pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The only thing relevant here is deduction. I didn’t make any inductive statements.

Then why do you appear to begin with the particular and move to the universal?

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you’ve basically provided a generalization that accounts for other examples of the same category or class.

In other words, what you’ve provided appears to rely on observation and experimentation to determine not a “certainty” but a “high probablity” – and the knowledge from your statements always appears to be conditional.

If this isn’t a text book definition of the inductive process, I’m not sure what is.

And if you are actually in engaging in deductive methods, then you must realize that this is considered a purely mental process independent of experience.

Deduction can also fairly easily be manipulated by providing or revealing only those elements that will support a given conclusion.

So could you elaborate further on what you’re actually claming that you’re proving in this thread in regards to your claims about God’s qualities when contrasted to our claims in regards to the Trinity?

I’d like to understand your position more clearly.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hello?

I’m still hanging onto your tale and waiting here with you pro.

oops. I guess I spelled tail wrong, didn’t I?

 

[inJESUS]

yea where is Pro? this is a very good thread

 

[pro_universal]

Well, the posts certainly piled up. But what’s not there is a logical explication of any contradictions in my statements. Maybe you think they aren’t useful, but they’re certainly not contradictory. The analytic/synthetic split is meaningless for this discussion. The issue was one of validity, not of the soundness of the premises. But it looks like you want to move on to that.

Then why do you appear to begin with the particular and move to the universal?

Where did I do that? I see no such move. Not even close.

In other words, what you’ve provided appears to rely on observation and experimentation to determine not a “certainty” but a “high probablity” – and the knowledge from your statements always appears to be conditional.

What? I’m really quite confused by this. I have no idea how you got this from my posts. None whatsoever.

Listing the premises of the Athanasian creed and pointing out that they are contradictory is not an exercise in probability. It is:

And if you are actually in engaging in deductive methods, then you must realize that this is considered a purely mental process independent of experience.

Exactly. The words themselves are contradictory; the nature of God and truth out there is not relevant to a discussion about whether or not the trinity is contradictory.

Deduction can also fairly easily be manipulated by providing or revealing only those elements that will support a given conclusion.

How? What did I miss or leave out?

So could you elaborate further on what you’re actually claming that you’re proving in this thread in regards to your claims about God’s qualities when contrasted to our claims in regards to the Trinity?

I’d like to understand your position more clearly.

My position is that a strict one-ness claim about God, as mysterious as it is, is not contradictory. Saying “there is one God” doesn’t really create any problems from a logical perspective.

Beyond that, ideas about God are speculative and need not be contradictory. No problems with that, and if you do encounter a contradiction, it’s easy to iron out.

Claiming that God is three persons, each of whom is the full God, and each of whom is distinct from each other, is contradictory. The problem with the trinity is that it postulates a God whose nature is a contradiction.

 

[inJESUS]

Pro, since you are considering Islam…how do you reconcile Allah, Allah’s word, and Allah’s spirit? are they same One Allah or 3 gods?

 

[pro_universal]

Pro, since you are considering Islam…how do you reconcile Allah, Allah’s word, and Allah’s spirit? are they same One Allah or 3 gods?

I’m not sure what basis there is for even considering them separately in Islam. The spirit and Allah would clearly be the same, not sure why you would conceive of God’s spirit separate from God except to compare it with Christianity.

The word isn’t a problem. Moses was sent the word of God too; they are words that humans can understand. Not much mystery in that, except that God sent them.

 

[inJESUS]

I’m not sure what basis there is for even considering them separately in Islam. The spirit and Allah would clearly be the same, not sure why you would conceive of God’s spirit separate from God except to compare it with Christianity.

so Allah and his spirit are the same entity? is Allah equal to spirit in Islam?

The word isn’t a problem. Moses was sent the word of God too; they are words that humans can understand. Not much mystery in that, except that God sent them

 

[pro_universal]

so Allah and his spirit are the same entity? is Allah equal to spirit in Islam?

 

[inJESUS]

if If God has a spirit, is this spirit God or part of him? if God has words, are these words God or are they part of this entity called God?

If you’re trying to argue that the Quran proves Jesus is God, well…in the first place, the torah is the word of God too. But that’s words on a page, not God himself, right?

I think arguing that the Quran proves Jesus is God is like arguing that the bible proves Jesus didn’t exist. It’s facially absurd.

i asked a simple question. Is it a concidence that Jesus is the Word of Allah in Quran? not a word "from " God, but the Word of God…

 

[pro_universal]

if If God has a spirit, is this spirit God or part of him? if God has words, are these words God or are they part of this entity called God?

