Debating Catholicism

[Pound Foolish]

Helios
One quick note on something you said to Eleventh. You've made it very clear you distrust anything and everything from Catholic media. You even said you wouldn't trust Catholic site's to read the Pope's original words on gay marriage, as if they would simply make up words to put on their site the Holy Father, the most famous living Catholic in world, never actually said. (How on earth they could do that without seriously jeopardizing their credibility is beyond me. You know, it's funny. If any Catholic site did that, you'd think it'd be in the news. "Every Single Last One of the Major Catholic Sites and Newspapers Lie About Pope Francis' Speech!" Funny how things just slip through the cracks, isn't it?) But frankly, call me crazy, but it's beginning to look like you're just a bit paranoid?
Now then. As to your claims addressed to me. Your claims are confusing, they acknowledge very little of the arguments against you.
You say Mary didn't need saving. In fact, as made clear just now, Jesus did save Mary. Jesus not only saved he by erasing the affect of any sin she may commit (though she committed none) before she was even born, he erased original sin from her soul. So, He did indeed saver her. Not only giving her the possibility of entering Heaven, but also saving her from ever being touched by sin at all.
What does not make sense about that?
Isn't it simple?
Jesus saved Mary in an even more special way than He did us. He saved her from being born with any sin.
Yet, you say because He saved Mary before she ever sinned, that somehow means He didn't save Mary at all? How does that make sense?
Yet, you do not challenge the premise that Mary is saved through God. You do not give an explanation as to how Mary would have a lack of dependence on God (if born without sin.) You simply repeated that, in that case, Mary wouldn't have needed God, which was the premise we are debating in the first place. You cannot use the premise being debated, the question at hand, as a proof of that premise.
My only guess is that you are trying to say Mary cannot have needed God if she was born sinless because then Jesus' death, which came later, wouldn't be erasing her sin, which was already gone. Which would obviously make no sense, since that would mean God's miracles must happen according to human perception of time. Which would be to impose a huge limit on God's power.
And no, Helios, this won't ruin any friendship between us. I am quite fond of you, and that is not changing. Besides, debating tends to endear people to me more than anything.
Metal
Well, an acquaintance on here I respect very much brought up MacArthur ealier, and the quotes said various lovely ideas such as that we worship Mary and that the Pope is the antirchrist. I was insulted, but also couldn't' quite take it seriously. The ideas were so uniformed, so groundless, so just plain silly. So imagine my surprise when Wretched Sinner got mad at me when I was offended (and I also said some rather nasty things about this MacArthur, who I was rather offended by) and then God's Girl quoted him a little later, to my astonishment. And now Helios is quoting him, and surprise surprise, the borrowings show very little understanding about what he is talking about (Catholics don't believe Mary is a godess and most of his historical claims are inaccurate.) So the conclusion from all evidence thus far would seem to be MacAurthur is certifiable dunderhead who is bizarrely popular with Protestants. That simply seems to be the case from what has been so far seen.
Eleventh Doctor
I can't address everything you said now, I've already spent way, way, way too much time online today. But real quick, you say again that a "logical world can lead us to God but that is different from complete knowledge." Yet the claim in question is that God's nature is contradictory. That has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge, as I said. That is knowledge that God's nature is contradictory. So I say again, I fail to see how your statement is relevant.
Saying God's nature is contradictory doesn't have anything to do with ignorance of God, it means you know (supposedly) that God's nature is contradictory.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm just not understanding where you're coming from, I've never heard someone say that Christ's dual natures makes logical sense. From what I've read the majority of the early heresies were attempts by heretics to make logical sense of Christ's nature. But we seem to be talking past each other at this point and we have spent way too much time on this. So let's just agree to let this part of the discussion go for now and maybe come back to it at another time.

[Pound Foolish]

It doesn't matter if you "understand where I'm coming from" that has nothing to do with the discussion. However, we're even if that makes any difference. I've never heard of anyone not thinking Christ's nature is logically possible, and I am quite flustered and a tad appalled that you don't. But doesn't that make this rather a more interesting exercise than a less interesting one?

Now, please just answer my questions.

I say that God's nature is logical. Yes or no?

You say it is illogical. Yes or no?

I say that means the world leads us away from God. Yes or no?

Your refutation is that we cannot fully understand God. Yes or no?

But we established your premise is that God's nature is illogical. Yes or no?

That claim premise that you know something about God. It assumes you have knowledge of God. (Specifically that God's nature is illogical.) It does not assume lack thereof. Yes or no?

Therefor, that refutation is irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes or no?

