Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[ateista]

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<

The analysis of “dreams” is quite a complicated subject. All I know about it is that dreams are necessary for the brain to rest. While we are in deep sleep (without dreams) our body rests. During the shallow period (when we dream) our brain gets rid of some “garbage” and gets proper rest.

 

[ateista]

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).

Sure.

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.

Yes, that is what I meant. As a matter of fact, the verse “the wisdom of the world is folly with God” underscores the Bible’s “anti-reason” attitude. Faith is supposed to be the guiding line, and reason is supposed to be secondary (if that).

I am glad for you if you can reconcile your faith and reason. To me, they are water and fire, which cannot be mixed.

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.”

Agreed. Though “thinking about something” does not necessarily entail critical thinking.

 

[Schnitz]

ateista:

Yes, that is what I meant. As a matter of fact, the verse “the wisdom of the world is folly with God” underscores the Bible’s “anti-reason” attitude.

You are quoting 1Cor.3:19? Isn’t it foolish to try to comprehend God by reason alone? Where does one begin? However, I don’t think that that is what this quote is referring to anyways. If you read the verse before, it becomes clear that St. Paul is telling us that no man can claim that he is wise, because wisdom, because what is wisdom in the eyes of God? Foolishness (def: trifling, insignificant, or paltry.).

ateista:

Faith is supposed to be the guiding line, and reason is supposed to be secondary (if that).

Yes, that would be the logical outcome for anyone professing to have faith. As 157 of the CCC states, “Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but ‘the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.’” Also, in 159 of the CCC, “‘Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.’” With that being said, this doesn’t mean that reason is left out of the equation.

ateista:

I am glad for you if you can reconcile your faith and reason. To me, they are water and fire, which cannot be mixed.

I can respect that , although I am going to have to refer to the above quotes. If my faith contradicted reason, then it really isn’t faith. It’s simply stupidity.

ateista:

Agreed. Though “thinking about something” does not necessarily entail critical thinking.

Agreed as well. I should have clarified that by saying that one cannot say that they believe something to be True (as in an absolute and ultimate type of truth) without thinking about it. Also, for one to make this claim, one has to be free to make it and think about it. Obviously, when one looks at cults and the like, this freedom to critically think about said beliefs comes into question.

Respectfully, Schnitz

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Sure.

Faith is supposed to be the guiding line, and reason is supposed to be secondary (if that).

Of course faith is the guiding line.
faith in reason precedes the use of reason
you are going backwards
if you you use reason to find your faith.

and therefore,
what we place our faith in
is freely chosen,
without reason.

reason becomes our “God”
which we place our faith in.
perhaps there is a greater “God” than this?

 

[ateista]

Isn’t it foolish to try to comprehend God by reason alone?

I don’t think so. Let’s differentiate between the actual God and the human concept of God. (In this case I refer to the Christian version of God). In my opinion, the concept of God should be taken as a hypothesis. Some people believe that the hypothesis describes an actual being, while others doubt this.

As long as there is a doubt about the veracity of the hypothesis, we can talk meaningfully only about the concept. It being a human concept, we are all qualified to express our views and opinions about it. If the concept is shown to be incorrect or meaningless, then the hypothesis must be discarded or modified.

This is a fully rational process. We start with examining the actual hypothesis, and we can discuss if the attributes presented are meaningful or not. If they are found meaningful, then we can examine if they are coherent or not. If the attributes are found contradictory, then the hypothesis becomes absurd. (Like the Invisible Pink Unicorn - something cannot be both invisible and pink. And this type of contradiction cannot be resolved by calling it a “mystery”.) Finally, if the attributes are shown meaningful and without internal contradictions, then we can examine the evidence both for it and against it.

There is no place or need for “faith” in this process. Would you agree?

Obviously, when one looks at cults and the like, this freedom to critically think about said beliefs comes into question.

I simply cannot resist quoting an old joke. What is the definition of a cult? Answer: the congregation of the people who attend the church next to yours.

 

[Schnitz]

Hence St. Anselm defined theology as “faith seeking understanding,” and not “faith through reason.”

 

[Q_Bee]

The analysis of “dreams” is quite a complicated subject. All I know about it is that dreams are necessary for the brain to rest. While we are in deep sleep (without dreams) our body rests. During the shallow period (when we dream) our brain gets rid of some “garbage” and gets proper rest.

