pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

i think Tequilamac is saying that we can’t understand God fully, not that we can’t understand anything.

I hope so. But I have to admit it sounds like he’s stressing the incomprehensible side of God over the understandable side as far as I can tell.

He also seems to be saying that I’m deceived and deluded by sin for making some of the claims I’ve claimed.

inJESUS:

Am still interested in the sin idea though that no one rsponded to so far if not mistaken. Isn.t sin something God knows about yet does not do?

At this point I honestly don’t know how to answer this.

It seems to me whichever way I answer this, I’ll be accused of doing something terribly wrong, such as not knowing what I’m talking about or outright blaspheming God for reasons unknown.

Think I’ll go read Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed for a while.

 

[tequilamac]

i think Tequilamac is saying that we can’t understand God fully, not that we can’t understand anything.

Am still interested in the sin idea though that no one rsponded to so far if not mistaken. Isn.t sin something God knows about yet does not do?

I can honestly state God does not sin. But as to whether He is aware of sin or not, I cannot honestly state I know that yet.

If we postulate that sin was created by our response to the gift of free will given by God to Adam in the Garden, well, then it is a creation of ours. If then we say that God responded to our deliberate misuse of the gift of free will, then we would have to state that God is aware of sin, yes. But this is shaky ground for me for I just cannot say for sure.

So we must define the question further. We are asking if God is aware of and can perform an act that is purely a creation of man’s I think. So since we are ascribing a human quality to God’s thoughts and actions, we must now look at God the Son for our example. We know from Him directly that He is like us in all things except sin. We know He cannot sin because He cannot deny Himself. He said He could not deny Himself and sin is a denial of God’s providence. He was obviously aware of sin as He taught about it’s effects and told us what we had to do to not sin. Therefore from the example of God the Son we can say that:
a. God cannot sin.
b. God is aware of sin.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is just puzzling. I’m searching my responses for something that has anything to do with Islam, and I’m not seeing anything except an expressed interest.

Yes. And your defense of Islam seems to more than an interest pro. I don’t understand why you don’t just become a Muslim.

I’m not trying to be insulting here. As you know, I do respect Islam-- so saying to go investigate Islam is not equal to someone saying go to hell. I really think you need to look into this further in order to make up your mind on this matter.

pro:

You’ve been welcome to disprove this notion for days now…no material has appeared, however.

But you’ve never expected any pro. You’ve been quite blunt about this too.

You know I’ve been covering the forms without the symbols for a while now.

Is it really going to make a difference if I present it at this point?

pro:

Of course I have. I’ve even apologized to you on this very thread for presuming too much about what you know. That was for a factual error, namely, assuming that you had no clue what I was talking about with regard to logic.

Yes. And then right after you apologized once for several instances, you proceeded to insult me all over again.

Besides that, your apology isn’t for a factual error in the sense of religious facts presented for the sake of a debate. You’ve never recanted on anything to my knowledge when defending Islam, even when errors are pointed out to you.

pro:

Uh, you’re answering a different question. Is this a limit to God’s power in the absolute, ie, that there are some things God couldn’t do even if he wanted to?

No. This is what I’ve been talking about all along pro.

IN BRIEF

275 With Job, the just man, we confess: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2).

276 Faithful to the witness of Scripture, the Church often addresses her prayer to the “almighty and eternal God” (“omnipotens sempiterne Deus. …”), believing firmly that “nothing will be impossible with God” (Gen 18:14; Lk 1:37; Mt 19:26).

277 God shows forth his almighty power by converting us from our sins and restoring us to his friendship by grace. “God, you show your almighty power above all in your mercy and forgiveness. . .” (Roman Missal, 26th Sunday, Opening Prayer).

278 If we do not believe that God’s love is almighty, how can we believe that the Father could create us, the Son redeem us and the Holy Spirit sanctify us?

I’ve said from the begining that all-powerful from a Catholic perspective means all-good. I’ve been very clear about this.

