Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[rinnie]

I heard you, then asked you to hear yourself in the way you present your statements.

Q<

Q bee i understand what you are saying but you just dont understand what my point is, and you are not going to get it. Ateista understands my point. He knows i have his best interest at heart.

Trust me i tried it your way, it does not work with Ateista that way, That is what cats and dogs was trying to tell me, I finally got it. I know you think im a terrible person and poor example for my faith, and maybe I am, but im trying my best to get Ateista to the truth another way is all.

Ateista could you please ask the spaghetti monster to help me here!

 

[ateista]

I said if that is true how can someone who never believed in God turn around and begin to believe.

Of course such things happen. I conducted a few polls (not scientific ones, I am afraid), but the overwhelming general response was that it happened under great stress. When the affected people were under great strain, they “turned” to God and felt relieved. In my opinionthat is just another example of our capability of self-deception, nothing more.

I have never heard of a rational atheist, who stood on philosophical ground, who was converted by listening to rational arguments. Maybe it happened, but not to me. As a strong atheist, I find the concept of God poorly defined, with many nonsensical attributes, which contradict each other. In this sense it is identical to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Just as I cannot believe in the existence of the IPU, I cannot believe in the existence of God.

What you said was that I should “pray sincerely and ask for faith”. It cannot be done. Of course I could utter the words, but they would be just a “mockery”, since to expect an answer would already presuppose that there is “God” out there, who can grant my prayer.

Ateista works only on facts, what he sees. He cannot deny this FACT.

That in not exactly true. Of course I mostly rely on facts, but I am not against a conversation as long as it is rational.

I said many a time that I am willing to accept God’s existence as a working hypothesis, and see what the evidence shows - or does not show. So far I never saw a good, logical argument for the hypothesis. Most of them were emotionally driven, or poorly conceived, pseudo-scientific assertions. Some were appeals to numbers: “because many people believe” types of arguments. But I am still waiting…

 

[ateista]

Q bee i understand what you are saying but you just dont understand what my point is, and you are not going to get it. Ateista understands my point. He knows i have his best interest at heart.

Of course I know that.

Ateista could you please ask the spaghetti monster to help me here!

I cannot… since you forgot to add the correct phrase: “blessed be its sacred tentacles”.

[joke on]
If you cannot sincerely ask the FSM and add the proper phraseology, you are out of luck. But if you do, I am sure that it will help you, but you must be patient. It may take years and years, but it will answer your request. I cannot guarantee that it will be “positive” response, however. Some requests are against the greater good that only the FSM can see, so don’t be disappointed, if the answer is not what you expected.
[joke off]

 

[rinnie]

Of course such things happen. I conducted a few polls (not scientific ones, I am afraid), but the overwhelming general response was that it happened under great stress. When the affected people were under great strain, they “turned” to God and felt relieved. In my opinionthat is just another example of our capability of self-deception, nothing more.

I have never heard of a rational atheist, who stood on philosophical ground, who was converted by listening to rational arguments. Maybe it happened, but not to me. As a strong atheist, I find the concept of God poorly defined, with many nonsensical attributes, which contradict each other. In this sense it is identical to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Just as I cannot believe in the existence of the IPU, I cannot believe in the existence of God.

What you said was that I should “pray sincerely and ask for faith”. It cannot be done. Of course I could utter the words, but they would be just a “mockery”, since to expect an answer would already presuppose that there is “God” out there, who can grant my prayer.

That in not exactly true. Of course I mostly rely on facts, but I am not against a conversation as long as it is rational.

I said many a time that I am willing to accept God’s existence as a working hypothesis, and see what the evidence shows - or does not show. So far I never saw a good, logical argument for the hypothesis. Most of them were emotionally driven, or poorly conceived, pseudo-scientific assertions. Some were appeals to numbers: “because many people believe” types of arguments. But I am still waiting…

Actually we agree on another thing i have never heard of a rational athiest either, (couldnt let that one go sorry) but you do have a point as far as when People do go to God, And I will admit not always but alot of the time people turn to God when they have no where else to go, Sad but true, but Fact when they do and find him they become changed people. More contented within. for sure. Just amother way of showing how full of mercy he is. and how he is always waiting to help and will indeed do so. But rather you believe in him or not, you have to admit when he enters peoples hearts things are much more easier to handle. Or at least they tend to deal with them better thats for sure. But that was my point that you need not have faith to receive just have to want it. If you want it bad enough God can and will take over. You do not have to believe in him at that point, just wanting to with a sincere heart and letting go of all else will do wonders. Thats what i want for you Ateista, just to let go, and let God. Maybe some day you will do just that. I just hope that you dont have to be so low in your life to make you feel you have nothing to lose, I would rather you found him in a good time in your life, I pray you will want him in your life is all when times are good. But as we both agree it rarely happens that way. But if he is in your life when times are good, when the bad does come, and they will, he will be the rock. the glue to hold it together. Its just so much easier that way, He makes the hard times not seem so bad. But for now my little spaghetti monster i have to just keep praying for you and no matter how hard you try, (to make me mad) i will keep up the faith and keep asking God to look after you.