OK, that’s about as superficial as it gets. Maybe you simply don’t need to know what’s going on within. If you are content with that, I wonder why you are engaged in dialog on sites like this one.

Q<

 

[Schnitz]

ateista:

I don’t think so. Let’s differentiate between the actual God and the human concept of God. (In this case I refer to the Christian version of God). In my opinion, the concept of God should be taken as a hypothesis. Some people believe that the hypothesis describes an actual being, while others doubt this.

As long as there is a doubt about the veracity of the hypothesis, we can talk meaningfully only about the concept. It being a human concept, we are all qualified to express our views and opinions about it. If the concept is shown to be incorrect or meaningless, then the hypothesis must be discarded or modified.

Yes, in the world of reason and logic (the realm of the human mind), this is idea is fine. I would term the “actual God” the ultimate reality at the top of the spectrum, and then right below that idea I would place the Christian concept of God (and for that matter all of the world’s religions’ idea of God). I would also agree that everyone is entitled to share their view/opinion on this hypothesis. If said hypothesis is “incorrect or meaningless” then it should be discarded. No problem thus far.

ateista:

This is a fully rational process. We start with examining the actual hypothesis, and we can discuss if the attributes presented are meaningful or not. If they are found meaningful, then we can examine if they are coherent or not. If the attributes are found contradictory, then the hypothesis becomes absurd. (Like the Invisible Pink Unicorn - something cannot be both invisible and pink. And this type of contradiction cannot be resolved by calling it a “mystery”.) Finally, if the attributes are shown meaningful and without internal contradictions, then we can examine the evidence both for it and against it.

This is where I would begin to disagree. Just by discussing the concept of God, aren’t we limiting it? Our words can’t possibly describe this “ultimate reality,” for it goes beyond this world. And while I think that simply calling something a mystery isn’t really giving closure to the question, how else does one answer something which can’t be answered? For example, the concept (I will call it a concept for the sake of this discussion) of the Trinity. How can one be both 3 and 1 at the same time? At first this seems to contradict logic. However, I am not saying that God is both 1 person and 3 persons at the same time, or 1 God and 3 Gods at the same time. I am saying He is 1 God and 3 persons. While this concept can’t be grasped (hence it is called a mystery), it isn’t self-contradictory either.

ateista:

There is no place or need for “faith” in this process. Would you agree?

Answer above. Let me just say though that if I was off the mark above (I feel like I strayed) let me know.

ateista:

I simply cannot resist quoting an old joke. What is the definition of a cult? Answer: the congregation of the people who attend the church next to yours.

Hahaha.

Respectfully, Schnitz

 

[SFTor]

This is where I would begin to disagree. Just by discussing the concept of God, aren’t we limiting it? Our words can’t possibly describe this “ultimate reality,” for it goes beyond this world. And while I think that simply calling something a mystery isn’t really giving closure to the question, how else does one answer something which can’t be answered? For example, the concept (I will call it a concept for the sake of this discussion) of the Trinity. How can one be both 3 and 1 at the same time? At first this seems to contradict logic. However, I am not saying that God is both 1 person and 3 persons at the same time, or 1 God and 3 Gods at the same time. I am saying He is 1 God and 3 persons. While this concept can’t be grasped (hence it is called a mystery), it isn’t self-contradictory either.

Hello Schnitz:

I agree that Catholic philosophy looks at god as an infinite, all-powerful being, but how does it reconcile with the Bible?

The Bible circumscribes, defines, and limits God from page 1.

We are told of a being that is gendered, needs six days to create this little puny Earth. (I would imagine this is considered slow among infinite, all-powerful beings,) who particularly cared for one group of goatherds roaming the Sinai and adjoining counties, regularly got angry, and has a preference for fear and obedience from its subjects.

Sorry to break the news, but Catholic thought can’t have it both ways. If the Bible is to be taken for truh, then God is circumscribed. If we are to favor Catholic thought on the matter, then the god of the Bible isn’t recognizable as a serviceable Supreme Being. He would be more of a tribal entity.

About the Trinity: Is there any doubt that it was born from the nuclear family concept (father/mother/child) and modified to fit a more misogynistic outlook?

