pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[jAlex]

For example: “Is the Holy Spirit fully God?”

Answer: “I don’t know, I just know God is three persons and one substance.”

I like when people ask questions as a preamble to serve themselves the answer they want to hear…

The answer to the above is: Yes. The Holy Spirit is Fully God. Just as the Father and the Son is. There you have it

… and since you are using the athanasian creed… apparently there is one paragraph you didn’t pay attention to :

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one,** the glory equal, the majesty coeternal**

About the contradictions list you posted, people here gave you plenty of analogies, so you cannot say again that the concept is super-difficult to grasp.

In my good ole country even grannies didn’t have big problems in getting the concept … but it’s just normal I think… once you start disecting a problem it’s only then when you start seeing difficulties but that doesn’t mean the problem is a false problem.

God bless,
Alex.

 

[murtad]

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

That is ridiculous. Christian morals are eternal and non-changing. Death penalty has always been considered immoral by the Church fathers, especially St Augustine of Hippo and St John Chrysostom. This is the reason civilian courts should not be allowed to impose the death penalty on criminals, even if it is murder or adultery.

Other ideologies, such as Communism and Islam in their orthodox form are brutal and barbaric. Compare Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin to Muhammad and his 4 caliphs, and can you see they were murderers and war criminals?

 

[Image_of_God]

I really find it amazing that you appear to NOT give God the Father any credit in this whole thing. Because of the Father, Jesus Christ exists. If the Father didn’t want Jesus Christ there would be no Jesus Christ.

"…I [Jesus] came OUT from God. I CAME OUT FROM the FATHER…" (John 16:27-28).

But before at 7:25 pm 9/20/06 you said Jesus Christ is God, Now if you agree that the “WORD WAS GOD,” you must agree that there is NO beginning for God. You are right that Jesus comes from the Father, but he comes from him eternally. You are also right, that the Father chose all creation to happen through Jesus, but the Scriptures also say that without Jesus, no creation can occur, for everything was created through him, and this is what the Father chose it to be like. Therefore NO CREATION CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT JESUS CHRIST. Once again your interpretations lack reasoning. The Father chose not to create anything without the Son and therefore nothing would have been created without the Son,NOTHING. And this leaves only one answer, and that is that the Son was always there, for the Scripture says that the Father would not create anything without his Son.

Completely unScriptural…

"…I [Jesus] came OUT from God. I CAME OUT FROM the FATHER…" (John 16:27-28).

And after Jesus Christ came OUT from the Father, ALL ELSE came THROUGH Jesus Christ:

"Who [Jesus Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is ALL CREATED, that in the heavens and that on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created THROUGH Him and FOR Him, and He is BEFORE all, and all has its cohesion in Him" (Col. 1:14-17).

Yes you are right, I will say again. But he comes out of the Father eternally. AND ALSO, ABSOLUTELY NO CREATION ACTIVITY COULD HAVE HAPPENED. The Son depends on the Father, but the Son is not created. You have continued to misinterpret this verse for if you read further down you will also see this:

Col. 1:19,20
For in him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, wether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross."

You continue to misinterpret what Paul means by “He is the first born of all creation.” Because if he were created in the way you think, then how can God also dwell in him? For if te FULLNESS OF GOD, dwelled in him, then he is also God and for God there is NO BEGINNING OR END. What Paul means, if you include the part after even the passage I typed (Col. 21-23), is that Jesus is the firstborn of a creation that is not corrupted. He is the firstborn of a new creation, in which everything and everyone who believes in Him will be in harmony and blameless before Him and His Father.
You cannot take passage out of context.

 

[Image_of_God]

If anyone believes that every human being “is made” in the image of God then they are decieved. If every human being was made in the image of God no human being could sin. To say that every human being is made in the image of God but still sins is a GROSS misinterpretation of Scripture. I do not teach that. Who does?

This once again lacks reason. Adam and Eve were made in His image…and they sinned. The bible teaches it, see:

Genesis 1:26,27
Then God said, Let us make humankind (all humans) in our image(notice, he says ‘our’ instead of ‘my’), according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattled, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created humankind(is not every human part of human kind?) in his image, in the “Image of God” he created them, male and female, he created them.

I chose the Username “Image of God,” because God and the Church believe that every human being is made in His Image. But Anyway, to imply that there are some humans not made in God’s image, is to exclude some humans from humankind, say that there are some humans that are not to be considered human (meaning, made in the Image of God) and that is plain cruel, not to be mean.