 

[ateista]

Actually we agree on another thing i have never heard of a rational athiest either, (couldnt let that one go sorry)

Hehe… never let an opportunity go by! A good joke is worth its weight in gold.

If you want it bad enough God can and will take over. You do not have to believe in him at that point, just wanting to with a sincere heart and letting go of all else will do wonders.

But the catcher is that I am simply keeping an open mind. I don’t “want” it, nor do I want the opposite. I am simply a neutral, detached observer, who counts the points for both sides. So far the God-team is losing.

But for now my little spaghetti monster i have to just keep praying for you and no matter how hard you try, (to make me mad) i will keep up the faith and keep asking God to look after you.

Of course I am not trying to make you mad! I am touched by your concern.

 

[Q_Bee]

I said many a time that I am willing to accept God’s existence as a working hypothesis, and see what the evidence shows - or does not show. So far I never saw a good, logical argument for the hypothesis. Most of them were emotionally driven, or poorly conceived, pseudo-scientific assertions. Some were appeals to numbers: “because many people believe” types of arguments. But I am still waiting…

I think you are right; God cannot be proven. Operating on only what can be evidenced by concrete example or rational thought/working hypothesis will not create belief.

What can be shown though is located in double-blind studies that prayer has an effect of healing even if the person does not know they are being prayed for. Maybe you would call that ‘the power of the mind’ or something like that, but it is oprating in realm other than logic and reason, so it will not provide evidence in the realm of logic and reason.

I suppose you think of yourself as a network of electrons that happened by chance and that you have no say on how that all operates. You simply came into being and are set on auto-pilot until one of your semi-conductors burns out.

Q<

 

[Schnitz]

Or grow “out of”… Children believe anything, due to their lack of critical skills. Adults are supposed to grow out of this childish acceptance of claims - thought some never do. Their loss… they are at the mercy of unscrupulous “teachers” who will exploit this uncritical acceptance. A horrible, but precise example would be the fate of the people in Jonestown…

Hence the reason that you would be considered an atheist. Unlike children who believe in what their parents tell them because it makes them feel good, or because they like it, or maybe because it scares them, a Catholic’s faith is much different. If a Christian thinks God is like Santa Claus, then they aren’t Christian.

 

[nuntym]

Sorry I will make my answers brief, as I have to go in while.

Oh, my friend… if I had dared to say what you did, I would be screamed at… at the very least. But, yes, it is a great summary.

Naah, if you did and I read it, I would secretly approve (I wouldn’t dare to do it publicly too! For I too would be screamed at at the very least, hehe ). For it is one of the first steps to realizing the wisdom of God to recognize its “absurdity”.

Well, that is not really true, though it does have elements of truth in it. Indeed there were good things the “rule” of the Church has brought about. But the price we had to pay for it was horrible. Let’s not get into this now.

Sure

Nope. Not all people have conscience in the first place.

And many of the so-called “mortal” sins make no sense at all for the non-Christians. I refer here to the ludicrous rules the Church tries to enforce in the matter of sexual behavior.

And one would wonder why those people have no conscience. Perhaps they have ignored to use it until it atrophied?

Ah yes, the mortal sins against chastity. The main point of the Church is that sex’s grip on the human psyche is so powerful, yet its effect on the human person so powerful too, that one has to be careful in its use. Kind of like how we treat fire. As children, we were taught not to play with fire. And we all know how easy it is to get “burned” with sex.

Thank you! It is so refreshing to see agreement in this important question.

Your welcome. I personally like to be convinced of the truth rather than have it poured down my throat

Without going into too many details, our body is made up of very vulnerable materials. If our bodies would be made of metals, we would not have to worry about slipping and breaking a bone, for example. Looking at the body from the viewpoint of a constructor, it is shoddy design coupled with lousy workmanship.

