Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[CatsAndDogs]

Read this sequence:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
But God have put us here for a test, to see who we really are,

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateista
No, this is not correct. God’s omniscience precludes any “testing”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
How does Gods omniscience prelude any testing?

It would be irrational. God’s alleged omniscience means that he “knows” how I will choose in any scenario. There is no need for him to ascertain that event - he already knows it.

So, atheista doesn’t believe in free will. That is, he believes that if God exists then free will doesn’t exist.

This is how we can be tested by an omniscient being:

We are characters, created by our “Author”, who are allowed to make choices which our Author will not change, in His “book” which He can “enter” at any point (just as any reader can “enter” a book at any point).

Since the Author can be simultaneously reading every and any point in His book as seen by His characters, when He sees what we do (with our free will) He “is” simultaneously at the beginning and at the end and anywhere in between in the book as seen by us, which looks to us like “omniscience”.

He must STILL “wait” (in His “time”) for us to (freely will) what we do, but He can BE anywhere in our time AFTER finding out what we do do!

That is how we are “tested” (given learning opportunities) by an omniscient being.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
Wow wait a minute, I did not say that without the devil our free will is taken away. I said without the devil EVIL there is no evil to choose.

Why not? We can choose “evil”, but it is our choice. As you said I can choose to do harm to my neighbor (evil act), and can choose not to do it. The devil has nothing to do with my choice.

Why would ateista be any more familiar with what “the devil” means than what “God” means?

The devil is “temptation” personified. He is the prime (first) temptor, who first tempted himself, then tempted the angels, then tempted man.

The devil has “something to do” with EVERY choice, because via him (the devil) temptation to MAKE THE WRONG CHOICE entered creation!

Without the devil, it would be impossible to make an evil choice, therefore ANY choice implicitly includes “the devil”.

The devil doesn’t MAKE people make evil choices. He simply tempts them to do so. We make our own choices (we DO have free will), but the “pull of the devil” is always an element in our choices.

 

[rinnie]

Catsanddogs, Ateista is going to be okay, He is on the right road he just seems to be getting lost. He has more God in him than he even knows. Where does that helping these people he is helping come from that come from God not the Devil.

God is closer to him then he even knows, God sees his struggles, God is even working through him, better than he is even working through me.

I dont know if i could even open my house to someone in need, i hope i can if its asked of me.

All we can do is pray that God will give him the grace that is needed to totally give up himself to God. He is trying i can see that. God is good, God is great He knows all, and when Ateista is completely willing, and really is ready to receive this, God is going to pour a faith into him or her that is unreal. Its just Ateista must be ready. And only God knows when that will be.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
Also we do have power and knowledge given to us, it is given to us by God, All we have to do is ask for it.

Sorry, no matter how hard we try, God will not give us the power to stop the hunger or cure the diseases. It would be nice if he did.

Jesus said that whoever has faith as small as a mustard seed, he can ask for anything - even to move moutains - and his request will be granted. Well, I am not interested in moving mountains (though it might be fun) I would be much more interested in stopping genocides, rapes and murders.

But I don’t have the power, and when I asked for it - it was met with stony silence.

Do you do everything you can to stop genocides, rapes and murders?

Neither do I.

The “you” that Jesus was refering to (in the “mustard seed” verbage) was each individual AND (Boolean value of “and”) mankind as a whole.

What He meant was that if each individual REALLY understood the “super-tiny” amount of will (expressed belief) neccessary of each of us if ALL of us were “in this together” NOTHING would be impossible for us (which doesn’t violate natural physical law, as only God can overide [not “break”] natural physical law).

The atheistic “it’s all about ME” attitude precludes the idea that any “you” could mean “me, you, and all of us together”.

We CAN, and have moved mountains (via machinery), which is an “act of faith” that such things were possible by men working together to create such machinery. Moving mountains is easy compared to “moving minds”.

Those without faith can ALWAYS thwart those with faith in “worldy matters”. But were we all together in faith that violence was “not acceptable right now” there would be no violence! How could there be? Who would do it?

Once this actually happens, the very fabric of the universe would “change”, as our “classroom” would have served it’s purpose, and eternal life would be known to all, both those in purgatory/heaven and hell.

Those moving toward heaven would not be kicking themselves, eternally. Those in hell would be kicking themselves, eternally.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
Well no offense ateista, but you yourself claim that you dont believe. If you read the book of Job the same thing happened. In the end God said he will llisten to Jobs prayers because he had no doubt. But he would not listen to Jobs friends they were unfaithfull.

Which is pretty awful and not very “loving”. But you are wrong. I was a believer before. And I asked, and nothing ever happened.

Is your life (the only place where you still can make irrevocable choices) over yet!?

No?

