Ask a Catholic

[Esquilax]

Is the posting of scripture the problem? And is this true even if the question is specifically about scripture or best answered by the Word of God?

Please advise. Thanks.

Hey look, I have a hat too!

And now it is on.

Randy, you are allowed to post scripture. You are even allowed to post large tracts of scripture. What you are not allowed to do, is let that be the end of it. We are a discussion forum, geared toward discussions; if you use scriptural references as a launching point for your own thoughts, that's fine. If you're just copying and pasting other people's thoughts, then you are letting down the "discussion" part of the phrase "discussion forum." This is literally rule one, on our list of them.

Just include your own thoughts. Recap your interpretation of the scripture you've just posted, and you'll be fine. But gross, dishonest insinuations about the motivations behind mod actions, beyond the stated reasons for them, will do you no favors.

[Jackalope]

The problem, Randy, is that you've taken to copy-pasting material from external sources *in place of making arguments in your own words*.

This is a discussion forum, not a place where we have copy-pasta wars with material from elsewhere.

You can certainly post scripture in *support* of a post, but not as the content *of* your post.

It's obvious you're doing a lot of copy-paste from somewhere.  That's not in the spirit of what we do here.

[Randy Carson]

My posts are annoying because you are convicted by the Word of God.

You will use your "rules" to silence me - I've been expecting that - but everyone can see through your actions, becca.

Isn't it ironic that you (ab)use your authority in this forum to shut me up while atheists like yourself are constantly screaming that the Catholic Church was guilty of doing the same thing to pagans and non-Catholics in the early Church?

So, how is your censorship of me any different from the alleged abuses of the Catholic Church which you hate?

Oh please...

Your arguments are nothing we haven't heard before, nor are they any more supported by evidence or reasoned argument than any other theist that posts here.

Perhaps YOU have heard them (as I have heard many of yours, btw), but have you ever considered the post/views ratio of my threads, Simon? The views are running more than 10:1 meaning that there are potentially MANY more people following than commenting.

What does that mean? It means that I'm reaching a bigger audience than just you and the few who have decided to respond.

Hearts are being touched by the truth right here in this forum.

How do you feel about that?

That is possible.

Alternatively, it is possible that you are living in darkness and cannot see what I see.

If only you had demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support that claim. 

And no, the Bible is not evidence, it is the claim. 

It would make things easier for me, but then how would you get your jollies mocking Christians if we did?  

---

The problem, Randy, is that you've taken to copy-pasting material from external sources *in place of making arguments in your own words*.

This is a discussion forum, not a place where we have copy-pasta wars with material from elsewhere.

You can certainly post scripture in *support* of a post, but not as the content *of* your post.

It's obvious you're doing a lot of copy-paste from somewhere.  That's not in the spirit of what we do here.

Let me ask this for clarification: Suppose that five years ago, someone in another forum asked me a question about...oh, I dunno...the pope kissing the Koran or the problems at the Children's orphanages in Ireland.  You know...the kind of stuff that anti-Catholics love to ask about (see the pedophilia posts in this thread  ).

Now, if I wrote a detailed answer back then and saved it in Word on my computer for future use, is it a problem if I post it again here?

And please keep in mind that a simple one line question from a non-believer such as, "Can you explain the Trinity?" can REQUIRE a massive amount of effort to answer adequately.

Thanks.

---

FYI - I make it a policy to never follow links posted by people of ill-will in a public forum. Nothing personal, you understand.

BTW - Quite a few saints are named Francis. Oh, and the Pope, of course. How did you come by that name?

Francis Scott Keys' first name was also Francis (he was an Episcopalian), as was Francis Bacon (who urged for the execution of Mary, the Catholic Queen of the Scots) 

So, how did you come by the name?

[Iroscato]

You poor thing. You have no idea how utterly blinkered your little world is.

That is possible.

Alternatively, it is possible that you are living in darkness and cannot see what I see.

This forum perpetuates that.

Ah, you're amusing, I'll give you that. Your entire belief system is built upon the written word of an ancient book, written by long-dead men in a distant land.
But even as your faith slowly crumbles around your ears, as millions realise the foolishness of its long-redundant, entirely false claims, you scrabble around in the dirt and claim insight that outweighs that of all the advances we've made since we first began to shrug off the oppressive poison of doctrine.
The world doesn't need your church, and it's dying out. But good luck with it all anyway

[Cato]

Hearts are being touched by the truth right here in this forum.

Reasoning isn't one of your strong suits, is it? A vast majority of those checking in are atheist and are likely laughing their asses off at your inanity. You are not touching hearts with truth, you are simply vomiting the same over digested nonsense that has been recycled for centuries.

