Author Topic: Why is Satan invisible like God?  (Read 14790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #261 on: October 26, 2011, 07:31:18 PM »
SC 9 pages of crap and you have convinced NOBODY as to why Satan has to remain invisible. He does not,but somehow does play by God's rules? If he reveals the worst secret in the world (the one where you believe God exists) then he is hell bound,if he keeps the secret he is hell bound.

 Your only reasoning is he wants to stay out of hell for as long as he can? yet he still can secretly fuck you out of heaven with temptation? So why hold a rebellion you can't win?

 Do you know anybody who holds a rebellion and then is a pussy for eternity because he will go to prison if he gets caught? If your GOD is ommni-everything then he could easily imprison Satan ANY time he wants.......what exactly is the reason IYO he lets Satan roam free?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline wintercreeks

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #262 on: October 26, 2011, 09:34:30 PM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind.  I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.  Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.
 
While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not.  Satan's omnipresence is a misconception.  Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time.  The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence.  Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.  Humans are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God. 

God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven. Is God Real? More importantly, "Does He care?"
http://www.wintercreeks.biz/is-god-real.php
 

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #263 on: October 26, 2011, 09:47:29 PM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind.  I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.  Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.
 
While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not.  Satan's omnipresence is a misconception.  Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time.  The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence.  Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.  Humans are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God. 

God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven. Is God Real? More importantly, "Does He care?"
http://www.wintercreeks.biz/is-god-real.php
 

First wind is moving air particle, measurable, has tested theories that happen for the beleiver and the non believer alike. Satan is a mythological figure...there is no evidence for him than evidence that the bogeyman, or the Krampus, or any of the other mythological antagonist figures mankind has proposed.

If you have actual objective evidence, present it. Show us how you can support the numerous assertion you just made.

Otherwise, you are just another gibbering tribal primitive talking about Ugabuga's nemisis, Agubagu.


An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2075
  • Darwins +227/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #264 on: October 26, 2011, 10:02:45 PM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind.  I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.

In other words, you have evidence that wind exists because one of your other senses (touch) picks it up. 

While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not. 

Can you provide the evidence for Satan that could not possibly be explained any other way? Thanks.

Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time. 

Why couldn't a created being be in more than one place at a time?  Is God not capable of making things that can be in 2 places at once? 

The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence. 

Ah, so Satan is super fast!  Gotcha...  lol.  But if Satan is "lightning fast" as you say, wouldn't his very movements break the sound barrier, thus creating a massive sonic boom everywhere he went?  We should be able to hear him coming! 

Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.  Humans are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God. 

If he is a non-physical being, then how can you attribute the characteristic of "fast" to it?  In order to measure speed, you have to have movement of a physical object through some sort of space, wouldn't you? 

God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven.

That's new.  Lame, but new. 

Is God Real? More importantly, "Does He care?"

Actually, the question of whether or not God is real is the more important one.  In fact, the second one doesn't matter at all if the first one is answered truthfully. 

I went to your website.  The front page is pretty.  Nice pictures.  But it's all wrong.  There's no such thing as God.  Sorry.  BTW, are you Richard Thomas?  That name is on the front page of the site.  Can we call you Richard?  For some reason, from your post I pegged you as a female.  Maybe it was the whole "bleeding through the walls of heaven" hokey crap that made me think that.  It's not something I would easily see a guy saying I guess. 

Oh, and God and Satan are both fake.  Sorry you didn't get the memo. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #265 on: October 27, 2011, 01:23:31 AM »
God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven. Is God Real? More importantly, "Does He care?"
http://www.wintercreeks.biz/is-god-real.php
 

Of course He cares....didn't He just show the people of Turkey how much He cares?   :?
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #266 on: October 27, 2011, 02:18:46 AM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind.  I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.  Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.
 

Yea, I love poetry about the wind the rain, sunshine the pain.

But a small understanding of climatology pulls most people back to reality.
time to grow up dude.
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12381
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #267 on: October 27, 2011, 07:32:30 AM »
...the wind...

An oldie but not so goodie. Could you please try something a little different?  We've heard that one about a million times.
 
Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time.  The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence.

Sort of like The Flash?  hey.  The Flash wears red too.  Maybe The Flash is actually the Debil?

   

Same guy?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #268 on: October 27, 2011, 07:39:08 AM »
^^ This is funny as "hell" ...  :laugh:
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #269 on: October 28, 2011, 07:58:51 AM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind. 

I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the
wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.

Hi there, Wintercreeks. So nice of you to express your contempt for us by assuming
we're stupid enough to swallow your fallacious "logic"!
Yup, there exist a lot of things we can't directly observe, like magnetic fields,
gamma radiation, ultraviolet light, microbes, due to the biological limitations of
our nature (or the stupidity of your Great Designer!). But, like your farts, we do
have detection methods (developed through SCIENCE) that allow us to expand our
sensory exploration of the universe we find ourselves in. This, despite the bullying
efforts of religious sociopaths like you, who brought us the dark ages, refused to
look through Galileo's telescope (lest they realize their vision of the universe,
based on naught but pure arrogance, be instantly demolished) and those who denounced
Leeuwenhoek for having the audacity to look microscopically at the universe. That would
be people like you.
We have plenty of scientific methods to observe the "invisible" things you point out
in your laughable attempt to claim the existence of your claimed supernatural being,
so, do tell us what scientific apparatus you have used to detect said creature?

Quote
Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my
complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.

Riiight. We're all too stoopid to observe the progression of the sun across the sky,
and realize, DUH! time exists. ROTFLMAO.

Quote
While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not.  Satan's omnipresence is a
misconception.  Satan is a created being

Oh! And your "EVIDENCE" for that is? LOL! And, why would a perfect, kind, loving,
all-knowing God create such a monstrosity?

Quote
therefore he can only be in one place at a time.

Have you informed him of this limitation you have paced upon him?

Quote
The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of
omnipresence.

What is "lightning speed"? Is that faster than the speed of light? Must be, given the
amount of evil attributed to Satan! BTW, is all this according to "Gods Plan"?

Quote
Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.  Humans
are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual
being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God.

Interesting. Could you explain the different levels of invisibility?

Quote
God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through
the wall of Heaven.


Explain the details of of a "wall" outside of spacetime? LOL!

Quote
Is God Real?

as real as Santa or the tooth faery!

Quote
More importantly, "Does He care?"

As much as you care for truth.


Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #270 on: October 28, 2011, 10:30:34 AM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind.  I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.  Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.
this is the best you have?  We know what causes the wind, WC.  We know what various constituents of the atmosphere are, and how thermodynamics work. 
 
Quote
While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not.  Satan's omnipresence is a misconception.  Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time.  The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence.  Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.  Humans are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God. 
Ah, one more TrueChristian
Quote
tm
claim of what Satan "really" is.   

