Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[Matariel]

Not to mention that explicit atheists do not even accept the concept of “sin”, much less the necessity to “repent” - so they will remain in the state of “mortal sin”. And sometimes the painful death comes far too quickly for them to even have a conscious thought, much less the elaborate conversion and begging for forgiveness.

“No atheists in the foxholes”, supposedly.

And just one of such events is enough to prove that God allows gratuitous pain and suffering. Just one.

God would not interfere with our free-will on a regular basis. We are the people that choose our own destiny. We are not God’s puppets.

I am not trying to make God “look bad”. Nothing I can ever say is as bad as reality. [/FONT

But, Atiesta… that’s so depressing and unreal… why would you want to persistently believe (against all evidence) such a bleak destiny? I used to be an agnostic for awhile, but I came to realize how unreasonable and depressing it is.
[/quote]

 

[rinnie]

Ateista, let me try to explain something the easiest and shortest I can, There is the NT and the OT. Ok in the beginning the Jew’s were God’s People. They were the chosen race. Now the whole way thru the OT it tell’s you about a savior who will come back and save them. Now when you died you died. No one escaped death. Now there was no Catholic Religion then just Jewish.

Now all thru the Ot the talk about the Savior, The NT is about that Savior. Everything in the OT Jesus fullfilled. But the Jewish people didnt believe that Jesus was the Messiah. So they crucified him. But by his death and resurrection he has set us free. Free from death. So Jesus turned to us the gentiles. See Ateista, you are not the first to turn you back on Jesus his own People did.

If you would just take the time. what would it hurt. And read what the Book I have asked you. Then you would see, God could show you what I cant. I am not a good enough person, or teacher to do this, but he can talk to you through his word. His way, he could open your heart and help you. If you just let him. Why cant you at least try, again what would it hurt.

But you must remember Jesus took away death, When we die our soul leaves our body, but on the last day, Jesus will reunite that soul with that Body and we will walk again in this world. THere is no death Ateista, you will see your loved ones again, but this time there will be no more death, as we know it. We will live again in the world the New Heaven and the New Earth again with no sin, the devil will be gone forever. This is what we are striving for. THis is what we are waiting for, this life is nothing, nothing compared to the next. Then the world will be the way we all want and wish it to be. Not one bit of suffering again. But only if we choose God. Thats all we have to do. ANd follow his commandments (now thats hard) But he will help us. It will be pure Joy Pure Love, Pure happiness, Jesus promised us that, no tears, no pain no sadness.

 

[ateista]

I don’t think you know what death (spiritual) rinnie is speaking of. If you did, you would not call this a contradiction.

“Spiritual death” is undefined.

I would say that we all lack the knowledge and understanding to make such a statement. Are you equating “death” to “nonexistence”?

Of course.

How do you know this? What evidence do you have?

Do you really say that I should bring up evidence that there is no “immortal soul”?

Why do you continue to insist that God places anyone in hell? He does not do so.

Then who does? No one would “willingly” choose to be tortured forever and march off into hell with a grin on his face. Or is that what you believe?

Also, since faith is a gift we all receive, we cannot be damned for lack of it. Clearly the damned have willfully, and with full knowledge, failed to respond to that faith despite the evidence.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence. Only an old book, loaded with superstitious, incredible stories, and a bunch of fallible human beings who believe it. That is all the “evidence” there is.

Since damnation is not God’s doing, only the damned’s doing, there can be nothing “unfair” attributed to God.

Sure it is. A benevolent being would interfere forcefully if a loved one is about to commit a fatal error.

Given your publicly proclaimed position relative to God’s existance, I will say that you are completely unqualified in making such a judgement. How do you know if something is divine or not?

Hmmm… the old saying went: “a doctor does not have to have cancer to diagnose it in the patient”.

 

[ateista]

“No atheists in the foxholes”, supposedly.

Except that it is not true… not by a long shot.

But, Atiesta… that’s so depressing and unreal… why would you want to persistently believe (against all evidence) such a bleak destiny? I used to be an agnostic for awhile, but I came to realize how unreasonable and depressing it is.

One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. I don’t find anything depressing about ceasing to exist, though I would like to postpone it as long as I can, provided that I can do it is relatively good mental and physical health.

And I ask you, too: “What evidence”???

 

[ateista]

THis is what we are waiting for, this life is nothing, nothing compared to the next.

One bird in the hand is better than two (gazillions) in the bush. (Why do you wish to live in a dream when reality is here and now to cherish?)

 

[davidv]

“Spiritual death” is undefined.

It is defined = separation of one from God.

Of course.

Well I don’t believe you. Death does not equal nonexistance.

