pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/enchiridion.html

I’ve read all these things before and I think the horse has been muzzled with contradictions.

Explaining that evils are privations of the good (something I agree with by the way), doesn’t answer the question of how God knows that sin exists when sin doesn’t exist to God.

Explaining that vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good (which is another thing I agree with by the way), doesn’t answer the question of how God knows that sin exists when sin doesn’t exist to God.

I think’s it’s important to note that the Summa Theologica was never finished by Aquinas. This was largely due to an experience he had during mass on the 6th December 1273 whereafter he wrote nothing.

His reported explanation for this was…

‘All that I have written seems to me like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me’

I’ve thought and prayed hard about this before.

Anyone care to ponder what Aquinas believed was revealed to him in the end?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

??? Are you serious? Okay, try defining “sin” without using ANY terms that aren’t strictly biological.

Cancer
Heart Attack
Diabetes
Lung Disease
Mental Illness
Virus’
Stroke

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

tequilamac,

Leaving the trinity aside (where I think St. Aquinas’s arguments are insufficient, and he seems to admit so himself), there is no question that his work in refuting attacks on monotheism and the all powerful God are second to none.

If our aim is to convince people that the basic idea of God, all good, and all powerful, makes sense, Aquinas has some of the most powerful arguments anyone will ever come up with.

People who believe in God, from whatever faith, will have a lot to learn from reading his work.

This is a strange claim to make in light of the claims you made before…

pro:

Okay, if you know this, why are we still “leading into modern logic” when I’ve made it abundantly clear that the primitive methods are not relevant to this discussion?

Aren’t St. Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts grounded in these very same ‘primitive methods’ that you yourself feel are not relevant to this discussion?

You also said…

pro:

If you know how to do formal logic (ie, the way it’s done today), why are you wasting space with googled comments on the historical development of the subject?

Then why are you wasting space with googled comments on the Aquinas’ work refuting attacks on monotheism and the all powerful God?

Sound to me like you accept these ‘primitive methods’ when it suits your purpose and you reject these ‘primitive methods’ when it doesn’t suit your purpose.

That’s what it sound like to me anyway.
wasting space with googled comments:

Following Aristotle, Aquinas held that one must know the concrete things first before we can know the universals (thus rejecting Plato’s forms which began in the mind and led to metaphysical Universals). In modern theology the distinction can be made between general revelation (creation/reason) and special revelation (the Bible) with the latter illuminating (and the fulfillment of) the former (although critics would argue that in many cases it has become the former illuminating (and the fulfillment of) the latter). In recent years the foremost exponent of Aquinas’ methodology of using ‘natural theology’ as a basis for the intellectual content of the Christian faith was the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner.

All created beings participate firstly and most significantly in God’s nature, each in its own specific finite manner manifesting a part of God’s infinite variety and perfection.

(Tarnas summarising Aquinas p.184)

Despite falling out of favour early on due to his ‘natural theology’ Aquinas gained prominence in the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1545-63) when Catholic Reformers used his works to draft their decrees. In 1879 Pope Leo XIII declared Thomism (Aquinas’ theology) to be eternally valid.

Should we move on to formal logic now? Or is Aquinas’ thoughts on the matter sufficient?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

God’s concern according to Augustine and Aquinas.

No doubt that both Augustine and Aquinas are superior Doctors within the Church. Of this I have no doubt.

But I’m more concerned with God’s concern according to God himself to be honest.

I’ll be waiting for your answers on this whenever you have a chance.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Your evil/material dichotomy is undeveloped.

Is it still undeveloped?

It seems to me that you yourself are doing a good job developing it for me-- which is what a debate is supposed to do, right?

As you know, Christian arguments are often developed by determining what God is not more often that what God is, correct?

pro:

I can’t comment on it because there’s not actually an argument there either way.

Based on you answers so far, I’d say you’re doing a smashing job of developing this argument for me.

pro:

I appreciate your effort, but I think you need to reexamine what a contradiction means. A contradiction is a logical inconsistency of the basic form “a and not a.” It is not “this seems like a good idea to me.”

