pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[pro_universal]

Also Thomas said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God”. Jesus was both Man and God.

Hence the obvious contradictions in the trinity.

Man=by nature, limited.

God=by nature, unlimited.

Jesus was both [limited] and [unlimited], but still one person and one God.

The only thing more puzzling than the teaching is the fact that people refuse to recognize the obvious problems with it.

 

[thistle]

Hence the obvious contradictions in the trinity.

Man=by nature, limited.

God=by nature, unlimited.

Jesus was both [limited] and [unlimited], but still one person and one God.

The only thing more puzzling than the teaching is the fact that people refuse to recognize the obvious problems with it.

I’m not surprised you left the Church. You obviously have no clue about anything and never bothered to learn. Good luck with the Muslims. The only thing you have to learn there is how to kill!

 

[LilyM]

Hence the obvious contradictions in the trinity.

Man=by nature, limited.

God=by nature, unlimited.

Jesus was both [limited] and [unlimited], but still one person and one God.

The only thing more puzzling than the teaching is the fact that people refuse to recognize the obvious problems with it.

But don’t we (you and Muslims included perhaps, pro-universal) belive that MAN is by nature both limited (by the constraints of his physical body and existence) and unlimited (having a spirit/soul/mind with potentially unlimited powers and continued existence outside/beyond physical death)??

Don’t you, pro-universal, comprise of both a limited body and a possibly/potentially unlimited mind, spirit or soul? And aren’t both of those things facets of the one same person, the one pro-universal? There’s no real contradiction here unless you choose to make one as Descartes did with his dualist theory.

 

[pro_universal]

But don’t we (you included perhaps, pro-universal) belive that MAN is by nature both limited (by the constraints of his physical body and existence) and unlimited (having a spirit/soul/mind with potentially unlimited powers and continued existence outside/beyond physical death)??

There’s no real contradiction here.

No, we don’t conclude that. A man’s soul is not unlimited. Even by nature. If it were unlimited, then it would be impossible to confine one soul to one body, since confinement is itself a limit.

Descartes theory was that there was an immaterial soul and a material body. You pretty much summed up his notion of mind/body dualism in the above paragraph, yet you curiously label it “a contradiction.”

 

[pro_universal]

I’m not surprised you left the Church. You obviously have no clue about anything and never bothered to learn. Good luck with the Muslims. The only thing you have to learn there is how to kill!

Apparently you’re so well informed that you aren’t able to comment on the substance of the issue. It would just be beyond you to say something constructive, I guess.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, many very intelligent people have not found any problem with it. They recognize the importance of the Incarnation. It is based on God’s love for us and desire that we live with him forever in love. This is an alien concept in Islam where God is master and humans are slaves. In that context Incarnate love is incomprehensible. But the problem isn’t in the doctrine of Christianity, but in the doctrine of Islam. How does one explain God’s love to someone who denies that God is love?

 

[pro_universal]

pro, many very intelligent people have not found any problem with it.

Name one such person who has shown that it isn’t contradictory. The most intelligent people to have taken up the topic with the specific mission of elaborating the doctrine (Augustine and Aquinas) both concluded that it is only a matter of faith, and that the rational mind can’t solve the puzzle.

i.e., if you’re using your power of reason, it is a contradiction. If you suspend reason, then you can ignore that and believe in it anyway.

They recognize the importance of the Incarnation. It is based on God’s love for us and desire that we live with him forever in love. This is an alien concept in Islam where God is master and humans are slaves. In that context Incarnate love is incomprehensible. But the problem isn’t in the doctrine of Christianity, but in the doctrine of Islam. How does one explain God’s love to someone who denies that God is love?

How does one speak God’s love out one side of his mouth, and speak of using nuclear weapons to kill millions of people outside the other?

I would say love is alien to that person too, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[cestusdei]

While reason cannot explain everything the Incarnation is not unreasonable. Islam is unreasonable. It mandates stonings and beheadings even to this day. How loving. And the next nukes you see used will be by Muslims against the innocent. They don’t mind bombing innocent people one bit. It doesn’t seem to bother you either. As long as it’s us kaffir.

 

[pro_universal]

While reason cannot explain everything the Incarnation is not unreasonable. Islam is unreasonable. It mandates stonings and beheadings even to this day. How loving. And the next nukes you see used will be by Muslims against the innocent. They don’t mind bombing innocent people one bit. It doesn’t seem to bother you either. As long as it’s us kaffir.

Oh yes, reason cannot explain it, but it’s not unreasonable.

Hmmm…unreasonable, what’s that mean? “not capable of being reasoned; not available to reason.”

“Reason cannot explain it” is different from that how?

The only person I’ve seen advocate the use of nukes on this forum is you, cestusdei. Doesn’t that bother you?

 

[cestusdei]

If you don’t understand it you can always go to the catechism. God chose to become a man. He can do that since he is God. His reasons are no doubt beyond you at this point.

The President of Iran is developing nukes and intends to use them. That doesn’t bother you. Nor does enslaved Christian children being crucified. Remember the Sudanese boy? Probably not. But you should. Rethink who the bad guys are.

