Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[Psychotheosophy]

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?

Your answer is:

Happiness is what it is, complete happiness.
anything less is something else.

Completion can not be something more than it is.

God is happiness, unity, and existence,
but because of his unity,
happiness is existence,
Just as God is
the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

“Belonging” is a means to happiness, and therefore,
not happiness itself.

If a means to happiness is our happiness,
we will not find happiness,
and I don’t think this is an enigma.

Your definition of happiness is a logical contradiction.
and my definition is different.

Now,

I’m not sure how you’re defining, “true self-identification.”
Please explain.

Are you assuming,
that happiness is
“a sense of completeness, belonging, and true self-identification,”
for all people?

Do you believe that asking an infinite series of questions
is the answer to happiness?

Do you believe the process of becoming happier
is our happiness?

This sound like Jungian Psychology.
Are you familiar with Jungian Psychology?

Have a happy vacation ateista!

 

[rtconstant]

Your answer is:

Happiness is what it is, complete happiness.
anything less is something else.

Completion can not be something more than it is.

God is happiness, unity, and existence,
but because of his unity,
happiness is existence,
Just as God is
the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

I agree that happiness is what it is. However, what it takes to make us happy I think is something that can change. When we start out not much is required to make us happy, and happiness tends to be focused on what happens to us. As we gain more knowledge of love we begin to gain happiness for what we can do for others.

“Belonging” is a means to happiness, and therefore,
not happiness itself.

I don’t think so. Can we really separate means from the end?

If a means to happiness is our happiness,
we will not find happiness,
and I don’t think this is an enigma.

The enigma is that what humanity ultimately seeks is love not happiness. People will do bad things, abuse themselves or each other to gain or retain what they think is love. Happiness or Joy can be a product of love but it is not a replacement for it. Also, lack of happiness is not sin, but a lack of love is. Happiness is mercurial and transitory.

Your definition of happiness is a logical contradiction.
and my definition is different.

Perhaps, but as you have never heard my definition of happiness I’m curious as to what your basis for comparison is? I was seeking to learn more about what you meant by it. To be honest I really don’t see why you are placing so much emphasis on happiness so I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I’m still interested in that actually.

Now,

I’m not sure how you’re defining, “true self-identification.”
Please explain.

Surely. What I meant by it is a realization of one’s reason for existence, and nature. When a person realizes that they are loved by, desired by, and accepted by God then one begins to truly understand who and what they are.

Are you assuming,
that happiness is
“a sense of completeness, belonging, and true self-identification,”
for all people?

Not at all, though those things can certainly be an origin for happiness. Happiness, is a feeling and can find its origins from many places.

Do you believe that asking an infinite series of questions
is the answer to happiness?

No, in fact asking questions can sometimes be a sure way to not be happy. Though, having a happiness that is worth having often begins with this practice.

Do you believe the process of becoming happier
is our happiness?

No, I believe that happiness is happiness. However, I do believe that how we arrive at our happiness is of more importance than the happiness itself.

This sound like Jungian Psychology.
Are you familiar with Jungian Psychology?

Yes, I am familiar with Jung.

As an aside I’m curious as to how your feelings on happiness relate to the subject of the thread.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I don’t think so. Can we really separate means from the end?

I first want to say, I’m sorry. I felt pressured on 9/5/08, and my arguments were sloppy. The human body is very precious.

Secondly, St. Thomas argues that there is a separation between the means and the end. I must be honest. My purpose in this forum was to discuss catholic psychology, not restate the arguments of St. Thomas. Perhaps another may give you this explanation as I focus in philosophy area rather than apologetics. I want you to know I appreciate your thoughts, and hope you will post on my new thread, “What is Catholic Psychology?” Thank you.

 

[Philthy]

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.