Show me the Scripture that says “God the Holy Spirit”. There is not a single one. Yes, I understand that your church teaches that 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 1 while you simultaneously teach the trinity{3}. Weird math .

One big problem buddy. The word translated “equal” is most accurately translated as “similar”. Big difference.

You need to acknowledge that somethings about God cannot be understood, for his ways are above ours.
Nevertheless, let me use the famous shamrock interpretation;
The Shamrock is ONE SHAMROCK. However there are three parts to the shamrock. Each part of the shamrock is made of the same thing, and that is why they can all be considered the same shamrock. They all get there source of energy from the same tree, but all of the pieces of the shamrock, were always there. There was never a time when there was not three parts altogether.
These parts of the shamrock are not only similar, but they are also equally considered part of the shamrock, one cannot consider just one part of the shamrock, the shamrock alone.
There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the Trinity since nature is base off of Him.

My interpretations? You have no clue as to what is going on here do you? A reminder…

Jesus Christ said,

“…I am going to the Father, for the Father is GREATER than I” (John 14:28).

"Now I want you to be aware that the Head of every man is Christ, yet the head of the woman is the man, yet the Head of Christ IS GOD" (I Cor. 11:3).

Does that sound like Christ thought he was EQUAL to the Father? Did Paul teach that Christ was equal to the Father? Look it up for yourself, don’t give me church talking points.

I have already gone over this, before . Jesus had both a human and divine nature. Everything human is LOWER than God, and since, Jesus had a human nature, even his humanity is LOWER than God.
However, this does NOT speak for his divine nature. The verses that I pointed out from John do though. If the “WORD WAS GOD” as one verse implies, then GOD cannot be lower than himself can he? No. Once again, you misinterpret what Paul meant.

As the passage of John 5:18 states, no one can say Jesus is the Son of God without also saying that he is equal to God the Father.
And also take a look at John 8:58. Jesus says this: "Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM. The religious leaders got angry and started to throw stones at him, because “I AM” are the same words the God the Father used to descibe himself to Abraham.
These are not Church talking points, these are basic reasoning from Scripture.

 

[lrs]

Why can’t God Be God, Be Jesus, and Be the Holy Spirit all at one time. THE I AM
Again, God is creator of all living things, He created out of Love. God wants creative love to always continue. Since God wants creative love to always continue, he became man and dwelt among us, this is Jesus.
AS God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, He did not want love to end, because as humans we sin, and when we sin we stop love dead end and so ends fruitful creation. Sin=Death. Thus God becomes human and dwells among us as Jesus in and through whom we are granted eternal life. This unconditional love on the cross gives us salvation from death.
Jesus (GOD) promised to send a helper. In a very real sense, in our limited and humanly perception, we are not able to witness to and be a steward of God’s love in the world with out the Help and the Fruits of the Holy Spirit. A Helper.
God has revealed himself in the Trinity as all three, simply so we could comprehend and understand the Gift of Life we have been given. We understand: creator, savior, helper. This is the TRINITY>

AHHH! It all goes back to LOVE!.
Peace,
Lisa

 

[Image_of_God]

M_Oliver, I am sorry to say this, but…your post have failed to reason with one another. In an earlier post you said this:

Is Christ God? YES HE IS!

But even earlier than that you said:

Of Whom is this ONE God composed? Answer: “the FATHER.”

NOT, the Father, AND the Son, AND the holy ghost. Just, “the Father.” ONLY, “the Father.” “ONE God, the FATHER.”

You said that Jesus Christ is God. You also said that only the Father is God. You also say that even though the Son is God, he is created, indicating that God is not eternal. You say that even thought Jesus is lower than God, he is not part of the “one God”, but he is still to be worshipped and he still is God.
You say that even thought Jesus is God, there is a time when Jesus, who is God, was not existing.
You also said that nothing could be created without Jesus, but you say that Jesus was created by the Father, even though Scripture said that the Father did no creation activity without his Son.
You said that the Father and the Son are not equal, but you say they are both God, even though one of them was not existing for an eternity. You say they are not equal, yet they are both God, and indicating that God is unequal with himself.

Either you are saying Jesus is God, is equal to his Father, and is to be worhsipped with his Father, and since he is God there was never a time when he did not exist or not. Which is it?

 

[Rocky]

M_Oliver is just recycling that old heresy by Arius. He too taught that Christ was God, just not equal to the Father, and had been created at some point before the rest of creation. In effect Arius and M_Oliver is stating that there is more than One God. So as this contradicted the Church’s teaching from the beginning, it became necessary to develop language to explain what was always believed. Therefore the word “Trinity” came into being along with the completed Nicene creed which we still pray today. But it was a long process that took many, many years and many, many councils to hammer out.