Quote
God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven.
No.


Quote
Is God Real? More importantly, "Does He care?"
No, and No.


and silly ungod, this version of God only cares about extraspecial real true Christians, like wintercreeks. :P IT's sickening how Christians think that only they can do any good in the world. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #271 on: October 28, 2011, 11:06:50 AM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind. I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind.

Right..so, it exists is what you're saying as you can feel it and see the effects of it even though you can't see it with your bare eyes? Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote
I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.

You can contain air.

Quote
Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.

..Right so you see the effects of time and can even measure it with a clock or stopwatch. Wow, you're proving existences of things pretty well.
 
Quote
While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not.

And I spoke too soon...

Quote
Satan's omnipresence is a misconception. Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time.

Where is the evidence of this? Also, this just begs the question: would God not be a created being as well all according to your cause and effect?


Quote
The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence.

...

Quote
Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.

Funny how they were almost raped when visiting Sodom and Gomorrah and could even touch objects even though they're "non-physical".


Quote
Humans are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God.

Ridiculously stupid on so many levels.

Quote
God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven. Is God Real? More importantly,

Yawn.

Quote
"Does He care?"

If he does exist, then he sure as hell doesn't give a shit about Earth.

Read the news sometime: http://www.news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

Quote
http://www.wintercreeks.biz/is-god-real.php

And don't copy/paste. Really. Look, I'd totally understand if all you had was a mouse, but even that shouldn't stop you from making some effort. One time my keyboard was broken so I had to resort copy/pasting separate letters from saved files to write a minimum-2 page essay.
The Second C

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #272 on: October 28, 2011, 11:47:43 AM »

And don't copy/paste. Really. Look, I'd totally understand if all you had was a mouse, but even that shouldn't stop you from making some effort. One time my keyboard was broken so I had to resort copy/pasting separate letters from saved files to write a minimum-2 page essay.

I duuno, I've occasionally copy pasted a response to arguments after I've heard them 500 times before. And each one of them thinks their fallacy ridden argument for why atheists are wrong is a special snowflake.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #273 on: October 28, 2011, 11:50:14 AM »
Understandable. But it's the other way around, Typical Xian-Unknown (for the Xian) Atheist, not Atheist-Typical Xian for his case.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 12:00:10 PM by C »
The Second C

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #274 on: October 28, 2011, 11:59:07 AM »
After going through every section of the website given, I have found no evidence and am forced to conclude that Winter has nothing to offer but personal accounts and words from the Bible the website claims "contains the mind of God, the state of mankind, the way of salvation, the doom of sinner, and the joy of believers."

To further reinforce the wall of ignorance, our friend Winter mixed his own cement of bullshit by citing the site that says the doctrines "are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true and its decisions are immutable" which I take to be acceptance of all the stupid laws in the Bible that include repressing females, stoning homosexuals and so forth.

However I do agree with one part of his statement, "Read it to be safe...Read it slowly, frequently, reverently and prayerfully".

Yes, because you will be mentally safe after you become a non-believer once you realize a large amount of the content in the Bible is disgusting.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 12:01:08 PM by C »
The Second C

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #275 on: October 28, 2011, 12:27:27 PM »
"Read it to be safe...Read it slowly, frequently, reverently and prayerfully".

Yes, because you will be mentally safe after you become a non-believer once you realize a large amount of the content in the Bible is disgusting.

the Christains point of view  "read it and believe just like I do, or I'll claim you did none of these things "correctly"."
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #276 on: October 29, 2011, 08:10:02 PM »
believers are still sinners C ,they have just accepted Jesus in order to excuse their behaviour
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #277 on: October 29, 2011, 08:47:08 PM »
I duuno, I've occasionally copy pasted a response to arguments after I've heard them 500 times before. And each one of them thinks their fallacy ridden argument for why atheists are wrong is a special snowflake.

I particularly like the special snowflake that goes : The Hebrew God created our universe, because he made the stars on day 4, and put the sun underneath water, therefore: my particular brand of religion must be true.

We should put this all out in a flow chart:

Fail to prove connection between his God and the true god of creation -> (next strategy) -> move to list of crap prophecies, and try to prove it backwards: since his God got no prophecies correct, his God must be the creator of the universe.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #278 on: October 29, 2011, 09:09:23 PM »
I can see the wind blow leaves on to my newly racked lawn, but I don't see the wind.  I can feel the wind blowing against my face as I watch the sun set, but can't see the wind. I watch the wind push my kite into the sky, but I can't watch the wind.  Time is also invisible until I compare my high school senior portrait with my complementary photo from my 40 year reunion.
 
While Satan is invisible, the evidence is not.  Satan's omnipresence is a misconception.  Satan is a created being therefore he can only be in one place at a time.  The ability to move with lightning speed gives the appearance of omnipresence.  Satan is a non-physical being like all other angels created by God.  Humans are physical creations, therefore unable to detect with the physical eye, the actual being of Satan. Satan is invisible - but not like God. 

God is invisible. Yet the human eye can see the beauty of God bleeding through the wall of Heaven. Is God Real? More importantly, "Does He care?"
http://www.wintercreeks.biz/is-god-real.php
 

The fallacy at the root of this argument, is that you are "seeing" effects of a god, but you have no idea which god it is. What you then do, is leap to the conclusion that one or other religion describes that god accurately, as well as his demands (if s/he/it has any at all).

There is ample reason to believe that the Christian religion has got that description wrong:
1 - None of the people carrying the religion are in contact with God, so cannot resolve doctrinal disputes, without a new prophet, forger, or schism + massacre.
2 - Even if he was a prophet, and did exist, Jesus did not write anything down, and his story has been distorted in many ways; the final story was chosen by people who are not in contact with God.
3 - The major precepts of Christianity are at odds with the root religion, Judaism; and the people who witnessed Jesus: the Jews, do not believe the story
4 - A new prophet, Mohammed, revealed that Jesus was not the final prophet, and more people believe that story than Christians.
5 - None of the prophecies actually work, and the Bible says that means they come from Satan.
6 - Christians always try to prove their point using lies

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #279 on: October 31, 2011, 12:30:20 PM »
Hi velkyn,

Just because there are ignorant people doesn’t mean we need science to tell us they’re wrong. The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us about the movement of heat from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object, but we don’t need it to know that fire burns us when we touch it. And c’mon, I had a smiley face when I said it anyway. Give it a rest now.
What a snarky little thing to say, but sadly expected. &)  I do love when you do this, SC.  Yes, we do need science.  That’s what’s being used even if you don’t wish to admit it, the observation and analysis, looking for repeatable events.  We have people who can’t evidently comprehend that considering their actions.  You have yet to support your claim, and I don’t care how many smiley faces you put on a claim, it still needs support.
There are things here I don’t understand. Why do you call what I said snarky? Why is what I said critical, testy, and rudely sarcastic? Why are things you have said not? And if you’ve been snarky before, then why can you do it and I can’t? Why do you think I don’t like science? And why is this particular little sub-topic, which was just a throw-away comment meant for humor so important to you?

