pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[tequilamac]

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?

Actually, I believe you probably just said something incredibly intelligent but after having spent my whole day off on this forum I wouldn’t know. I am going to go watch Wizard of Oz now for suddenly it seems to make sense. Good night.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Actually, I believe you probably just said something incredibly intelligent but after having spent my whole day off on this forum I wouldn’t know. I am going to go watch Wizard of Oz now for suddenly it seems to make sense. Good night.

God bless you tequilamac.

And may Mary overshadow you in her magnificient love as she, along with all the angels and saints, carries our prayers before her Blessed Divine Son in heaven.

 

[pro_universal]

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.

Of course I accept it. It’s an apparent contradiction. You believe that the trinity is true, which means you recognize that considered rationally and without faith in its truth, it is contradictory…but you call it a paradox because of your preconceived notion that it’s true.

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’.

There is no such paradox. It would have to at least be apparently contradictory to fit the criteria.

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.

That is completely false. You do not understand Catholic theology. There is no universal standard of right and wrong that transcends God, and against which he must measure his behavior. Yet such a standard is the only possible way to theorize a God who is good because what he does is good.

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.

This is theorizing rules that transcend God’s freedom. Definitively un-Catholic (and very greek, I might add.)

You understand what I was getting at now, right?

You repeated yourself, but honestly, your logic on this point is tortured beyond recognition, and it is definitely in its present state not Catholic.

Don’t take my word for it, print out your posts and ask your priest if he agrees with what you’re saying.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Of course I accept it. It’s an apparent contradiction. You believe that the trinity is true, which means you recognize that considered rationally and without faith in its truth, it is contradictory…but you call it a paradox because of your preconceived notion that it’s true.

There is no such paradox. It would have to at least be apparently contradictory to fit the criteria.

That is completely false. You do not understand Catholic theology. There is no universal standard of right and wrong that transcends God, and against which he must measure his behavior. Yet such a standard is the only possible way to theorize a God who is good because what he does is good.

This is theorizing rules that transcend God’s freedom. Definitively un-Catholic (and very greek, I might add.)

You repeated yourself, but honestly, your logic on this point is tortured beyond recognition, and it is definitely in its present state not Catholic.

Don’t take my word for it, print out your posts and ask your priest if he agrees with what you’re saying.

I wasn’t talking to you pro.

I was talking to my brother in Christ tequilamac.

And we are in agreement on this matter.

 

[pro_universal]

I wasn’t talking to you pro.

I was talking to my brother in Christ tequilamac.

And we are in agreement on this matter.

That’s fine, agreement does not equate to accuracy.

I see where you’re coming from now though. This is about you grandstanding, not about you actually knowing something and sharing it or learning something.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s fine, agreement does not equate to accuracy.

I see where you’re coming from now though. This is about you grandstanding, not about you actually knowing something and sharing it or learning something.

No.

What I see is you repeatedly trying to cause division amongst fellow Catholics. I also see you making many accusations against us, such as your claims that we hold heterodox views of God in your attempts to divide us.

I see you claiming that no one understands logic as well as you do. And I also see you putting down anyone who actually refutes your arguments by rudely claiming they don’t know what there’re talking about.

I see you repeatedly blaming everyone else around you for your own lack of faith. And I also see you claming that if people understood Catholicism as well as you did, they too would leave the faith just like you did.

Have I missed anything here?

Yes. I see exactly what you’re doing pro.

But I know what the truth is. And I’m standing strong for our Lord and my brothers in Christ when doing this.

By the way, I could be wrong, but I don’t think you’re going to be hanging around here much longer.

 

[pro_universal]

No.

What I see is you repeatedly trying to cause division amongst fellow Catholics. I also see you making many accusations against us, such as your claims that we hold heterodox views of God in your attempts to divide us.

Who’s the “we”? I pointed out that your claim of God being limited in his power is heterodox. That’s obvious. Like I said, go ask your priest and tell us what he says.

I see you claiming that no one understands logic as well as you do. And I also see you putting down anyone who actually refutes your arguments by rudely claiming they don’t know what there’re talking about.

I’m sorry, but you kept claiming you were going to do something with logic, and you failed to (except to give some quotes from primers on syllogisms…a bizarre way of going about doing logic.)

I see you repeatedly blaming everyone else around you for your own lack of faith. And I also see you claming that if people understood Catholicism as well as you did, they too would leave the faith just like you did.