I don’t see it that way. If we were made of metals for example so many biochemical processes that happen inside us would be impossible. And we would be quite heavy. Sorry cannot elaborate on this further with the time I have.

Maybe. But in these instances at least there is a “desire” to get something “good” out of it.

And THAT is the main difference between sin and good works.

Yes I am aware of this concept. But, what does it mean - in practical terms? That could fill up a whole thread on its own.

I recall the story of a native Eskimo, who has never heard of God, and lived his life according to his standards. A missionary came and told him how he should behave according to the teachings of the Church. When the Eskimo asked how God would have judged him if the missionary never came, he was told that he was safe, the “invincible ingorance” protected him. So the Eskimo said: “Then why did you come and tell me?”.

And I seem to recall that this missionary answered, “So you can have a choice of going getting out of this hell that is your mythology.”

Sure. That I agree with. Mercy killing (euthanasia) is quite acceptable in my book. I would even request it under certain conditions.

Euthanasia is something I don’t agree with, but at least we agree on the basic premise about evil.

Probably a few, I wouldn’t know. But look at all the fatalities on the roads every day of the week. Or the fatalities caused by unpredictable natural disasters, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, Earthquakes… where is the protective hand of God there?

Again, death at least for us is not the end of it all. For death can always be either a reward, a mercy, or a punishment. I will try to expound on this when I return.

Sure it is free. As long as there is more than one option open… it is free. To take away some of the options will not invalidate the freedom to choose among the available ones.

Hmm, it seems so. But when this happens, when every strong and/or evil act is prevented, then what is the purpose of love or beauty or chivalry or the like? It is the possibility of being able to do acts of hate, depravity, or (argh! I forgot the opposite of chivalry ) that makes acts of love, beauty, and chivalry so precious.

And for someone who treats Christians as ignorant children, you seem to want man to be treated like a child.

So you say that the free will of the victim of a gang-rape is not invalidated by the attackers? That she can “freely will” not to be raped, though physically she cannot avoid it? Is that what you meant?

If the answer is affirmative, then you just painted yourself into a very tight corner. Can you figure out what I mean?

Yes I think I do understand you. Gang rape is a horrible attack on the free will of a person. However, it does not invalidate free will, for that person is free to give in to the hate against those who rape her/her, or fight against the hate and try to forgive them; to give in to the fear and be silent, or fight the fear and fight the rapers in spirit and shout, scream, and kick as much as possible.

---

Although I have to admit, I am surprised. Why no response on the topic about original sin?

 

[rinnie]

Hehe… never let an opportunity go by! A good joke is worth its weight in gold.

But the catcher is that I am simply keeping an open mind. I don’t “want” it, nor do I want the opposite. I am simply a neutral, detached observer, who counts the points for both sides. So far the God-team is losing.

Of course I am not trying to make you mad! I am touched by your concern.

I know Love, I know!

 

[ateista]

I think you are right; God cannot be proven. Operating on only what can be evidenced by concrete example or rational thought/working hypothesis will not create belief.

Agreed. But I am not asking for “irrefutable proof”, merely for reasonable evidence… and that is missing, too.

What can be shown though is located in double-blind studies that prayer has an effect of healing even if the person does not know they are being prayed for. Maybe you would call that ‘the power of the mind’ or something like that, but it is oprating in realm other than logic and reason, so it will not provide evidence in the realm of logic and reason.

Actually, it would be an evidence that would make one think. Statistics is definitely within the realm of reason. The trouble is that there is no statistically significant difference. That can be partly attibuted to the fact that there are people who pray in general terms - for everyone - and thus it is impossible to set up a truly double blind scenario.

I suppose you think of yourself as a network of electrons that happened by chance and that you have no say on how that all operates. You simply came into being and are set on auto-pilot until one of your semi-conductors burns out.

Well, sort of, but not exactly. Part of my neural network is definitely “random”, but not all of it. A significant part of it is shaped by my conscious application of a “filtering process”. I certainly have a “say so” in its operation, at least as my conscious part of the brain goes. The sub-conscious part is questionable.

 

[ateista]

Hence the reason that you would be considered an atheist. Unlike children who believe in what their parents tell them because it makes them feel good, or because they like it, or maybe because it scares them, a Catholic’s faith is much different.

But is it, really? The Bible explicitly says that “one must be like a child” meaning that one should not apply one’s critical skills. The “meek shall inherit the Earth”, says Jesus.