So, we are back where we started. Yes or no?

God's nature, according to you, is illogical. The world is logical. Therefor, the world leads us away from God.
Yes or no!?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Illogical is not the best description. His nature is above logic. We cannot explain everything about God and yes I realize that is claiming knowledge. I claim that knowledge comes from the Eastern Orthodox history of Apophatic theology, which stands in contrast to the Capaphatic theology of the West. I do not deny positive knowledge of God and His attributes but once we have that foundation of Capaphatic theology it is time to move onto the more important theology of what we cannot know about God and His nature. So yes, the world leads us to an understanding of Capaphatic theology but I argue that we must then transcend that knowledge, past logic, to Apophatic theology.

[GratiaDei]

I'm going to jump in here and ask, Pound Foolish, how do you believe that Jesus' nature is logical? I mean, how do you reconcile the fact that he is both fully God and fully human? Like Eleventh has said, it's a logical contradiction. However, as you said, God created a logical world. But because of his holiness, there are things about him that we will never understand on this earth. It doesn't make sense that Jesus was fully God and fully human (and I dare you to try to explain how it does), but it needed to be that way. Jesus needed to be fully God, because only God is perfect. Yet he needed to be fully human so that he could die. I believe that all the mysteries of God will be understood in heaven, but until then, "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." 1 Corinthians 4:1. I'm sorry if I repeated something that was already said, or misrepresented something that you said, I'm not yet very good at this debate thing.

[Pound Foolish]

Good Doctor, in that case, the world leads us astray. You claim God is illogical, or "above logic" if you like. Well, then what makes us "transcend" that to a proper understanding of God? Certainly not the world. can a logical world lead us to this God that is "above" reason? It can't. You say it can only lead us to "Capaphatic" theology. If God is like simultaneously going through a wall and going under it, a square circle, then the world cannot lead us to Him.
Two plus two equals four cannot make us believe that two plus two might as well equal five.
So the world leads us away from God.
Afterall, if you were doing a math problem, and only one part of it made sense, would you not assume you had done part of it wrong, and that thus the whole answer is perhaps close but incorrect? We cannot accept a God that is both logical and partially "above logic." If part of God's nature, indeed the "more important" aspects of His nature are "above logic", then the world leads us to doubt God as a whole, or at least the aspects "above logic."
PS, as to the 100% question, basically you are asking how can something be 100% one thing and 100% something else? Water is 100% hydrogen and oxygen, isn't it? Well, it's also 100% water.
Gratia, thanks for joining us, and also thank you for your kind words earlier. And your argument was phrased quite nicely, not to worry.
So your premise is because humans cannot fully understand something, that means it is likely logically inexplicable?
There is not and never will be a full explanation of how Jesus could be fully human and fully God, certainly.
However, you seem to be making the mistake of mixing up human understanding with logic.
Truth is what is. Logic is deeper truth, the truth behind the truth if you will.
Suppose you had a chocolate bar. It is true that chocolate is tasty and brown. The logic then, would be that it got here by truck, that it is made from cocoa beans from South America in, that the beans come from trees.
But a human doesn't need to understand all that, nor know the workers, nor know that the chocolate bar came by truck, nor any of that for all of that to be true.

[GratiaDei]

Okay, I understand much better now. Thank you for that. I was confused about what exactly you were talking about, but you clarified that nicely, good job.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I stand by my statements. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from but I still don't agree.

[Pound Foolish]

Gratia, that's good to hear.

Eleventh Dr., you know as well as I do that is not a refutation. If you are trying to back out of it, remember who you are talking to. I will not accept an ending to the debate until one of us is proven wrong. I'm far too pigheaded. Besides, I spent about an hour collectively or more coming up with, fleshing out, and writing legible refutations on this subject. I'm not just going to throw that time away.

Premise: God's nature is contradictory

Refutation: in that case, the world leads us away from God. The principle that two plus two equals four cannot lead one to the conclusion that two plus two may as well equal five.

Premise: the past unified belief of the entire church that Christ's nature is "above logic" is a witness to the truth of God's nature

Refutation: (Even if that is indeed historically accurate) Any Catholic would be happy to show you a billion people who just happen to witness to the opposite

[Eleventh Doctor]

Not everything can be proven or solved through logic. That is my premise. This is why I became Orthodox instead of Catholic. I reject the scholastic only approach to theology.