I know what a contradiciton is.

Saying that God can do any thing and then saying that cannot sin is a contradiction.

Saying that God is all-knowing and then saying that God is not even aware that sin exists is a contradiction too.

Saying that sin is nothing means that Jesus died for nothing-- and that’s a contradiction too.

But that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying from the beginning, isn’t it?

pro:

There’s not a single contradiction in terms above. Not even close to one, really, and your argument seems to be going on a path that doesn’t even approach the identification of a logical contradiction.

I’ve heard this before and I’ll be waiting for your answers to my latest series of questions.

Enjoy.

 

[tequilamac]

No doubt that both Augustine and Aquinas are superior Doctors within the Church. Of this I have no doubt.

But I’m more concerned with God’s concern according to God himself to be honest.

I’ll be waiting for your answers on this whenever you have a chance.

Hello? :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

I don’t know about you but normally God communicates with me through another. He has never sent me anything directly by phone, or e-mail, or letter telling me His own concerns. So…I don’t think I can answer this for you. Um I’d be personally inclined at this point to listen to what the Fathers of the Church tell me about God’s concern. However, if God does give me a jingle on AT & T and personally expresses his concerns to me you probably will not be the first to know. I would take that occurrence straight to confession.:yup: :yup:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hello? :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

I don’t know about you but normally God communicates with me through another. He has never sent me anything directly by phone, or e-mail, or letter telling me His own concerns. So…I don’t think I can answer this for you. Um I’d be personally inclined at this point to listen to what the Fathers of the Church tell me about God’s concern. However, if God does give me a jingle on AT & T and personally expresses his concerns to me you probably will not be the first to know. I would take that occurrence straight to confession.:yup: :yup:

Do you pray to God?

 

[tequilamac]

Do you pray to God?

This is getting weirder and weirder. Why does pro appear to be more of the catholic faith than you in your last few posts?

Let’s try this: Since you are willing to throw out the Church Fathers interpretation of things in favor of God personally telling me His concerns, and apparently you want to call that prayer, why don’t YOU tell me what God tells you are his concerns.

 

[tequilamac]

Mr. Ex Nihilio-
You know I guess what I am trying to say here is that I am thoroughly offended by your tendency to want to throw out Aquinas and Augustine as old news in favor of my thoughts. That is just so offensive. And I truly wonder why?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is getting weirder and weirder. Why does pro appear to be more of the catholic faith than you in your last few posts?

But isn’t the point of our conversation here to reveal to pro the limits of his logic in order to eventually bring him back to Christ?

By the way, I prayed to God that he would send me a strong Catholic brother to help me show pro the error in his thinking.

I’m now firmly convinced that you are that answer to prayer by the way.

tequilamac:

Let’s try this: Since you are willing to throw out the Church Fathers interpretation of things in favor of God personally telling me His concerns, and apparently you want to call that prayer, why don’t YOU tell me what God tells you are his concerns.

Let’s try this. I haven’t thrown out anything that the Church Fathers said. I’ve only thrown out your and pro’s ‘interpretation’ of what the Church Fathers said.

All the Church Fathers agree with me that God cannot sin.

Not once can anyone display to me from any of the accepted Church Fathers writings that anyone ever beleived that God can sin.

Not once.

Again I have to ask how exactly I’ve sinned against God by stating that God cannot sin?

If saying that God cannot sin is a sin, then you are both contradicting yourselves right now.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilio-
You know I guess what I am trying to say here is that I am thoroughly offended by your tendency to want to throw out Aquinas and Augustine as old news in favor of my thoughts. That is just so offensive. And I truly wonder why?

You shouldn’t take offense to anything I’ve said.

I’m only pointing out that the way you worded your argument made it sound as if you didn’t talk to God in prayer. Prayer is talking to God. I do this. You do this. So does pro talk to God too. Augustine and Aquinas did this too. And they listened very intently when God answered.

Furthermore, how have I thrown out what Aquinas and Augustine said as old news?