Actually, the Church still has to do this sometimes when people start questioning things that have always been believed by the Church—new words or formulations for Catholic belief must be hammered out. And then people will say we’re inventing something new! But if you don’t know the history of Christianity, it’s just too easy to fall into old heresies, like M_Oliver, or to make silly charges.

 

[Image_of_God]

M_Oliver is just recycling that old heresy by Arius. He too taught that Christ was God, just not equal to the Father, and had been created at some point before the rest of creation. In effect Arius and M_Oliver is stating that there is more than One God. So as this contradicted the Church’s teaching from the beginning, it became necessary to develop language to explain what was always believed. Therefore the word “Trinity” came into being along with the completed Nicene creed which we still pray today. But it was a long process that took many, many years and many, many councils to hammer out.

Actually, the Church still has to do this sometimes when people start questioning things that have always been believed by the Church—new words or formulations for Catholic belief must be hammered out. And then people will say we’re inventing something new! But if you don’t know the history of Christianity, it’s just too easy to fall into old heresies, like M_Oliver, or to make silly charges.

Thank you, for the explaination.

 

[tequilamac]

If that were all we know of it, I couldn’t. Neither person nor substance would have any definitions you could work with to either understand the doctrine or assess its coherence.

But that’s not all there is. The list I quoted is straight out of the Athanasian creed, and are accepted as statements a Catholic can make with confidence about the trinity.

If you think the only honest explanation of the trinity is “one God, three persons”, I’d be happy to see you tell me which points on my list are going too far to be supported by trinitarian teaching. If you can’t say things like “Jesus is wholly God”, it’s hard for me to see how a Christian can give any answer to a question, any question, about Jesus or any other person besides “three persons one God.”

For example: “Is the Holy Spirit fully God?”

Answer: “I don’t know, I just know God is three persons and one substance.”

But if you go beyond that, you will end up with precisely the contradictory formula I posed above.

Since it’s in the athanasian creed, I think it’s entirely fair that I use statements beyond “three persons, one substance” to represent the doctrine.

The problem is that the reality with which early Christians were confronted was itself contradictory. They were Jews coming from a religion where any image of God and any suggestion that he was material was blasphemy. Yet, they decided that their leader, a man, was God. The roots are contradictory, and the trinity grew up to reconcile those two opposing beliefs…namely the Jewish invisible God with the belief that Jesus the man was himself God.

Actually it is sad. Because if one cannot accept the Trinity, one also cannot accept the Eucharist. The accidents and the Body and the Blood.
Your one question “Is the Holy Spirit fully God?” put me in mind of this.

There are those these days of plenty who become upset when the wine runs out at Mass and they cannot receive it. They think they have been cheated somehow. Yet, we all know and are taught that the Host itself is fully complete, containing everything we need in each little round wafer we receive. We do not need to recieve the entire wafer consecrated at Mass by the priest plus the wine to receive everything we need. We know we receive fully, wholly, and completely with just a crumb of the Host. Yet, people persist in thinking they have received incompletely if the do not receive under Both Species and an entire Host.

The problem is in faith. The weaker the faith, the more signs, explanations, and literal interpretations one needs. The weaker the faith, the more God is described in material terms. The weaker the faith, the more arguing goes on.

People in my experience who have once been catholic, fervent or not, then leave due to a sudden lack of faith usually:
a. allowed that lack of faith to occur due to a sin little discussed these days called sloth.
b. lose faith the same way in their new religion. Afther the honeymoon is over with the new faith, they begin picking it apart as well, demanding more and more explanations for it until it is gone as well.

Faith in God, no matter whether it be Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam cannot be maintained by a person who suffers from sloth.

Because it is not a fault of God’s therefore a fault of the religion. No.

It is a character fault in the person. Nothing can be done about it until the person himself realizes he is spiritually careless, lazy and sloppy. Then progress can be made. But none of these three religions can be blamed for sloth- because to blame the religion is to blame God. God is never slothful.

 

[Image_of_God]

Actually it is sad. Because if one cannot accept the Trinity, one also cannot accept the Eucharist. The accidents and the Body and the Blood.
Your one question “Is the Holy Spirit fully God?” put me in mind of this.

There are those these days of plenty who become upset when the wine runs out at Mass and they cannot receive it. They think they have been cheated somehow. Yet, we all know and are taught that the Host itself is fully complete, containing everything we need in each little round wafer we receive. We do not need to recieve the entire wafer consecrated at Mass by the priest plus the wine to receive everything we need. We know we receive fully, wholly, and completely with just a crumb of the Host. Yet, people persist in thinking they have received incompletely if the do not receive under Both Species and an entire Host.