Best,

Tor

 

[Schnitz]

Hello Tor!

SFTor:

The Bible circumscribes, defines, and limits God from page 1.

You are quite correct in saying that we “limit” God. After all, how couldn’t we? He is an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite being. Look at the word “love.” The word by itself doesn’t even begin to convey the emotion or feeling expressed. It simply scratches the surface.

SFTor:

We are told of a being that is gendered, needs six days to create this little puny Earth. (I would imagine this is considered slow among infinite, all-powerful beings,) who particularly cared for one group of goatherds roaming the Sinai and adjoining counties, regularly got angry, and has a preference for fear and obedience from its subjects.

Hahaha. I like the part about the roaming goatherds. (back to all seriousness now) In regards to God being gendered… Jesus Christ consistently referred to God (here I am speaking about the other person of the Trinity) as the Father. That is the image we have of Him. What is wrong with that? Also, since when was justifiable anger wrong?

SFTor:

About the Trinity: Is there any doubt that it was born from the nuclear family concept (father/mother/child) and modified to fit a more misogynistic outlook?

In order to say that the Trinity was born from something, I would have to deny my belief in it (since the Trinity is God, and God is eternal). I also fail to see how it is in any way chauvinistic.

Respectfully, Schnitz

 

[Q_Bee]

Hello Schnitz:

I agree that Catholic philosophy looks at god as an infinite, all-powerful being, but how does it reconcile with the Bible?

The Bible circumscribes, defines, and limits God from page 1.

Of course, the bible is ‘story’, and as such presents what people thought was their relationship to their creator. But the real problem is biblical literalism, by which we circumscribe our ability to discover greater meaning.

We are told of a being that is gendered, needs six days to create this little puny Earth. (I would imagine this is considered slow among infinite, all-powerful beings,) who particularly cared for one group of goatherds roaming the Sinai and adjoining counties, regularly got angry, and has a preference for fear and obedience from its subjects.

If taken figuratively and from the perspective of a patriarchal, nomadic herding people’s perspective, yes, God is to them a protective and powerful father figure.

Sorry to break the news, but Catholic thought can’t have it both ways. If the Bible is to be taken for truh, then God is circumscribed. If we are to favor Catholic thought on the matter, then the god of the Bible isn’t recognizable as a serviceable Supreme Being. He would be more of a tribal entity.

Catholic thought encompasses a great deal more than is being given credit for here. I suggest the book “And God Said What?” by Margaret Nutting Ralph, which explains the genres and ways of perceiving the various literary forms incorporated into OT and NT scripture.

About the Trinity: Is there any doubt that it was born from the nuclear family concept (father/mother/child) and modified to fit a more misogynistic outlook?

I agree entirely with equating the trinitarian concept as nuclear family. That places one’s understanding in terms of being actively involved in an ongoing creation within a relational configuration that includes God and humankind.

The lyrics of “God Beyond All Names” gives a glimpse of that relational propostion:

Verse One
God. beyond our dreams,
your have stirred in us a mem’ry;
you have placed your pow’rful spirit
in the hearts of humankind.
*
Refrain
All around us we have known you,
all creation lives to hold you.
In our living and our dying
we are bringing you to birth.
*
Verse Two
God, beyond all names,
you have made us in your image;
we are like you we reflect you;
we are women, we are man.
*
Verse Three
God, beyond all words,
all creation tells your story;
you have shaken with our laughter,
you have trembled with our tears.
*
Verse Four
God, beyond all time,
you are laboring within us;
we are moving,
we are changing in your spirit ever new.
*
Verse Five
God of tender care,
you have cradled us in goodness,
you have mothered us in wholeness,
you have loved us into birth.
*

Q<

 

[ateista]

Yes, in the world of reason and logic (the realm of the human mind), this is idea is fine. I would term the “actual God” the ultimate reality at the top of the spectrum,

Well, this is a bit problematic as a starting point. What you suggest “ultimate reality” is not a “being” not even an “object”, it is an abstraction.

Furthermore, one could argue that the “reality” is our Universe, composed of STEM (space, time, energy, matter) with all its direct and emergent attributes. That is “reality” as we know it.