Quote
I’m assuming you mean the last sentence. No. You can ignore it and focus on the rest. It doesn’t need to be shown for the logic to follow.
Nice dodge, but I call bullshit.  You make the claim, you are expected to support it.  It’s cute to watch you make claims and then when called on them, you won’t support them, making vague appeals to “logic”. If there is support and logic to this claim, you should have no trouble showing it.   
Really? You’re claiming that if I make a claim, then I’m expected to support it. Even for points that are throw-away comments meant for humor, or for points that are not needed for the main point? That’s a pretty strong claim that you’re making. I think you’ll have to prove it.

However, because I like you, while you’re proving your claim, I’ll address your request. I made the claim that I wouldn’t call it science that you were lucky enough to make sure you bought a house above the flood plain of the Susquehanna River. If you actually used the results of a geological study when you chose which house to buy, then I concede that you used science.

I won’t be silly enough to ask you to support the claim that you used the study, or support the claim that your house is actually above the flood plain, or even to support the claim that you own a house. However, it seems very important to you that when someone makes a claim, then that person is expected to support it. So, I suppose that you’ll go ahead and support those claims anyway. Of course, if you don’t support the claims, then I guess you really don’t expect someone to support each and every claim they make.

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #280 on: October 31, 2011, 12:36:02 PM »
Hi velkyn,

It’s so funny that Christians like you think we should believe you have any “truth”, making it as you go along as you do.
I certainly don’t make this up as I go along. I do my best to carefully research what the Church teaches on all these topics. The Church has long taught and acted (and the Jews before them) according to the way that I’m explaining. This is not something that is being made up. Your continued accusations about what I say and why I say it are getting old. I do my best to treat you with respect and I expect you to do the same. If I’m not doing so, then you’re welcome to stop talking with me.

I see no exceptions for Hitler, or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc.  Read the bold, SC, and tell me what it says.  It says “authorities” nothing about any “institution”. It indicates people. If it didn’t, and said “Let everyone be subject to the governing authority”, then I might grant that you had a point. It doesn’t and you don’t.
Whether the first use of the word refers to people or the institution seems to me to not matter. When we come down to obeying, it requires an actual person who has the authority. In the practical sense, at that time, it seems to me that the word could refer either to the person or to their office equivalently.

For sure, in the last two cases, the Church sees the “authority” that God establishes as the “moral power of command . . .  which the State exercises over its members.” It is those powers in each civil state that God has established. St. Thomas Aquinas builds on Aristotle and St. Augustine in showing that authority is of God “inasumuch as it was an essential of the human nature which God has created”.

St. John Chrysostom addresses this question in the late 4th century. ‘"For there is no power," he says, "but of God." What say you? It may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself.’

Over and over your posts you require an “all or nothing” interpretation. You say that if we are to obey authority, then we must always obey authority. You say that if God puts any authorities in power, then He must put all authorities in power. You say that if God can use evil for good, then He must do it for all evil. (And He might. I don’t know.) You say that if we know some things about God, then we must know everything. Why the insistence on “all or nothing”? Is that how you think the world is? And I’m not trying to be snarky. I’m honestly curious.

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #281 on: October 31, 2011, 12:37:08 PM »
Hi velkyn,
By the way, Happy Halloween! Are you dressing up?

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #282 on: October 31, 2011, 12:52:01 PM »
Hello albeto,

I’m sorry to hear you had a bad head cold. I hope you feel better now. Happy Halloween! Are you dressing up? I was going to be Heinz Doofenschmirtz, but will probably not dress this year. Nowhere to go.

If you're interested you can start with Appendix 1 (found on page 347 of the report itself). 
Thank you for the reference. I’ve read the report from page 347 to the end. Which parts show evidence that shuttling is an institution-wide policy?

What is the reason for being obedient to authority if human organizations are imperfect and humans themselves can and do "sin"?  I don't mean practically speaking (obviously, organization works when people do their part), I mean metaphysically, spiritually, what is the practical reason when any authority may or may not be obedient to the holy spirit itself? 
That’s like saying why should a player listen to a coach when that player may or may not commit a foul or mess up a play. There’s a difference between what we can do and what we ought to do, between what’s possible and what’s right. Sin can be a result of fear or weakness, when we want to be obedient to the Spirit, but we don’t have the fortitude yet. Or it can be the result of pride, that is, we don’t really want to be obedient to the Spirit. Both of those are meant to be exceptions and not the rule. We are obedient to authority because when we follow the rule, we are better than when we don’t.

Of course it is.  You're now appealing to the idea that people can and do make mistakes, monumental ones even, even if they are devoutly faithful to the god of the church.
St. Peter comes to mind. Because of fear he denied Jesus.

On one hand you suggest that people are encouraged to become holy (and I recall from my own catholic days that the church teaches people are offered grace to help with this), on the other hand you suggest that no one is exempt from defying good and doing bad.  So which is it?  The church helps the individual through the sacraments which are the sign and instrument of god's grace, or the church offers the sacraments but the individual still has the same ability to defy that which is good to another and attend to their own gratification?  The instruments of god's grace either work or they don't.  . . .

Let me explain what I mean by special pleading.  You suggest that the christian religion has a functional effect on an individual.  This effect can be accepted or denied ("free will"), but the effect is there for one who chooses.  At the same time, however, you insist that we keep in mind this "free will" concept that will at any time render the functional effect impotent.  Either it works or it doesn't but if you suggest it works and then plead for an exemption ("sin"), that's what I mean by special pleading.
I’m terribly sorry albeto. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, but not quite getting all of it. I understand that you’re presenting an “either/or” situation, but I don’t see the two choices as opposed to each other. I must be missing something about them. It seems like one choice is captured by these statements
  • The church helps the individual through the sacraments which are the sign and instrument of god's grace,
  • You suggest that the christian religion has a functional effect on an individual.  This effect can be accepted or denied ("free will"), but the effect is there for one who chooses.
and the other choice is captured by these statements
  • the church offers the sacraments but the individual still has the same ability to defy that which is good to another and attend to their own gratification
  • you insist that we keep in mind this "free will" concept that will at any time render the functional effect impotent
You seem to be saying that either grace has a functional effect or that we have (the Church’s understanding of) free will. Is that correct? Why can’t it be both? Logically speaking, why can’t grace have a functional effect that helps a person when they cooperate with it and has no effect when a person refuses to cooperate?