I never said I “determined” it. I accept on faith as a part of divine revelation. You are grasping at straws - please stick to proving your assertion

If we can “never” correctly assess a situation, then your stance is that of the universal skeptic. Therefore you should deny your own assertoin,

I accept as a matter of faith that God has it all under control. The universal skeptic correctly realizes that if all we rely on is our own perceptions then we cannot really know very much. You are again grasping at straws. Please resume a solid argument for your postition…

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

Finally…

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. 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.

You obviously are not very familiar with the Catholic notion of natural law. Natural law is a universal morality
that is, in fact, divine and which all people possess.
“The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5” God speaks to all humans through their conscience - even if they have never “heard of God”. He still calls them through their conscience. If they respond by seeking good rather than evil we have hope that they too will see eternal life. We simply dont know what happens, but we have faith that God is a just judge.
I suppose if you could produce evidence that the Church has actually pronounced a single human - ever - as being condemned to hell, you might have a point. As it stands, however, you don’t have a point. Your example does not prove what you claim it does - we are not privy to the eternal fate of anyone.
You might, if you wish to actually accomplish something through this discourse, take the time to learn what the Church actually teaches. You can check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) online. Type in natural law and you will learn something. Read the encyclicals “Fides et Ratio” and “Veritatis Splendor” and you’ll be well on your way to “humbling yourself” and appreciating the great wealth of information the Church provides us.

 

[rinnie]

Good response Philthy. I really thing that if he would take some time to really read and see what we believe, then he could understand it better. You yourself know that the Catholic Faith is very very difficult to understand at times, and ever more difficult to live.

But once we understand what the Bible is telling us (which we must study it first and know whats being said) not what we think it says, then when we read it again God starts to talk to us thru it, Its like his words are just for us. ANd they are.

But as you know, we are never finished studying and learning. Thats why its so interesting. New puzzles every day. He opens our eyes to something we have read over and over and over and then its like (light bulb time) I got it now. I see what he wants me to see. But its in his time not ours.

But oh the feeling of being close to God when you read his word, and I want that for Ateista so bad. Because you can see his intellegence is high, and if he could argue Gods point for a change, COULD YOU IMAGINE! Once he figured out the truth, and then knew the facts, He would not only be obstinate he would be Right, the LOOK OUT! Now that would be something I would love to see, and i would never miss one of his responses then. It would be better than any TV program out there.

 

[rtconstant]

I first want to say, I’m sorry. I felt pressured on 9/5/08, and my arguments were sloppy. The human body is very precious.

Secondly, St. Thomas argues that there is a separation between the means and the end. I must be honest. My purpose in this forum was to discuss catholic psychology, not restate the arguments of St. Thomas. Perhaps another may give you this explanation as I focus in philosophy area rather than apologetics. I want you to know I appreciate your thoughts, and hope you will post on my new thread, “What is Catholic Psychology?” Thank you.

Hey, no problem, and I want to apologize too as when I re-read my post it was a bit defensive. Not really my intention. In truth I am interested in your thoughts. You’ve obviously got a philosophy here so I’m very interested.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
Again you are saying he should have stopped the Holocaust, so in able to say that you feel he is to blame, Again you blame him for everything that Man does that is evil. and yet you deny him. How could he possibly stop anything if he does not exist.

That is my point. If he existed and he were benevolent, he would have disregarded the “free will” of the evil people. The question is still the same: if God is benevolent, why does he always side with strong ones even if they are evil, and forsake the weak but good ones? Why is the “free will” of the strong ones “respected” and not the “free will” of the weak ones?

“If he existed and he were benevolent, he would have disregarded the “free will” of the evil people.”

What do you actually MEAN by “disregard free will”?

To “disregard free will” is to de-person a person.

God can certainly overide free will, such as when He overode the king’s will who tossed those three fellows into the furnace by some miraculous “insulation”, but He ALWAYS allows every person the full and complete exercise of their will.

When God allows an evil will to triumph in some instance of time, He is doing so to set the stage for some “really cool lesson” for us.