I’ve consistently held to the position that God cannot sin.

Both Aquinas and Augustine agree with me on this.

Period.

The problem here is the very definiton for all-powerful that you are both using is wrong. Aquinas and Augustine never used it the way you both insist it must be used.

All-powerful does not mean God can do any thing. That’s how the world sees all-powerful.

All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God see all-powerful.

Consider the following passage of Scripture concerning God’s peace as compared to the world’s peace…
John 14:27:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

We don’t have peace as the world knows peace. We have peace as God knows peace. Similarly, God is not all-powerful as the world defines all-powerful. God is all-powerful as God defines all-powerful.

This is why I said before…
Mr. Ex:

No doubt that both Augustine and Aquinas are superior Doctors within the Church. Of this I have no doubt.

But I’m more concerned with God’s concern according to God himself to be honest.

Both Augustine and Aquinas understood this. They were both more concerned with God’s concern according to God himself and understood than their own opinions were irrelevant. And this is reflected in their writings too.

Both you and pro do not understand this. Both you and pro are more concerned with all-powerful as the word defines all-powerful. And this is exactly why neither one of you actually understand what being all-powerful means. It’s also exactly why you both have to do convoluted theological back-flips in order avoid the conclusion that God can do anything even though you both admit that cannot sin.

Take a look at John 14:27 again.
John 14:27:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

One could actually rephrase this passage concerning God’s peace and apply to God’s power as the following…

Power I leave with you; my power I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

To paraphrase Isaiah 55:8-9, God’s thoughts are not the world’s thoughts, nor are the world’s ways God’s ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways, and God’s thoughts than our thoughts.

 

[tequilamac]

You shouldn’t take offense to anything I’ve said.

I’m only pointing out that the way you worded your argument made it sound as if you didn’t talk to God in prayer. Prayer is talking to God. I do this. You do this. So does pro talk to God too. Augustine and Aquinas did this too. And they listened very intently when God answered.

Furthermore, how have I thrown out what Aquinas and Augustine said as old news?

I’ve consistently held to the position that God cannot sin.

Both Aquinas and Augustine agree with me on this.

Period.

The problem here is the very definiton for all-powerful that you are both using is wrong. Aquinas and Augustine never used it the way you both insist it must be used.

All-powerful does not mean God can do any thing. That’s how the world sees all-powerful.

All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God see all-powerful.

Consider the following passage of Scripture concerning God’s peace as compared to the world’s peace…

We don’t have peace as the world knows peace. We have peace as God knows peace. Similarly, God is not all-powerful as the world defines all-powerful. God is all-powerful as God defines all-powerful.

This is why I said before…

Both Augustine and Aquinas understood this. They were both more concerned with God’s concern according to God himself and understood than their own opinions were irrelevant. And this is reflected in their writings too.

Both you and pro do not understand this. Both you and pro are more concerned with all-powerful as the word defines all-powerful. And this is exactly why neither one of you actually understand what being all-powerful means. It’s also exactly why you both have to do convoluted theological back-flips in order avoid the conclusion that God can do anything even though you both admit that cannot sin.

Take a look at John 14:27 again.

One could actually rephrase this passage concerning God’s peace and apply to God’s power as the following…

To paraphrase Isaiah 55:8-9, God’s thoughts are not the world’s thoughts, nor are the world’s ways God’s ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways, and God’s thoughts than our thoughts.

I am not particularly concerned right now with the phrase “all powerful”. It has not been mentioned more in my posts than any other. And yet you seem stuck to trying ascribe that to me. It appeared to me that I, and possibly Pro were actually delving into the nature of sin, it’s origins and meanings, rather than particularly concentrating on “all powerful”.

You seem to read what you want to read. You apparently have a need to be correct. I have never postulated that God can do anything. Not once. And yet, you ascribe that to me as well.

No one is going to get anywhere on this thread as long as you assume you need to teach or evangelize someone else. It would appear from your responses that you are as much in need of education as Pro or myself. When you see that, perhaps we can start again as equals discussing the nature and whys of God.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I am not particularly concerned right now with the phrase “all powerful”.

