Stoicism and Mental Struggles hi

[Wesrock]

Christianity’s flaw is that you have to please someone. We should do good things because in reality they make the world a better place, not to please someone.

No, Christianity is about being your most fulfilling self. Your posting is littered with anthropomorphic characterizations of God.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Uh, so is the bible? I’m not misrepresenting Christianity. What am I missing here? That’s not the way I see God. But, I do interpret that Christianity sees him that way!!

 

[Psalm30]

Padre Pio. He was pretty much a hard liner about dress, behavior, etc. I don’t think he was very understanding towards women at all. I’m open to being wrong or making assumptions about him. He comes off as a bit of a woman hater from the words I’ve read. I could see him telling a wife to do this or that in order to keep their fragile husbands on the right path. He seems the type. More rebellious talk from me. It’s my flaw.

I don’t know enough about him to comment. But I’d like to think the perception of him you describe isn’t how he really was.

By the way, I really don’t think you’re “rebellious“ or that you have a “flaw.” I do think you need help dealing with your anxiety.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

If Christianity was just about that, we’d all be Stoics, wouldn’t we? I can be my best self by focusing on the greater good and not being ruled by emotions for discernment. Christianity is full of emotional arguments over actual evidence. Reject the Resurrection? You’ll have very, very bad things happen to you for needing better evidence. I could go on. I mean, I’m not a total atheist, but I’m a reluctant and skeptical believer in God and his church.

 

[Limoncello4021]

I don’t think this thread is going anywhere at all. We understand that you are upset with the perceived “rules” of Christianity, OP. There’s nothing anyone can say in your bitter mood to argue the point with you. You won’t convince Christians here about your issues with Christianity, and we won’t convince you about our beliefs. I hope you get the help you need and even more I hope you find peace in your spiritual search.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

It probably isn’t. I was originally here to talk about Stoicism, which is allowed. Everyone else asked questions that took it in many other directions and further tangents. I mean, it is what it is. If that bothers anyone, my apologies. I respect others journeys, beliefs, and convictions. But, I’m just expressing my experiences and interpretations. I’m not claiming to be right about any of it. I’m flawed. Peace to you.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Sorry all, as usual I’m just offending everyone by being skeptical. Stay confident in your own faith and do not be troubled by me. I can’t destroy anyones truth or faith with my misinterpretations and mistakes. God will sort it all out eventually. I’m in a forum titled Non-Catholic Religions, but I get criticized for saying non-catholic things? That’s perfectly sensible!

 

[Wesrock]

Uh, so is the bible? I’m not misrepresenting Christianity. What am I missing here? That’s not the way I see God. But, I do interpret that Christianity sees him that way!!

Catholicism does not. Catholicism teaches that God in his divinity is immutable, eternal, and without passible emotions. He does not think like we do, for he doesn’t move from thought to thought in any type of sequence. While we talk of a Fatherly relationship, he is not a white bearded sky daddy like Zeus or Odin. He has no divine body or parts at all nor is his divinity localizable (as in, existing in a place).

You’re missing quite a lot, really.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Percieved rules? I didn’t make up the rules and I’m not the only one who has trouble with the interpretations and applications to their own lives. It’s always the person not having a correct understanding, never a confusing rule? I think God understands me perfectly. Humans can only do what humans do. Mess up, misjudge, misinterpret, and make assumptions. I don’t blame the entire Church, but it’s pretty easy for those who need refuge the most to be very misunderstood and chastised for their confusion. I’m not just making it up out of thin air. Their are judgemental people heavily representing the church and are in it’s leadership. If it were all full of Bishop Barron’s I might be kinder. I cherish those within the church who do not behave this way. Maybe, I just haven’t come to know many of them?

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Look, I dont see Biblical descriptions of God and theological/intellectual descriptors of God to be very compatible. I know you are aware of the mad, punishing, jealous God who exists in scripture? We ignore him for a reason, but it is part of who God is, according to many branches of Christianity. Is it not?? How is that not anthropomorphic type of personality?

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Jesus was human. You’re confusing me, sorry. He did confine himself to a human body, and at least temporarily some of the boundaries of it. And, God has many emotions throughout the bible. What are you trying to tell me?? Catholicism and Christianity say alot of seemingly contradictory things about God. Smarter people have sorted it out in their own minds. It’s still continually confusing because the goal post seems to dance around in circles and never stops. Any suggestions on some material to read?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Jesus was human

Yes Jesus as human, but the Second Person of the Trinity had two natures, not one mixed. The Divine nature is absolutely simple, not composed of parts. But the human nature that the Divine Son assumed is seperate nature and soul and will, united in the Person of the Son not in the divine nature. Hence, why at time Christ is hungry or needing rest. But then at other times, Jesus knows all things and the hearts of man, can walk on water and control the elements.

He did confine himself to a human body, and at least temporarily some of the boundaries of it.