This isn't the problem at all and the bishops gave in to modernity because that's what the scientific community suggested at the time.
So, are you saying that the bishops’ actions were based on what the experts said? I think if I said that, then some would claim I was defending the bishops or excusing their behavior.

At the same time, I don’t understand why the source of the problem is not that some in the Church forgot that higher standard. It seems to me that if they had the counsel and fortitude to follow the higher standard, then they wouldn’t have made the mistakes (or at least as many as) they did. If the priests and Bishops who did these things were able to follow the “claim to be the Bride of Christ, . . .  [and the] claim to have supernatural ability to know truth and morals and have access to God's grace to combat such spiritual attacks.” then they would have, in particular, been looking out for the victims a lot more than they actually did.

What is more important? The truth or attacking the Church?
The church cannot defend itself against the truth, that's why it feels like an attack. 
albeto, albeto, let’s not pick certain lines and ignore the others. That’s not honoring the truth. The full portion, of which you took the last line, is. . .
I think you are defending the poor response by distracting one's attention to other poor responses in hopes of making the Catholic response sound typical and therefore not so poor in comparison. 
I regret if that’s the way it came across, since that was not my intention at all. I wanted to point out the horrible irony of the blogger’s question (in the link above). She asks a biased question based on untrue premises that do immense harm to the greater problem. Yes, let’s bring to light the abuses by priests, but let’s not hide the abuses by others and allow them to continue. What is more important? The truth or attacking the Church?
Do you claim that her question was based on the truth? Her question is
If your softball league or your children's school did what the Catholic Church is doing, you'd quit in outrage. So why are you still Catholic?
Do you disagree that her question contains the implicit claim that sports organizations and our public schools do not have the problem of shuttling? Do you disagree that they actually do have that problem? Do you think that she is helping the larger problem of abuse of any children by implying that there’s not a problem in our schools or sports? Do you think it’s okay to lie if it helps in making a point? Which is more important, the truth or attacking the Catholic Church?

I have not seen authoritative evidence that Pope John Paul II purposefully aided priests who continued to molest children. Can you point me to that?
I'm thinking specifically of the incident in which Pope John Paul II  circulated a letter advocating silence:
Interesting. I had not seen that yet. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Let’s be accurate about what the stories are saying, though. It wasn’t Pope John Paul II who circulated the letter. It was Cardinal Castrillon who wrote and sent the letter. The Cardinal is also claiming that Pope John Paul II “authorized the letter and told him to send it to bishops around the world.” Other than repeats of the story, I have not found anything that confirms or denies the Cardinal’s claims.

Instead, I believe behavior is limited to specific choices that depend on internal physics (chemical and neurological mechanics of the organ of the brain) as well as personal experiences.
Thank you for going to the trouble of providing the explanation. Let me restate for clarification. You say that our behavioral choices are limited based on internal physics and personal experiences. (I have a Trading Places scene in my head right now. :)) We are free to choose in the sense that we can select from one of those specific options, but we can’t choose outside of those options. Is that a correct re-statement?

I’m not saying that the priests who did these things are not Catholics. I’m saying that they were not following the teachings of the Catholic Church. They “broke the law,” so to speak. I don’t see how the No True Scotsman idea isn’t relevant here.
Because part of the catholic faith advocates the idea that the sacraments as well as personal behavior invoke a supernatural effect and this supernatural effect is absent. 
I think I understand. Thanks. Your claim that I’m using the NTS fallacy is more about grace than being a “true Catholic,” or maybe you see them the same. It’s like the discussion above about grace in the “either/or” setting above. Let me try to lay it out according the examples here.
  • Priest A committed sexually abusive acts.
  • No true priest would have committed sexually abusive acts because of the grace they received.
  • Therefore, Priest A is not a true priest, because they did not receive grace.
  • Therefore, Priest A is not a counter-example to the claim that no true priest would have committed sexually abusive acts because of the grace they received.
Is that close? It’s the wording in 2 and 3 that I’m struggling with. I’m not sure that I’ve captured yet what you think I’m saying. Please pardon my obtuseness and thank you for your patience.

I don't think the concept of controlling an individual would be consistent with catholic theology, however, god manipulating the environment such that a child's safety would be ensured is consistent, imo. 
This is very much tied to the Problem of Evil. I wish I had an answer for you. I have some speculations – some logical, maybe some not – on various hypothetical situations. However, on the greater question, I don’t have an answer. I don’t always know why I do what I do, let alone an infinite, eternal, omniscient being.

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #283 on: October 31, 2011, 12:58:26 PM »
Hi screwtape,

Happy Halloween!

I did not think they were major points that needed addressing, but since you seem interested, I will. 
Let’s back up a little bit. (or, as you said, frankly drop it. I am edified by talking to you, but when it drags on this long, it takes me 15 minutes just to figure out what we were talking about! I realize that it’s completely my fault, too.) It’s not so much the individual points as the larger point. Still, you spent some time answering my comments and I thank you.

We started this by looking at the greater good. I took that to mean in the next life and we discussed that for a bit. We came to the conclusion that we agree in that context. You then corrected me and directed the conversation to the greater good in this life.

I took us down the twin paths of grace and works, explaining, first, how the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit gives us gifts and fruits that do contribute to the greater good in this life, and second, how the works of the Church are very much directed to this life as well. That got us into a sidetrack about the efficacy of the Sacraments in passing that grace. You’ve brought up a lot of good points, that I really want to discuss, but we can drop that sidetrack, if you’d like. (Thank you for sharing your experiences, though.) If there are particulars that you want to continue to address, please let’s do.

Of course.  I'm a scientist. 
Really? Cool. What area? What kind? Applied or theoretical?

I’ve deleted a lot of good discussion points on the Old Testament, and I’d like to replace it with an invitation. What do you think about separating this topic out into a separate thread, specifically a debate? The separate thread because all of these are way beyond the original poster’s question. 12 Monkeys is pretty upset about that. I suggest the debate because, as everyone can clearly see, I barely have time to carry on one conversation, let alone many. Everyone has been good with me, but it’s not working. I had to take the day off from work for these posts. (Nothing going on anyway and I use it or lose it.) I think I can be more responsive to one conversation and the Bible is of particular interest to me. With all due respect to velkyn and albeto, a debate will allow me to focus on one conversation rather than three.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #284 on: October 31, 2011, 02:50:25 PM »
alas, I have no where to go to dress up for Halloween.  Also recovering from the flu. That does set one back on one’s ass.  Let’s see, if I could dress up, I’d love to come up with a good anthropomorphic Cheshire Cat.