Do you really say that I should bring up evidence that there is no “immortal soul”?

No, I asked what evidence leads you to the conclusion that “death = nonexistance”. Without evidence it is simply an assertion.

Then who does?

The one who sins mortally.

No one would “willingly” choose to be tortured forever and march off into hell with a grin on his face. Or is that what you believe?

ISTM the the morning papers’ headlines are constantly filled with examples of individuals who have willing denied God’s commands and committed serious atrocities against their neighbors.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence. Only an old book, loaded with superstitious, incredible stories, and a bunch of fallible human beings who believe it. That is all the “evidence” there is.

There is plenty of evidence. You have simply dismissed it out-of-hand based on you beliefs.

Sure it is. A benevolent being would interfere forcefully if a loved one is about to commit a fatal error.

How do you know this? I don’t believe you know what benevolent being would do. You have only described what you would do if you had the power to do so and declared this to be benevolent.

Hmmm… the old saying went: “a doctor does not have to have cancer to diagnose it in the patient”.

At least the doctor studied what cancer looks like and how it is manifested. You have demonstrated that you have not undertaken the requisite study.

 

[rinnie]

One bird in the hand is better than two (gazillions) in the bush. (Why do you wish to live in a dream when reality is here and now to cherish?)

No Way, I am scared to death of birds. keep them in the bush. And as far as dreams remember dreams do come true, and when it does and WILL happen, I wont have to wake up, it will last forever. And as far as reality goes, no thanks, You can cherish this world if you please, as for myself, Im going to cherish the one God has waiting for me. Just hopefully he will have mercy on me, and consider me worthy. I am going for complete happiness, and it cannot be accomplished in this world, because complete happiness is to be with God. Look at this world all of these People with money, power, I dont see happiness, i see them destroying themself and others. I will wait until God calls me and then I will run to him.

 

[Philthy]

Well, let’s get down to the details:

In the following segment, to save space I will use the word “evil” to encompass both moral evil and unnecessary physical pain and suffering.

1. If God is benevolent, so he will only allow necessary “evil”.
2. Necessary means that God himself could not achieve the same result without the “evil”.
3. The result of the “evil” must be greater than the “evil” itself.
4. God is the judge to decide this. (You see how hard I try to accommodate your principles?)
5. The resulting good cannot be pertaining to “others” only, since that would deprive the sufferer of his dignity.

All of these are supported by Catholic teachings.

Now the scenario:

Someone, who is in the state of unrepented mortal sin suffers an accident which results in a painful death.

Analysis:

Since the person is in the state of unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell. (Catholic dogma) Since his life ends then and there, he will not experience any “good” from his suffering - in this existence. (Obvious)

Conclusion:

The pain and suffering experienced by this person gets no reward either in this life or the next one. Even if his painful death would benefit others in some unspecified and unspecifyable way, it would still demean him to the position of a “tool” and that is not acceptable by you (or me).

Therefore God allowed pain and suffering which is not necessary to achieve some greater good. Therefore God is not benevolent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, we are incapable of accurately determing the amount of good vs evil in any situation. This fact obviates your entire line of reasoning. We simply have no idea, for example, whether the suffering caused this individual to repent as his last act of free will. We remain incapable of judging such things. Unfortunately you either dont appreciate this fact or you are in denial.
From a purely logical perspective your conclusion(bolded) violates the premise 4 (God is the judge) by substituting your opinion as God’s judgement. In order for us to accept it you would need to prove that you are, in fact, God or that your judgement is equivalent to God’s. You have not done that. Your conclusion, therefore has to be treated as invalid until proven otherwise.

 

[Philthy]

One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. I don’t find anything depressing about ceasing to exist, though I would like to postpone it as long as I can, provided that I can do it is relatively good mental and physical health.

And this claim has how many data points to support it? You value your unsubstantiated opinions too highly IMHO.

 

[ateista]

ISTM the the morning papers’ headlines are constantly filled with examples of individuals who have willing denied God’s commands and committed serious atrocities against their neighbors.

Irrelevant. I do not act against my neighbors. I simply do not believe in God. And as rinnie pointed out, according to Jesus, if I am not for him, I am against him.

But my question was different: what is the method of “putting” people into hell? They will not march down signing into eternal fire. Someone has to do the job of forcing them.

There is plenty of evidence. You have simply dismissed it out-of-hand based on you beliefs.

I keep asking: what is the evidence? Your answer: “there is plenty of evidence”. What is it? Is there “hard” evidence?

How do you know this? I don’t believe you know what benevolent being would do. You have only described what you would do if you had the power to do so and declared this to be benevolent.