[Pound Foolish]

Now hang on. You just repeated exactly what you already said.
Are you trying to say that not only do you believe the most important aspects of God are above logic, but that the aforesaid premise itself is above logic? Dear chap, you must admit that is frightfully convenient. Besides, if you really believe that, why have you wasted all this time?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Let's come at this from a different angle. The Eucharist becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eastern Orthodox would say how that happens is a mystery and can't be understood. Would you disagree?

[Pound Foolish]

Am I wrong then? Were you trying to say something else?
The Eucharist: I would say it cannot be fully understood. Nor Jesus' dual nature, for that matter.
*you seem to be taking a similar rout to Gratia, but if not, carry on*

[Eleventh Doctor]

It does seem like we had a misunderstanding. I've been trying to say that it can't be fully understood. I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.

[Pound Foolish]

Hang on. If you are simply trying to say it cannot be fully understood then.... Good heavens, why didn't you say so!?
But that doesn't seem to be the point of this conversation. You have said repeatedly that God's nature is not logical. Is it or not?
Also, if you do just believe that God's nature is logical but that we cannot fully understand it, then how can you use that as proof that

On that note, no of course we aren't suppose to be logical all the time. There are a great many mysteries of Christianity that do not use logic, the Incarnation for one, how can Christ be fully God and fully Man? That is not logical.

It is logical. And we can use logic in the matter that started all this, the matter of the differing interpretations of the rock verse. For everything is logical. Doy you agree or no?
If not, then it's looking more and more as if you are going to have a hard time proving that idea.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I will let someone more eloquent than myself describe what I am trying to say: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/co ... ot_logical

[Helios]

@ Eleventh: I never said you don't believe what you say. I KNOW you believe what you say! You say it with such conviction that it would be beyond reason to think you just say stuff because it sounds good! And Eleventh, I do try to respect what you say. You are someone who obviously knows what they're talking about. As for me...well...maybe I'm not. But that's kinda the whole point I came on here: to learn more. And you've done a wonderful job. I can't thank you enough for all the help you've been.

Now, I don't single out Catholicism just because I don't like it (in truth, I like a lot of the Catholic...um...rituals? Is that what you call them? A part of me is attracted to it because it looks meaningful). I just happen to believe that all false religions are from Satan. Not just Catholicism, ALL of them. Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism...the list goes on. In a nutshell, if the religion is not of God, based on the Bible, then it's from Satan...or at least, Satan-influenced. Man is quite capable of making up whatever he wants to worship.

As for all the stuff about Alberto Riviera...I have a very Godly mentor in my life who I'll ask about this whole mess, and I'll get back to you on that in a little while.

@ PF: You bet I'm paranoid! Lol, not really. Just a little bit. I do tend to be a little paranoid because I'm a very cautious person by nature. Of course, that's worn off a little in the past few years as I got older. But from practically the hour of my birth, I've been hearing nothing but bad things about the Catholic church IN GENERAL. So yeah, if I was told the Pope had made certain comments, I'm pretty disposed toward believing them. Just the way I am, I guess.

As for the whole thing about Mary...why in the world would Jesus would need to erase any sin from her if she ALREADY had none? And I quote: “Jesus not only saved he[r] by erasing the affect of any sin she may commit (though she committed none) before she was even born, he erased original sin from her soul.” I beg your pardon? Since you have insulted MacArthur, I will insult your whole paragraph about Mary.

It's bobbycock.

I hold nothing against you for believing it, but I don't. And if you think MacArthur is a dunderhead, oh well. I like him; you don't.

I believe we're even now.

“My only guess is that you are trying to say Mary cannot have needed God if she was born sinless because then Jesus' death, which came later, wouldn't be erasing her sin, which was already gone. Which would obviously make no sense, since that would mean God's miracles must happen according to human perception of time. Which would be to impose a huge limit on God's power.”

This actually does make sense to me. I mean, Mary not needing God if she was born sinless. We need God's grace and forgiveness because we are sinful. If we weren't, WHY would we need Him?

[Eleventh Doctor]

To be clear, it doesn't make it any better for you to group Catholicism in with all those other religions and say they're all equally satanic. The part people are upset about is not you singling out Catholicism but calling it satanic at all.

Also if you realize your upbringing has made you predisposed against Catholics can't you overcome that predisposition and actually look for the truth?

Also MacArthur is making statements that are not true, you have had several Catholics tell you he is not speaking accurately about their faith. If you really believe us when we tell you what we believe then you need to question why MacArthur is making inaccurate statements. I would guess it is him simply not doing the research or not actually speaking to Catholics.

