Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[Schnitz]

Q Bee:

All of your sources are mid-2nd century or later.

So because they are from the mid-2nd century, they can’t possibly be correct?
Q Bee:

That does not prove that Jesus intended to forbid women from holy orders.

Enough evidence has been provided showing that in fact, He did. You have yet to show otherwise.
Q Bee:

Besides, so what if some backward people a couple of thousand years ago thought that women should be excluded? Talk about evil, these men had plenty to do with subjugating half of humanity. What can you tell me that is not linked to cases of “testosterone poisoning”?

Completely subjective! Let’s just pick and chose whatever fits our agenda then.

 

[Q_Bee]

So because they are from the mid-2nd century, they can’t possibly be correct?

A hand full of men who had a stake in the eaqrly church’s leadership and were conditioned by cultural norms of the time gave ‘opinions’ on the matter. That’s all it means. At the time, most nations did not allow women to own property, be educated, or to be a legal witness. Under such conditions, what else would you expect!

Enough evidence has been provided showing that in fact, He did. You have yet to show otherwise.

I haven’t seen any evidence to that end. Just because his close council that would have helped to run his government if he’d succeeded to the throne were men, figuratively representatives of the twelve tribes, does not mean that he did not have women in leadership roles. The problem is, men wrote the accounts and didn’t have any reason to write about matters that included women except where the story would not hold together without their witness, such as in the case of Mary Magdalene. Besides, the Gospel of John shows Jesus as egalitarian.

Completely subjective! Let’s just pick and chose whatever fits our agenda then.

Why not? That’s what the church is doing. I haven’t seen a single person on this list reference the fact that a pontifical study group spent a great deal of time to advise the pope as to whether women could be ordained and their findings were that there is no biblical reason to prevent women from being ordained. So, what’s left? Jesus’ gender? 1st century Jewish patriarchy? Roman state laws?

Let’s face it, men don’t want to relax their grip on the minds of humankind by allowing women to participate in formulating policy, doctrine, or the celebration of worship. There are no other reasons that hold water.

Q<

 

[Matariel]

All of your sources are mid-2nd century or later.

The Church Fathers reflect how the Church thinks. Since there is no evidence that women were ever ordained in the Bible (although there were consecrated “deaconesses”) and since there is no evidence of the Church ever ordained women as bishops, priests, or deacons, we can’t jump to conclusions that someone in the 100’s somehow massively put a stop to female ordinations. Evidence for that simply does not exist, and we can’t just take one little piece of evidence (the Theodora mosaic) and jump to the conclusion that she was a bishop of the Church, when in fact it probably meant she was either the wife of a bishop.

Even then, it’s just one little evidence, compared to the monumental evidence of male-only priesthood.

Besides, Pope John Paul confirmed that the Magisterium’s infallible teaching on this is settled.

That does not prove that Jesus intended to forbid women from holy orders.

Why weren’t any of the Twelve women?

Besides, so what if some backward people a couple of thousand years ago thought that women should be excluded?

You didn’t mean to call the Church Fathers and Apostles backwards, did you?

You don’t understand, this is not about exclusion/inclusion. The minute you say women have to be like men in all aspects in order to live in this modern society, you are actually degrading women.

The minute you say gender doesn’t matter in one Sacrament (Orders) the minute it no longer matters in another (Marriage).

This is what befell the heretical Episcopal Church.

Talk about evil, these men had plenty to do with subjugating half of humanity.

You’re very imaginative.

What can you tell me that is not linked to cases of “testosterone poisoning”?

Do you harbour resentment for all males, or what?

We’re derailing this threat; we should stop this conversation.
We can carry it on somewhere else if you like.

 

[Schnitz]

Q Bee:

A hand full of men who had a stake in the eaqrly church’s leadership and were conditioned by cultural norms of the time gave ‘opinions’ on the matter. That’s all it means. At the time, most nations did not allow women to own property, be educated, or to be a legal witness. Under such conditions, what else would you expect!

While I will not deny the fact that the culture in which these men lived certainly influenced their writings to some extent, one cannot claim that they were sexist simply because of said culture. Look at the culture to which Jesus was a part of. Tax collectors, prostitutes, sick people, etc. were all looked down upon. That didn’t stop Him from associating with them, just as it didn’t stop Christians in the early Church from voicing their unpopular beliefs in the face of death. I would argue that these men also were unafraid to clash with cultural norms, and that their lives as Christians should be proof enough.
Q Bee:

Besides, the Gospel of John shows Jesus as egalitarian.

