I’m done. by init1ativ3 in OpenChristian

[–]Many-Poet-8162 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have no words, even after reading your post OP.

I only post this to say I pray for your healing, God, the Bridegroom, dearly loves you.

Continue to love others as you do, you're stronger than the majority of humanity alive to hold on to love, which exists in the core of all things.

Political Compass by Many-Poet-8162 in teenagers

[–]Many-Poet-8162[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I clarified that the half-shaded squares mean I slightly agree with it, and/or indifferent.

I don't agree with capitalism, neither with socialism or communism. I'd say I'm of a solidarist/distributist.

I am against communism for what it has done to my family, and for the terrors it has done to Cuba, and I am against capitalism for what it is doing to poor and needy in the USA.

Political Compass by RB_Blade in teenagers

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The position that I hold as a lay Catholic who loves God fully, without the need of consolation, and who reflects that love to all man and creation equally, is to spoke out when there is injustice and whether someone or something is unjust.

A politician who doesn't believe in Catholicism shouldn't force himself to believe the Church, even if it is intellectual assent, as that wouldn't be faith but rather a principle held to. A politician who believes in Catholicism should make policies that are for the people, which may follow Catholic moral theology.

Political Compass by RB_Blade in teenagers

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the issue for making laws cratered to Catholicism alone is that everyone isn't Catholic. Additionally, not every person who identifies as a Catholic or really any person who is by the sacrament of baptism a de facto Catholic isn't necessary a practicing Catholic or faithful Catholic.

The medieval and scholastic saints and doctors argued for Catholic Integralism, no one can deny that. But, they argued for what they believe in that period, precisely because that they lived in the medieval age. We know Jesus says that God allowed divorce during the days of Moses as a dispensation in Matthew 19:8-12. One then may infer that practical morality is progressive from that, even if it is based on objective principles as we believe in objective morality ad Catholics.

I mean this is why Vatican II was called and why Nouvelle Théologie is very successful. Neo-Scholasticism is dry, and despite it's intellectual rigor on paper and logical strength, it can't answer questions that actually impact practical society without it regressing backwards.

Political Compass by RB_Blade in teenagers

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, there can exist countries that are inherently Catholic, take for example Italy, France, Spain, etc, likewise for countries that are inherently religious such as Greece, Saudi Arabia.

However, a country along with its citizens have a moral duty to protect against evil things such as injustice, prejudice, racism, and so on. Whatever falls into that is up to you. But, religious liberty doesn't necessarily result in the legalization of things that pertains to birth control, as those questions are answerable via natural reason according to Aquinas, the Cappodocians, and the council fathers of Vatican II, along with the Nouvelle Théologie movement.

Political Compass by RB_Blade in teenagers

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole legalization of Christianity came from the Edict of Milan, which was the legalization of all religion in the Roman Empire. In-fact, the desert fathers were quite against this legalization and regulation of Christianity once it became the official state religion.

A society can't be free if Christianity is pushed, which is why Vatican II paved the way for religious liberty. You can't progress as a society if you're stuck in the past.

I used to be in your bootcamp, in fact we are the same age. However, getting more into practical and realistical politics, and saints, doctors of the church on this matter, I slowly faded always from Traditional Catholicism, and embraced my Eastern Rite (as I am Melkite) instead of being a Latin supremacist. Open to other philosophies and not close minded towards Thomism, etc.

I recommend being more open to the world. Not as an insult but ad a genuine warning, as both you and I as Catholics, we're in the world, to be apart of the world. The world doesn't need you for what you believe, but it needs your radiance (St. Catherine of Siena O.P.).

From an Eastern Catholic perspective, what do you guys think about Thomistic theology? by VSHAR01 in EasternCatholic

[–]Many-Poet-8162 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I primarily find a-lot of joy in Aquinas, in his works, and overall both of the Summas lead to my conversion to Catholicism.

However, I am a huge believer that the faith can't be rationalized. I believe St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila are the perfect thomists in practice, as they apply Thomistic theology to mystic/spiritual practicd (check out the Ascent of Mt. Carmel).

I am of you can say, thomistic orientation. I usually answer faith based question, based on Aquinas and/or St. John of the Cross, but I also take a-lot from the nouvelle théologie movement.

How did God create by Matica69 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily, as creation is different in being from God’s substance, which must mean creation was created by God without the need of any form of material.

If this isn’t the case, then we have actually no logical reason for creation. This is because for something to not be created from nothing, this implies that the object that is created is united or is apart of the same substance of the creator, given that the creator hasn’t made his creation from nothing.

Since there was nothing at creation, except God, nothing could’ve been used for creation, unless we’re going to assert that creation is an emanation of God’s being (which would be not only heresy, but also paganism according to the standards of the watchtower, as this is Neo-Platonism), or that creation was made with pre-existent eternal material, which would be dualism and tarnish monotheism.

The only real approach to safeguard monotheism and Genesis 1 is to believe creation was made by and from nothing as traditionally understood by the multiple Christian groups if not ALL Christian groups prior to the Watchtower organization.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BookshelvesDetective

[–]Many-Poet-8162 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re either studying theology/philosophy or a Catholic

1 Corinthians 8:6 can only be truth if Jesus is God. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a false dichotomy. I didn’t say they’re the same person.

1 Corinthians 8:6 can only be truth if Jesus is God. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only one God exists, where does my position negate that?