Then how do you KNOW that “nothing ever happened”? You CAN’T make the judgement that “nothing happened in your life”, where “LIFE” means not only pre-death but also POST-death, until “it’s over” (where “it’s over” means that time after which you are incapable of making irrevocable choices).

You are making “rash” judgements! With incomplete information! even you must admit that “the game ain’t over til the game is OVER”!

You are obstinant in your learning. Is it really wise to prematurely make decisions which WILL harden into “convictions” which have such grave consequences as purgatory/heaven or hell?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
But God will only listen to his people. You must believe and have faith.

Why not? Thomas was doubting and asked for the sign. He was given the sign. Why are current unbelivers not worthy of a sign?

Thomas was chosen as a sign. The NEED for THAT PARTICULAR sign is no longer required, as it has been given.

God has taught that lesson, and we are to now learn from it.

Current believers are worthy of that sign, and they have their sign. The “sign who is Thomas” was not ONLY given to Thomas. The gift OF Thomas WAS our sign.

That you refuse that sign is perfectly understandable, as you are a perfect example of what the sign points out as an evil.

(( “You” are not evil. That which you’ve “bought into”, which has “tempted you” [hint!], to NEED a physical sign, to the extent of touching Jesus’s actual wounds, is evil. ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
God knows the moment he brings us in when we are comming out. We were put here for a reason, to do his work. its different for everyone. This is not heaven.

Why not? A loving creator would not do anything less.

That is your incompetent, unfounded, and rash judgement again!

HOW can you KNOW that heaven itself would be the only acceptable gift of a “Loving” (and why “loving” as defined by YOU?) creator?

How do you know that? Under your own stated “reasoning”, you CAN’T know ANYTHING, much less what is required to know to make that judgement!

How do you explain your judgement?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
God did not put us here to please us, we are put here to please him.

That would be quite selfish. And I cannot comprehend how our suffering can please him.

Our suffering does not please Him. The relief of our suffering by those whose job it is to do so pleases Him.

But, since you cannot get over your perverse idea that God inflicts suffering, which is an untruth, this is utterly incomprehensible to you.

Just as it is impossible to “prove” to you that God exists (which proof can only come from God Himself) it is impossible to “prove” to you ANYTHING that derives from the FACT that God exists.

One of those derivatives is that no suffering pleases God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
You are what is called a lost soul. You soul is empty, I can see you want to find God, I can see you do want to believe but something is stopping you. Only you know what that is. Only you can remove the block. If you did you would be so different.

I don’t “want to”. I am willing to change my mind, but that is all I can offer. But only on my terms. No amout of proselytizing or “witnessing” will do the trick. Rational arguments are needed.

But what if your “terms” utterly preclude your changing your mind, regardless of the truth that the change would allow you to see?

THAT is your problem.

You are actually willing to see truth as untruth because you value “your terms” more highly than truth!

Why do you think “your terms” are more valuable than Truth?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

As a matter of fact, I do many things. I was “accused” of being a good Christian because of my helpfulness. We took in homeless people into our own house, and helped them to get back on their feet. And not just for a few days, but for over a year. We arranged their wedding, helped them to deliver their child. We were doing this because we wanted to help.

One doesn’t need to be labeled a Christian to do as Christians are to do. Doing good is doing good.

And yet we are unbelievers. As you said, God closes his ears to us because we doubt. If you were right - and I don’t think you are - what does that say about the “justice” of God?

You are NOT unbelievers in doing good. If you are doing good so as to ease suffering, then you are a “person of God” at some “distance” from Him closer than those who do not ease the suffering of others.

But, if you ultimately reject God, the loss of God’s nearness (being in hell) by THAT act will utterly [near infinitely] overwhelm the nearness you attained by “relieving suffering”.

God’s justice demands that persons are given what they really want. Those how want hell more than heaven are justly given hell.

How is that not just?

 

[rinnie]

But what if your “terms” utterly preclude your changing your mind, regardless of the truth that the change would allow you to see?

THAT is your problem.

You are actually willing to see truth as untruth because you value “your terms” more highly than truth!

Why do you think “your terms” are more valuable than Truth?

I could be wrong but I am seeing it a little different. I believe what he is saying when he says he wants to believe, but it must be on his Terms.

I think that now that he understands that it wont happen that way, he at least has a whole different way of understanding it.

And not that I can prove anything but he can at least see that it (could be possible) that his faith hasnt came back yet, but if he lets go of those terms, and i pray he will, that may be the answer for him.

I just dont see him as this person that is evil or on the devils side. I cant help it, i know alot of evidence is there in his words, but there is something good in him.