You continue to believe that simply because a woman cannot become a priest, she is therefore in some way inferior to a man. Why?
Q Bee:

I haven’t seen any evidence to that end. Just because his close council that would have helped to run his government if he’d succeeded to the throne were men, figuratively representatives of the twelve tribes, does not mean that he did not have women in leadership roles.

Why didn’t Christ pick women to be within His “close council?” I am sorry to say that it seems as if you only view the priesthood as leadership within the Church.
Q Bee:

there is no biblical reason to prevent women from being ordained.

Check out 1577 of the CCC. The reason is completely scriptural.
Q Bee:

Let’s face it, men don’t want to relax their grip on the minds of humankind by allowing women to participate in formulating policy, doctrine, or the celebration of worship. There are no other reasons that hold water.

Just say it: you hate the priesthood. You think that it is chauvinistic and sexist. Yes?

 

[Schnitz]

Matariel:

The minute you say women have to be like men in all aspects in order to live in this modern society, you are actually degrading women.

You hit the nail right on the head.

Matariel:

We’re derailing this threat; we should stop this conversation.
We can carry it on somewhere else if you like.

Agreed.

 

[Q_Bee]

Paul doesn’t list Junia as an apostle. It doesn’t read “they are prominent apostles.” It is simply sating that they are known by the apostles, presumably because they were noteworthy Christians.

It reads ‘prominent among the apostles’ in the NAB version.

Following this logic, Christ is both a male and a female. The priesthood of believers isn’t the same as the sacramental priesthood. Also, this in no way disregards the existence of Christ within everyone.

If you’d like to use biology as the litmus test, all fetuses are female in the beginning, so even Jesus was female at conception. And yes, he’s both male and female, just like all of us fall somewhere on the continuum between absolutes. There is no theological reason that holds up to scrutiny that precludes women from holy orders. You’re beating a dead horse.

Since when did the “image of God” refer to gender? And tell me, how should a female “act in the place of Christ,” if Christ was a male? I am NOT saying that a female cannot be like Christ, but asking how she is to “stand in the place of Christ.”

That’s the whole point. We’re talking about the spriitual realm and you (and hierarchy) and talking about the physical plane. What has gender got to do with it at all! This business about ‘Imaging Christ’ is a spiritual reality, not a physical likeness. If we’re gonna use the ‘imaging Christ’ scenario, then all priests would also have to be Jews.

Q<

 

[Matariel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q Bee
All of your sources are mid-2nd century or later.

The Church Fathers reflect how the Church thinks. Since there is no evidence that women were ever ordained in the Bible (although there were consecrated “deaconesses”) and since there is no evidence of the Church ever ordained women as bishops, priests, or deacons, we can’t jump to conclusions that someone in the 100’s somehow massively put a stop to female ordinations. Evidence for that simply does not exist, and we can’t just take one little piece of evidence (the Theodora mosaic) and jump to the conclusion that she was a bishop of the Church, when in fact it probably meant she was either the wife of a bishop.

Even then, it’s just one little evidence, compared to the monumental evidence of male-only priesthood.

Besides, Pope John Paul confirmed that the Magisterium’s infallible teaching on this is settled.

Quote:
That does not prove that Jesus intended to forbid women from holy orders.

Why weren’t any of the Twelve women?

Quote:
Besides, so what if some backward people a couple of thousand years ago thought that women should be excluded?

You didn’t mean to call the Church Fathers and Apostles backwards, did you?

You don’t understand, this is not about exclusion/inclusion. The minute you say women have to be like men in all aspects in order to live in this modern society, you are actually degrading women.

The minute you say gender doesn’t matter in one Sacrament (Orders) the minute it no longer matters in another (Marriage).

This is what befell the heretical Episcopal Church.

Quote:
Talk about evil, these men had plenty to do with subjugating half of humanity.

You’re very imaginative.

Quote:
What can you tell me that is not linked to cases of “testosterone poisoning”?

Do you harbour resentment for all males, or what?

We’re derailing this threat; we should stop this conversation.
We can carry it on somewhere else if you like.

