what are you saying? Apparently you are saying God created evil for He created the tree of good and evil. If God created evil than He is definately capable of committing evil.

Then you backpedal and say that the tree was created to be good but man made it evil when he abused it. Well, that is a nice way of rationalizing that you just said God created evil, except you have absolutely no authority to make the statement that God crated the tree good and man caused it to be evil. What is the theological or scriptural source for this assertion? If you cannot back that up, you are left with claiming God created evil.

Sin is the rejection of God. Bluntly. Can God know when He is rejected? I don’t know. I would have to reflect on that. Are you claiming God thinks about that which is evil? And if you are claiming that God thinks about evil, then you are saying evil is compatible with God which makes the entire life of Christ and Scriptures OT and NT a ridiculous futile exercise with which to pass the time.