 

[pro_universal]

If you don’t understand it you can always go to the catechism. God chose to become a man. He can do that since he is God. His reasons are no doubt beyond you at this point.

Woah, you’re going to a discussion of why God did such and such.

This hasn’t even reached that level. The very expression, “God is both God and not God” is a contradiction. In fact, it’s a textbook case of a contradiction.

Surely in all your years of education you took basic formal logic. Take a crack at the trinity sometime and see if you can elaborate the Athanasian creed without contradiction.

No one else has done it.

The President of Iran is developing nukes and intends to use them. That doesn’t bother you. Nor does enslaved Christian children being crucified. Remember the Sudanese boy? Probably not. But you should. Rethink who the bad guys are.

How about you let me speak for my views?

 

[murtad]

This is unfair and untrue.

Hmm… So, only when you criticise the Catholic Church it is fair and true but when we criticise you, it becomes unfair and untrue. That’s typically Muslim behaviour!

Saying that Muhammad only brought evil is certainly offensive (true or not, you can’t doubt that this is an offensive way to make a point), and also untrue.

Can you name one good thing that Muhammad brought? I doubt you can as all he brought was racism – Arab cultural genocide towards Coptics, Syriacs, Nubians and Berbers. Islam in its orthodox form (under the rightly-guided caliphs) was an Arab cult aimed to destroy other cultures and force everyone to become Arabs! Even today, Arabs in Egypt practise apartheid towards Copts.

You’ll note that there isn’t much discussion of legitimate, reasoned criticisms of Islam here…because every such thread turns into a “Muhammad is evil” extravaganza.

Can you give us your definition of legitimate, reasoned criticism? I hope your definition is rational and not just another way of apologising for Islam.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro_universal, could you give me a non-contradictory definition of God?

I ask because I’ve yet to hear one that is not contradictory, and yet many people who believe in God, including you and me, seem to have no problem rationally believing in God notwithstanding any contradictory charateristics that God himself might possess.

For example, technically speaking, God has no origin. He has been around forever without beginning. And yet, nothingness, according to some, also has no origin. In their opinion, since nothingness was never actually created, it too apparently has no beginning.

Bearing these similar origins in mind, how does one differentiate between God and nothingness?

PS: One might note that these kinds of questions are more than philosophical musings because they are actually quite relevant within theological circles pertaining to the origins of our universe (see Steady State vs. Big Bang cosmologies for example).

Other philosophical/theological applications of questions like this also pertain to the nature of time itself. For example, the past, present and future all overlap each other and co-exist with each other to varying degrees. All are considered aspects of time, but each aspect of time brings with it a particular 4-dimensional reference point by which temporal events are experienced.

 

[pro_universal]

pro_universal, could you give me a non-contradictory definition of God?

I can’t define God, but I can say things about him that are not contradictory.

For example: God is all powerful and all Knowing.

God is immaterial

God is merciful

God is good.

None of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

I ask because I’ve yet to hear one that is not contradictory, and yet many people who believe in God, including you and me, seem to have no problem rationally believing in God notwithstanding any contradictory charateristics that God himself might possess.

I just gave you one. Here’s a more simple way, perhaps more what you are asking for:

“God is eternal and unlimited.” No contradiction.

For example, technically speaking, God has no origin. He has been around forever without beginning. And yet, nothingness, according to some, also has no origin. In their opinion, since nothingness was never actually created, it too apparently has no beginning.

This is not an example of a contradiction.

If one guy says God has no origin, and a different guy says “Yes, God had an origin”, what you have is a disagreement, but neither party contradicts himself.

PS: One might note that these kinds of questions are more than philosophical musings because they are actually quite relevant within theological circles pertaining to the origins of our universe (see Steady State vs. Big Bang cosmologies for example).

I agree, i take them seriously.

Other philosophical/theological applications of questions like this also pertain to the nature of time itself. For example, the past, present and future all overlap each other and co-exist with each other to varying degrees. All are considered aspects of time, but each aspect of time brings with it a particular 4-dimensional reference point by which temporal events are experienced.

This has to do with our experience and understanding of time. But it does not contradict anything about our simple claims for God above.

In short, there is no contradiction above in what I posted or in your questions. It is certainly possible to say things about God without falling into contradiction.

 

[inJESUS]

still with Pro-Islam and his insistence on contradiction where there is none?

ok forget it all and reflect: can God do it yes or no?

when you answer, then think of the how. But as a Muslim, he will always see a contradiction. Strange how non-Muslim donn’t see a contradiction but Muslims do.

regarding trinity, i already gave the example of 3D picture. If a 3D picture is a contradiction to him, then what can one say?

he keeps asking the same questions because he doesnt want the answer cuz he’s a Muslim.

I wonder how many can still buy it he was Christian. The guy smells of Islam. We only need to read him saying the Bible is corrupt, and Jesus was only a messenger to only Israel and that the paraclete meant muhammad .

 

[Balance]

I’m not surprised you left the Church. You obviously have no clue about anything and never bothered to learn. Good luck with the Muslims. The only thing you have to learn there is how to kill!