But, you’d prefer the world to be a random chaos and not a meaniful progression toward a truth, which neither I should nor God will force you to accept against your will.

The readings this last Sunday were quite pertinent for your situation:

“And if he refuses to listen to even the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile and a tax-collector” (see Mat18:15-20)

And how does Christ suggest we treat Gentiles and tax-collectors? With love in hopes of repentance.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
What good did it do. It took away Death, it took away our sins. So we could have everlasting life in Christ.

People die today just as they did before your story took place.

What happened to them before the crucifixion?

They went to sheol, the big “gray bland holding tank”.

Did they all go to hell?

No. They went to sheol. There they waited for heaven to be opened for them. There was no hell “in (post-fallen creation) time” until heaven was available to the departed, because any “place” not heaven to the departed IS THEIR HELL, because they know (post-death) what heaven WOULD be like, and anything in contrast to that is hell.

Or is that yet another “mystery”? There are far too many “mysteries”. Every time I ask a tough question, for which there is no reasonable answer… it is a “mystery”. Agatha Christie would be proud…

Are you clear on the subject now, or are you still going to claim that your “tough questions” (which are never tough) are never answered?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
If you would read the book i told you about you would know the answer to that question. Yes Jesus took away death. Before Jesus there was only death. Yes the result from sin came death, Come on you have to know about Adam and Eve etc.

What you say is in dire contradiction to the Catholic teaching that God “cannot” destroy the “souls” of humans, therefore there was no “death” even before Jesus came. You yourself said that there are only two “outcomes”, even heaven or hell - so here you contradict yourself, too.

The “death” refered to in “Jesus took away death” was the uncertainty of what “post-life” actually was, in the mind of humanity.

Jesus took away the uncertainty that death MIGHT mean “hanging out in sheol forever”.

Jesus made it possible to choose heaven as well as hell. Those ARE indeed the only two outcomes possible.

To “die” is only “oblivion” to the severely disturbed, and is the result of demonic assistance in acheiving despair.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Here is a short analysis.

Suppose that God exists and he is just and merciful.

The words “just” and “merciful” mean the same thing here as when you say that a human is “just” or “merciful”.

And those two terms DO mean the same thing. They mean “giving what the person in question is most wisely due for their situation”.

Just as the child sees it as “unjust” that he’s “deprived unjustly” of that fourth lollypop he wants, and is “punished unjustly” with having to be strapped into that car-seat he hates, folks like yourself, who have truly no idea of the meaning of the word “God”, see the wise Father who gives us what is best for us as “unjust”.

In such a case God would [n]ever “place” someone in hell, and most certainly not for a simple lack of “faith”. It is so outrageously unfair, unjust, tyrannical, narcisstic, that you cannot be right - no matter what the Bible says.

This entire area of discussion pivots on what “decision/choice” means post-earthly-life.

If you hold that life ends in oblivion at death, then nothing matters to the dead, and there is wasted suffering, and there is no basis for any morality/ethical-behavior other than “because it makes ME feel better”.

There’s no need for God if oblivion is our end. Any arguments brought up by such a person about ANYTHING as regards “God” are their attempts to make others as despairing as themselves because “misery loves company”.

If you don’t believe that oblivion is our end, then what is this earthly-life for, and why not make an initially “perfect” world?

The reason for this world is to give us an “infancy and childhood” in which to learn how to make decisions, so that when the time comes, at earthly-death, we can properly make irrevocable decisions.

There comes a time when we must grow up. Pleading, “I wasn’t supplied with enough information!”, doesn’t carry any weight after the alloted hour.

But, the “oblivion promoter” is invulerable to anything which would make him less despairing because he can always fall back on the presumptuous “that’s not fair!” assertion of the three year old.

The problem is that that infantile tactic is very unbecoming in an adult, who does in fact know better.

Of course if God is unjust (that is: not “just” in the human meaning of the word) then all bets are off.

And at least you’re sensible enough to not believe that!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
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.