What I called “snarky” was your “give it a rest now”.  Sorry, I don’t like someone trying to end a discussion by telling me what to do, especially when I’m right.  I have no idea if you like science or not.  I do know that you often don’t seem to know much about it and that seems to inform your ignorance on how its used.
Quote
Really? You’re claiming that if I make a claim, then I’m expected to support it. Even for points that are throw-away comments meant for humor, or for points that are not needed for the main point? That’s a pretty strong claim that you’re making. I think you’ll have to prove it.
ROFL.  Oh my.  You see, on this forum, it’s hard to tell what comments are meant just for “humor” or if that’s an attempt to retcon what was originally intended.  As I said, if you have such logic, show it.  I’ve seen far too many people, usually theists, invoke “logic” and then when pressed, it comes out that they have none. That’s why I ask, to beat the brush and scare out the charlatans.  I could say “The Most Holy Sekhmet has set up human authority because we are better off with authority than without it. Now, this is a claim of something to be true.  If someonen doesn’t’ belive me they could say “No, she doesn’t.  That’s BS and humans work fine without authority, supernatural or otherwise.”  Now, at this point, we are both beholden to put up evidence or acknowledge that our claim has nothing to support it.  And if the other side has evidence, which side should be believed, SC?   

You made this claim, SC
Quote
God sets up human authority because we are better off with authority than without it.
I don’t believe this to be the case, that humans are universally better off with authority over us than without. Thus I ask for evidence from your side.  Can you give this to me?     

As for me and my house and the location of the flood plain, I find it hilarious that you can’t seem to bring yourself to acknowledge that I actually used science :D  with your repeated claim that I was only “lucky”.  I used my education, SC, that’s all. The same education that saves humans from floods all of the time.  And yes, if you wish, I can support my claim with my transcript. I find it so funny that you seem to be feeling all virtuous that you evidently don’t find any silly need to actually expect someone to support a claim.  Damn, it must be fun to go through life accepting anything anyone tells you.  You know, I do have some really good mineral deeds for Marcellus gas holdings here in PA.  Be worth millions, you know.  Since you don’t need any silly support of my claims, surely you’d not pass up such a chance to make millions?   

Of course, I’m being facetious, but it’s a great way to show how hypocritical you are.

I certainly don’t make this up as I go along. I do my best to carefully research what the Church teaches on all these topics. The Church has long taught and acted (and the Jews before them) according to the way that I’m explaining. This is not something that is being made up. Your continued accusations about what I say and why I say it are getting old. I do my best to treat you with respect and I expect you to do the same. If I’m not doing so, then you’re welcome to stop talking with me.
yes, you do, and every other Christian does exactly the same thing with the same result, that they are *sure* that their version of their religion and what their god “really” meant are the only right answers.  That’s my point, SC.  I don’t give a hoot what the “Church” or the Jews, etc, did since it also changes what its god “really” meant.  None of you can show any of your ‘truths” to be any less man-made than the next.  It’s all appeal to authority, appeal to popularity or appeal to tradition.   SC, I may have respect for you, but I have no respect for your religion.  None at all because it deserves none.  I’ll demonstrate its failings every chance I get and the fact that it’s just the same as all of the others is one big one.   

Quote
Whether the first use of the word refers to people or the institution seems to me to not matter. When we come down to obeying, it requires an actual person who has the authority. In the practical sense, at that time, it seems to me that the word could refer either to the person or to their office equivalently.
It did before when you claimed it only mean the institution.  Funny how that changes when you are actually called to defend your position. Okay, now at best you have that it could be either way or both. So? We still have god giving authority to all rulers and that this authority should be obeyed no matter what. It’s still a contradiction.  and honestly, it seems to get worse with Chrysostom’s words
Quote
For it is to Him, that he who subjects himself to authorities is obedient. Yet he does not say this— for instance that it is God to Whom a man who listens to authorities is obedient— but he uses the opposite case to awe them, and gives it a more precise form by saying, that he who listens not thereto is fighting with God, Who framed these laws. And this he is in all cases at pains to show, that it is not by way of favor that we obey them, but by way of debt.
To be obedient to rulers who have been given authority is to be obedient directly to this god.  Can rulers be in authority without this god’s will?
Quote
For sure, in the last two cases, the Church sees the “authority” that God establishes as the “moral power of command . . .  which the State exercises over its members.” It is those powers in each civil state that God has established. St. Thomas Aquinas builds on Aristotle and St. Augustine in showing that authority is of God “inasumuch as it was an essential of the human nature which God has created”.

St. John Chrysostom addresses this question in the late 4th century. ‘"For there is no power," he says, "but of God." What say you? It may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself.’
  Again, I’m not seeing any exceptions for Hitler, et al.  The bible says clearly that every ruler is put in place by its god. No exceptions to be found other than in later apologetics.  We have theologians doing just as you are doing, trying to bring a book that is full of problems into alignment with reality.  And they had to since the gospels seem to have been meant to only need to be held to for a short while, they could play at being martyrs for extra points for a few years at most and then JC would return and things would be peachy.  With no triumphant return, the church had to come up with reasons to obey some rulers and not obey others and again the bible gets a revision.  All of the usual acrobatics of apologetics, trying to say what this god “really” meant, by assumption and “interpretation”.  Chrysostom is a great example of the arguments given to support the divine right of kings.  In his version, god intentionally made ranks of people better than the next because it was “right”.  Kind of interesting considering how egalitarian JC was, at least how he was some time presented.

Quote
Over and over your posts you require an “all or nothing” interpretation. You say that if we are to obey authority, then we must always obey authority. You say that if God puts any authorities in power, then He must put all authorities in power. You say that if God can use evil for good, then He must do it for all evil. (And He might. I don’t know.) You say that if we know some things about God, then we must know everything. Why the insistence on “all or nothing”? Is that how you think the world is? And I’m not trying to be snarky. I’m honestly curious.
  It’s because your bible is written in the way it is.  It says that all authorities are put in power by God and that they must be obeyed no matter what.  If I were the editor, I certainly would have made things make more sense.  Seems that I’m more coherent than this god of yours.  If God is pure good and cannot stand evil, as your bible says, how does it use evil at all? This god that claims to be so good and so powerful and so loving, where we see not one instance of this in action in the book that purportedly *ever Christian*, including the Church fathers, starts with.  You can’t find the god you want in its pages so you and your “church” make things up to excuse the genocide, use and working with supposed elemental evil, the primitive tribalness, etc. 