Are you just understanding this now?

pro:

This claim is just plain bizarre.

Why is it bizarre.

These "God cannot"s present no real limit to God’s ability to be good.

**God is all-good regardless of what he cannot do.

And whether God can or cannot do something will in no way affect whether he is good or not.

God is always good regardless of what happens to us.**

Do you understand what I’m saying?

What you’re presenting here really is the Muslim view that Pope Benedict XVI spoke out against in his controversial speech.

Islam says that if God does something, it is good…whatever it is that he does-- which is exactly what you’re claiming as well.

But it is not true, from a Catholic sense, that whatever God does is good because he does it.

It is true, from a Catholic sense, that whatever God does is good because his actions do not break any of the commandments which exemplify his very essense.

pro:

Positive based on what? I certainly believed enough to learn all about my faith and try to engage it intellectually. I even used to engage protestants and non-Christians whenever I could to try and make sense of the religion to them. Those days are over, of course.

Then what happened?

pro:

Who am I blaming here? Huh?

You’re, in one sense, blaming everyone else around you for losing faith pro. And, in the other sense, you’re claiming that your intellect has enabled you to understand Catholicism better than most Catholics-- and that once you really understood Catholicism, you left.

Think about it.

pro:

Okay, what am I missing here? Who is being blamed for me not being able to see the “sense” in the trinity anymore? And the latest issue, whether God is all powerful, is one where I’m saying I think the Catholic doctors have gotten something right. So I have no idea where you are getting this claim that “it’s never my fault” for what I believe.

For all your words, all you’re really saying is that that others around you have failed you, and that once you really understood Catholicism, you left.

Isn’t that what you’re saying?

 

[inJESUS]

I can honestly state God does not sin. But as to whether He is aware of sin or not, I cannot honestly state I know that yet.

If we postulate that sin was created by our response to the gift of free will given by God to Adam in the Garden, well, then it is a creation of ours. If then we say that God responded to our deliberate misuse of the gift of free will, then we would have to state that God is aware of sin, yes. But this is shaky ground for me for I just cannot say for sure.

i think we must ask simple questions here . Why did God throw Adam and Eve off the garden? why did God punish Cain? why did God punish the sinful cities? on what basis will God judge us? to whom did Jesus come? i can see a thousand example of God being aware of sin…i can see no proof that He isn’t . What does make you question God’s awareness of sin? is it something in scriptures? because scriptures can’t be any clearer regarding God’s awareness, even accute awarness of sin. So where do you get your conclusions from because i can’t see it the way you do.

 

[tequilamac]

i think we must ask simple questions here . Why did God throw Adam and Eve off the garden? why did God punish Cain? why did God punish the sinful cities? on what basis will God judge us? to whom did Jesus come? i can see a thousand example of God being aware of sin…i can see no proof that He isn’t . What does make you question God’s awareness of sin? is it something in scriptures? because scriptures can’t be any clearer regarding God’s awareness, even accute awarness of sin. So where do you get your conclusions from because i can’t see it the way you do.

I am sorry. I think you replied before I finished my edit which was to include Jesus in the picture. Here is what I wrote:

“So we must define the question further. We are asking if God is aware of and can perform an act that is purely a creation of man’s I think. So since we are ascribing a human quality to God’s thoughts and actions, we must now look at God the Son for our example. We know from Him directly that He is like us in all things except sin. We know He cannot sin because He cannot deny Himself. He said He could not deny Himself and sin is a denial of God’s providence. He was obviously aware of sin as He taught about it’s effects and told us what we had to do to not sin. Therefore from the example of God the Son we can say that:
a. God cannot sin.
b. God is aware of sin.”

Does it make more sense now?