“Spiritual death” is the rejection of God (in His existence an/or in His being God qua God as defined by God which we know via the Magisterium).

This decision is usually (always?) taken in this earthly life, and if continued in past the “decision point” (earthly-death) continues throughout eternity.

This earthly-life allows us to change our minds. The rest of our life does not allow such a thing. All decisions are irrevocable unless made in earthly-life.

Does this help you understand a bit better?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
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”?

You can’t find such evidence. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is no “immortal soul” (which actually means “immortal person”).

There IS evidence that there ARE immortal persons, though. The effects of the Church and it’s basis on a particular immortal person are all that is necessary as evidence for the existence of “immortal persons”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
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?

Just as a child, who won’t go to bed because won’t give up what he wants to do, is allowed to lay in his bed not doing what he wants but what is best for him, and being “tortured” by that situation, a person is allowed to go where “the departed” and “torture themselves” as they wish.

The problem is that once a decision is made that is kept after being “put to bed” it can’t be “taken back”.

Now, how is that FAIR? It is fair because only those who are culpable for that mortal sin are allowed “their will” (rejection of God) through eternity. All others are purgated, purged, in purgatory, for their “childish acquisitiveness” and eventually made fit for heaven proper.

I have a funny feeling that purgatory is MUCH more painful than hell, in all but one way. Care to guess what that way might be?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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?

I would have responded, God is, not “God will.”

The attitude Mr. Maher seems to take is analous to a small child, who thinks it is taking forever for mom to bake that cake. From the perspective of a small boy, perhaps a few hours time seems like “forever,” as that small child hasn’t lived but a couple of years. A couple of years is a “lifttime” to a small boy. However, its but a brief amount of time to the mother. So a “long time” and “the present time” are relative terms, scientifically speaking.

My boy seems to have grown up very quickly, from my perspective. Yet, from his perspective, these last 17 years have been his entire lifetime, so 17 years may be considered a “long time.” He might complain, “What’s taking soooo loooong?”

Nonetheless, I have t-shirts that are older than 17 years. So, it doesn’t seem that long at all, to me.

Imagine if you will, being in existence since before the “big bang,” able to watch it all from a “God’s-eye view.” The earth has only been in existence a “brief moment in time,” according to leading physicists. Furthermore, mankind has only been in existence a fraction of that brief moment, so small a fraction its difficult to imagine anything much smaller. So, even with respect to time, it is absurd to claim that it is “taking soooo loooong” for evil to be finally destroyed by God.

Furthermore, since God exists beyond time (transcends time, and in fact created time along with all matter, and gravity, all three being inter-related), everything from God’s perspective is an enternal “now.” That’s why the correct answer is, *God is destroying the devil. He’s doing it now, since “now” from God’s perspective includes yesterday, today, and forever. *

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
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?)

There ARE many so-called Christians who do act in an anti-Christian anti-life “suffering can be ignored because God will make it right” way.

That is condemned by the Church.

While life IS nothing compared to our eternal life with or without God, once one understands what this life is FOR, the need to cherish and use the time available to us to do as God says to do becomes THE critical present priority!

Without God, we have no idea (other than hints from natural law and peripheral suggestions from the example of the people of God) what to DO in this life, or why we should do it!

Without God, all “right action” is based on “what makes me feel good”.

With God, all “right action” is based on not promoting suffering (by not sinning) and relieving existent/future suffering (by following our God given rules).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote ateista:
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.

THANK YOU David, for this observation.

A hyper-intellectual vehemently obstinant ignoramous (meaning: one who is ignorant of a subject area) is quite the “plaything”, isn’t it?

Though, like a semi-rabid (!?) sharp-toothed ill-tempered hampster, it can be hazardous to keep trying to show it where it’s food bowl is when it thinks “shredded newsprint” is it’s only meal!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
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.

If you act like a Christian, you are doing as God wants.