I really think he is heading for the other side. I am going to light a candle for him on Sunday and keep praying for him that God will bring him back home. I know he belongs with God now. I just know it. I want God to have his soul back. I know God wants him.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Catsanddogs, Ateista is going to be okay, He is on the right road he just seems to be getting lost. He has more God in him than he even knows. Where does that helping these people he is helping come from that come from God not the Devil.

His “stumbling block” is nearly exactly as mine was. Intellectual people, especially VERY intellectual people, can be very tough and need to be shown how what seems like the “freedom of materialism” is really an enslavement to basic irrational axioms.

When they are shown the inherent self-contradictions of their axioms, they DENY DENY DENY, while secretly realizing that they are doomed to have to from thenceforth be “anxious” about the “scientifically necessary” consequent effects of those now-known self-contradictions.

This either forces them to become VERY angry super-entrenched militant atheists, or to relent to truth.

God is closer to him then he even knows, God sees his struggles, God is even working through him, better than he is even working through me.

I dont know if i could even open my house to someone in need, i hope i can if its asked of me.

All we can do is pray that God will give him the grace that is needed to totally give up himself to God. He is trying i can see that. God is good, God is great He knows all, and when Ateista is completely willing, and really is ready to receive this, God is going to pour a faith into him or her that is unreal. Its just Ateista must be ready. And only God knows when that will be.

Amen.

He is so highly stretched that something magnificent will happen, one way or another. Either he’ll be another Augustine (like me <gough, gasp, cough, cough!> ) or another REALLY good example of why being a vehement atheist is NOT a good idea.

Here’s hoping for another Augie!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I just dont see him as this person that is evil or on the devils side. I cant help it, i know alot of evidence is there in his words, but there is something good in him.

Oh HECK no! He’s not evil! He’s being deceived (mightily) by the temptor in a very subtle and powerful way.

He’s a very ethical person who strives to do good for very “natural law” reasons. That is obvious.

The problem is that the “fake God” tactic has been employed on him very successfully by that old satan guy.

Satan has set up a parody of God, a mask, in front of God so as to obscure Him, and convinced ateista that THAT is what God MUST look like.

Now, he (atheista) KNOWS, because he is a good person, that that mask can’t POSSIBLY be what (a good person’s) God would look like, so satan offers the “fruit” that explains, WELL ENOUGH FOR A MERE MORTAL, the origin of the universe (the nonsense of the “infinitely uncreated eternal universe”) and the (incomplete) “laws” of nature.

A good person can base their ethics/morals on the “orderly universe”. But they can only do so if they overlook the fact that they live within a society which is BASED on Godly principles, which they unconsciously USE (if not explicitly consciously use) because they “work”.

Their ethics/morals are stolen from God’s people and used in general, with the proviso that if satan wants a little “candy for the perverse” he (satan) is allowed to overide God’s ethics/morals as long as it’s “not scientifically harmful”.

That is the thin edge of the wedge, which is ALWAYS “inconsequentially trivial” (sharp) at the beginning, which is all that satan is really looking to create by showing people the ludicrous mask of God to those whose unrelieved suffering makes them good vulnerable targets for this satanic tactic.

Being a “good person” sets you up as a target for one of satan’s most devious (and effective) methods of corruption. That is why being a good person without God is simply helping the devil in his work.

I really think he is heading for the other side. I am going to light a candle for him on Sunday and keep praying for him that God will bring him back home. I know he belongs with God now. I just know it. I want God to have his soul back. I know God wants him.

God certainly wants him. He wants all of us. He’ll use ateista powerfully one way or the other, and the world will (eventually) be better for it.

Hopefully ateista won’t trash his own goodness, waste it in regards to himself, with one bad decision.

I have an entire category of people like him who I pray for by asking for intercession from Augustine and Monica.

(( …whose feast days were yesterday and the day before. )

 

[ateista]

But what if your “terms” utterly preclude your changing your mind, regardless of the truth that the change would allow you to see?

Than it is just too bad! If something cannot be demonstrated on purely rational terms, then that assertion is fully irrational!

 

[ateista]

I could be wrong but I am seeing it a little different. I believe what he is saying when he says he wants to believe, but it must be on his Terms.

I think that now that he understands that it wont happen that way, he at least has a whole different way of understanding it.

Actually I know it will never happen on my terms. But, please don’t worry about my “fate”. I will present to you my version of Pascal’s wager. Here comes:

If God is just, then he will judge me according to the evidence that is available to me. Obviously God knows that the evidence is incomplete - as the believers say: on purpose (so as not to infringe upon our free will).

Given that the basic principle of justice is that there is no full responsibility if only insufficient information is given, God will judge my lack of belief as a rational decision, based upon the available evidence. And since God is rational, he will embrace my honesty.

If God is honest (as asserted) then he will value my honesty, too. Therefore I am on safe grounds.