But you were concerned with it before. You even alluded to the idea that I was somehow blaspheming God for saying that God could not sin.

tequilamac:

It has not been mentioned more in my posts than any other.

You did mention it here…

tequilamac:

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.

And here…

tequilamac:

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.

And again here…

tequilamac:

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.

Are these not your own words?

tequilamac:

And yet you seem stuck to trying ascribe that to me. It appeared to me that I, and possibly Pro were actually delving into the nature of sin, it’s origins and meanings, rather than particularly concentrating on “all powerful”.

Well…you seemed to be invoking the question of being all-powerful an aweful lot when you were trying to describe the nature of sin

tequilamac:

You seem to read what you want to read. You apparently have a need to be correct.

Take a good look through this thread and tell me if I honestly have a need to be correct.

Look at what pro claimed against me.

You don’t think pro has a need to be correct?

You even gave me a warning that I was effectively blaspheming God because I was saying that God cannot sin-- and you’re saying that I have a need to be correct?

Either defend your thesis or back out gracefully tequilamac.

I’m not backing down from the simple truth that God cannot sin.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

tequilamac:

I have never postulated that God can do anything. Not once. And yet, you ascribe that to me as well.

I know that you believe as I do that God cannot sin. Pro beleives this too. It’s the supposedly logical statements that you are both advancing which creates the loophole which indicates that you both seem to believe that God can do any thing which causes him to be concerned.

God cannot sin.

tequilamac:

No one is going to get anywhere on this thread as long as you assume you need to teach or evangelize someone else.

So when I explain my position logically, it’s apparently driven by a need to teach or evangelize someone else, but when you make a claim like this…or this…or this…it’s not driven by a need to teach or evangelize someone else?

At least give me the benefit of the doubt that I’m passionately debating the finer points of logic with you tequilamac. Because if you don’t, the very words you use against me will also judge you too.

tequilamac:

It would appear from your responses that you are as much in need of education as Pro or myself. When you see that, perhaps we can start again as equals discussing the nature and whys of God.

Really? I don’t doubt that I need education on the nature of purgatory and forgiveness for example. I’m sure there’s a few other things within Catholicism that I need education on too.

I’ll never deny that.

But when it comes to the nature of God can sin, I don’t need any education on this.

God cannot sin.

This simple statement unlocks so much of what Catholicism stands for that I cannot stress enough how much both you and pro need to understand this. All doctrines of Catholicism unfold with beautiful elegence once this simple but profoundly infinitesimal bit of truth is fully grasped. All else falls away to nothingness before this fact-- and it causes the greatest doctors of the Church to conclude that all they have written seems to them like straw compared to what has now been revealed to them.

**God…cannot…sin… **

Consequently, I can’t speak for pro, but I think he may have actually given up on this debate. Of course, I could be wrong.

However, if he wants to come back and make some more illogical comments, I’ll be waiting for him. And I’ll be sure, by God’s grace, to demolish those arguments too.

After all, as Romans 14:16 clearly implies, we must not allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil.

More to the point, if pro actually wants to learn a thing or too about formal logic, he can always review this thread for a primer. We’ve been pretty much priming up for it the whole time.

And I haven’t even gotten started yet.

As Romans 12:21 clearly implies, we must not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. And that’s exactly what I’ve been doing in this thread-- overcoming evil with good.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Does anybody remember this?

It was beautiful in my opinion. In fact, it covers so much of what I’ve debating with others in this thread about.
Pope Benedixt XVI:

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit.

In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata.

Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language.

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf.

Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos.

Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

 

[tequilamac]

…continued.

I know that you believe as I do that God cannot sin. Pro beleives this too. It’s the supposedly logical statements that you are both advancing which creates the loophole which indicates that you both seem to believe that God can do any thing which causes him to be concerned.

God cannot sin.

So when I explain my position logically, it’s apparently driven by a need to teach or evangelize someone else, but when you make a claim like this…or this…or this…it’s not driven by a need to teach or evangelize someone else?