If you reject God (Jesus), your actions to “do good” are given to you and they will be “enjoyed” by you in your self chosen hell.

Just as a yummy-dessert “enjoyed” in a closed tank of feces is “little enjoyment”, just rewards from doing God’s will are “litte enjoyed” in hell.

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.

God PUTS people into the place of their irrevocable desires.

What one irrevocably desires, God or not-God, determines whether that place is heaven or hell.

No one FORCES a child to be miserable when “bedded down”. If the child would rather not be there and be miserable for it, they are the cause of their misery.

To die an earthly-death is to be bedded down. To complain that being “bedded down” is an unecessary “forcing” is to complain that reality is reality, against which the only response is “I’m very sorry for you”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
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?

Sounds good to me!

How is God not a “benevolent being” under that definition?

That YOU (as “God”) choose to claim that only your definitions of “best interest” and “loved ones” are true only display your massive arrogance and hubris.

But, hey, I like it when atheists do such a good job doing what I like to think of as “my job”!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
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.

Because of writing we have this thing called “extended memory”, or history, which is most essentially a tool to bring long term meaning out of the apparent short term chaos of “human actions”.

The best example of the ultimate meaning and purpose of writing is the bible, if combined with the necessary divine interpreter (the Magisterium).

History (as per the bible as well as other “natural law inspired” observational writings) shows us that it is possible to see good being brought out of evil.

If we can “never” correctly assess a situation, then your stance is that of the universal skeptic.

But we DO correctly assess those past situations. We can never assess present situations as to their outcomes BECAUSE the outcomes haven’t happened yet!

Therefore you should deny your own assertoin, too - and arrive at the conclusion that it “is false that we can -]n/-]]ever assess a situation correctly”.

(( I corrected your “never” to an “ever”. ))

It IS false that we can ever assess a PRESENT situation correctly (as to bringing good from evil), but it is TRUE that we can take God’s word for it that that which the bible shows us as “good coming from evil” is true.

We NEVER do the assessing of “good coming from evil”. That is the Magisterium’s job.

The result: “dog chasing its tail forever”. Or if you prefer: “this sentence is false”. That is what you say.

Wrong again!

We say, “This sentence is true!”, by relying on the only authority capable of declaring truth.

You say, “This sentence is false!”, by relying on the utter skepticism that “there is no truth”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
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.

Incorrect! They are NOT in mortal sin, as they are not culpable of mortal sin if they don’t know it IS mortal sin. It IS possible to know a thing is a mortal sin without exposure to the Church (via the conscience), but it is also possible to not realize that while still inculpably committing it.

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.

One hears of God by listening to God, which we can do even if utterly and completely isolated from God’s People, by listening to the inner voice of natural law (rightly formed conscience).

Now, how one can rightly form one’s conscience without instruction may be a difficult (and improbable) thing, but it is not an impossible thing, and may be nearly as probable as for those who are “luke warm” Catholics!

The “relatively innocent” mortal-sinner’s “hell” may be more nearly an “annoying” paradise (with the added benefit of being eternal), while the “relatively not-innocent” non-mortal-sinner’s “heaven” (purgatory) may be an incredible torturousness (with the added benefit of eventually passing into an eternal heaven).

The misconceptions of “heaven and hell” are prime drivers of much anti-Christianity, don’t you think?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
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.

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

Ateista substituted his own meaning of “necessary” in the above sentence. He put himself up as “God” in that way.

Since, to ateista, God is evil and shows his evilness in forcing people into hell, where hell is an inherently evil thing, if we even agree that there IS a hell, we are also evil and “prove” it by the aforesaid “agreements with God”.

We “do his job” of proving that God is evil by merely agreeing that hell exists.

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.

Your “line of reasoning” is incoherent, because you don’t understand the terms that you use in them.

You DON’T use Catholic arguments. You use Ateistaic arguments, which are based utterly on God being evil if God exists due to your insistance that YOU are God, as only you and God have the necessary perspective to make such claims.