You have nothing but baseless assertions until you prove God exists and demonstrate this character is responsible for the contents of the Bible. We all know you are incapable of doing this.

[Jackalope]

The problem, Randy, is that you've taken to copy-pasting material from external sources *in place of making arguments in your own words*.

This is a discussion forum, not a place where we have copy-pasta wars with material from elsewhere.

You can certainly post scripture in *support* of a post, but not as the content *of* your post.

It's obvious you're doing a lot of copy-paste from somewhere.  That's not in the spirit of what we do here.

Let me ask this for clarification: Suppose that five years ago, someone in another forum asked me a question about...oh, I dunno...the pope kissing the Koran or the problems at the Children's orphanages in Ireland.  You know...the kind of stuff that anti-Catholics love to ask about (see the pedophilia posts in this thread  ).

Now, if I wrote a detailed answer back then and saved it in Word on my computer for future use, is it a problem if I post it again here?

And please keep in mind that a simple one line question from a non-believer such as, "Can you explain the Trinity?" can REQUIRE a massive amount of effort to answer adequately.

Thanks.

If that was done infrequently, it would probably be OK. Not to the extent that you're doing it.

Remember, this forum is for discussion. It isn't for regurgitating canned answers, no matter who wrote them.

You want to discuss apologetics, great. Discuss it. But what you've been doing is contrary to the purpose of this forum.

[Simon Moon]

If only you had demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support that claim. 

And no, the Bible is not evidence, it is the claim. 

It would make things easier for me, but then how would you get your jollies mocking Christians if we did?  

---

First of all, I don't mock Christians. I mock ridiculous unsupported faith based beliefs. 

Listen, the only thing preventing me from believing that a god exists is demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the claim that one does exist.

Without meeting the above criteria, what justification do I have to believe?

[Nope]

And the veil drops. Fuck off, you petulant little child  

What veil, Iro?

Were you and your mates simply pushing my buttons to see how long it would be before I pushed back? Who won the pool?  

No, nothing like what you imagine. I'm just pointing out becca's petty abuse of her authority as she tries to intimidate me.

My suspicion is that while you and everyone else are free to mock me and Jesus, the thin-skinned among you will not tolerate being treated in kind.

We'll see. Maybe I will be surprised, but I suspect that somewhere emails are being exchanged and a "quorum" convened.

This has gotten a little weird.

No one emailed me about a secret quorum. DRAT Seriously, no one is plotting against you.

[pocaracas]

Your question was about "a creator god". I merely used the analogy I have for any creator thing - man as creator of machines that do some work.
If man can create something superior to himself, why not a god?

Because God is infinite. Infinite +1 is simply infinity, and if such a being could be created by the merely infinite being, then the being known as infinity +1 would be God. Is this really useful?

How do you know that god is infinite?
(Is it a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity? One is larger than the other! )

Who told you about the infinity of god?
How would that person know about it?

Can your "creator god" create another creator god or two? Two creator gods would be greater than just one, yes?
That's one way.

Actually, with a bit of tweaking, you may be close to understanding the Trinity - to some degree, anyway. This requires some explanation, so hopefully, my post will be permitted. All that follows is material from Catholic Answers.

---

The Trinity is one of the most difficult realities to comprehend but it might be a helpful start to recognize the distinction between a “being” and a “person.”

God is one Being (the one and only divine Being). This divine Being exists as three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is unusual to us because each human being is only one person and it might seem that every being has to be one person: one being = one person.

But that’s simply not always the case. For example, a dog is a being but is not a person. A tree is a being but is not a person. In these cases, one being = zero persons. On the other hand, an angel is a being and is a person. In their case, angelic beings are similar to human beings: one being = one person.

Once you recognize that not every being is always exactly one person, it might be easier to grasp God’s unique reality, the Trinity: one Being = three Persons.

In Catholic theology, we understand the persons of the Blessed Trinity subsisting within the inner life of God to be truly distinct relationally, but not as a matter of essence, or nature. Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other.

In order to understand the concept of person in God, we have to understand its foundation in the processions and relations within the inner life of God. And the Council of Florence, AD 1338-1445, can help us in this regard.

The Council’s definitions concerning the Trinity are really as easy as one, two, three… four. It taught there is one nature in God, and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. These are those four eternal relations in God:

1. The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of God, the Father.

2. The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.

3. The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other in the first two relations. This is why CCC 240 teaches, “[The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity] is Son only in relation to his Father.”

