[Serious] For former Christians only, why did you leave your faith?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

None of which changes it from a mortal to a venial sin. ‘Moral culpability’ is not the same as sin.

Boru

Maybe this is a question for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the Roman Inquisition?  You could write to them!

They’ve already answered that question, without a missive from me.

Boru

[Belacqua]

Aquinas describes in detail why he rejects the Kalam argument.

Citation?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-differ...nd-Aquinas

[Jehanne]

Citation?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-differ...nd-Aquinas

The author of the article is simply wrong. Even if he was conceding a point to make another, Saint Thomas Aquinas most certainly did not believe in a beginningless Universe:

"God is the first exemplar cause of all things. In proof whereof we must consider that if for the production of anything an exemplar is necessary, it is in order that the effect may receive a determinate form." (Summa Theologiae I, 44, 2)

[arewethereyet]

Since when does another forum count as a credible source? smh

[Belacqua]

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-differ...nd-Aquinas

The author of the article is simply wrong.  Even if he was conceding a point to make another, Saint Thomas Aquinas most certainly did not believe in a beginningless Universe:

"God is the first exemplar cause of all things. In proof whereof we must consider that if for the production of anything an exemplar is necessary, it is in order that the effect may receive a determinate form." (Summa Theologiae I, 44, 2)

Kalam is about a temporal cause, Thomas writes of an essential cause. These are very different. "First exemplar cause" means it is essential for anything else to exist, not that it started the thing to exist in time.

Thomas agreed with Aristotle that there is no logical proof to show that the universe had a temporal beginning. He accepted such a beginning as faith, but agreed that it couldn't be proven. That's not what the First Cause argument is about.

[Silver]

The greatest proof of god's nonexistence is the believer speaking on its behalf.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, in my own case I left the Christian faith for a time because of divine hiddenness. Ironically, it is divine hiddenness that now underpins my faith.

[Ahriman]

Well, in my own case I left the Christian faith for a time because of divine hiddenness. Ironically, it is divine hiddenness that now underpins my faith.

What's divine hiddenness?

[Silver]

What's divine hiddenness?

A supposedly mature deity playing childish hide-and-seek.

[Jehanne]

The author of the article is simply wrong.  Even if he was conceding a point to make another, Saint Thomas Aquinas most certainly did not believe in a beginningless Universe:

"God is the first exemplar cause of all things. In proof whereof we must consider that if for the production of anything an exemplar is necessary, it is in order that the effect may receive a determinate form." (Summa Theologiae I, 44, 2)

Kalam is about a temporal cause, Thomas writes of an essential cause. These are very different. "First exemplar cause" means it is essential for anything else to exist, not that it started the thing to exist in time.

Thomas agreed with Aristotle that there is no logical proof to show that the universe had a temporal beginning. He accepted such a beginning as faith, but agreed that it couldn't be proven. That's not what the First Cause argument is about.

Thomas also believed and argued that Hell was at the center of the Earth. What's your point?