Devil could lead to good and evil

[Bahman]

Devil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Devil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Devil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Devil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Incorrect. God is the force from which we define good. The Devil is a being who chose to reject God, and therefore reject all that is good. Therefore, we could never define good from the devil, as he has no good in him. The devil isn’t even the force from which we define evil, God is. Rejection of God is a rejection of good and therefore evil. Without God from which we derive good, we could never derive evil.

The devil is a created being, and therefore cannot arise from himself.

Devil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

This makes absolutely no sense. The state of absolute good is not attainable by humans in our fallen state, true. By the devil, being the being which has reject God entirely (and therefore rejected good entirely) is completely incapable of creating good, whether purposefully or accidentally.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Beryllos]

“breaking traditional good” … “new concept of good”

This doesn’t sound good.

 

[17_Gen_r]

According to the Bible, Satan is the most intelligent creature.

Satan is the negation / opposite of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit being, according to the Bible, Truth itself (Truth is a living being which fact isn’t popularly recognized).

Satan is the opposite of the Holy Spirit because 0) Satan is a creature & the Holy Spirit isn’t & 1) Satan, knowing the truth, being very intelligent, still denies it.

A consequence of 0) & 1) is that he shall suffer the second death, Gehenna, the lake of fire because he sins against the Holy Spirit, being a liar. To lie is to commit the non-pardoned sin.

 

[ventura2323]

Devil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Devil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Devil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

Where do you think your thoughts are coming from?

 

[Bahman]

Evil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Evil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Evil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

 

[Bahman]

Incorrect. God is the force from which we define good. The Devil is a being who chose to reject God, and therefore reject all that is good. Therefore, we could never define good from the devil, as he has no good in him. The devil isn’t even the force from which we define evil, God is. Rejection of God is a rejection of good and therefore evil. Without God from which we derive good, we could never derive evil.

The devil is a created being, and therefore cannot arise from himself.

Devil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

Again, the devil cannot arise from himself.

This makes absolutely no sense. The state of absolute good is not attainable by humans in our fallen state, true. By the devil, being the being which has reject God entirely (and therefore rejected good entirely) is completely incapable of creating good, whether purposefully or accidentally.

Please accept my apology for misplacing devil by evil

Evil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Evil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Evil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

 

[Bahman]

According to the Bible, Satan is the most intelligent creature.

Satan is the negation / opposite of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit being, according to the Bible, Truth itself (Truth is a living being which fact isn’t popularly recognized).

Satan is the opposite of the Holy Spirit because 0) Satan is a creature & the Holy Spirit isn’t & 1) Satan, knowing the truth, being very intelligent, still denies it.

A consequence of 0) & 1) is that he shall suffer the second death, Gehenna, the lake of fire because he sins against the Holy Spirit, being a liar. To lie is to commit the non-pardoned sin.

Please accept my apology for misplacing devil by evil

Evil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Evil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Evil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

 

[Bahman]

Where do you think your thoughts are coming from?

From myself and please accept my apology for misplacing devil by evil

Evil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Evil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Evil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

 

[ventura2323]

Evil is the force against what is defined as good (state absolute good is not reachable/definable).

Evil can arises from self which means it could lead to unpleasing feeling defined as good.

Evil can arises from self and break definition of what is good which might lead to a better definition of good.

If we accept that the state of absolute good is not reachable from our perspective (creature) then devil is the only force that can act as usable tools breaking traditional good and provide the possibility for the growth of new concept of good.

You are dead wrong. God is reachable, Your mind is so busy with thought that you are unable to receive revelations from God.
You have no idea what you are talking about because evil is reachable to your mind and is deceiving you.

 

[Bahman]

You are dead wrong. God is reachable, Your mind is so busy with thought that you are unable to receive revelations from God.
You have no idea what you are talking about because evil is reachable to your mind and is deceiving you.

Revelation from God? If people could receive revelation from God then we have already known the absolute truth and we have no conflict of ideas whatsoever.

Moreover we have plenty of examples in which a good idea is challenged with human curiosity and then older good idea is replaced with newer good idea. Curiosity in the last example plays the role evil since it is against idea of good. Without that there would be no change whatsoever in state of belief, no improvement in our social system, …

 

[LongingSoul]

Could you give a concrete example of a ‘traditional good’ that was challenged by evil and then changed into a ‘new definition of good’, so that it’s clearer what you are getting at?

 

[Bahman]

Could you give a concrete example of a ‘traditional good’ that was challenged by evil and then changed into a ‘new definition of good’, so that it’s clearer what you are getting at?

Lets take example of Galileo who challenged Church dogma . Was his idea evil at that time? Yes. Another example Kepler who was a church man who explain that not only we are turning around the sun but also earth turning around itself. Were those ideas heretic and evil? Yes. Do you want more example.

The evil the force which works against good, play an important role in challenging what is accepted as good, without that we still are thinking as medieval age people.

 

[LongingSoul]

Lets take example of Galileo who challenged Church dogma . Was his idea evil at that time? Yes. Another example Kepler who was a church man who explain that not only we are turning around the sun but also earth turning around itself. Were those ideas heretic and evil? Yes. Do you want more example.

The evil the force which works against good, play an important role in challenging what is accepted as good, without that we still are thinking as medieval age people.