4. The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.

We should take note of the distinction between the "generative" procession that consititutes the Son, and the "spirative" procession that constitutes the Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and Scripture reveals, the Son is uniquely "begotten" of the Father (cf. John 3:16; 1:18). He is also said to proceed from the Father as "the Word" in John 1:1. This "generative" procession is one of "begetting," but not in the same way a dog "begets" a dog, or a human being "begets" a human being. This is an intellectual "begetting," and fittingly so, as a "word" proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son occurs within the inner life of God. There are not "two beings" involved; rather, two persons relationally distinct, while ever-remaining one in being.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. "Spiration" comes from the Latin word for "spirit" or "breath." Jesus "breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit..." (John 20:22). Scripture reveals the Holy Spirit as pertaining to "God's love [that] has been poured into our hearts" in Romans 5:5, and as flowing out of and identified with the reciprocating love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father (John 15:26; Rev. 22:1-2). Thus, the Holy Spirit's procession is not intellecual and generative, but has its origin in God's will and in the ultimate act of the will, which is love.

As an infinite act of love between the Father and Son, this "act" is so perfect and infinite that "it" becomes (not in time, of course, but eternally) a "He" in the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This revelation of God's love personified is the foundation from which Scripture could reveal to us that "God is love" (I John 4:8).

God is not revealed to "be" love in any other religion in the world other than Christianity because in order for there to be love, there must be a beloved. From all eternity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have poured themselves out into each other in an infinite act of love, which we, as Christians, are called to experience through faith and the sacraments by which we are lifted up into that very love of God itself (Romans 5:1-5).

It is the love of God that binds us, heals us, and makes us children of God (I John 4:7; Matt. 5:44-45). Thus, how fitting it is that the Holy Spirit is depicted in Revelation 22:1-2, as a river of life flowing out from the Father and the Son and bringing life to all by way of bringing life to the very "tree of life" that is the source of eternal life in the the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:19).

---

Oh, hell no! I don't care about any trinity.
I can understand it very well - one god when the context demands it, multiple gods when the context demands them.
Saints and angels lend a hand every now and again.
It's enough.

Did you know that there are non-trinitarian christians?

I'll work on the rest of your post later...

Yeah.... you're getting quite a backlog on addressing my posts. You still have a huge one that addresses only the ascertainable reality to take care. Get on with it!

Oh please...

Your arguments are nothing we haven't heard before, nor are they any more supported by evidence or reasoned argument than any other theist that posts here.

Perhaps YOU have heard them (as I have heard many of yours, btw), but have you ever considered the post/views ratio of my threads, Simon? The views are running more than 10:1 meaning that there are potentially MANY more people following than commenting.

What does that mean? It means that I'm reaching a bigger audience than just you and the few who have decided to respond.

Hearts are being touched by the truth right here in this forum.

How do you feel about that?

My Bold.
Have you already forgotten what I told you about the usage of the word "truth"?
Do try to avoid using it when you are pointing at mere speculation and wishful thinking.

[nihilistcat]

Oh please...

Your arguments are nothing we haven't heard before, nor are they any more supported by evidence or reasoned argument than any other theist that posts here.

Perhaps YOU have heard them (as I have heard many of yours, btw), but have you ever considered the post/views ratio of my threads, Simon? The views are running more than 10:1 meaning that there are potentially MANY more people following than commenting.

What does that mean? It means that I'm reaching a bigger audience than just you and the few who have decided to respond.

Hearts are being touched by the truth right here in this forum.

How do you feel about that?

If only you had demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support that claim. 

And no, the Bible is not evidence, it is the claim. 

It would make things easier for me, but then how would you get your jollies mocking Christians if we did?  

---

The problem, Randy, is that you've taken to copy-pasting material from external sources *in place of making arguments in your own words*.

This is a discussion forum, not a place where we have copy-pasta wars with material from elsewhere.

You can certainly post scripture in *support* of a post, but not as the content *of* your post.

It's obvious you're doing a lot of copy-paste from somewhere.  That's not in the spirit of what we do here.

Let me ask this for clarification: Suppose that five years ago, someone in another forum asked me a question about...oh, I dunno...the pope kissing the Koran or the problems at the Children's orphanages in Ireland.  You know...the kind of stuff that anti-Catholics love to ask about (see the pedophilia posts in this thread  ).

Now, if I wrote a detailed answer back then and saved it in Word on my computer for future use, is it a problem if I post it again here?

And please keep in mind that a simple one line question from a non-believer such as, "Can you explain the Trinity?" can REQUIRE a massive amount of effort to answer adequately.

Thanks.

---

Francis Scott Keys' first name was also Francis (he was an Episcopalian), as was Francis Bacon (who urged for the execution of Mary, the Catholic Queen of the Scots) 

So, how did you come by the name?

How does anyone come by a name, usually parents right? In my case, a stork found me abandoned in a dumpster and left me in a basket in front of a church that was named St. Francis of Assisi church, so the pastor named me Francis. 

My last name was originally Doe, but I loved the movie Roscoe Jenkins so much, I took the surname Jenkins