It’s not my absolutes, it’s your book not mine.  And I do not say that you need to know “everything” about God, I am simply amused at how Christians claim to know so much about their god but when confronted by the contradictions in the bible, the impotence and incompetence demonstrated by your god, the outright ridiculousness of the evidenceless claims of the bible, you suddenly retreat to the claim that your god is mysterious and how dare anyone ask “why” when the answers reveal your god as what it is, a man-made creation.  It’s the old Wizard of Oz trick,  make it known that you are wrathful and powerful, claim to have done things, promise to do certain things, but when convenient, the Great and Powerful Oz vanishes or sends the applicants away to do something that will get you out of your hair for a while and hopefully they’ll die and not question you again.  Then you get to avoid the questions. Well, this farm girl is quite happy to yank back that curtain you and your “church” have draped over yourselves.   

No, I don’t think the world is all or nothing. The world isn’t like that at all but your bible pretends it is, with its myths. I do think we can ask as many questions as possible for as long as we exist and dig and dig and dig for the answers until we find them no matter how long it takes, not to be told the nonsense that “there are secrets man was not meant to know” by a bunch of people whose self-worth is invested in the believe that some magical being loves them and only them and that they’ll be able to avoid the finality of death somehow.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12381
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #285 on: October 31, 2011, 03:12:04 PM »
Hi caveman

Happy Halloween!

Thanks.  It would be better without the 9" of snow we got.  It would also be better with power.  Hopefully today...

I have always loved halloween, but lately I've not done anything to celebrate.  A couple years ago I read a good book called The Way of the World, by Ron Suskind.  It was about how America (GW Bush specifically) lost its moral authority. It told a number of parallel stories that all related to terrorism and our ill-fated adventures in Iraq.  One of them was about a boy from afghanistan who was given the opportunity to be an exchange student in the US.  His host family was celebrating halloween and decorating the house with "bloody body parts".  Their guest student did not get the point of the occasion.  Partly because he had seen bloody body parts for real and up close.  That has permanently changed my point of view on halloween.

You’ve brought up a lot of good points, that I really want to discuss, but we can drop that sidetrack, if you’d like. (Thank you for sharing your experiences, though.) If there are particulars that you want to continue to address, please let’s do.

We can discuss whatever you would like to discuss.

Of course.  I'm a scientist. 
Really? Cool. What area? What kind? Applied or theoretical?

By training and profession I am a mechanical engineer.  By philosophy and approach to life, I am a scientist.  The real scientists[1] here are Emergence and Irish.  I believe Azdgari is headed that way too.  There may be a couple others around, but I cannot remember them.

What do you think about separating this topic out into a separate thread, specifically a debate?

Sure.  Just let me know the topic and I can set it up.  You can send a PM.  I will have limited availability until my power comes back on though.

 1. the onese who do it for their real jobs
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #286 on: October 31, 2011, 05:20:29 PM »
Hi velkyn,

Sorry to hear about the flu. We’ve been lucky so far, though my daughter (at college) has been down for the count. :(

What I called “snarky” was your “give it a rest now”.  Sorry, I don’t like someone trying to end a discussion by telling me what to do, especially when I’m right. 
Fair enough. I don’t think any of us like that.

ROFL.  Oh my.  You see, on this forum, it’s hard to tell what comments are meant just for “humor” or if that’s an attempt to retcon what was originally intended. 
That’s why I put the smiley face on the comment about science. I thought that would help.

I also agree with your point in general. If someone makes a claim they should support it. I’ve often asked for evidence from people I’m talking with. I think we agree here. My point regarded “the eternal struggle” to find time to respond to these quite interesting discussions. All these branching topics make it harder and harder. I am very much of the mind that I will validate what I say, but only if it’s necessary for the larger point I’m trying to make. If it’s not necessary, but it’s a point of contention, then I’ll take it back. I don’t have time to address it.

You made this claim, SC
Quote
God sets up human authority because we are better off with authority than without it.
I don’t believe this to be the case, that humans are universally better off with authority over us than without. Thus I ask for evidence from your side.  Can you give this to me?
I’m actually surprised that I have to “prove” it. I thought it was commonly understood. I see the opposite of authority as anarchy. When there’s no one in charge, then everyone is in charge. However, it’s not something that I want to spend any more time on. If you think that our society is better off in anarchy than we are with authority, then I’m not going to disagree with you. It was a side comment from the larger point I was trying to make.

As for me and my house and the location of the flood plain, I find it hilarious that you can’t seem to bring yourself to acknowledge that I actually used science :D  with your repeated claim that I was only “lucky”. 
No, no, no. You were the one who said you “were lucky enough”. When I said it, I only quoted you. Right?

I used my education, SC, that’s all.
See, now that’s entirely different to me. These forums are bad for clear communication. Your education is, of course, based on years of scientific studies. To me that’s different than using science to figure out where to buy your house.

Of course, I’m being facetious, but it’s a great way to show how hypocritical you are.
See, now when I did something very similar, you got all upset at me. In fact, you said “Poor thing, can’t answer questions so you waste time with posts like this rather than just an answer.“ A) I think that’s snarky. B) You just did the same thing. Instead of proving your claims you wasted time with a sarcastic post.

yes, you do, and every other Christian does exactly the same thing with the same result, that they are *sure* that their version of their religion and what their god “really” meant are the only right answers.  That’s my point, SC.  I don’t give a hoot what the “Church” or the Jews, etc, did since it also changes what its god “really” meant.  None of you can show any of your ‘truths” to be any less man-made than the next.  It’s all appeal to authority, appeal to popularity or appeal to tradition.   SC, I may have respect for you, but I have no respect for your religion.  None at all because it deserves none.  I’ll demonstrate its failings every chance I get and the fact that it’s just the same as all of the others is one big one. 
velkyn, I think we’re done. You’ve called me a liar many times, just as you are here. You’ve just said again that you have no real interest in what I’m saying, what the Church says, etc. If that’s the case, then all you’re doing is heckling. It’s not a conversation.

It did before when you claimed it only mean the institution.  Funny how that changes when you are actually called to defend your position.
No. My position didn’t change. I may have not been as clear the first time, which is why I clarified it. I’m sure you can understand, since above you accidentally accused me of being the one to call you “lucky.”

Okay, now at best you have that it could be either way or both. So? We still have god giving authority to all rulers and that this authority should be obeyed no matter what.
. . .
Can rulers be in authority without this god’s will?
The way I understand it, yes. God set up the concept and need for authority. (I understand that you don’t agree with this. I’m giving you the logic as I understand it.)
  • God set up the concept and need for authority, not the individual authorities themselves. (Which is what St. John Chrysostom says, too.)
  • If a person becomes in charge, i.e. has that authority, then we are to obey them, just as they are to obey their authority, which is God. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”
  • Even if that person is a Hitler, we are to obey them, except in situations that contradict God’s law. “and to God what is God’s.”
  • This is what Jews did, what Christ did, what the Apostles did, and what the Church Fathers did. I think I gave examples of each. Their actions are consistent with and speak just as loudly as their words.