The problem is in faith. The weaker the faith, the more signs, explanations, and literal interpretations one needs. The weaker the faith, the more God is described in material terms. The weaker the faith, the more arguing goes on.

People in my experience who have once been catholic, fervent or not, then leave due to a sudden lack of faith usually:
a. allowed that lack of faith to occur due to a sin little discussed these days called sloth.
b. lose faith the same way in their new religion. Afther the honeymoon is over with the new faith, they begin picking it apart as well, demanding more and more explanations for it until it is gone as well.

Faith in God, no matter whether it be Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam cannot be maintained by a person who suffers from sloth.

Because it is not a fault of God’s therefore a fault of the religion. No.

It is a character fault in the person. Nothing can be done about it until the person himself realizes he is spiritually careless, lazy and sloppy. Then progress can be made. But none of these three religions can be blamed for sloth- because to blame the religion is to blame God. God is never slothful.

Great analogy!

 

[M_Oliver]

M_Oliver, I am sorry to say this, but…your post have failed to reason with one another. In an earlier post you said this:

But even earlier than that you said:


You said that Jesus Christ is God. You also said that only the Father is God. You also say that even though the Son is God, he is created, indicating that God is not eternal. You say that even thought Jesus is lower than God, he is not part of the “one God”, but he is still to be worshipped and he still is God.
You say that even thought Jesus is God, there is a time when Jesus, who is God, was not existing.
You also said that nothing could be created without Jesus, but you say that Jesus was created by the Father, even though Scripture said that the Father did no creation activity without his Son.
You said that the Father and the Son are not equal, but you say they are both God, even though one of them was not existing for an eternity. You say they are not equal, yet they are both God, and indicating that God is unequal with himself.

Either you are saying Jesus is God, is equal to his Father, and is to be worhsipped with his Father, and since he is God there was never a time when he did not exist or not. Which is it?

I know how confusing it can be. This is why I said not long ago that although God has allowed me to understand much I am HUMBLED by how much I DO NOT yet understand in Scripture.

This is very difficult to see. Very difficult to put into words. Here is more Scripture to help explain…

He {Christ} was foreknown {by the Father} before the foundation of the world but was made manifest {visible, known} in the last times for your sake, (1 Peter 1:20)

Christ was foreknown {foreseen, KNOWN BEFOREHAND}. He was made visible {known}. Something or SOMEONE had to be first to do that. The Father {God} was. He is superior to Christ.

who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God {the Father}. (1 Peter 1:21)

Christ did not, could not raise Himself from the dead. Something or SOMEONE had to do that. The Father {God} could because He is superior to Christ.

 

[M_Oliver]

M_Oliver is just recycling that old heresy by Arius. He too taught that Christ was God, just not equal to the Father, and had been created at some point before the rest of creation. In effect Arius and M_Oliver is stating that there is more than One God. So as this contradicted the Church’s teaching from the beginning, it became necessary to develop language to explain what was always believed. Therefore the word “Trinity” came into being along with the completed Nicene creed which we still pray today. But it was a long process that took many, many years and many, many councils to hammer out.

Actually, the Church still has to do this sometimes when people start questioning things that have always been believed by the Church—new words or formulations for Catholic belief must be hammered out. And then people will say we’re inventing something new! But if you don’t know the history of Christianity, it’s just too easy to fall into old heresies, like M_Oliver, or to make silly charges.

Wrong. I am not saying there is more than one God. That is a lie.

 

[janryboy]

How I wish all the statements addressed be answered…some points are left hanging without answer by the intended person…

I would be very glad if it could be answered…

 

[Image_of_God]

I know how confusing it can be. This is why I said not long ago that although God has allowed me to understand much I am HUMBLED by how much I DO NOT yet understand in Scripture.

This is very difficult to see. Very difficult to put into words. Here is more Scripture to help explain…

He {Christ} was foreknown {by the Father} before the foundation of the world but was made manifest {visible, known} in the last times for your sake, (1 Peter 1:20)

Christ was foreknown {foreseen, KNOWN BEFOREHAND}. He was made visible {known}. Something or SOMEONE had to be first to do that. The Father {God} was. He is superior to Christ.

who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God {the Father}. (1 Peter 1:21)

Christ did not, could not raise Himself from the dead. Something or SOMEONE had to do that. The Father {God} could because He is superior to Christ.