If God is one and indivisble, then he has no parts. So his spirit would be identical to him, and as such, would have no relevance except as a matter of language, not God’s nature.

i asked a simple question. Is it a concidence that Jesus is the Word of Allah in Quran? not a word "from " God, but the Word of God…

I don’t know that Jesus is the “word of Allah” in the Quran. Where is it?

 

[inJESUS]

yes His spirit and His word are ONE with Him…but are you telling me that when God utters a word, then this word=God? or is His word One with him yet not exactly Him?

So, again, are Allah’s word, and spirit 3 gods or 1 God? it’s a simple question.

I don’t know that Jesus is the “word of Allah” in the Quran. Where is it?

…The Messiah, 'Isa, son of Maryam, was only the Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Maryam, and a Spirit from Him… (Surat an-Nisa: 171)

 

[pro_universal]

yes His spirit and His word are ONE with Him…but are you telling me that when God utters a word, then this word=God? or is His word One with him yet not exactly Him?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, the posts certainly piled up. But what’s not there is a logical explication of any contradictions in my statements.

It’s been there all along. It’s here now. And it’s coming in more clarity as we move through this thread.

pro:

Maybe you think they aren’t useful, but they’re certainly not contradictory.

Well, for the record, I don’t think they are very useful-- aside from one presenting what one honestly believes, which I will respect. But I’ve been clear about this since the beginning. In fact, I’ve been challenging you to go beyond these mere statements of faith for a long time now.

pro:

The analytic/synthetic split is meaningless for this discussion.

No. This kind of discussion is meaningless if one doesn’t expand upon their statements to explain the practical value of why the believe what they believe.

And furthermore, making statements about one’s faith, and refusing to allow anyone to examine them further beyond their own pre-defined defintion, doesn’t really impress anybody.

We already know what you believe.

What we’re trying to get to is why you believe what you believe.

We’ve all been clear about this from the beginning.

And when we repeatedly ask you why you beleive what you beleive, and you persistently demand that we accept the statements you provide at face value without questioning them, it does come across as if you’re simply avoiding discussing the ideas further than you’d like to discuss them.

pro:

The issue was one of validity, not of the soundness of the premises.

Take a very good look at what I posted in this thread pro.

Do you see that thread?

Now if you undertand all the aspects of logic, then I have to ask you if that post really, honestly, and truly appeared to you as I were only invoking the validity of your statements and not the soundness of the premises?

Seriously. Think about what I’m asking you for.

I also gave you well reasoned responses as follows here, here, and here in regards to your claims that the Trinity could not be understood in some other way than as a contradiction.

However, when you responsed, you essentially refused to listen to what I (or anyone else for that matter) interjected so that you could understand it better.

In short, it appeared very much to me that we were presenting synthetic statements to you in regards to the Trinity, and you were insisting that they be treated as analytic statements, insisting on the most literal reading possible in order to claim that they were contradictory.

Likewise, it appeared very much to me that we were attempting to move your analytic statements more toward the region of the synthetic statements so we could all examine you claims further, and you were insisting that they be treated as analytic statements, insisting that they be understood only within the pre-defined arrangement you allowed in order to claim that they were non-contradictory.

But that doesn’t prove anything pro. And you know that.

pro:

But it looks like you want to move on to that.

Yes. I’ve been wanting to move on to this for some time now.

pro:

Where did I do that? I see no such move. Not even close.

See my explanation above.

pro:

What? I’m really quite confused by this. I have no idea how you got this from my posts. None whatsoever.

See my explanation above.

Now let’s move on to your conclusions regarding the statements within the Athanasian Creed and contrast them to your conclusions regarding your pre-defined statements about God…

continued…

 

[apple72]

the mystery of the Blessed Trinity as the word says will never be comprehended by the human mind. how can you contextualize a Being that is Divine and in our own weaknesses and limitations of the human mind can only take so much. it is like placing an ocean in a glass. we only understand and grasp glimpses of God’s essence in its purest form. it is not a contradiction of the doctrines but rather it is a paradox. when you read the old testament and the new testament this is very evident. the classic example of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” which is the law of the old testament. but in the new testament Jesus’ commandment is “to love God with all your heart,mind, and soul, and to love thy neighbor as thyself.” now the reason for this is that Jesus is the Savior He came not for peace (man-made) but He came to set order and right what we as human beings have wronged. from adam and eve being driven out of paradise. all of a sudden all of that was obliterated by Jesus as the Word Incarnate and the Savior of us all. With the Holy Spirit leading and Enlightening the Church. Now this the time of the Holy Spirit in unifying us all catholics and non-catholics this is the Holy Spirit’s time to make us aware and guide us just as the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and the Blessed Mother.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Listing the premises of the Athanasian creed and pointing out that they are contradictory is not an exercise in probability. It is:
Mr. Ex:

And if you are actually in engaging in deductive methods, then you must realize that this is considered a purely mental process independent of experience.