Well… I use the definiton: “a benevolent being acts in the best interest of the loved ones”. Does not sound too farfetched to me. What is your definition?

At least the doctor studied what cancer looks like and how it is manifested. You have demonstrated that you have not undertaken the requisite study.

Sure I did. I am doing it constantly here on these boards.

 

[ateista]

As I have pointed out repeatedly, we are incapable of accurately determing the amount of good vs evil in any situation.

But that was only your assertion. However, let’s take it seriously for a moment.

If that is the case, then you obviously should never say that God is good or benevolent - after all you are also incapable of determining it.

If we can “never” correctly assess a situation, then your stance is that of the universal skeptic. Therefore you should deny your own assertoin, too - and arrive at the conclusion that it “is false that we can never assess a situation correctly”. The result: “dog chasing its tail forever”. Or if you prefer: “this sentence is false”. That is what you say.

This fact obviates your entire line of reasoning. We simply have no idea, for example, whether the suffering caused this individual to repent as his last act of free will. We remain incapable of judging such things. Unfortunately you either dont appreciate this fact or you are in denial.

Yes, we can. That is the whole point of this example.

There are many people who have never even heard of God. Still if they commit acts which go against the “natural law” they are in mortal sin. Since they never heard of God, they are not in the position to repent - which is a thoroughly Christian idea.

Therefore they will not get into heaven.

From a purely logical perspective your conclusion(bolded) violates the premise 4 (God is the judge) by substituting your opinion as God’s judgement. In order for us to accept it you would need to prove that you are, in fact, God or that your judgement is equivalent to God’s. You have not done that. Your conclusion, therefore has to be treated as invalid until proven otherwise.

No, you Catholics already did my job when you asserted that dying in the state of mortal sin will result in hell. God judged them and his decision is that they are not accepted in heaven.

As I said, I am not going to use secular arguments here. I only use Catholic arguments. You must argue against Catholicism if you wish to dismantle my line of reasoning.

 

[ateista]

ateista:

One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. I don’t find anything depressing about ceasing to exist

, though I would like to postpone it as long as I can, provided that I can do it is relatively good mental and physical health.

And this claim has how many data points to support it? You value your unsubstantiated opinions too highly IMHO.

Why should I substantiate my own opinion, which only pertains to me? If I asserted that my view should be accepted by others, then yes, you could correctly demand justification for it. But that is not the case.

 

[ateista]

I will be on vacation for the duration of next week. I will have no access to a computer. When I return, I will try to catch up, if there are any replies. Have a wonderful week, all of you!

 

[rinnie]

I will be on vacation for the duration of next week. I will have no access to a computer. When I return, I will try to catch up, if there are any replies. Have a wonderful week, all of you!

Good for you have a safe and wonderful trip.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Irrelevant. I do not act against my neighbors. I simply do not believe in God. And as rinnie pointed out, according to Jesus, if I am not for him, I am against him.

But my question was different: what is the method of “putting” people into hell? They will not march down signing into eternal fire. Someone has to do the job of forcing them.

I keep asking: what is the evidence? Your answer: “there is plenty of evidence”. What is it? Is there “hard” evidence?

Well… I use the definiton: “a benevolent being acts in the best interest of the loved ones”. Does not sound too farfetched to me. What is your definition?

Sure I did. I am doing it constantly here on these boards.

God respects us to freely choose, even hell. Just as a psychotherapist unhappily respects a patient to choose suffering.

Here is the hard evidence:

Psychotherapists often use what’s called the Socratic Method.

Here, the therapist changes power positions,
he is not the teacher,
but the student.

This is done by having the patient,
teach the therapist about the the patient’s depression.

Let’s say we have a patient who suffers from depression.

If this patient is dictated to,
he may feel coerced and misunderstood.
and hold back the information.

This Socratic Method is intended to allow the therapist to better examine all the information from the patient.
and allow the patient to at feel understood without coercion.

Unfortunately, patients will hold back sometimes. Regardless.

But the Socratic Method, more importantly, is specifically designed to respect the patient’s free will.

Because a good therapist knows, that happiness and free will go hand in hand.

Likewise,

Let’s say we have a patient who performs acts of violence against the innocent.

The Socratic method still used for the same reason.

Is this patient angry about his victims?
Is he angry about someone or something else?
Why is he so angry?

What is on the surface is not always the underlying issue.

The therapist does not know.

If this patient is dictated to,
he may feel coerced, and consider it a fight,
and the therapist will then not get the necessary information,
nor will he find happiness, which includes free will.

Of course, we will try to stop harmful physical actions. But in the afterlife we do not believe that we have physical bodies.

By the way death and nonexistence are not the same,
Evil and suffering are on a continuum,
existence is not.
Sorry if I was ever unclear.

