Debating Catholicism

[Pound Foolish]

But by above them you mean contradictory to them. That doesn't follow. Yes, God is more powerful than the nature he created, but he is not contradictory to it. It is logical to us that water is wet, and to Him as well.

Erm, well yes, I suppose that was poor wording. But at the very least, we'd need flashlights.

Yes, but if you drop the ball, it won't fly into the air.
If the sun did indeed go ou- um, explode- then there would be a genuine exception to the rules in the past. However, you are right, that example does wipe out the very existence of the previous scientific law. However, what is needing illustration is the concept that, even though we live in a consistently logical world in which we can assume that our scientific laws aren't all going to vanish tomorrow, there can still be exceptions to logic.
This is easier than it sounds, really. One would say it is impossible to walk on water, but every time this season rolls around, many do just that. It's not impossible, it's just something that couldn't conceivably happen without the outside force of cold. In other words, suppose a fish went through all the other seasons without ever supposing that one could walk on top of lakes. The fish is being entirely logical. After all, there is nothing in his world of water that could make ice freeze. Without an extreme lack of heat, which he has yet to experience, it could never happen. An older fish tells the fish that sometimes, the surface of the water grows hard and people skate on it. The younger fish snorts at the idea. But then the lake freezes. He discovers to his awe that this amazing power called extreme cold does exist outside his water world.

Miracles are like the ice is to the fish. It is natural. But it is hard for us fish to understand, we cannot fully explain it with our limited understanding. But with a force to counteract normal courses of events, anything can happen. So, no, cancer doesn't disappear normally. And no, the ball won't fly into the air. But, every so often, winter comes.

How were you not arguing numbers? Would your argument that the church was once united on this issue be impressive if those church's did not contain multitudes? As I said earlier, suppose both the Eastern and the Catholic church's had only one person at the time. What would become of your claim?

[Eleventh Doctor]

With your analogy the problem of course is that definition 1 and 2 include things like extreme cold, those are part of the normative, however unlikely. Miracles however are not created by an extreme influx of angels or God energy, they simply cannot be explained or quantified by definition 1 and 2. They are completely outside the normative of how our objective universe works and they don't operate like winter coming, they operate alongside our objective universe but cannot be explained by human reason, aka definition 1 and 2. They do however fit into defintion 3.

You keep saying that there is a force to counteract normal course of events, like when God wants to cure someones cancer He simply looks down and increases white blood cell five's output by 200%, that fixes it, and it would make sense if we weren't finite. I would argue it's a mystery, it doesn't fit into our normative experiences, it doesn't fit into how the world runs, it just happens. Now maybe you're right and that's how it works but I don't think so, you need to read Aquinas when he tries to write up formulas and principals for how God works and he fails. The great Doctor of the church can't write up formulas and principals for this and yet you continue to argue this?

I would still say my church is right, as would you We're obviously not going to get anywhere with this argument.

[Pound Foolish]

"Miracles however are not created by an extreme influx of angels or God energy, they simply cannot be explained or quantified by definition 1 and 2."

"God energy" isn't a terrible term for it, really. God created all, so it would only make sense he would have power over all. He is the ultimate force, greater than all forces. Yes, nature is not as powerful as Him, the effect cannot be greater than the cause. But that's why it's logical God can interrupt the conventions of nature, rather than contradicting His logical nature.

They cannot be explained by us. The analogy stands. To the fish, the idea that people cannot walk on water is logic one and two.

The inference of people and animals breaking through the surface of the water leads him to the conclusion creatures cannot ever walk on it. That is logic 1.

To go from the fact of the creatures who break through the surface to the idea that no one could ever walk on water, the fish used the logical process of deduction. I know this, therefor that. The fish thought, "Every large living creature that touches the surface breaks through it, and I know of no power in my world that could make the surface hard enough for an animal to walk or skate on it. So it must be impossible." Definition 2.

However, there were in fact forces beyond the fish's understanding that came from outside the fish's world. (I'm starting to feel this is rather corny, but you get the idea.)

"Now maybe you're right and that's how it works but I don't think so, you need to read Aquinas when he tries to write up formulas and principals for how God works and he fails. The great Doctor of the church can't write up formulas and principals for this and yet you continue to argue this? "

I'm sure people can't in practice, but I bet he came darn closer than anyone else. So? We've already established no human could possibly fully explain miracles, Christ's nature, or any of the great mysteries of God. He's simply far too complicated. Just as it would be hopeless for a computer to figure out a human being.

Perhaps we're not getting anywhere with this argument, but if we must stop and go back to the matter of Peter's authority, this has been delightful and I thank you heartily.

[Eleventh Doctor]

We've already established no human could possibly fully explain miracles, Christ's nature, or any of the great mysteries of God. He's simply far too complicated. Just as it would be hopeless for a computer to figure out a human being.

I am in agreement with this statement and this is what I've been saying all along.

Yes, let's step back and go to the matter of Peter's authority, I await an answer on the popes and the Ecumencial Councils.

[John Henry]

Is the Pope, God?

[Eleventh Doctor]

If you would look back over the thread you would realize we have already discussed that. But no of course not, no Catholic would claim that. If you are attempting to claim that you do not have an understanding of Catholicism.

[John Henry]

Why is St. Peter a pope?

[Eleventh Doctor]

St. Peter was the bishop of Rome, that office is traditionally called the pope.

[Blitz]

*Coughs*
Peter was most likely never a bishop of Rome according to history. If he was, he was one of the bishops not the bishop singular.

[Eleventh Doctor]

True, he probably wasn't a bishop of Rome and I totally agree there was not one bishop but many. So Blitz, who is your bishop today?

[Blitz]

Pastor being Protestant but we have three.... or four. Pastor Holdbruck, Reverend Asmah (my dad), Pastor Divine, and that one who I still can't spell his name.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So you would say pastors perform the same role that bishops did in the Early Church?

[Blitz]

I would say so. I've been reading on early church history and from what I have read, bishops are pretty much pastors.

[Eleventh Doctor]

That's cool you've been reading Early Church history, who are you reading?

[Blitz]

Church History Volume one From Christ to Pre-Reformation Everett Ferguson.

[Eleventh Doctor]

You should take the time to read the Early Church bishops writings directly and read what they wrote about their own activities.

[Blitz]

Some time. I have a ton of books on theology to read that my bro dumped on me.

[John Henry]

Theological Books? The Church Fathers?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Are you asking what those words mean?

[John Henry]

No, but what theological books?