…and then right below that idea I would place the Christian concept of God (and for that matter all of the world’s religions’ idea of God). I would also agree that everyone is entitled to share their view/opinion on this hypothesis. If said hypothesis is “incorrect or meaningless” then it should be discarded. No problem thus far.

Cool.

This is where I would begin to disagree. Just by discussing the concept of God, aren’t we limiting it?

Sure, but why is that a problem? When talking about “anything”, we describe its attributes, which means that we “limit” its existence. An apple would be different from a pear, would it not?

Our words can’t possibly describe this “ultimate reality,” for it goes beyond this world.

This needs to be examined in the course of the discussion. The truth is that calling God the “ultimate reality” is much too vague to be meaningful.

And while I think that simply calling something a mystery isn’t really giving closure to the question, how else does one answer something which can’t be answered?

If a question cannot be answered (in principle - now or ever) then it is a meaningless question. One example: “what resides to the north from the North Pole?”. It is a grammatically correct question, the words in it are all meaningful (by themselves) but the construct is meaningless. Such questions can be discarded as irrelevant.

For example, the concept (I will call it a concept for the sake of this discussion) of the Trinity. How can one be both 3 and 1 at the same time? At first this seems to contradict logic. However, I am not saying that God is both 1 person and 3 persons at the same time, or 1 God and 3 Gods at the same time. I am saying He is 1 God and 3 persons. While this concept can’t be grasped (hence it is called a mystery), it isn’t self-contradictory either.

No, it is not contadictory, it is meaningless without further clarification.

If you would say that the proposed Father, Son, Holy Spirit are 3 “aspects” of God, then we would have a starting point, which may be meaningful, but then you would have to give some reason what those words mean when applied to non-material being, who does not have a gender, who cannot procreate, etc… To say that those are just human approximations or metaphors does not solve the problem.

 

[WindyHair]

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?

there is a simple answer
and it’s actually in another movie
called “Batman: The Dark Knight”

Batman explains it at the end of the movie.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It would be interesting to know why Catholics here continue to converse with “interestingly axiomatic atheists”.

Is it an attempt to convert “interestingly axiomatic atheists”?

Is it the fun of countering “interestingly axiomatic atheists”'s nonsense, which “interestingly axiomatic atheists” will simply refuse to acknowledge and not agree to disagree about?

Is it to toughen one’s self up by masochistic self-infliction of “interestingly axiomatic atheist’s” non-responsiveness?

How long does it take you to get tired of “interestingly axiomatic atheists”'s non-responsiveness?

What other interesting questions come to mind when considering conversation with “interestingly axiomatic atheists”?

Should I start a thread specifically to discuss the implications of conversation with folks such as “interestingly axiomatic atheists” in a forum such as this?

 

[Q_Bee]

It would be interesting to know why Catholics here continue to converse with “interestingly axiomatic atheists”.

Is it an attempt to convert “interestingly axiomatic atheists”?

Is it the fun of countering “interestingly axiomatic atheists”'s nonsense, which “interestingly axiomatic atheists” will simply refuse to acknowledge and not agree to disagree about?

Is it to toughen one’s self up by masochistic self-infliction of “interestingly axiomatic atheist’s” non-responsiveness?

How long does it take you to get tired of “interestingly axiomatic atheists”'s non-responsiveness?

What other interesting questions come to mind when considering conversation with “interestingly axiomatic atheists”?

Should I start a thread specifically to discuss the implications of conversation with folks such as “interestingly axiomatic atheists” in a forum such as this?

Is it possible that “interestingly axiomatic atheists” bring up topics that work toward a greater discernment process for those who believe? Maybe this ‘cut-and-run’ way of looking at the dialog is not the only potential here. Maybe it is about real catholicsm rather than lip service to an idea.

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Is it possible that “interestingly axiomatic atheists” bring up topics that work toward a greater discernment process for those who believe?

Yeah, that’s a possibility! That’s been MY experience, at any rate.

Maybe this ‘cut-and-run’ way of looking at the dialog is not the only potential here. Maybe it is about real catholicsm rather than lip service to an idea.

Q<

The “utterly firm atheist” who refuses to agree to disagree, which has been so effusively (though repetitively) demonstrated in this thread, is a GREAT “whetstone” to sharpen ourselves on!