I will not claim that I do understand Scripture. It is God’s voice and requires supernatural interpretation made manifest for our sake.
Let me continue in this sense, that I will always agree that the Son is obedient to the Father, but I have to say, that God is God. There is no God and another God lower them him. There is one God and three persons in him. John 5:18 clearly states that no one can call Jesus, God’s Son without also making him equal to the Father.

John 5:23
So they may honor the Son, just as the honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.

Once again you misinterpret Scripture, no one who does not call Jesus God, can call the Father God. Just as the above passage indicates, if you say there is a time when the Word did not exist, you say the same about the Father.

John 10:30
The Father and I are one.

This passage above shows they are inseperable. One thing you say about the other you will be saying about the other. And since there was never a time when the Father was nonexistent, neither is there for the Son. This passage most supports the Trinity.

John 10:33
The Jews answered, It is not for a good work we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.

M_Oliver, if you believe that Jesus is God, you must also believe two other things:

There never was a time when God did not exist
God can do anything he wills

John 16:15
All that the Father has is mine

This indicates that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that Jesus and the Father do not share. If Jesus is created, he CANNOT be divine and if you say this, you say also that the Father is not divine. They both share their divinity, and to be divine means to have no beginnig.

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Once again, I will state that there is nothing that the Father has, that Jesus does not have. In the passage above, Jesus says that they may know the Father who is the true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. This could only be one thing, that Jesus and the Father are one in being, but seperate in persons, because Jesus just said they should know the Father has been sent in him.

I will state once again that whatever you say about the Son, you say about the Father, because He and the Father are one. Whoever says there was a time when the Father was not says also that about the Son and viceversa.

 

[Image_of_God]

How I wish all the statements addressed be answered…some points are left hanging without answer by the intended person…

I would be very glad if it could be answered…

What do you mean?

 

[whatevergirl]

What is amazing here is that bpeople are still charitable enough to argue with you. For my own part, when people tell me they are leaving the Church for this and that reason I wish them God Speed and don’t let the door hit them in the bum on the way out.

well, as long as you also hold the door open for them if/when they choose to come back. :=)

when people are leaving the Church…I think we should at least, try to help them to see what they are leaving. I always believe that people who leave the Catholic faith, are probably leaving because they don’t fully understand why we do, what we do. I was one of those Catholics way back when, but thankfully, I researched, studied, prayed, and through getting truly involved in attending mass and following the Sacraments so beautifully offered to us as Catholics, I never left. I was never on the fence or anything, but I feel sad for those who want to leave…we need to be there for those who are lost…like Christ is there when we have lost our ways.

 

[janryboy]

What do you mean?

I mean, as much as possible…pro_universal must answer all the statements/posts…

for me, it means to be on track of evry post intended for him.

but i guess its a bit impossible…too bad.

Im following the thread and I admit I’m learning…in a way that I could deepen my knowledge and wisdom…and be able to defend Mother Church with the help of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Amen.

 

[Image_of_God]

Wrong. I am not saying there is more than one God. That is a lie.

No he is right.

To imply that Jesus is created and that His Father is not is to imply that they are not one, and that they are two different substances.

You said that the Father is God and is not created. You also state that the Son is God and he is created. And by correct reasoning you are saying that one God is created and the other God is not. You also say that they are both God, but unequal.
Do not be decieved, God is not unequal with himself.
Either you admit that Jesus is God and the Father is God and they are equal because they are both God and we know God is not created, or you are saying Jesus is not God at all, which is completely unbiblical.

I am not misunderstanding anything, I have interpreted everything you have presented correctly. The only problem is that your beliefs lack reason. Faith without reason does not come from God.

 

[Image_of_God]

I mean, as much as possible…pro_universal must answer all the statements/posts…

for me, it means to be on track of evry post intended for him.

but i guess its a bit impossible…too bad.

Im following the thread and I admit I’m learning…in a way that I could deepen my knowledge and wisdom…and be able to defend Mother Church with the help of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Amen.

No, I am not trying to get off track. I am clearly trying to prevent pro from believing anything Oliver is typing, because such a belief is unbiblical and lacks reason all together . Pro already has enough problems, and I do not want him to have anymore with what Oliver is typing, but I guess we should get back on track again.

 

[janryboy]

No, I am not trying to get off track. I am clearly trying to prevent pro from believing anything Oliver is typing, because such a belief is unbiblical and lacks reason all together . Pro already has enough problems, and I do not want him to have anymore with what Oliver is typing, but I guess we should get back on track again.

yeah, I get your point. Thanks!