 

[inJESUS]

So we must define the question further. We are asking if God is aware of and can perform an act that is purely a creation of man’s I think. So since we are ascribing a human quality to God’s thoughts and actions, we must now look at God the Son for our example. We know from Him directly that He is like us in all things except sin. We know He cannot sin because He cannot deny Himself. He said He could not deny Himself and sin is a denial of God’s providence. He was obviously aware of sin as He taught about it’s effects and told us what we had to do to not sin. Therefore from the example of God the Son we can say that:
a. God cannot sin.
b. God is aware of sin.

i think this is what Mr. Ex -Nihilo have been saying . God cannot sin because sin is incompatible with His nature. So not being able to sin does not mean God is not all-powerful, it just shows that God cannot do something against His nature, which is something positive, not negative, even if the term “God cannot” is used.

Jesus said He is meek and humble. In human terms, this is weekness. But in divine terms, it is very positive because it reveals the nature of God. my 2 cents

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

i think this is what Mr. Ex -Nihilo have been saying . God cannot sin because sin is incompatible with His nature. So not being able to sin does not mean God is not all-powerful, it just shows that God cannot do something against His nature, which is something positive, not negative, even if the term “God cannot” is used.

Jesus said He is week and humble. In human terms, this is weekness. But in divine terms, it is very positive because it reveals the nature of God. my 2 cents

Thank you brother.

Amen and High Five!

 

[tequilamac]

i think this is what Mr. Ex -Nihilo have been saying . God cannot sin because sin is incompatible with His nature. So not being able to sin does not mean God is not all-powerful, it just shows that God cannot do something against His nature, which is something positive, not negative, even if the term “God cannot” is used.

Jesus said He is meek and humble. In human terms, this is weekness. But in divine terms, it is very positive because it reveals the nature of God. my 2 cents

Okay. For the 500th time we have all agreed to this including Pro. So why are we still on this? The only one who has questioned this is Mr. Ex Nihilo, not Pro or I. So is there something here I am missing or what? I do not understand what you and Mr. Ex Nihilo are trying to say. It seems this aspect of God’s all powerfulness keeps getting repeated over and over again by Mr. Ex Nihilo and for the life of me I’m not sure what he and now you are trying to get me or Pro to do here. We have agreed with this ad nauseum. Why does it keep coming back? What exactly do you and mr. Ex Nihilo want us to do or say on this issue?

 

[inJESUS]

Okay. For the 500th time we have all agreed to this including Pro. So why are we still on this? The only one who has questioned this is Mr. Ex Nihilo, not Pro or I. So is there something here I am missing or what? I do not understand what you and Mr. Ex Nihilo are trying to say. It seems this aspect of God’s all powerfulness keeps getting repeated over and over again by Mr. Ex Nihilo and for the life of me I’m not sure what he and now you are trying to get me or Pro to do here. We have agreed with this ad nauseum. Why does it keep coming back? What exactly do you and mr. Ex Nihilo want us to do or say on this issue?

because this shows that God cannot do everything which i repeat is a positive thing, not a negative one because it stresses the All-goodness of God. So i can’t say God is all-powerful without some kind of contradiction because God is all-powerful with what is compatible with His nature, that is, afterall, God cannot go against His nature, not because He “lacks power” but because He’s all good.

Mr Ex-Nihilo can correct any wrong use of English theological language.

 

[inJESUS]

Tequilamac. all this all-powerful discussion has to do with Pro’s claim that the Trinity is a contradiction and from here the discussion of contradictions started…

 

[tequilamac]

because this shows that God cannot do everything which i repeat is a positive thing, not a negative one because it stresses the All-goodness of God. So i can’t say God is all-powerful without some kind of contradiction because God is all-powerful with what is compatible with His nature, that is, afterall, God cannot go against His nature, not because He “lacks power” but because He’s all good.

Mr Ex-Nihilo can correct any wrong use of English theological language.

Yes that is correct. And this relates to Pro and me exactly how?

 

[inJESUS]

Yes that is correct. And this relates to Pro and me exactly how?

am not sure about you, but Pro said the Trinity is a contradiction. So when Mr.Ex-Nihilo asked him what is a non-contradiction, Pro answered : God is all-powerful is not a contradiction for example.