Exactly. The words themselves are contradictory; the nature of God and truth out there is not relevant to a discussion about whether or not the trinity is contradictory.

But that’s exactly what you are claming when you say something like this…

pro:

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.

…because if this logic you’re employing enables you to reject the Trinity, then this very same logic will also eventually enable you to reject God altogther.

Consequently, when you become disillusioned with Islam (and it is inevitable that you will become disillusioned with Islam eventually), there will really be nothing left, perhaps aside from Deism, to stop you from falling into agnosticism and then perhaps even atheism.

If you think I’m trying to argue with you about Christianiy vs. Islam, you’re wrong pro. I’ve made no qualms about my own Catholic faith and why I feel it is superior to all other Christian denominations. But I’ve also gone on record here many times saying that Islam is a noble and peaceful religion when practiced honorably.

I’ve earned the scorn and ridicule of a few fellow Catholics here when I said this. So I can kind of identify with your position-- at least a little bit. But I’m really not interested in trying to prove the superiority of Catholicism to Islam in this thread.

My main point is that the logical proceses you are using to deny the Trinity are going to likewise take you away from God himself. You can claim that the sliperry slope argument is a logical fallacy if you want.

But, since you haven’t really accepted Islam yet, and since you haven’t really applied the same logical processes toward the Islamic claims yet, I think it does stand to reason that you are going down the wrong path if you don’t start to open your heart to the Spirit of God and stop trying to fit everything regarding faith within a non-contradictory sentence about God.
Mr. Ex:

Deduction can also fairly easily be manipulated by providing or revealing only those elements that will support a given conclusion.

pro:

How? What did I miss or leave out?

The more important question that needs to be asked is what didn’t you leave you out when it came to the Trinity that you won’t eventually not leave out about God himself.

And this is exactly why I’ve said that deduction can also fairly easily be manipulated by providing or revealing only those elements that will support a given conclusion.

The entire basis of why you’ve rejected the Trinity can (and will) eventually judge your own faith in God not because of what you claim God can do-- but specifically because you’ve placed logical constraints on what you believe God can and cannot do.

As a Catholic, I may not always agree with the Reformers on all things they proclaim. And yet, even despite the differences between us and them, I still nonetheless more often than not come across some real golden nuggets of theology when I skim their writings.

For example, the Swiss Reformed Church theologian Emil Brunner was once quoted as saying the …

…most important we know about God is that we know nothing about him except what he himself makes known.

Now I may not agree with all of Brunner’s conclusions as to exactly what God has made known to man. In fact, I’m sure there’s areas where we disagree. But on this part here I do actually agree with him.

More often than not, when a new religious movement starts up, unlike the initial beginnings of the Catholicism, it seems to be starting from a position of doubt. A lot of Protestantism, in my opinion, has started from this very place. And I think that Islam is much like Protestantism in this regard.

No doubt we all have to ask ourselves some hard questions one in a while. In fact, I don’t think people really have a mature faith in God if they never dare question their faith.

I guess instead of asking you why you won’t return to the Catholic faith, or why you no longer believe in the Catholic faith, I’ll instead turn this entire thread around on its head and ask…

Why don’t you just embrace Islam and become a Muslim?

 

[inJESUS]

so God’s word is created or uncreated?

One that I already answered. There is no division between Allah’s Spirit and God. They aren’t two different things.

So Allah and his spirit are one thing which means Allah is a spirit?

God’s word is just that, his word. If God’s word has to be somehow God, then you’d have to claim that the stone tablets Moses received were also God.

nop, am asking a simple question. Did God ever exist without a word? no…so God’s word is eternal with God, yet not God. But anything having the same adjectives/attributes that only God has is by definition God.

This is a contrived idea to try and create some kind of “threeness” in the Islamic conception of God that doesn’t exist

. well if Allah has a word and has a spirit, it’s my right to ask if they created or uncreated

Okay, well that quote settles it pretty clearly doesn’t it? “only the messenger of Allah and his word” makes it clear.

yes it makes it clear that Jesus is the word of Allah created or uncreated?