It’s because your bible is written in the way it is.  It says that all authorities are put in power by God and that they must be obeyed no matter what. 
No, it’s because you read the Bible in a particular way. You claim that’s the only way to read it, but you ignore the way the Jews read it, Christ read it, the Apostles read it, the Church Fathers read it, and the way the Church has read it since. Why are you a better expert than they when it comes to reading the Bible? You’re born 2000 years later in an entirely different culture and you read it with antipathy both for what it says and for who wrote it. Even Ph.D.’s in Religious Studies, those who know ancient Greek, ancient Near Eastern cultures, ancient Jewish history and the like, don’t claim to understand everything about what the Bible is saying. I know you’re more than “this farm girl”, but what makes you right and 3000 years of studies wrong?

Offline SimpleCaveman

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #287 on: October 31, 2011, 05:38:01 PM »
Thanks.  It would be better without the 9" of snow we got.  It would also be better with power.  Hopefully today...
Yuck. I expect that to happen here more than once this year. We were out 5 days one time last winter.

Partly because he had seen bloody body parts for real and up close.  That has permanently changed my point of view on halloween.
Wow. Makes you realize how sheltered our world is. There’s a song by Everlast called What It’s Like. Great song. I think most of us don’t really know what it’s like. (How do you include a link to a video without including the actual video? Or without it being so big?!)

By training and profession I am a mechanical engineer.  By philosophy and approach to life, I am a scientist. 
Excellent. I know quite a few Mech E’s.  My son was going to be, but then changed his major to aeronautics maintenance technology or something like that. He wants to work on airplanes. I told him to join the Air Force! That’s what my Dad did.

We have another obstacle to understanding each other, then. It seems to me that Engineers and Statisticians see the world quite differently, too. At least that’s the way it was when teaching Statistics for Engineers. :)

Sure.  Just let me know the topic and I can set it up.  You can send a PM.  I will have limited availability until my power comes back on though.
Ha! Your power will come back on before I get to. Tomorrow is All Saints Day, Wednesday is RCIA, Thursday, Pope Pius XII religious medal meeting, Friday is my niece’s college volleyball game (she’s like 10th in the nation on defense), Saturday is family game night with some friends. But get to it I will.

Until then, good luck with the power and weather.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Darwins +71/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #288 on: November 01, 2011, 12:46:52 AM »
Hello albeto,

I’m sorry to hear you had a bad head cold. I hope you feel better now. Happy Halloween! Are you dressing up? I was going to be Heinz Doofenschmirtz, but will probably not dress this year. Nowhere to go.

We love Doofenschmirtz here.  No such fun for me but my kids have invited some friends over.  I would surely horrify them if I tried dressing up.  I'm hiding in another room while they scream at a movie.

If you're interested you can start with Appendix 1 (found on page 347 of the report itself). 
Thank you for the reference. I’ve read the report from page 347 to the end. Which parts show evidence that shuttling is an institution-wide policy?[/quote]

My original reply was to your comment about shuttling and ignoring.  From page 349, number 9: "Each complaint, alleged a lack of any adequate response being taken by the Diocese.  They reported a perceived lack of willingness to follow any appropriate child protection procedures." 

This was the function of the report itself - to investigate if the church authority was being responsible in the protection of the children in its care.  This is textbook negligence.  General accusations of abusive priests being shuttled from one parish to another can be found in other sources.

We are obedient to authority because when we follow the rule, we are better than when we don’t.

Okay this makes sense, but there's no supernatural element in this mechanic.  You're suggesting there's a such a thing as a spirit that is holy and righteous and is essentially perfect love.  There's simply no reason to accept this premise any more than accepting the argument for karma:  Good people tend to find good things happen to them and people who do bad things find bad events happen to them.  Of course it doesn't always stand but it's easy enough to read into any event after the fact.  If you're suggesting there is a spirit of perfect love that animates the church or any of her members, we ought to see evidence for that argument.  Instead, we see within the Catholic church the same elements we see in any organization, namely, some people are more suited to their positions than others, some are exemplary and others are horrifying, but there's no objective reason to assume there's a supernatural effect within the church or her members. 

St. Peter comes to mind. Because of fear he denied Jesus.

That doesn't help me.  I don't mean to be contrary but I have no reason to believe the character "Jesus" as described in the bible actually exists which would suggest St. Peter is no more than an anthropomorphized analogy as well.  It simply doesn't make sense that a man who "knew" the "Son of God" without being told, who saw countless miracles, who watched his own mother in law get better from Jesus' attention, would deny knowing him.  I mean, if I knew and hung out with a guy who could raise the dead, there would be nothing I would fear.  Srsly.   

You seem to be saying that either grace has a functional effect or that we have (the Church’s understanding of) free will. Is that correct? Why can’t it be both? Logically speaking, why can’t grace have a functional effect that helps a person when they cooperate with it and has no effect when a person refuses to cooperate?

It's simply unpersuasive to apply a cause only after the fact to explain the fact.  Consider - a person finds God and works honorably with orphans the rest of his life.  Must be the holy spirit.  A person finds God and works with orphans and takes advantage of them physically and emotionally.  Must be free will.  Why not karma?  Why not Allah's will?  Why doesn't Buddhism explain it?  Well, they all do and with the same validity the Christian faith can offer.  Any of these ideas could explain it, and do when offered by adherents to those belief systems.  A more rational and meritorious explanation would be human behavior.  Operant conditioning, natural levels of adrenaline which contributes to aggression or lack thereof, executive functioning ability and skills, education, etc.  These explain events without having to appeal to supernatural superstition to explain what was once as mysterious as the stars.   

So, are you saying that the bishops’ actions were based on what the experts said? I think if I said that, then some would claim I was defending the bishops or excusing their behavior.

That's likely to be true, that some would claim you're defending the bishops, that is.  It's hard to excuse this kind of behavior, but I suspect the men were doing the best they could with the information they had.  Listening to psychologists was a logical alternative to the years of listening to homilies for answers.  How could they know that the advice they received wouldn't be as sophisticated as they needed?  Well, except for the idea of observing the utter failure of following that advice and the fact that innocent children are being set up time and time again. 

At the same time, I don’t understand why the source of the problem is not that some in the Church forgot that higher standard. It seems to me that if they had the counsel and fortitude to follow the higher standard, then they wouldn’t have made the mistakes (or at least as many as) they did. If the priests and Bishops who did these things were able to follow the “claim to be the Bride of Christ, . . .  [and the] claim to have supernatural ability to know truth and morals and have access to God's grace to combat such spiritual attacks.” then they would have, in particular, been looking out for the victims a lot more than they actually did.

I can't imagine they forgot this.  I'm trying, but I can't imagine the scenario.  Father So-and-So rapes three boys every Tuesday and Thursday in his bedroom and tells the children that these times are under the seal of confession and will send them straight to hell for talking about and he *forgot* he ought not do this as a priest? 