 

[Nickkname]

As some of you may know, Bill Maher has a documentary called “Religulous” coming out where I’m guessing he finds the people worst at defending their faiths and basically mocks religion (atleast thats what the trailer shows). Not planning on paying to see this movie, but I may watch it in a way so I don’t contribute financially to it.

But anyways, in the trailer, he’s asking an actor dressed as Jesus something like “Why doesn’t God just obliterate the devil now and get rid of all the evil in the world?”

The guy responds “He will.”

Bill Maher then asks “What’s he waiting for?”

What are good responses to questions like these?

The problem is we look at evil from a human point of view, and this is especially so when we speak of God, as if to say He has a human point of view Himself. But because He is spirit, He is immune to time, so He can see all of time - past, present, and future - as one, and moreover, being omniscient, He knows all that’s going to happen. So it’s not a matter of waiting for when He will vanquish evil, it is a matter of Him guiding history to the desired end, i.e., the final consummation of heaven and earth.

Now, in regards to evil, we tend to forget that we creatures are thr cause of all evil by our disobedience to and rebellion against the good God. This sounds like blaming man but it is actually the truth. So until we can shape up and obey God, until the whole world converts to Him, there will still be evil.

But God is still in charge of history: He is working quietly in the world, almost unnoticed, changing hearts and getting everything ready for the consummation, guiding His People and His world to the end. His plans almost seem to be in the throes of defeat, too, His cause always seems to be defeated by evil, but, this is just what the Lord wants: It’s an excellent way to tell the story of love, so to speak.

 

[ateista]

Sorry I will make my answers brief, as I have to go in while.

You will be welcomed with open arms when you return. And that is a promise!

And one would wonder why those people have no conscience. Perhaps they have ignored to use it until it atrophied?

Quite possible. Though some people are (probably) born without it, I mean the true sociopaths.

Ah yes, the mortal sins against chastity. The main point of the Church is that sex’s grip on the human psyche is so powerful, yet its effect on the human person so powerful too, that one has to be careful in its use. Kind of like how we treat fire. As children, we were taught not to play with fire. And we all know how easy it is to get “burned” with sex.

Yes and no. It is a fact that humans and the great apes are different from the rest of the animals. We are the only creatures who can enjoy sex outside the time of estrus. I cannot agree that one can “overdo” sex. We can eat or drink ourselves to death, but our body will simply not allow to “overextend” our sexual activities.

My theory is different. Yes, sex is the most powerful drive we have. It is the most pleasurable activity. So to curtail or control it - if possible - is the strongest form of control over the subjects. And that is what the Church attempted to do across the ages. I don’t want to be graphic about it, but we all know the phrase about having someone by the “short hair”. If one can regulate the most powerful activity we can engage in, then they have full control over us.

Your welcome. I personally like to be convinced of the truth rather than have it poured down my throat

Very strongly agreed!

I don’t see it that way. If we were made of metals for example so many biochemical processes that happen inside us would be impossible. And we would be quite heavy. Sorry cannot elaborate on this further with the time I have.

No problem. It was just an example. The point is that we can imagine a different type of existence, where a lot (or all) of our current problems would simply not exist.

Again, death at least for us is not the end of it all. For death can always be either a reward, a mercy, or a punishment. I will try to expound on this when I return.

Very well. I will be here to see your arguments.

Hmm, it seems so. But when this happens, when every strong and/or evil act is prevented, then what is the purpose of love or beauty or chivalry or the like? It is the possibility of being able to do acts of hate, depravity, or (argh! I forgot the opposite of chivalry ) that makes acts of love, beauty, and chivalry so precious.

Ahh, the age old question. Is it better to be hungry and be fed later on, or is it better to be properly fed all the time? Personally I am happier to live my life on “absolute” terms, rather than on “relative” ones. I am not happy just because others are miserable, I am happy because I have what I have. I am not miserable because Bill Gates is much richer than I am, I am happy and content with what I have.

Do you see my point? I prefer to be constantly healthy, rather than to be sick for a while and then recuperate. The relative “good” of knowing how bad it could be is inferior in my opinion compared to just be “well”. Do you really think that it is a good idea to pound your finger with a hammer, just because it feels soooo good when you stop it? I don’t think so.

And for someone who treats Christians as ignorant children, you seem to want man to be treated like a child.

Sometimes that would be true. But my point is that to allow to make “truly fatal decisions” is incompatible with love.

Yes I think I do understand you. Gang rape is a horrible attack on the free will of a person. However, it does not invalidate free will, for that person is free to give in to the hate against those who rape her/her, or fight against the hate and try to forgive them; to give in to the fear and be silent, or fight the fear and fight the rapers in spirit and shout, scream, and kick as much as possible.