[Pound Foolish]

Eloquent indeed. It was a pleasure listening to Fr. Farley. As to the substance, however. Oh, and this presented relatively little new information, so it seems you are more or less repeating yourself again, Good Doctor. This is very unlike you.
After that sad story about the young Jehovah Witness ladies, he used our inability to fully explain love as a springboard for his premise, that "God is not logical", since God is love. So, because the human mind cannot fully explain love, that is somehow indicative love is logically inexplicable? Our finding no complete answer means there is none? Ahem, Good Doctor, please forgive this remark,but... What-ever.
Then he went on to say "God is not logical" and proceeds to list a number of things He did, none of which humanity can fully explain, without ever establishing that something that seems illogical to the human mind must indeed be illogical. If that is not so, all his words fall apart. For while much of the Bible seems illogical to man, the Bible never says it truly is. So back to the earlier question, asked above and exactly what was already covered with Gratia: how is humanity's inability to understand a mystery indicative there is no answer?
He furthered his fallacies when he used miracles as example of God's "triumph over logic." It shows a lack of understanding of miracles. Remember all the talk of going over and under a wall simultaneously? That concept is not a miracle. It is something is logically impossible. Logic shows us it cannot happen. But suppose we wanted to go through walls. We can logically conceive of that. If conditions allowed, it could happen.
Well, that's what a miracle is. The normal logic of the world aided by a logical exception to the normal course of logic.
In other words, the logical world takes one course as a general rule. God, through His power, occasionally provides exceptions to the rule, exceptions within the realm of logic. Just like a generous friend adding money to a bank account, or donor giving an organ, or a man impregnating a woman. It is something that could not have happened without outside interference. However, the interference adds to the bank account, helps a sick person, completes the woman. It adds to our logical world, helps it, completes it rather than overcoming it.
Further, the world reflects God, as a painting reflects the artist. The world is logical, is it not? And Farley did not address the main objection that we are considering to your premise. How can a logical world lead to a God that is "above logic"?
Also, can you disprove the thesis presented to Gratia? That truth is what is, and that logic is deeper truth? If not, then you must admit that if God is above logic, God is above truth. How can that be? God is truth. The ultimate truth.The source of all that is.
One closing thought. God made the world. God made the world logical. Why would God need to overcome His own tools?
Helios
As to hearing nothing but bad things about us... Yes, well, sadly, that seems to be not uncommon with Protestants. I read as much in Catholic books, and one of my friends in real life was raised that way to some degree, and Wretched Sinner and Samantha are raised that way as well. Fortunately, Samantha doesn't believe a word of it, she is far too intelligent. You are too, if I may say so. Besides, you don't seem to believe there is nothing good about Catholics anyway.
Now onto the more important business of Mary. You did not answer the points. Why would God's miracles be confined to human perception of time? Obviously Mary needed God. To say she did not need God because she had her sin eraced in a different order makes no sense. Who erased it? God. Well then, clearly she needed Him.
To think of it another way. Suppose you found out a relative was in an airplane crash a few days ago, but there were no further details. Wouldn't you pray the relative survived? Then suppose the relative made it. Naturally, there are a series of natural occurrences by which the relative survived. Because of this, and because the accident happened before you prayed so you now know the relative was already safe at the time of the prayer, you shrug your shoulders and say, "it would have happened anyway." (CS Lewis termed this the "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" argument.) In reality, God is outside of time, so what difference does it make when you prayed? You still needed God.
Mary still needed God.
The accident (sin) happened before Mary was born. Yet, because of that rather than in spite of that, she needed Him.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I just noticed something I want to go back to really quick. You said "Water is 100% hydrogen and oxygen, isn't it? Well, it's also 100% water." Actually no, H2O is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. Together that element is called water. It is not 100% water and 100% hydrogen and oxygen, water has no existence or substance by itself, it is simply what we call two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This is no way answers my question, how could Christ be 100% human and 100% God?

How is humanity's inability to understand a mystery indicative there is no answer?

I would not say that there is no answer but that we are not meant to know the answer.

Well, that's what a miracle is. The normal logic of the world aided by a logical exception to the normal course of logic. In other words, the logical world takes one course as a general rule. God, through His power, occasionally provides exceptions to the rule, exceptions within the realm of logic.

I disagree with this definition of logic, an exception to the rules of logic is above the rules of logic, by definition. God is not trapped by our rules because He is above them, He doesn't write in exceptions to the rules because God has no need to follow the rules in the first place.

God is the source of all truth and logic and as such is above them. By following truth and logic we can find the source, God but God is not trapped by His own rules. As for why God would need to overcome His own tools, it's as I said, God has no need to write in exceptions for miracles He performs, He just does them.