If, however, God is dishonest, irrational and unjust, then all bets are off. Then it does not matter if you believe or if you don’t.

This is my version of Pascal’s wager. In summary: It is always better to be honest, and stick to the available evidence, than accept unfounded testimonials of fallible human beings. God would never value discarding your rationality for blind faith.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
But what if your “terms” utterly preclude your changing your mind, regardless of the truth that the change would allow you to see?

Than it is just too bad! If something cannot be demonstrated on purely rational terms, then that assertion is fully irrational!

We Catholics call those unexplainable truths “mystery”, but that means only “irrational” to you, so consider this piece of information just a data-point and not an explanation, as you don’t accept Catholic explanations.

Anyway…

So, you’d prefer to accept untruth as truth instead of take a proper authority’s expert word for it?

You actually value your preconceptions over truth?

You ARE allowed to say “yes” to that question, ateista, and show us the REAL value system of the atheist mind, which I’m sure you are trying to do anyway.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Actually I know it will never happen on my terms. But, please don’t worry about my “fate”. I will present to you my version of Pascal’s wager. Here comes:

If God is just, then he will judge me according to the evidence that is available to me. Obviously God knows that the evidence is incomplete - as the believers say: on purpose (so as not to infringe upon our free will).

Given that the basic principle of justice is that there is no full responsibility if only insufficient information is given, God will judge my lack of belief as a rational decision, based upon the available evidence. And since God is rational, he will embrace my honesty.

If God is honest (as asserted) then he will value my honesty, too. Therefore I am on safe grounds.

If, however, God is dishonest, irrational and unjust, then all bets are off. Then it does not matter if you believe or if you don’t.

This is my version of Pascal’s wager. In summary: It is always better to be honest, and stick to the available evidence, than accept unfounded testimonials of fallible human beings. God would never value discarding your rationality for blind faith.

This is the sin of presumption. It is not an excuse to sin.

Your active rejection of available evidence, through sloth (you won’t do the work to get what you SAY you want), makes you culpable of rejecting that which you would not reject otherwise (God).

(( In other words, stay on this track and you’re toast. ))

 

[ateista]

So, you’d prefer to accept untruth as truth instead of take a proper authority’s expert word for it?

No, I would not. However the “proper” authority is the one that can argue and prove his assertions, not the one who just tries to shout you down. This letter variety is a bogus “authority”.

 

[rinnie]

Actually I know it will never happen on my terms. But, please don’t worry about my “fate”. I will present to you my version of Pascal’s wager. Here comes:

If God is just, then he will judge me according to the evidence that is available to me. Obviously God knows that the evidence is incomplete - as the believers say: on purpose (so as not to infringe upon our free will).

Given that the basic principle of justice is that there is no full responsibility if only insufficient information is given, God will judge my lack of belief as a rational decision, based upon the available evidence. And since God is rational, he will embrace my honesty.

If God is honest (as asserted) then he will value my honesty, too. Therefore I am on safe grounds.

If, however, God is dishonest, irrational and unjust, then all bets are off. Then it does not matter if you believe or if you don’t.

This is my version of Pascal’s wager. In summary: It is always better to be honest, and stick to the available evidence, than accept unfounded testimonials of fallible human beings. God would never value discarding your rationality for blind faith.

Why would you have to discard rationality for blind faith?

 

[ateista]

Your active rejection of available evidence, through sloth (you won’t do the work to get what you SAY you want), makes you culpable of rejecting that which you would not reject otherwise (God).

Nonsense. The evidence is always deficient - and according to the believers it is intentionally deficient. And justice (real justice) accepts that if one can reasonably deny the available evidence then it would be unjust to demand full responsibility. (Probably your “objection” will redefine “justice” and declare that “justice” is whatever God declares “justice”. And to that I will say: “Bah, humbug…”)

(( In other words, stay on this track and you’re toast. ))

And you obviously rejoice at that prospect.

 

[ateista]

Why would you have to discard rationality for blind faith?

Because the claims of Catholics go against the known laws of nature - and go against logic.

Suppose you told me that you won 10 dollars on a lottery. I would have no other evidence than your word, but I would accept your claim. Reason being, it is quite probable that you could have won 10 bucks. This is reasonable faith.

Suppose you told me that you won 70 million dollars on Powerball. Again, all I would have your word as evidence. In this case I would doubt it, since there are only a few people who won the jackpot and the chances that one of them would be you is very small. To accept it would be unreasonable faith, but not “blind faith” - since it is possible that you actually won that kind of money.

Finally, suppose you told me that you can levitate in the air at will - without any material support. I would flatly refuse to believe your claim. To accept it I would need “blind faith”. Now, if you could provide proper evidence - to my satisfaction - that you can do this, then of course I would have accept it. Faith in that case would be overridden by knowledge.