Now You, Mr Ex and myself believe that you cannot take it for granted that it is not a contradiction. It all boils down to Pro’s claim that the Trinity is a contradiction and his own definition is not.

 

[tequilamac]

Tequilamac. all this all-powerful discussion has to do with Pro’s claim that the Trinity is a contradiction and from here the discussion of contradictions started…

Ah I see. Perhaps the problem is that Pro used the wrong word. He should not have said contradiction. He should have said paradox. For Christ is a paradox, the Cross is a paradox, the Passion is a paradox…
That may be what set off Mr. Ex Nihilo into his diatribes and led to much misunderstanding. I believe Pro should have said paradox rather than contradiction. The Trinity is paradoxical. The Beatitudes are paradoxical. etc. Many people especially those of the literal interpretative bent, Sola Scripturists, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are extremely uncomfortable with the paradoxes which exist in the life of Christ and the paradoxes which exist in our relationship with God in general. The Church in her holy wisdom has always been aware of and has never hidden from the reality of the paradox. But the word contradiction is different from the word paradox. A paradox would indicate that something which appears contradictory actually isn’t, but is instead truth.

 

[inJESUS]

Ah I see. Perhaps the problem is that Pro used the wrong word. He should not have said contradiction. He should have said paradox. For Christ is a paradox, the Cross is a paradox, the Passion is a paradox…
That may be what set off Mr. Ex Nihilo into his diatribes and led to much misunderstanding. I believe Pro should have said paradox rather than contradiction. The Trinity is paradoxical. The Beatitudes are paradoxical. etc. Many people especially those of the literal interpretative bent, Sola Scripturists, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are extremely uncomfortable with the paradoxes which exist in the life of Christ and the paradoxes which exist in our relationship with God in general. The Church in her holy wisdom has always been aware of and has never hidden from the reality of the paradox. But the word contradiction is different from the word paradox. A paradox would indicate that something which appears contradictory actually isn’t, but is instead truth.

well English is not my first language so someone like me can use wrong words i don’t think Pro did not choose the correct word but i’ll leave it to him to explain becuse if you read the Trinity thread, Pro used the word contradiction many times and did not fail to use it at the end of each of his posts as if he is saying : whatever you say is still a contradiction no matter what others posted and without even reading the whole articles provided. (that’s what i personally realized when he said there is no distinction between “nature” and “person” when in fact the articles talks extensively about it …it’s just that Pro picks what proves him correct , and disregards what does not fit him…)

 

[inJESUS]

A paradox would indicate that something which appears contradictory actually isn’t, but is instead truth.

thank you for reminding me of this difference. You’ll notice that Pro is not willing to see it as paradox but as a contradiction it’s called pride…for how can Pro turn out to be wrong?

i have to go now. God bless you all.

 

[tequilamac]

well English is not my first language so someone like me can use wrong words i don’t think Pro did not choose the correct word but i’ll leave it to him to explain becuse if you read the Trinity thread, Pro used the word contradiction many times and did not fail to use it at the end of each of his posts as if he is saying : whatever you say is still a contradiction no matter what others posted and without even reading the whole articles provided. (that’s what i personally realized when he said there is no distinction between “nature” and “person” when in fact the articles talks extensively about it …it’s just that Pro picks what proves him correct , and disregards what does not fit him…)

Okay maybe. I’ll go take a gander at the Trinity thread and see if Pro is actually believing whether the Trinity is a contradiction.
I did not know that English was a second language for you but if that is the case, you and anyone who proposes to discuss Catholicism with an anti Catholic needs to learn or know deep inside the word paradox. A paradox is what is usually used by the Church when trying to describe the Passion, upon which our theology is built. A paradox is that which appears to be a contradiction or an opposition but is not.