Furthermore,
a secular mystery is something that can not be known,
a Catholic mystery is defined as something that can be known with reason, but not completely. This is because it pertains to things which are infinite.

Furthermore,
How do you guys find the time to blog so often?

 

[rtconstant]

Probably something about the “respect” for our free will. But that is a bogus argument.

The free will defense has been refuted many times, most recently in the Philosophy forum, where both SeekingCatholic (who is Catolic) and myself (an atheist) gave a mathematical proof that God could have creted a world with free will and without sin.

No, the free will argument has not been refuted many times. It is however, inconvenient for some outlooks. God did create a world with free will and no evil. However, freewill, by its nature means that things don’t have to remain static, and very likely will not. So it would be a mathmatical impossibility to prove that free will and lack of evil could continue indefinately. Could it happen? Sure, but that’s the tricky thing with having all options available all the time. The longer you go the more likely it is that something is going to break the mold.

The only way to garauntee a lack of evil is to create bodies that never had chemical imbalances (thus negating any rise or fall in emotional level), which is a form of control, and it would negate the possibility of joy as well. Or to carefully craft a padded environment with as little stimulus as possible, as even positive stimulae can lead to evil actions. I don’t know about you but that isn’t a world that sounds very exciting to live in. Of course you may agree. Of course the irony here is that a world that was like this would have probably never evolved us humans anyway.

I gave my own answer at the beginning of the thread. God does not obliterate evil for the same reason that the good heroes never “fully” kill the evil opponents in comic strips, because that would be the end of the story. And the show must go on…

While glib it really didn’t enrich anything in the thread.

The question “why doesn’t God just destroy evil” is ultimately an immature one. It suggests a desire for a robotic and safe existance without possibility for beauty, joy or even pain (which is sometimes in and of itself an enriching experience). It suggests a mind that wants to be free from the responsibilities and consequences of personal actions by laying all guilt and responsibility at the feet of greater beings. It suggests a desire for a world that is stagnant.

 

[Matariel]

I will be on vacation for the duration of next week. I will have no access to a computer. When I return, I will try to catch up, if there are any replies. Have a wonderful week, all of you!

Have a safe trip on your holiday! I hope you enjoy your free-time. Godspeed.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

No, the free will argument has not been refuted many times. It is however, inconvenient for some outlooks. God did create a world with free will and no evil. However, freewill, by its nature means that things don’t have to remain static, and very likely will not. So it would be a mathmatical impossibility to prove that free will and lack of evil could continue indefinately. Could it happen? Sure, but that’s the tricky thing with having all options available all the time. The longer you go the more likely it is that something is going to break the mold.

The only way to garauntee a lack of evil is to create bodies that never had chemical imbalances (thus negating any rise or fall in emotional level), which is a form of control, and it would negate the possibility of joy as well. Or to carefully craft a padded environment with as little stimulus as possible, as even positive stimulae can lead to evil actions. I don’t know about you but that isn’t a world that sounds very exciting to live in. Of course you may agree. Of course the irony here is that a world that was like this would have probably never evolved us humans anyway.

While glib it really didn’t enrich anything in the thread.

The question “why doesn’t God just destroy evil” is ultimately an immature one. It suggests a desire for a robotic and safe existance without possibility for beauty, joy or even pain (which is sometimes in and of itself an enriching experience). It suggests a mind that wants to be free from the responsibilities and consequences of personal actions by laying all guilt and responsibility at the feet of greater beings. It suggests a desire for a world that is stagnant.

If happiness is ever changing,
then a happy man always knows he can become happier,

but if a happy man always knows he can become happier,
He always knows that he will always lack happiness,
and this will always give him unhappiness.
and this unhappiness would be an indefinite evil.
and lack the freedom to be completely happy.

 

[rtconstant]

If happiness is ever changing,
then a happy man always knows he can become happier,

but if a happy man always knows he can become happier,
He always knows that he will always lack happiness,
and this will always give him unhappiness.
and this unhappiness would be an indefinite evil.
and lack the freedom to be completely happy.

Interesting. I do agree that man by his nature will seek for that which he lacks. It is enigma about humanity that the drives that lead us to nobility are at the root the same ones that can lead us to depravity. I have never considered this idea in a context focused on happiness before.

I find the statement that “unhappiness would be an indefinite evil” interesting. Are you speaking of happiness in terms of a sense of completeness, belonging, and true self identification? Or are you seeing something more, or different?

 

[rtconstant]

I will be on vacation for the duration of next week. I will have no access to a computer. When I return, I will try to catch up, if there are any replies. Have a wonderful week, all of you!

Have fun on your vacation!