 

[Q_Bee]

While I will not deny the fact that the culture in which these men lived certainly influenced their writings to some extent, one cannot claim that they were sexist simply because of said culture. Look at the culture to which Jesus was a part of. Tax collectors, prostitutes, sick people, etc. were all looked down upon. That didn’t stop Him from associating with them, just as it didn’t stop Christians in the early Church from voicing their unpopular beliefs in the face of death. I would argue that these men also were unafraid to clash with cultural norms, and that their lives as Christians should be proof enough.

You continue to believe that simply because a woman cannot become a priest, she is therefore in some way inferior to a man. Why?

Why didn’t Christ pick women to be within His “close council?” I am sorry to say that it seems as if you only view the priesthood as leadership within the Church.

Check out 1577 of the CCC. The reason is completely scriptural.

Just say it: you hate the priesthood. You think that it is chauvinistic and sexist. Yes?

You are baiting with biased remarks and don’t deserve the dignity of any thoughtful response.

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

All of your sources are mid-2nd century or later. That does not prove that Jesus intended to forbid women from holy orders. Besides, so what if some backward people a couple of thousand years ago thought that women should be excluded? Talk about evil, these men had plenty to do with subjugating half of humanity. Waht can you tell me that is not linked to cases of “testosterone poisoning”?

Q<

When women become men, and are thus capable of becoming fathers, it will be possible for women to become Fathers.

Until then, women will be women and Mothers and men will be men and Fathers.

End 'o story.

 

[Schnitz]

You are baiting with biased remarks and don’t deserve the dignity of any thoughtful response.

Q<

That’s because there isn’t one.

 

[Q_Bee]

1. So because they are from the mid-2nd century, they can’t possibly be correct?
2. Enough evidence has been provided showing that in fact, He did. You have yet to show otherwise.

*2nd century cultural norms do not apply today.
*You equate the selection of ‘the twelve’ (which is a figurative group that are not even listed with the same set of names across the canonical gospels) with priesthood. Point of fact: Jesus didn’t ordain anyone. It is a development subsequent to his death and resurrection.

Q<

 

[Schnitz]

I have created a new thread named “Female Apostles?” under the apologetics section. I am sure that Matariel, Q Bee, and others will agree that we are derailing this thread. See you on the other side.

 

[Q_Bee]

Theology is about explaining facts, and not testing hypotheses.

To the atheist, who has no theological facts to work with, it’s entirely about testing hypotheses, so a “conversation” regarding some aspect of theology is a conversation between people who don’t understand each others language.

Oh, yes, he does. The atheist has theological “facts” or observations about the world around him which he puts together into a theory, which he may not label “theology,” but it is nevertheless, a form of theology. The better ones have at least been schooled in philosophical assumptions and hold to some kind of rigor in their attempting to build a theory. The worst ones string together disparate misconceptions that they think “prove” that there is no God.

So why converse at all? To illustrate that while Catholics do (demonstrably) understand the language of the atheist, the atheist shows interest only in NOT understanding the language of the Catholic.
QUOTE]

I think the entire debate about the existence of God in recent years has resurrected (so to speak) is the abject failure of institutional religion. If you look carefully at the arguments of the New Atheists, they are angry about the phoniness of organized religion. They do not have the tools to separate out institutional bureaucracies from a personal individual spiritual life.

But, if the goal is “winning,” we have already lost. We should not play that game. We should live in humility about things we cannot know, that no one can know. We should demonstrate with our lives the difference that living in a relationship with God makes. I don’t believe anyone is won or lost on merely an intellectual debate level. Having “non-negotiable axioms” is egotistical and narcissistic no matter what side it comes from. I am reminded of a book by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. entitled "Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today (2002). That should be our guidepost: humble apologetics and being real with people. Loving Reality wins souls, not strident debates.

Many of the so-called atheists are not very sophisticated about philosophy, religious concepts, theology, bible and so forth. Some of them have scientific expertise, which has caused a number of them to pontificate in ways that can be shot down. But I disagree that we should not talk to them because they won’t “give up” their premises and we stand by our own, making for an inevitable standoff. I think this genre of the “new atheist” has been growing in recent years. We need to be aware of it and versed in it if we’re to talk intelligently with the young adult generation who is being schooled in these concepts. That is why I’ve made it a point to keep up with this genre. I will be attending a two-day seminar in Chapel Hill November 21-22, 2008 and will make a transcript of the seminar available to anyone who is interested.