 

[inJESUS]

Okay maybe. I’ll go take a gander at the Trinity thread and see if Pro is actually believing whether the Trinity is a contradiction.
I did not know that English was a second language for you but if that is the case, you and anyone who proposes to discuss Catholicism with an anti Catholic needs to learn or know deep inside the word paradox. A paradox is what is usually used by the Church when trying to describe the Passion, upon which our theology is built. A paradox is that which appears to be a contradiction or an opposition but is not.

well as you predicted, Pro does indeed not know the difference betwen paradox and contradiction, as you’ll notice from his reply to you on the Trinity thread and thank you for reminding me of the difference …

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No. Understanding the faith has very little to do with whether anyone remains or leaves. You left the faith because you did not believe.

It is a responsible individual with a certain level of maturity who can say “I left because I did not believe in it.”

The immature person says “I left due to someone or something else’s fault.”

Your remark indicates the fault is the Church’s or other peoples when actually that is rarely the case.

You left on your own hook on your own responsibility like an adult I hope. You left because you did not believe it.

If you left because the Church is wrong, then your being here simply to discuss religion is not true.

Personally I find pornography wrong and because** of that I do not visit pornographic sites in order to argue with them about their wrongness.

In light of your reasons for being here on this particular forum, it is best to return to responsibility and maturity and state clearly “I left because I did not believe.”

Otherwise, your motives are suspect as we would then have to believe you are here in order to take others with you after you convince them how wrong the Church is. Not just because you enjoy discussing religion. Do you see the difference?

Good point tequilamac!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ah I see. Perhaps the problem is that Pro used the wrong word. He should not have said contradiction. He should have said paradox. For Christ is a paradox, the Cross is a paradox, the Passion is a paradox…

That may be what set off Mr. Ex Nihilo into his diatribes and led to much misunderstanding.

For the record, Mr. Ex Nihilo, in his diatribes, was actually getting to the concept of the paradox in this post here.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Because this simple paradoxical statement penetrates to the very core of every argument presented thus far. It totally rips asunder every single false and idle thought about God.

You never seemed to respond to it though.

pro:

I believe Pro should have said paradox rather than contradiction. The Trinity is paradoxical. The Beatitudes are paradoxical. etc. Many people especially those of the literal interpretative bent, Sola Scripturists, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are extremely uncomfortable with the paradoxes which exist in the life of Christ and the paradoxes which exist in our relationship with God in general. The Church in her holy wisdom has always been aware of and has never hidden from the reality of the paradox. But the word contradiction is different from the word paradox. A paradox would indicate that something which appears contradictory actually isn’t, but is instead truth.

Well said.

So is it fair to claim that inJESUS, you and I actually do agree that that God being ‘all-powerful and yet cannot sin’ is actually a paradoxical statement?

Likewise, it is fair to state that inJESUS, you and I actually do agree that that ‘We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance’ is actually a paradoxical statement too?

More importantly, is it fair to conclude that pro doesn’t actually think the Trinity is a paradox whereas all three of us do agree in the Lord on this matter?

Just checking.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Okay maybe. I’ll go take a gander at the Trinity thread and see if Pro is actually believing whether the Trinity is a contradiction.

It seems to me that pro is indeed claming that the Trinity is a contradiction.

More importantly though, he seems to be incapable of accepting the definition of a paradox.

Even more importantly, he doesn’t seem to be accepting your definition of a paradox even when applied to the question of God being ‘all powerful’.

According to pro, if God does something, it is good…whatever it is that he does.

But it is not true, from a Catholic sense, that whatever God does is good because he does it.

It is true, from a Catholic sense, that whatever God does is good because his actions do not break any of the commandments which exemplify his very essense.

And as far as his all-powerful nature is concerned, God is all-good regardless of what he cannot do.

And whether God can or cannot do something will in no way affect whether he is good or not.

God is always good regardless of what happens to us.

But, to paraphrase what inJESUS said before, all this all-powerful discussion has to do with is Pro’s claim that the Trinity is a contradiction-- and from here the discussion of contradictions started.

You understand what I was getting at now, right?