The Person of the Son not the divine nature. The Divine nature of the Second Person of the Trinity cannot be bound. It wasn’t some sort of mixture or new nature, divine/human. The Son exists in two natures, divine and human, not mixed or combined, separate and yet not distinct in the sense of person-hood.

God has many emotions throughout the bible.

God has what we as humans describe as emotions. But fall short in our descriptions. Remember, the Scriptures are written by human authors, moved along by the Holy Spirit, but those same authors were free to express their descriptions about God in Scripture. Describing God as angry or sad and so on is just the way that we can describe Him in human terms, for that is all we know. But biblically, God is simple, meaning that His attributes don’t compose Him. It’s not like God’s attributes together compose the being that is called God, for that would be contradictory to God being the First Efficient Cause. He must not be composed of parts but absolutely simple. It is hard to comprehend for we are composed of parts. But, God is His attributes, and His attributes are His essence, and His essence is His existence. There is no differentiating them.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Any suggestions on some material to read?

Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig is great for starters. And I also recommend the Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft for a annotated walk through St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. But other than that, i have always thought reading St. Augustine to be beneficial and enlightening. As well as St. Athanasius’s work On the Incarnation

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Look it’s frustrating for God to be describe as simple, but it takes a doctorate in theology or philosophy to interpret how that’s so. Does anyone not see that as ridiculous? Why is life so absurd??? It’s always interesting to read through, but you laugh at how much effort it’s taking to understand something that shouldn’t be this frustrating!! And, I’ve never heard anyone say the Old Testament was wrong in how it described God, but according to your description it a glaringly bad error. I’ve never heard anyone tell me to ignore how God is described in the OT? I’ve done so based on my own feelings.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

It doesn’t take a doctorate though. It just takes some logic. For example, if God is composed of parts, who put those parts together? But that would mean then that God isn’t God, and then there is another Being who put His parts together, therefore that thing is God, but then that leads to an infinite regress if there is no simple being. And if there is an infinite regress, there is no First Cause that started it all, therefore no second cause, then no third, and so on. So there must be a First Cause that is absolutely simple and not composed of parts.
It doesn’t take a degree and its not ridiculous. Calling it that is honestly offensive. And no one is laughing. But no one has ever said taht understanding the deep things of God would be easy…if they did they lied. God is infinite, we are finite. Therefore, we will never be able to understand everything about Him, but will spend forever learning more and more about Him.
For example: explain how a just and lawful God could send His only innocent Son to die for lawbreakers? How much grace is that? And how hard is that to understand?

 

[Knightswhosayni]

God can do whatever he wants. Why should one assume God can’t divide and reassemble himself? Why not? God changing may not be equivalent to how we change. He could change and be the same all at once? Why or why not?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

And, I’ve never heard anyone say the Old Testament was wrong in how it described God, but according to your description it a glaringly bad error. I’ve never heard anyone tell me to ignore how God is described in the OT? I’ve done so based on my own feelings.

I didn’t say it was wrong. I said it was a human attempt to describe the Divine. In the end it will fail, but it gives us an idea. I’d recommend researching on Catholic Answers about God’s attributes and how that all works. It will probably be better written than I could.
But an example of describing the Divine: describe that which is eternal? and don’t use human term but divine term please…oh wait…you can’t. We can only describe in ways that we understand. Therefore, since we are human and not divine, our descriptions will fall short of what God is actually is. But that doesn’t mean their wrong. Just means that we must humble ourselves and know that we will not have all the answers about God. And that is something that we should take solace in. For a god that was easy to get would be no god but a human invention.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Who makes up these rules? Parts is a human concept isn’t it? God could do something entirely different and indescribable. You can make up any nonsense and define it logic.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

I’m fine with not understanding every aspect of God. I have a problem with humans acting as if they’ve got it all figured out and logically know something they probably don’t. Other logical possibilities are probable. Even if they seem impossible. It is ridiculous, truly. It’s a nice try, but not any less confusing.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

God can do whatever he wants. Why should one assume God can divide and reassemble himself? Why not? God changing may not be equivalent to how we change. He could change and be the same all at once? Why or why not?

Well first, God cannot change. For if God could change, that would mean He is temporal and not timeless, denying God’s perfection, and if God is not perfect, then He is not God.

He could change and be the same all at once? Why or why not?

This is a logical contradiction. That which changes is no longer the same. That is just deductive reasoning. And if God is logic, or I should say, if God is His Logic, then He can’t do that which is a logical contradiction, such as create a square circle or an unmarried bachelor. Therefore, God can’t be said to have changed and stayed the same. That is contradictory, therefore going against the nature of God.
Lastly, my questions would be, If God is the sum total of all His attributes, essence, and existence 1st.) Which comes first? 2nd.) Wouldn’t that mean if those parts were not combined that God would no longer be God but parts of God? If those parts are just parts, and things by nature are not united, then wouldn’t something else need to unite them together?