The new atheists are making millions on their books and most Christians are too intimidated to take them on. But a few well-qualified people have. Some resources are listed below, which are only a few, but I think these are some of the better ones.

Antony Flew (2007). There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind. HarperOne publishers. Eighty year old Flew, a British philosopher, who attended his seminars and debated C. S. Lewis changed his mind in 2004.
… not for the weak-minded, as it recounts the philosophical debates across several decades. There is an Appendix which includes a critical appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger. There is another very nice Appendix to the book by Bishop N. T. Wright (Church of England) entitled “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus.”

Richard Dawkins (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Dawkins is a scientist but ill-informed about things religious. He is a scientist and one of the biggest mouths in the New Atheist movement.

Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath (2007). The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press. Alister McGrath was a PhD in molecular biophysics before becoming a prominent Christian theologian in England.

McGrath, Alister (2004). The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. NY: Doubleday. He covers the history of atheism and its fading appeal.

John Polkinghorne (2005). Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion. Yale University PRess. Polkinghorne is both a quantum physicist and an Anglican Priest. He has several books out that explore the boundaries and overlap between science and religion. He deals with the nature of time and God’s relation to it among other issues.

Recorded debates: The Future of Atheism: A dialogue between Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett (February 23-24, 2007). The Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum: Exploring the Tensions of Faith and Culture. It can be downloaded from www.watchman.org as can debates between Bart Ehrman and opponents on the textual reliability of the New Testament.

Q<

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Do you really think that, for example, the books of the New Testament, which were written in the 1st century AD of events that took place then, by men who lived then (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). . .were 'held to those cultural norms then which no longer exist today?"

Are you arguing that because ‘today’ women are arguably more equal in social position etc. than in those times, that what was written in the New Testament only relates to ‘those times’ in so far as you personally do not find the teachings ‘acceptable’ in regard to women and men?

Do you think that if God exists, and Christ came as He did, that He was not perfectly capable of transcending things like culture and that what was written and taught would not likewise be ‘godly’ and ‘eternal’ and above all true for ALL time, not ‘just’ ‘those times’?

It appears that God was so far ‘beyond’ the scope of early man-- 1st century AD man–medieval man–contemporary man–and FUTURE MAN–that the teachings He gave are relevant and true for ALL MEN/WOMEN whether they lived in the Stone Age, today, or in ‘the year 2525’ and beyond. God doesn’t bend in the wind to accommodate the ‘winds of change’ that can–and do–change back with some regularity. (if you honestly think that ‘all women’ of Biblical times were downtrodden, uneducated, and despised, I suggest you do some research as you have been misinformed).

P.S. I’m a woman myself, and very happy to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which acknowledges the beauty and equality of men and women (and always has) even when many other cultural and social groups in history did not.

 

[Q_Bee]

Do you really think that, for example, the books of the New Testament, which were written in the 1st century AD of events that took place then, by men who lived then (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). . .were 'held to those cultural norms then which no longer exist today?"

P.S. I’m a woman myself, and very happy to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which acknowledges the beauty and equality of men and women (and always has) even when many other cultural and social groups in history did not.

This thread has been moved elsewhere; this is not the location to carry on with OW issues. However, I’m not particularly interested in it; it’s old retread that leads to ‘Do you really think that…’ sorts of posts.

Q<

 

[Oakleaf]

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?

Because God/Being in the Universe as we experience it implies its inverse or shadow, Nonbeing. Light implies Shadow. Existence is walking the tightrope between being and nonbeing. To destroy nonbeing would negate being, and the simple reason God does not do this is that God loves his Creation.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Theology is about explaining facts, and not testing hypotheses.

To the atheist, who has no theological facts to work with, it’s entirely about testing hypotheses, so a “conversation” regarding some aspect of theology is a conversation between people who don’t understand each others language.

Oh, yes, he does. The atheist has theological “facts” or observations about the world around him which he puts together into a theory, which he may not label “theology,” but it is nevertheless, a form of theology.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!

My mistake was in saying “theology” instead of “correct theology”.

They very definitely DO have a religion, with it’s theological-like “thingies” that take the place of correct theological principles and items.

Thank you for making me clarify my rather unsharp verbal skills!

The better ones have at least been schooled in philosophical assumptions and hold to some kind of rigor in their attempting to build a theory. The worst ones string together disparate misconceptions that they think “prove” that there is no God.