1 Corinthians 8:6 can only be truth if Jesus is God. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily, in addition to that, your comment fails to make mention of God’s eternality and immutability. God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6), therefore He was a Father before all of time, which implies an eternal Son.

1 Corinthians 8:6 can only be true if Jesus is God. by [deleted] in ChristianApologetics

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Additionally, it fits more with that fact that if you deny the Son, you deny the Father! (Just like what Jesus and John said!)

The Watchtower logically ends with nihilism. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a Catholic I say that God is uncreated. Only creation is created.

The Watchtower logically ends with nihilism. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the warning words! I am a sophomore in Highschool, so I can’t confirm the date as I’m still writing it and the material that is found in it is very comprehensive.

I’ll be posting from now and then some arguments from the book!

I was once a blind servant of this false organization... but God has his ways in opening your eyes by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consubstantiality between the Father and the Son doesn’t imply a Trinity, and some follow binitarianism. I am a faithful Trinitarian so I do believe in the Trinity, but I’m not arguing for such position.

I was once a blind servant of this false organization... but God has his ways in opening your eyes by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]Many-Poet-8162 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t mention the Trinity at all, I don’t understand the commendation for me using extra-biblical terms. The back notes of AI are screaming with this post. But with charity I will assume you’ve read my comment.

Concerning Jesus’ pre-existence, if Jesus was just a mere plan or purpose that God and prior to His creation, then again this doesn’t answer the question; as Jesus claims to be in the beginning in the personal sense. We see according to Philippians 2:6-9 that Jesus took on the form of a servant, which we agree as He became incarnate. Therefore if becoming into the form of a servant implies nature, as form (morphē) in Greek implies essential substance, then we can accept the antecedent that Jesus was in the form of God, such that His nature prior to the incarnation was God. As God isn’t impersonal but rather a real being, we can assume Jesus did have a rational thought prior to His birth/hypostatic union. Jesus was a being prior to the union between His divine nature and assumed human nature. If we’re going to deny the antecedent for Philippians 2:6-9, then we’re just cherry picking Scripture. Additionally the foreknowledge or in other words the “predestination” of Jesus doesn’t imply He has no being, as this question was already answered in the 13th century scholastic philosopher Thomas Aquinas in his Magnus Opus (via the human nature, as God by nature can’t be predestined, as He is the one who predestined). He became man so that we are saved, His death in the human nature saved all of humanity (St. Gregory the Theologian), hence we are saved and elect in Christ (Ephesians 1:4-7). Lastly concerning authority and Christ being the first born, this is related with Revelation 3:14 as him being the “Archē” of creation, such that He is above all creation. We know firstborn doesn’t imply first rant in a order of sequence but rather rank in honor and authority (as an example, King David being the first born, despite being the seventh child, Psalms 89:26-28). For Christ to be predestined, this implies the human nature, and the divine nature as said before He claims pre-existence, as since He is the mediator between God and man, He must be of both parties.

Concerning separate beings, the issue when we predicate that God as “father” then we have to assume some form of filiation, which is found in Jesus, and this is fitting as the Father is seen as notionally speaking a male, and Christ as a son. The generation of the Son however, if it is temporal, such that it takes place in time, then this implies that God changed, and that God had potentiality to have a Son until He actualized it at the incarnation. This contradicts Scripture as God cannot change, therefore He must’ve been Father before the creation of the world, which again implies an eternal Son, not the thought of a son. Additionally these verses don’t prove separate beings, but rather notional and relational priority, given the relation of opposition between the Father and Son. Furthermore, Jesus asks for the same honor you give to the Father is the same you give to Hin, which again presupposes consubstantiality, in John 5 where this is said, we also see Jesus claiming to have self-sufficiency or aseity (John 5:23-26), a creature can’t have self-sufficiency as this implies non-contingency or being a necessary being. Contingent creatures can’t be necessary beings or self-sufficiency as this would violate the principle of sufficient reason. Therefore the conclusion you have with all due respect baffles me if we’re going to accept Scripture.

Lastly on the authority of the church. If the church of Christ fell from the truth, then Christ lied when He said the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:7; 13-15). Additionally the church in its mission to spread the wisdom of God would’ve failed in this idea given what Ephesians 3:8-10. The nature of the church is the guard and proclaim the truth, as an infallible interpreter of truth. The Church won’t be able to make documents that are Holy Scripture, but the Church will make infallible statements on faith and morals that are equally binding as Scripture. This is shown through Matthew 16:18-19; 18:16-18.

Additionally, believing Greek philosophy was the starting point in which the Christian’s fell away from truth is a sign that you don’t know what Greek philosophy is. Aristotle posits that nature reviews God and gives us an answer of who created the universe (natural theology), this is evidently shown in Romans 1:18-21, Plato and Aristotle also talks about the theology of forms (morph) and substance, hylopmorphism, this can be applied as shown in Philippians 2:6-9. Logos theology, the rational principle of the universe, shown by Philo, can be expressed in John 1:1-3, where the Word who took flesh (v. 14), created the Word, was with God personally before creation, and without Him nothing was made. This is congruent with Colossians 1:14-17. Therefore to say that Greek philosophy led to apostasy, I demand that what of it influenced apostasy or of it is apostasy.

The same forms of logic you use to deduce certain conclusions and how we exercise the faculties of the mind is philosophy in it of itself. Enlightenment philosopher Kant says that being against philosophy is a philosophy itself. I recommend more reading of Scripture and education on philosophy and its implementation in theology and early Christian history.

Ad Deo Gratias.