D
deb1
Guest
Perhaps Monarchy could start a thread on the difference between Good and evil. I would find that interesting coming from an Atheist’s viewpoint.
- Status
M
m4dc4p
Guest
God is all-good or he doesn’t exist, its pretty much that simple. Aquinas laid out out nicely about 800 years ago. The simple version is there are three possibilities:
- No God
- God is an evil trickster and everything we know about him is a lie
- God is all-good and everything that happens results in good
However, if #3 is true, then all this suffering and evil we see around us has a purpose and must result in good - even if we don’t know what that is.
N
Neithan
Guest
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
C
cynic
Guest
there is the idea that God predestined certain figures in the bible to sin, or be inherently sinful, of the flesh, whatever, so that prophesy could be fullfilled or some greater goal served. Eg. Esau (whome he hated before he was born ) Judas, the Pharoahs…
Its almost as if the bad are there to make the good look more…good.
Its almost as if the bad are there to make the good look more…good.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
He’s got a follow-up to it, “An Exorcist: More Stories”, which I’ve just been reading. Scary. As. Hell. But good!
M
Monarchy
Guest
Exodus 12:29 God kills all the first born children of Egypt.
Numbers 31:17 God commands Moses to kill ALL the Midianites, including children, except the virgin females (it is said by Moses, but if you read down it was commanded by God).
Deuteronomy 2:33-36 At God’s instructions, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones” leaving “none to remain.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If you have a rebellious son who refuses to listen, stone him to death.
2 Kings 2:23-24 God send to she-bears to kill 42 children. Why? Because they made fun of Elijah’s bald head.
There is plenty more.
M
Monarchy
Guest
Why?
Yes, because a child slowly dying of starvation eventualy has some good.
M
Monarchy
Guest
And your proof that you didn’t imagine this is?
P
Promotor_Fidei
Guest
Monarchy said:
That interpretation is totally out of context. The word is vague and can mean children or youths. The youths were a mob sent to kill Elisha. This article talks about it with historic context:
stlukesrec.org/sermons99/18trin99.html
M
Monarchy
Guest
Promotor Fidei:
The chapter says nothing about them trying to kill Elisha, and BTW your URL won’t load.
[sarcasm] Yes because it’s perfectly alright for God to kill ‘youths’ for making fun, just not children…[/sarcasm]
The chapter says nothing about them trying to kill Elisha, and BTW your URL won’t load.
M
m4dc4p
Guest
Actually why don’t you tell me; I’d like to hear your view on what reason there is to go on…
I certainly can’t explain it or justify it either. But I’d much rather that child’s suffering serve a purpose than be for nothing at all. What would you rather it be? Should that child have died hungry for no reason whatsoever or should there be some point to it? Personally, I’d opt for the latter.Yes, because a child slowly dying of starvation eventualy has some good.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
There were others other than myself…is that good enough for ya?
C
contemplative
Guest
C
contemplative
Guest
Matrix Refugee:
Yes I read that one too.
M
Monarchy
Guest
No. Physical Proof?I wish my imagination was so creative!Code:
There were others other than myself…is that good enough for ya?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I’m of a two minds on this issue:
1–tradition speaks of a fallen, formerly angelic being prowling about
BUT
2–OT scriptural evidence indicates that satan was a title (“the satan”), an angelic office, and NOT a fallen angel (Satan). It is used as a proper name only a couple times, and this seems to have been from scribal error given the evidence from the rest of scripture.
These things have led me to this conclusion–the devil is a spiritual reality, but this does not necessarily mean that there is a discrete devil figure. The traditions of the fallen angel do not need to be literally factual in order to be actually true.
I find that the devil is the personification of my own will to glorify myself above God. Ultimately I think the devil is the idol of our own power and ego. And this is a definite spiritual reality with which we all, by with and through God’s grace, must deal as fallen human beings.
If there is a discrete devil being, I do not think Dante’s image of him could be more accurate–a being who, in Charles Williams’ words, is “the last slavering imbecile” and for whom all destruction is but his destroying of himself. But these also sound like good descriptions of the fallen ego to me.
–Mark
Deo Gratias!
I’m of a two minds on this issue:
1–tradition speaks of a fallen, formerly angelic being prowling about
BUT
2–OT scriptural evidence indicates that satan was a title (“the satan”), an angelic office, and NOT a fallen angel (Satan). It is used as a proper name only a couple times, and this seems to have been from scribal error given the evidence from the rest of scripture.
These things have led me to this conclusion–the devil is a spiritual reality, but this does not necessarily mean that there is a discrete devil figure. The traditions of the fallen angel do not need to be literally factual in order to be actually true.
I find that the devil is the personification of my own will to glorify myself above God. Ultimately I think the devil is the idol of our own power and ego. And this is a definite spiritual reality with which we all, by with and through God’s grace, must deal as fallen human beings.
If there is a discrete devil being, I do not think Dante’s image of him could be more accurate–a being who, in Charles Williams’ words, is “the last slavering imbecile” and for whom all destruction is but his destroying of himself. But these also sound like good descriptions of the fallen ego to me.
–Mark
Deo Gratias!
P
Promotor_Fidei
Guest
J
Jennifer123
Guest
All OT examples. Thanks for providing them. I may be wrong but as Catholics, we believe that there are different means of biblical interpretation because there are different literary devices the biblical authors use to pass information to us.
Not all passages are to be interpreted literally which differenciates us from most other Protestant denominations, especially Fundamentalist.
Many of the stories of the OT were oral histories handed down from one Hebrew generation to the next. When written down, many of the warnings and persons of the OT were larger than life (Goliath as giant, extreme punishments), possibly exaggerated a little, but God certainly used that to His advantage and it really didn’t harm the message.
I certainly am no biblical or literature scholar, maybe someone could clarify my thoughts or give more information about this.
Not all passages are to be interpreted literally which differenciates us from most other Protestant denominations, especially Fundamentalist.
Many of the stories of the OT were oral histories handed down from one Hebrew generation to the next. When written down, many of the warnings and persons of the OT were larger than life (Goliath as giant, extreme punishments), possibly exaggerated a little, but God certainly used that to His advantage and it really didn’t harm the message.
I certainly am no biblical or literature scholar, maybe someone could clarify my thoughts or give more information about this.
M
MiddleBear
Guest
Real.
- Status