Amen! The “worst ones” are fun to disassemble. The “better ones” are fun to maneuver into self-revelation of their abject goofiness.

In any case, atheists is FUN to play with! Much better than Leggos, or photoshopping disparaging jpegs of “Bambie and The Hair-Club-For-Men Guy”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

CatsAndDogs:

So why converse at all? To illustrate that while Catholics do (demonstrably) understand the language of the atheist, the atheist shows interest only in NOT understanding the language of the Catholic.

I think the entire debate about the existence of God in recent years has resurrected (so to speak) is the abject failure of institutional religion. If you look carefully at the arguments of the New Atheists, they are angry about the phoniness of organized religion. They do not have the tools to separate out institutional bureaucracies from a personal individual spiritual life.

Hear hear! That’s why the “big nasty uber-punishment” is given those who promote scandal!

But, if the goal is “winning,” we have already lost. We should not play that game. We should live in humility about things we cannot know, that no one can know. We should demonstrate with our lives the difference that living in a relationship with God makes.

I agree that there is no “winning” by intellectual engagement with atheists, there is a “losing” by not engaging intellectually with atheists.

At best it’s a fight to a draw. But does this mean that in non-intellectual venues, such as “real life lived”, we can’t ALSO simply “preach without words”, as per Saint Francis’ suggestion?

I don’t believe anyone is won or lost on merely an intellectual debate level.

Abso-freakin’-lutely! I know I wasn’t, and it was precisely because OF my ludicrously hyper intellectuality. I were thuper-thtupid in my brainy prowess! Utterly invincible. Completely self-justified and walled up like an adamantite fortress.

Of course, that very sterile and off-putting castle-of-inertia was the CAUSE, itself, of my conversion, because after the “wars” against my assailants were all won all I was left with was this imposing and uninspiring lump of a “building”, which was simply depressing.

My “fortress” was never breached, but it was gladly abandoned as a useless hulk. The simple cloak of Christ is a MUCH better garment!

Having “non-negotiable axioms” is egotistical and narcissistic no matter what side it comes from.

Now HERE I’ve got to disagree with you.

Your error is in thinking that there are NO absolutes worth calling one’s axioms, when in fact there are only very VERY few.

I am reminded of a book by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. entitled "Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today (2002). That should be our guidepost: humble apologetics and being real with people. Loving Reality wins souls, not strident debates.

True. But not telling the errant that they are in error is not Christian. Got any comments on THAT bold statement of mine?

 

[Q_Bee]

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!

My mistake was in saying “theology” instead of “correct theology”.

They very definitely DO have a religion, with it’s theological-like “thingies” that take the place of correct theological principles and items.

Thank you for making me clarify my rather unsharp verbal skills!

Amen! The “worst ones” are fun to disassemble. The “better ones” are fun to maneuver into self-revelation of their abject goofiness.

In any case, atheists is FUN to play with! Much better than Leggos, or photoshopping disparaging jpegs of “Bambie and The Hair-Club-For-Men Guy”.

Love your sense of humor and willingness to not take yourself too seriously!

I play in Photoshop and other venues, but try not to get caught up in too many issues, have an aversion to parroted Vatican documents, memorized quips, or papal quotes made to look like Jesus’ words in red-letted edition… remembering the ‘good ole days’ when canned quotes from the Baltimore Catechism dominated the scene. It’s a welcome relief to read something from people who actually think out their own thoughts, discern, engage in lectio divina, etc.

Q<

 

[JoeyWarren]

(Edited)

Back to the OP…
God does not destroy - God creates. All created humans and angels have a soul and that soul is eternal. It is up to the soul to decide its future. If the OP really means to ask “why does not God judge all now” the best answer is because this is not the appointed time. Gods Divine Providence is at work and it will manifest a greater Good.

James

**Hog wash! God destroys as well creates. In the end God will throw Satan into the Lake of Fire which is the Second Death. Death of the Soul. God destroyed all the dinosaurs. I doubt man had a part in that at all. **

---

Hog wash again! God desires all men to be saved, yet God allows Satan and his Angels to do as they please so that many men will not be saved.

---

**To a point I agree with Bill Maher. God could just stop this silly game and irradicate the sources of temptation, namely and primarily Satan and his angels. **

---

**Why the neccessity of all this dramatic climax. **

---

**I look at Revelations and it’s end and I question why a new earth and a new heaven. Does the Salvation history start all over again? **

---

---

---