 

[Doggy]

you fail to explain…you only complain. The Catholic Church is full of complainers…does not affect the divine nature of Jesus’ Church. As a complainer, you show your ignorance. Try it again, read some good books…what have you to lose?

peace

Many of us who left the catholic church left it because it has too many hypocritical teachings…on one hand its leaders say to love you enemies and yet they torture “heretics(aka protestants)”,burn them to the stake,commit gross immoralities (does the sex scandals where altar boys are raped come to mind?), forge documents to get their way (the forgery where it was alleged that constantine donated property but was proven to be a forgery in the late 14th century) and started wars just for the spite of it…also the popes were also one of the most immoral people on the planet that history has ever seen…I don’t even need to explain further…just read the history of the popes and roman catholicism you will find many actions there which led europe to the dark ages until the late 16th century

 

[pro_universal]

Alright, so we’re completely past claiming that my statements about God are contradictory, right? If not, then please list that logical analysis you’ve been claiming you were going to list for several pages now.

I have to reiterate, your use of the idea of the analytic/synthetic in language belies a near complete misunderstanding of the idea. Every single statement here except arguably my examples about the triangle having three angles was synthetic; so is every one you make. Synthetic statements, if they mean anything at all, have logical operators and form arguments that can be understood.

…because if this logic you’re employing enables you to reject the Trinity, then this very same logic will also eventually enable you to reject God altogther.

Okay, how is that? I’m using basic rules of inference to show that the various teachings on the trinity contradict each other. It’s not some special recipe logic; it’s the same rules you’d use for any exercise in reasoning.

There is absolutely no “universal logical proof” that says there is no God. Nothing of the sort, so I don’t know what your claim is here.

Consequently, when you become disillusioned with Islam (and it is inevitable that you will become disillusioned with Islam eventually), there will really be nothing left, perhaps aside from Deism, to stop you from falling into agnosticism and then perhaps even atheism.

Is this inevitable because you say so, or is there some kind of logical theory, or a “range of values” that’s going to show this?

It may be that the more I learn, the more I’m impressed and I become convinced that I should’ve always been Muslim. I see no basis for this assertion of yours.

The more important question that needs to be asked is what didn’t you leave you out when it came to the Trinity that you won’t eventually not leave out about God himself.

Again, there are inconsistent statements about God, and consistent ones.

The entire basis of why you’ve rejected the Trinity can (and will) eventually judge your own faith in God not because of what you claim God can do-- but specifically because you’ve placed logical constraints on what you believe God can and cannot do.

No, I haven’t. What I have done is recognized the folly of renaming limits into “powers” and then claiming that God must be able to do all those things. Making the mistake of categorizing something that is in fact a limitation on ones abilities as a “power” will surely lead you into an incoherent vision of an all powerful God.

And I think that Islam is much like Protestantism in this regard.

Catholicism was once a brand new religion too.

Why don’t you just embrace Islam and become a Muslim?

I don’t know it well enough nor am I sure enough about my own beliefs to say that I’m 100 percent convinced it’s the truth. But it certainly does contain many true teachings, and that’s an incentive to keep learning.

 

[pro_universal]

so God’s word is created or uncreated?

The thought was certainly uncreated, but the material in which the thought is revealed is clearly created. I think you’re having trouble distinguishing between the message and the medium.

So Allah and his spirit are one thing which means Allah is a spirit?

No, it means saying “Allah’s spirit” as if it’s some part of God or a division between “God” and “God’s spirit” doesn’t make any sense. God is what he is; naming different parts doesn’t mean there are actually different parts to God.

nop, am asking a simple question. Did God ever exist without a word? no…so God’s word is eternal with God, yet not God. But anything having the same adjectives/attributes that only God has is by definition God.

Again, you’re confusing the message with the medium. Presumably this is a contrived attempt to make it look like there’s some kind of logical necessity in Christianity, but that’s certainly not the case.

There is no need that a thought in the mind of God be “not God.” That’s presuming a split between thinker and thought that simply isn’t justified.

. well if Allah has a word and has a spirit, it’s my right to ask if they created or uncreated

Who says that God has a “spirit” that is separate from himself?

yes it makes it clear that Jesus is the word of Allah created or uncreated?

That’s not what I see. It says clearly that Jesus is a messenger of the word…hence, created. The ideas that God had for humanity always existed, but through a created medium (the sounds that Jesus made to communicate his teaching), the words were expressed.

Hence, the creation delivers the message. That’s the way to look at it, not “Jesus is uncreated.”

 

[eleonardo]

Mr. Pro_Universal,

I have a question.
Why do you spend so much time arguing for the sake of arguing. This is what it seems sometimes. Logic this, logic that. It doesn’t matter how much you try to prove the trinity is illogical or logical. In the end it’s a matter of belief.
As I see it, you carry a warm heart towards Islam and you seem very interested in it. Why don’t you spend more time focusing on learning more about it instead of trying to convince the others here that their belief is illogical.
What I’m trying to say is, why not put your time to a more positive use.
Pax tecum!