At least give me the benefit of the doubt that I’m passionately debating the finer points of logic with you tequilamac. Because if you don’t, the very words you use against me will also judge you too.

Really? I don’t doubt that I need education on the nature of purgatory and forgiveness for example. I’m sure there’s a few other things within Catholicism that I need education on too.

I’ll never deny that.

But when it comes to the nature of God can sin, I don’t need any education on this.

God cannot sin.

This simple statement unlocks so much of what Catholicism stands for that I cannot stress enough how much both you and pro need to understand this. All doctrines of Catholicism unfold with beautiful elegence once this simple but profoundly infinitesimal bit of truth is fully grasped. All else falls away to nothingness before this fact-- and it causes the greatest doctors of the Church to conclude that all they have written seems to them like straw compared to what has now been revealed to them.

**God…cannot…sin… **

Consequently, I can’t speak for pro, but I think he may have actually given up on this debate. Of course, I could be wrong.

However, if he wants to come back and make some more illogical comments, I’ll be waiting for him. And I’ll be sure, by God’s grace, to demolish those arguments too.

After all, as Romans 14:16 clearly implies, we must not allow what we consider good to be spoken of as evil.

More to the point, if pro actually wants to learn a thing or too about formal logic, he can always review this thread for a primer. We’ve been pretty much priming up for it the whole time.

And I haven’t even gotten started yet.

As Romans 12:21 clearly implies, we must not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. And that’s exactly what I’ve been doing in this thread-- overcoming evil with good.

Mr. Ex Nihilio- debate is the key word of logic here. You, as you say, have been debating everyone else. It doesn’t matter if they are non Catholic, lapsed Catholic, or faithful Catholic, you are debating them. Why?

I give you direct quotes, cut and paste from the Fathers, and you tell me I am giving you illogical statements with loopholes. So apparently you are debating Aquinas and Augustine also.

I am rather more interested in discussing God and His nature than debating about who is right and who is wrong. That’s all.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilio- debate is the key word of logic here. You, as you say, have been debating everyone else.

I’m not debating ‘everyone else’. I’m only debating you and pro.

tequilamac:

It doesn’t matter if they are non Catholic, lapsed Catholic, or faithful Catholic, you are debating them. Why?

But I’m not debating non Catholics, lapsed Catholics, and faithful Catholics.

I’m only debating you and pro.

pro:

I give you direct quotes, cut and paste from the Fathers, and you tell me I am giving you illogical statements with loopholes.

Your quotes don’t mean what you think they mean. It’s your explanation of their quotes which are displayed to be illogical.

tequilamac:

So apparently you are debating Aquinas and Augustine also.

No. I am debating you and pro. More specifically, I’m debating your’s and pro’s interpretation of what Aquinas and Augustine actually said.

Aquinas and Augustine are not saying what you are both claiming they are saying.

pro:

I am rather more interested in discussing God and His nature than debating about who is right and who is wrong. That’s all.

Then start discussing God and His nature and stop telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I do know what I’m taking about. I know exactly what I’m talking about-- God cannot sin.

The problem here is the very definiton for all-powerful that pro is using. And, to some extent, you are holding some weaker form of this this view too. Aquinas and Augustine never used it the way you both insist it must be used.

The way pro is using ‘all-powerful’ is the Muslim was of using it-- not the Catholic way of using it. I don’t know exactly which way you are using it. Your posts are not very clear on this matter in my opinion.

Either way, all-powerful does not mean God can do any thing. That’s how the world sees all-powerful. Muslims view God this way too. And it’s exactly this kind of argument that atheists use to ‘prove’ that God can’t be all powerful.

But all-powerful doesn’t mean that God can do any thing. All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God sees all-powerful. This is how Catholics see this too.

If you are sincerely more interested in discussing God and His nature, then I can’t get much clearer than this.

 

[pro_universal]

Mr. Ex,

Lots of furious posting has only taken you far, far afield.