Yet, none of those activities allow the victim to escape. Sure, one could say that she has the option just to “lay back and enjoy it”, but that would be a very cruel thing to say! To disallow the violent treatment of a rape victim does curtail the freedom of the would-be attacker somewhat, that is a given. But he still would have innumerabe “free” opions to choose from. That is what I was alluding to.

Although I have to admit, I am surprised. Why no response on the topic about original sin?

I am nor sure what you mean. The “original sin” is just a myth, as far as I am concerned.

 

[ateista]

I know Love, I know!

I am sure you do… guess what, so do I

 

[Schnitz]

But is it, really? The Bible explicitly says that “one must be like a child” meaning that one should not apply one’s critical skills. The “meek shall inherit the Earth”, says Jesus.

Yes, my faith really is different than that of a child’s (please don’t think that I am saying this in an assertive/harsh way, but rather in a way so as to continue this dialogue in a constructive and respective manner).

Also, the Bible isn’t instructing us to abandon reason or logic (I assume that this is what you mean when you refer to being like a child) in order to attain faith. My faith doesn’t contradict either.

Further, I don’t think that one could say that they truly believed in something (whether said belief be in the FSM, the IPU, or Jesus Christ) without first thinking about it. In the words of St. Augustine, “No one believes anything unless one first thought it believable. Everything that is believed is believed after being preceded by thought. Not everyone who thinks believes, since many think in order not to believe; but everyone who believes thinks, thinks in believing and believes in thinking.”

Finally, in reference to the meek: simply because they trust in God’s promises, doesn’t mean that they have abandoned their “critical analytical” skills and become “like children” in the process. It simply means that they have taken their faith to its logical conclusion, which is the certainty of their faith.

Respectfully, Schnitz

 

[Schnitz]

I should have added that simply because I have thought about my faith, that doesn’t mean that I have reasoned my way into having the beliefs that I have. Many people try to reason the existence of God, and obviously come to different conclusions.

 

[Q_Bee]

Well, sort of, but not exactly. Part of my neural network is definitely “random”, but not all of it. A significant part of it is shaped by my conscious application of a “filtering process”. I certainly have a “say so” in its operation, at least as my conscious part of the brain goes. The sub-conscious part is questionable.

Well, my dear, what happens in your dreams? We use dreams as a source for discovering what is in need of healing and where the blocks are to spiritual progress. Should you ever consider this as a potential for exploration I’d be willing to talk with you off-list.

Q<

 

[Q_Bee]

I should have added that simply because I have thought about my faith, that doesn’t mean that I have reasoned my way into having the beliefs that I have. Many people try to reason the existence of God, and obviously come to different conclusions.

Are you a life-long Catholic? It may be that much of what we ‘believe’ comes from the conditioning we experienced before we reached the age of reason.

Q<

 

[Q_Bee]

The “original sin” is just a myth, as far as I am concerned.

No other ‘catholic jurisdiction’ except the RCC teaches the doctrine of original sin. It is the product of Augustine.

I wonder about this too. Is it a throwback to the Jewish notion that certain sins are inherited to the tenth generation? Hmmm. Maybe it can be equated to the story of the Man Born Blind (John 9). The disciples asked Jesus who had sinned, the blind man or the parents, that he had been born blind. Jesus said, ‘neither’.

Since John’s Gospel presents an allegorical account of his life and mission or a manual for discipleship, what is the thrust of this story? I’d say that it means to tell us that sin is not inherited, nor are we responsible for something we cannot know. The story has an indicator inasmuch as the Pool of Siloam’s name means “Sent”. From this we might extrapolate that healing or ‘sight’ comes to one who is willing to follow or to be ‘sent’. In other words, in this case the ego is willing to submit.

Q<

Q<

 

[Schnitz]

Are you a life-long Catholic? It may be that much of what we ‘believe’ comes from the conditioning we experienced before we reached the age of reason.

Q<

Yes Q, I have been a life-long Catholic. And while I would be lying if I disagreed with you, I am hesitant to agree completely. I was by no means spoon-fed my faith, and I have had many difficulties with it. However, in the words of Cardinal Newman, “Ten thousand difficulties don’t make one doubt.” I have explored many other religions in the search for Truth, but nothing else really fits. Note the St. Augustine quote. I try to bolster my faith with reasons, not gain my faith through reason.

Respectfully, Schnitz