You seem to be saying that Galileo was acting for the devil in holding a heliocentric view of the earth in the 17th century? Bl. JPII made apologies on behalf of the Church regarding the Galileo affair and many other rash judgements made by the Church authorities in our history which suggests that his viewpoint was misunderstood in those primitive times… rather than evil.

The devil and his evil agenda are looking to bring down and destroy the Church in the world or at the very least, turn others against her. Was Galileo trying to do that? Only his conscience can know that. Your premise is twisted and suspect.

 

[Bahman]

You seem to be saying that Galileo was acting for the devil in holding a heliocentric view of the earth in the 17th century? Bl. JPII made apologies on behalf of the Church regarding the Galileo affair and many other rash judgements made by the Church authorities in our history which suggests that his viewpoint was misunderstood in those primitive times… rather than evil.

The devil and his evil agenda are looking to bring down and destroy the Church in the world or at the very least, turn others against her. Was Galileo trying to do that? Only his conscience can know that. Your premise is twisted and suspect.

I mean the wish to go against Church dogma and perform different experiments to know what is the truth was an evil act at that time. Galileo has a temptation to know the truth, what I call it good, and this was against the old concept of truth, what I call it old good, so his act is/was regarded as evil as he was supposed to receive death penalty. I don’t think JPII’s apology could help the issue much.

 

[LongingSoul]

I mean the wish to go against Church dogma and perform different experiments to know what is the truth was an evil act at that time. Galileo has a temptation to know the truth, what I call it good, and this was against the old concept of truth, what I call it old good, so his act is/was regarded as evil as he was supposed to receive death penalty. I don’t think JPII’s apology could help the issue much.

But geocentrism wasn’t Church ‘dogma’. It was the Aristotelian view of the earth that was a model for representing biblical teachings for many centuries. Just like the theory of evolution requires good science for proper development of our human theistic notions of life. You can’t just keep saying that someone was ‘evil’ because they came under criticism. Our new and wonderful saint in Australia, Mary McKillop, was actually excommunicated during the course of her saintly life. Was she ‘evil’ at that time? No. Of course not. In the dealings of life between flawed human beings, there will be misinterpretations, misrepresentations, misunderstandings etc etc. They don’t mean that someone is ‘evil’ and their ‘evil’ led to some subsequent good. Evil has one agenda alone. To bring down the Church and lead people to defy the supremacy of God. If some good comes subsequent to an evil act… it is because evil has been defeated/overcome/banished. Not because the devil turned into a sweetiepie and we all sat down and had tea with him.

 

[Bahman]

But geocentrism wasn’t Church ‘dogma’. It was the Aristotelian view of the earth that was a model for representing biblical teachings for many centuries.

That became a part of Church dogma as he was supposed to receive death penalty at that time.

Moreover why the Church state should be worry about evil if they are sure that they fully represent the absolute truth, The absolute truth (state of knowledge of God) is the only being that cannot be challenged by evil. It is the process of relative truth that could be questioned by evil, which cause state of doubt and that might lead to a better point of view, better understanding of absolute truth and God.

Please also read the following link: scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

 

[spiderweb]

It seems to me that you are confusing scientific truths with theological truths when talking about Galileo. The church only defines dogmatically truths on the matters of faith and morals, not science. And the Bible is a theological book, not a science book. Looking for a scientific truth in no way undermines theological truth. I’m sure there are many people more knowledgeable about the Galileo incident than myself, so I will leave it at that.

Most things are neither good or evil, they are neutral in and of themselves. How we use them could be good or evil. Science is neutral but it can be used for good or evil. A good use of science would be curing illnesses. An evil use of science would be germ warfare.

Good is something which is in all of us. It’s not measurable, or visible but we all have some amount of it. It is called love. The purest love is unconditional love which God has and for which we strive for.

Evil is the absence of love. Evil is not “real” in the same way that love is real. True love is always used for the good of others. Evil is the rejection of love and often looks to bring down that which is good.

edit- In our everyday speaking we say things like “The sun came up” or “the sun went down”. Scientifically speaking, this may or may not be correct (depending on your personal viewpoint) but those phrases are only being used to convey an idea which we all understand. I’ve also heard married couples say “we’re pregnant”. Medically of course it is only the female who is pregnant but the message is conveyed. The bible does the same thing. It gives theological truths in a way that the people of that time could understand. It is not trying to teach science, it is trying to teach God. The church doesn’t dogmatically teach science, it dogmatically teaches God.

 

[Bahman]

It seems to me that you are confusing scientific truths with theological truths when talking about Galileo. The church only defines dogmatically truths on the matters of faith and morals, not science. And the Bible is a theological book, not a science book. Looking for a scientific truth in no way undermines theological truth. I’m sure there are many people more knowledgeable about the Galileo incident than myself, so I will leave it at that.

But there are many occasion that scientific truth goes against church dogma. Please read: scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

 

[spiderweb]

I have read that link and it is very clear…

"In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

Geocentricity, big bang, evolution, etc… are not matters of faith and morals. While it is true that many Catholics (including popes and bishops present and past) have individual beliefs on scientific findings, they do not and can not define a scientific theory dogmatically because it does not fall under the category of either faith or morals. And I would also say that scientists often do not agree 100% on these issues. Even if the evidence seems to point to a certain scientific theory as being the most likely explanation, that understanding may fall apart in the next generation when new findings come forward.

Please read my additional edit in my above post