The bible says: “With God, all things are possible.” Yet you’re saying that there are some things God isn’t capable of doing. Your position is heterodox from a Catholic perspective. I’m not even sure what the Muslim perspective is on this issue, but the bottom line is, you are arguing for a limited God. And the fact of the matter is, you seem to be totally incapable of addressing the argument that God can be all powerful and still all good.

But when it comes to the nature of God can sin, I don’t need any education on this.

God cannot sin.

Yes, but you pose that this is a limit on God’s power.

In fact, the reason he can’t is because his action DEFINES good. If God does it, it is good. You seem to be claiming that there is some standard of goodness that is abstract from God and that God’s actions can be “judged” by that abstract principle of good and evil. I think this is the root of your deep misunderstanding. I’m saying that God is so powerful, he defines what is good by his very existence. So if God does something, it is good…whatever it is that he does. Hence, there is no sensible way to talk even in theory about “God sinning”, because if God did it, it is by definition not a sin (whatever the thing is.)

More to the point, if pro actually wants to learn a thing or too about formal logic, he can always review this thread for a primer. We’ve been pretty much priming up for it the whole time.

This is perhaps the worst place for anyone to learn about formal logic. You are hung up on syllogisms and do not understand how to construct one using someone else’s claims. A syllogism gives you almost no engine for logical analysis. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even attempted something approaching formal logic (using symbols) here.

. All doctrines of Catholicism unfold with beautiful elegence once this simple but profoundly infinitesimal bit of truth is fully grasped. All else falls away to nothingness before this fact-- and it causes the greatest doctors of the Church to conclude that all they have written seems to them like straw compared to what has now been revealed to them.

I seriously question the extent of your learning regarding the greatest doctors of the Church. You are repeatedly making assertions on this thread that even rudimentary knowledge of the greats’ opinions would let you know are wrong.

Aquinas and Augustine are not saying what you are both claiming they are saying.

I quoted a passage to you that was specific. I’m not sure what substance there is to this claim besides your inability to grasp the depth of the argument.

But all-powerful doesn’t mean that God can do any thing. All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God sees all-powerful. This is how Catholics see this too.

Okay, do this: go ask someone you know who is well versed in theology (like your priest, this is easy to do) whether or not God is limited.

Apart from all of this, the first sentence really betrays how odd this position of yours is. I’m not sure how you can say with a straight face that “all powerful” doesn’t mean God can do anything. Want to try and explain how one is “all powerful” yet “incapable of doing some things,” without copying exactly the argument I, tequilamac, and Augustine gave you?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex,

Lots of furious posting has only taken you far, far afield.

Seemed fairly calm to me.
pr:

The bible says: “With God, all things are possible.”

First of all, why are you quoting Scripture to me if you can’t say for sure whether the Christian Scriptures are corrupted or not?

Second of all, please at least try to make an effort to put this in context pro.

Luke 18:27 also says, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

In the meantime, please note that Acts 2:24 says it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Jesus.

Please also note that Hebrews 6:18 also says it is impossible for God to lie.

In this instance, since God is all-good, it really is impossible for God to lie. Likewise, since Jesus was the Son of God, it really was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

However, if you’re looking for poetic verse which are more of allegory than literal statements, take at look at the following.

Judges 6:5 says it was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it.

Do you think in our modern age of computers it is really impossible to count all these men and their camels?

Actually, let’s inverse your argument and look at Genesis 11:6.

The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

Do you really think that nothing these people planned to do would be impossible if the Lord did not confuse their tongues and disperse them outward from the Tower of Babel?

Do you think it’s possible that the usage of the word impossible in Genesis 11:6 and Judges 6:5 might be more allegory than literal statements?

By the way Augustine understood Christianity to be the Tower of Babel inverted. So, in inverted light, let’s look at Matthew 17:20’s claims of what and what is impossible with God.

He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Do you really think that that nothing will be impossible for us if we have faith as small as a mustard seed?

If, according to your passage you quoted above, nothing is impossible for God, then does this passage in Matthew 17:20 also mean that nothing is impossible with us mere human beings if we have faith as small as a mustard seed?