I think it's probably far more likely they reacted to whatever stimuli was attractive and learned to justify it so much that they stopped trying to justify it and simply continued to satisfy immediate gratification.  I even imagine that in the dark of night, insomnia would have brought to their attention the vile, torturous things they did and the guilt would have been insurmountable.  Until they figured out how to alleviate it, that is.  Prayer works, "perfect contrition" means one need not go to the confessional for absolution.  Drinking.  Blaming the boys, blaming one's father, blaming sin.  How very convenient to realize one has an addiction to sex with boys to convince themselves it's not really their fault and besides, who's going to find out?  Lord knows childhood wasn't a day in the park for them... (or whatever it takes to get their minds off their actions). 

Actually the concept of karma explains this so much better than sin.  Karma suggests that in the person's last life they may have some lingering debt to justice, they are born with a character that is indicative of who they must have been before.  If they work hard to eliminate as much as they can, their next life won't be fraught with such angst and little boys won't be so darn scrumptious.  We can't remember our last lives, therefore anything could be possible.  There's no reason not to believe this is the case, it's just how karma would work.  The holy spirit, on the other hand, ought to have enough influence to shake a person out of their sin-fog just long enough to know what they're doing, seek the sacraments, and flee from more sin.  The idea of free will ought not trump God's holy spirit, especially when that spirit is guiding the person who dedicated their lives to be a priest.   

Do you disagree that her question contains the implicit claim that sports organizations and our public schools do not have the problem of shuttling? Do you disagree that they actually do have that problem? Do you think that she is helping the larger problem of abuse of any children by implying that there’s not a problem in our schools or sports? Do you think it’s okay to lie if it helps in making a point? Which is more important, the truth or attacking the Catholic Church?

I think you're missing her point.  It's not to imply our public schools do not have this problem, it's to remind the faithful that the organization to which they belong not only represents its values through their policies, it claims to be supernaturally guided.  A public school or sports team exists to provide an education or sporting experience.  The church exists to provide the promise of salvation.  It claims to be the representative of Christ on earth, the priests acting in persona christi for the needs of the parishioners.   People relocate schools and quit teams as necessary, but where does the faithful go for salvation?  Instead of recognizing the faulty logic, they learn to distract themselves with the idea that each person is accountable for their own actions, regardless of the idea that the holy spirit supposedly separates the church from every other "natural" organization.  It's this cognitive dissonance that one refuses to approach with the same careful consideration they do for judging those other areas in which they spend their time and offer their contributions. 

Interesting. I had not seen that yet. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Let’s be accurate about what the stories are saying, though. It wasn’t Pope John Paul II who circulated the letter. It was Cardinal Castrillon who wrote and sent the letter. The Cardinal is also claiming that Pope John Paul II “authorized the letter and told him to send it to bishops around the world.” Other than repeats of the story, I have not found anything that confirms or denies the Cardinal’s claims.

Are you suggesting the cardinal lied and no one corrected his slander against the pope? 

Thank you for going to the trouble of providing the explanation. Let me restate for clarification. You say that our behavioral choices are limited based on internal physics and personal experiences. (I have a Trading Places scene in my head right now. :)) We are free to choose in the sense that we can select from one of those specific options, but we can’t choose outside of those options. Is that a correct re-statement?

My understanding is that our "choice" is really a rationalization for the decision the frontal lobe settled on in any given circumstance.  From my "choice" of sitting on this couch to the "choice" of the word "circumstance" rather than "situation" or "scenario," the brain is simultaneously operating trillions of calculations every moment.  Neurologist Sam Harris explains, "You are not aware of the electrochemical events occurring at each of the trillion synapses in your brain at this moment. But you are aware, however dimly, of sights, sounds, sensations, thoughts, and moods. At the level of your experience, you are not a body of cells, organelles, and atoms; you are consciousness and its ever-changing contents, passing through various stages of wakefulness and sleep, and from cradle to grave."  It is these electrochemical events, I suspect, that determine which of the many possibilities your brain calculates will net the most gain for the least cost that determine your "choice."  He has a few blog posts about free will as well you might find interesting. 

I think I understand. Thanks. Your claim that I’m using the NTS fallacy is more about grace than being a “true Catholic,” or maybe you see them the same. It’s like the discussion above about grace in the “either/or” setting above. Let me try to lay it out according the examples here.
  • Priest A committed sexually abusive acts.
  • No true priest would have committed sexually abusive acts because of the grace they received.
  • Therefore, Priest A is not a true priest, because they did not receive grace.
  • Therefore, Priest A is not a counter-example to the claim that no true priest would have committed sexually abusive acts because of the grace they received.
Is that close? It’s the wording in 2 and 3 that I’m struggling with. I’m not sure that I’ve captured yet what you think I’m saying. Please pardon my obtuseness and thank you for your patience.

Because "priest" is an office objectively identified, I wouldn't agree. Replace "priest" with "true Catholic" or "faithful believer" or anything in there that is purely subjectively determined and that would be a good start.  The idea of receiving grace is another aspect to this that I really never considered as a Catholic.  It sounds more like OSAS theology to declare one had never "really" been saved in the first place. 

This is very much tied to the Problem of Evil. I wish I had an answer for you. I have some speculations – some logical, maybe some not – on various hypothetical situations. However, on the greater question, I don’t have an answer. I don’t always know why I do what I do, let alone an infinite, eternal, omniscient being.

I appreciate your not patronizing me with some superficiality.  I think the reason you don't have an answer is because none exists.  You wish you did because you sincerely believe the church is the repository of the supernatural essence of god and his grace and therefore some answer must exist.  Any logical answers you have are rooted in the premise first of the existence of this god and the nature of this god as good (begging the question).  Or I should say, if you have logical answers that are not rooted in this premise, I would be curious to hear them.  As far as why you do what you do, I think that's the biggest selling point of faith.  It offers a reason - sin.  It's a fine hypothesis and makes sense given our nature and instinct to find correlation between events, but the hypothesis fails under careful scrutiny.  Neurology, biology, evolution, social psychology and other related fields offer specific, objective data that contribute to a more rational, falsifiable hypothesis, one that leaves an ancient hypothesis created in the midst of beliefs of spirit and nature gods lacking.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Darwins +71/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why is Satan invisible like God?
« Reply #289 on: November 01, 2011, 01:00:23 AM »
By training and profession I am a mechanical engineer.  By philosophy and approach to life, I am a scientist.  The real scientists[1] here are Emergence and Irish.  I believe Azdgari is headed that way too.  There may be a couple others around, but I cannot remember them.

 1. the onese who do it for their real jobs

velkyn is, right?  And hypagoga.