Of course, you don’t want to continue “sharpening” until you’ve created a huge (though sharp) notch in your blade extending half way through the width of it!

 

[Schnitz]

CatsAndDogs:

Of course, you don’t want to continue “sharpening” until you’ve created a huge (though sharp) notch in your blade extending half way through the width of it!

Hahahaha!

 

[SFTor]

Hello Tor!

You are quite correct in saying that we “limit” God. After all, how couldn’t we? He is an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite being. Look at the word “love.” The word by itself doesn’t even begin to convey the emotion or feeling expressed. It simply scratches the surface.

Hahaha. I like the part about the roaming goatherds. (back to all seriousness now) In regards to God being gendered… Jesus Christ consistently referred to God (here I am speaking about the other person of the Trinity) as the Father. That is the image we have of Him. What is wrong with that? Also, since when was justifiable anger wrong?

In order to say that the Trinity was born from something, I would have to deny my belief in it (since the Trinity is God, and God is eternal). I also fail to see how it is in any way chauvinistic.

Respectfully, Schnitz

Hello Schnitz:

The Trinity “being born” from something is just my clumsy language, but I have seen it argued that the Trinity is derived from the concept of the nuclear family. A matter of opinion, no doubt. I think it is part of the Nicene Creed, and hence from 325 CE, right? Is there anything wrong with it? A little more generosity from Constantine et al, and we might have had a female principle in there too.

None of the examples I used were intended to denote something “wrong” about the Christian god, only limitation and circumscription. God has a gender: nothing wrong with it, but very much in the style of antiquity-era godhood. He gets angry: OK, just like my dad. Not very all-powerful.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Q_Bee]

Yeah, that’s a possibility! That’s been MY experience, at any rate.

The “utterly firm atheist” who refuses to agree to disagree, which has been so effusively (though repetitively) demonstrated in this thread, is a GREAT “whetstone” to sharpen ourselves on!

Of course, you don’t want to continue “sharpening” until you’ve created a huge (though sharp) notch in your blade extending half way through the width of it!

I suggest we let atheists develop their own discernment process without taking us on a lark that meanders toward a point of no return. Without even a glimmer of potential to consider dream material there’s realistically little hope of a viable formation process, which is so obviously in play in the plethora of OT and NT passages that demonstrate the divine working through dreams and visions.

If we want to really bog ourselves down we could, for instance, go read Vatican documents on legalistic points.

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I suggest we let atheists develop their own discernment process without taking us on a lark that meanders toward a point of no return.

Just as we “good Catholics” are (or should be) utterly firm in our axiomatic points as regards theology, the atheist is perfectly right in being able to claim their own axioms as regards their own theology.

The “discernment process” (self-apologetics) of the atheist is, just like ours, self-reinforcing. It hardens with use. The more it is exercised, the more rigid it gets.

The interesting part to me is that while the Catholic “rigidifying” process EXPOSES our axioms as axioms (which we tend to state upfront AS axioms), the atheistic “rigidifying” process is INTERPRETED by the atheist as showing their axioms as non-axiomatic “reasons” contingent on elsewhat.

The thing that their “reasons” are contingent on is nearly always “I don’t know but we will know eventually”.

The atheist HATES having what they THINK are their “reasons” for their basic understandings shown to be axioms/dogmas! They hate “dogmas” so much that their prime dogma is that dogmas don’t exist. Then they base their non-dogmas on the dogma of non-dogmas, and are SHOCKED when we laugh at them!

The ONLY reason an atheist stops playing the round-and-round game with a non-atheist is because the exposure of their axioms AS axioms, which they simply believe (theologically) without reason to do so, is very VERY annoying and painful to them.

Driving an atheist toward the logical consequences of his belief, by exposing his axioms AS axioms, is always very disconcerting to him, and either loosens his bonds with his axiomatic beliefs, or gives him greater reason to avoid thinking about his axiomatic beliefs.

The avoidance used most often is, “I believe only what I can see!”, and then go on to tell you how unreliable our (human) sight is to prove that you’re wrong, thinking that that doesn’t completely undermine every belief that they assert.

But, since you can’t literally tie them down and MAKE them admit their contradictions, they can (and will, and do) always simply flee, like the unclean spirits we’re all so fond of talking about in the bible.