Would this be what pro_u was referring too under point 4? About the behaviour of Catholics being less than Christ like?

 

[pro_universal]

still with Pro-Islam and his insistence on contradiction where there is none?

ok forget it all and reflect: can God do it yes or no?

when you answer, then think of the how. But as a Muslim, he will always see a contradiction. Strange how non-Muslim donn’t see a contradiction but Muslims do.

regarding trinity, i already gave the example of 3D picture. If a 3D picture is a contradiction to him, then what can one say?

he keeps asking the same questions because he doesnt want the answer cuz he’s a Muslim.

I wonder how many can still buy it he was Christian. The guy smells of Islam. We only need to read him saying the Bible is corrupt, and Jesus was only a messenger to only Israel and that the paraclete meant muhammad .

A 3D picture is entirely inadequate to explain the trinity. The reason you have to turn to analogies in the first place is that you realize it’s not possible to stick to the language of the trinity and say anything that make sense.

Analogies do not prove or disprove contradictions. That’s pretty basic, so if you want to get beyond that and show me a version of the trinity that isn’t contradictory…be my guest.

I’ll warn you though, you won’t be able to do it without rejecting the Athanasian creed.

 

[inJESUS]

A 3D picture is entirely inadequate to explain the trinity. The reason you have to turn to analogies in the first place is that you realize it’s not possible to stick to the language of the trinity and say anything that make sense.

Analogies do not prove or disprove contradictions. That’s pretty basic, so if you want to get beyond that and show me a version of the trinity that isn’t contradictory…be my guest.

I’ll warn you though, you won’t be able to do it without rejecting the Athanasian creed.

why inadequate?

 

[pro_universal]

why inadequate?

Because a 3D image concerns ink and paper.

The trinity concerns the substance of God, the nature of man, and the definition of “person.”

That’s why.

If the trinity is like an image, then what you’re saying is that there aren’t really three persons…there just appear to be three persons to our vision. That negates the trinity.

In a 3D image, that is the case…the image isn’t really coming off the paper, it just looks that way to us. That’s why it’s a terrible example of the trinity; it’s a form of illusion, where the underlying item has no distinctions at all.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

"pro_universal:

In short, there is no contradiction above in what I posted or in your questions. It is certainly possible to say things about God without falling into contradiction.

Hold on a moment there. Let’s back up a little bit.

I can’t define God, but I can say things about him that are not contradictory.

Actually, you are defining God when you say things about him.

And, for the record, the things you say about him do not say much yet.

Now let’s go through your list below…

pro_universal:

For example: God is all powerful and all Knowing.

Define ‘all powerful’.

For example, does ‘all powerful’ mean that God can do anything? Or can God only do anything he wants to do? Can God only do things which are good? Can God, as the old proverbial question asks, create a stone so heavy that even he cannot pick it up?

Define ‘all knowing’.

For example, does ‘all knowing’ mean that God simultaniously know all things that ever happened, happen, and will happen from all different perspectives in time? Does God know his own past, present and future? Can God go back and change something that he has already done? Can God actually change his mind if he already knows his own future? Can God actually make a choice?

pro_universal:

God is immaterial

Define ‘immaterial’.

For example, does this mean that God does not have any substance? Does this mean that God is purely spirit? If so, what is spirit? And if there is no adequate definition of spirit available (or God does not actually exist in spirit), does this mean that God does not actually exist? If not, then how does God exist?

pro_universal:

God is merciful

Define ‘merciful’.

For example, does this mean God is just and will bring judgment fairly? Does this mean that God will forgive all people with superabundant mercy regardless of what they do? How does God manifest his mercy? Could God reasonably decide to forgive someone who doesn’t deserves forgiveness just because he is merciful? Is God accountable to anyone when distributing his mercy?

pro_universal:

God is good.

Define ‘good’.

For example, if God is good, can God think about evil? Would God thinking about evil make a part of God’s mind evil? Likewise, how can God know if something were evil since he is good? Does God know that evil exists? If so, how does God know evil exists since he is good?

pro_universal:

None of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

Yes. They most certainly do-- all of them I might add.

For example, if God is all powerful, then this means he can do anything.

But since God is all knowing, this means he can’t be all powerful. Because if God was all powerful, then he would also be able to not know something.

Consequently, God apparently doesn’t know all things anyway. Because if God did know all things, then he would also know of a way to be material as well as immaterial. Consequently, since God apparently can’t become material, he’s apparently again not all powerful either.

Nonetheless, this brings us to mercy. Now since God is immaterial, does this mean his mercy is** immaterial** as well? And if his mercy is not immaterial, then how does God actually manifest his mercy within his creation? If God is all powerful, can he arbitrarilly withhold his mercy and not be held accountable to anyone?

Since God is good, it is clear that he will manifest his mercy somehow. But if God is also immaterial, how does he actually manifest his good in his creation? Likewise, if it is being claimed that God is good, then he apparently can’t do evil-- which is yet another limitation which again proves he’s not all powerful. If God became material would this be considered evil?