Who am I blaming?

By the way, I could be wrong, but I don’t think you’re going to be hanging around here much longer.

Maybe not. I’ll start travelling again.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Who’s the “we”? I pointed out that your claim of God being limited in his power is heterodox. That’s obvious. Like I said, go ask your priest and tell us what he says.

I’ve never claimed that God’s power was limited pro. I’ve only claimed that your definition of all-powerful was not the Catholic definition of all-powerful.

You’ve repeatedetly claimed I’m a heterodox Catholic and called my faithfullness to the Catholic faith into question simply because you don’t believe in her anymore. And your post has been reported pro.

If you like what I have to say, just say so.

But you should at least understand that, since the divine essence, through which God acts, is infinite, it follows that His power likewise is infinite.

However, the power of God is not ordered toward its effect as towards an end; rather, it is the end of the effect produced by it.

All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things.

If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along whether you like or not.

Now God cannot be said to be omnipotent through being able to do all things that are possible to created nature; for the divine power extends farther than that.

If, however, we were to say that God is omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible to His power, there would be a vicious circle in explaining the nature of His power. For this would be saying nothing else but that God is omnipotent, because He can do all that He is able to do.

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible.

Nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being.

Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence.

You’ve alluded to this. But you’ve worded it very badly.

For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing.

Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.

Some may understood omnipotence to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good.

This is what the Muslim faith does. And this sounds very much like what you’re saying too.

But that’s wrong.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

God’s omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has supreme power, that He freely forgives sins.

These are the words of St. Thomas Aquinas pro.

It is not for one who is bound by laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free will. Or, because by sparing and having mercy upon men, He leads them on to the participation of an infinite good; which is the ultimate effect of the divine power. Or because, the effect of the divine mercy is the foundation of all the divine works. For nothing is due to anyone, except on account of something already given him gratuitously by God. In this way the divine omnipotence is particularly made manifest, because to it pertains the first foundation of all good things.

As Aquinas himself said, God’s omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has supreme power, that He freely forgives sins. This is the first foundation of all good things.

Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity.

Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity.

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.

The goodness of anything is twofold.

One, which is of the essence of it–thus, for instance, to be rational pertains to the essence of man. As regards this good, God cannot make a thing better than it is itself; although He can make another thing better than it; even as He cannot make the number four greater than it is; because if it were greater it would no longer be four, but another number.

Another kind of goodness is that which is over and above the essence; thus, the good of a man is to be virtuous or wise. As regards this kind of goodness, God can make better the things He has made. Absolutely speaking, however, God can make something else better than each thing made by Him.

The humanity of Christ, from the fact that it is united to the Godhead; and created happiness from the fact that it is the fruition of God; and the Blessed Virgin from the fact that she is the mother of God; have all a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God.

And on this account there cannot be anything better than these; just as there cannot be anything better than God.

Do you understand this? Or do you even care?

In the end, you’re more concerned with proving I’m heterodox than actually debating anything I’ve offered you to examine.

Good-bye pro_universal. It’s been nice debating with you.

 

[pro_universal]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

One, which is of the essence of it–thus, for instance, to be rational pertains to the essence of man. As regards this good, God cannot make a thing better than it is itself; although He can make another thing better than it; even as He cannot make the number four greater than it is; because if it were greater it would no longer be four, but another number.

This is EXACTLY the argument I posed to you with the “triangle with four angles” point, and you rejected it, arguing instead that sin is a real thing that God could theoretically do, but that God is limited in that he is not capable of doing this thing.

Now you’re reversing course, but doing it in such a convoluted way that you apparently do not see yourself where you’ve reversed.

My own ideas on this were cribbed from a mishmash of Christian theologians, and I have no idea what Muslims say on this issue. I think you are thoroughly confused, and need to reread some posts before you go on with this.

In the end, you’re more concerned with proving I’m heterodox than actually debating anything I’ve offered you to examine.

Good-bye pro_universal. It’s been nice debating with you.

Well, now you’ve repeated the argument I gave you earlier, kept a strange few paragraphs on how omnipotence is shown, and accused me of not debating that issue.

Do you remember the whole circle-square “God cannot do things that God does not do” point? Apparently not, or you wouldn’t have repeated the argument as if it were something new to the thread.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

We’ve now come full circle. Any further comments will be rehashing old posts.

Let’s move on.

God bless all who have contributed to this thread.

Rachel