What if someone has a faith the size of the mountain that Moses talked with God on?

Does our faith in God make us God’s equal?

What do you think is going on here?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yet you’re saying that there are some things God isn’t capable of doing. Your position is heterodox from a Catholic perspective.

No. It is not heterodox from a Catholic perspective.

What’s going on is that you don’t under the orthodox understanding of what Catholicism is actually saying when it says that ‘all things are possible with God’.

All-powerful does not mean God can do any thing. That’s how the world sees all-powerful. Muslims view God this way too. And it’s exactly this kind of argument that atheists use to ‘prove’ that God can’t be all powerful.

But all-powerful doesn’t mean that God can do any thing. All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God sees all-powerful. This is how Catholics see this too.

If you are sincerely more interested in discussing God and His nature from a truly Catholic perspective, then I can’t get much clearer than this.

pro:

I’m not even sure what the Muslim perspective is on this issue…

Pope Benedict XVI fairly well summed up the Muslim view in his words i quoted above.

pro:

…but the bottom line is, you are arguing for a limited God.

No. I’m arguing for an all-powerful God.

All-good is all-powerful.

God is all-good.

Therefore, God is all-powerful

pro:

And the fact of the matter is, you seem to be totally incapable of addressing the argument that God can be all powerful and still all good.

I’m still listening in case you want to actually debate the logic behind this. So far all that I’m hearing is yet more claims that I don’t understand Catholicism.

God can’t sin pro. You can’t get around this part.

pro:

Yes, but you pose that this is a limit on God’s power.

No. I’m arguing for an all-powerful God.

All-good is all-powerful.

God is all-good.

Therefore, God is all-powerful

pro:

In fact, the reason he can’t is because his action DEFINES good. If God does it, it is good.

Yes. Exactly. Thank you for proving my point once again.

pro:

You seem to be claiming that there is some standard of goodness that is abstract from God and that God’s actions can be “judged” by that abstract principle of good and evil. I think this is the root of your deep misunderstanding.

If God lies, then God lies.

But God doesn’t lie though. He can’t lie. It’s impossible for God to lie.

pro:

I’m saying that God is so powerful, he defines what is good by his very existence. So if God does something, it is good…whatever it is that he does. Hence, there is no sensible way to talk even in theory about “God sinning”, because if God did it, it is by definition not a sin (whatever the thing is.)

And your view is the Muslim view. Not the Catholic view.

pro:

This is perhaps the worst place for anyone to learn about formal logic. You are hung up on syllogisms and do not understand how to construct one using someone else’s claims. A syllogism gives you almost no engine for logical analysis. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even attempted something approaching formal logic (using symbols) here.

Seems like we’ve been engaging in it all along.

pro:

I seriously question the extent of your learning regarding the greatest doctors of the Church. You are repeatedly making assertions on this thread that even rudimentary knowledge of the greats’ opinions would let you know are wrong.

I keep reading this but I don’t see anything refuting it.

pro:

I quoted a passage to you that was specific. I’m not sure what substance there is to this claim besides your inability to grasp the depth of the argument.

But the passages don’t mean what you think they mean.

And, consequently, you’ve repeatedly stated that God not being able to sin means that God can do any thing.

So where does this leave us pro?

Care to try again?

pro:

Okay, do this: go ask someone you know who is well versed in theology (like your priest, this is easy to do) whether or not God is limited.

I have. He believes that God is unlimited too.

Why?

Because he beleives that all-good is all-powerful.

God is all-good.

Therefore, God is all-powerful

What is so hard to understand about this?

pro:

Apart from all of this, the first sentence really betrays how odd this position of yours is. I’m not sure how you can say with a straight face that “all powerful” doesn’t mean God can do anything. Want to try and explain how one is “all powerful” yet “incapable of doing some things,” without copying exactly the argument I, tequilamac, and Augustine gave you?

Want to try to explain how one can do any thing and not do any thing at the same time?

Sounds like a contradiction to me.