Author Topic: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?  (Read 3299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #116 on: August 18, 2014, 04:28:36 PM »
For those who wonder why I created this thread here it's mainly because many atheists where blaming God even if they did not believe in him.
They were using this blame as an argument.
So I thought, let's see what they really think about God and evil. Asking it in a theist forum I would get the answer "exactly as he is doing it right now!"
You're worth more than my time

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1402
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #117 on: August 18, 2014, 08:31:59 PM »
Thank you for your answers. I like dloubet's solution.
So let's say we mock someone (the N word example is a good one) we would feel the pain the black man felt. Would it be systematic?
In the example of the involuntary fire in the wood that burn 2 people. The culprit wouldn't feel the pain of the burnt because it wasn't their intention.
What if they voluntary burned the forest (they have pyromania) but didn't know there were people in it?
What if they initially wanted voluntary to burn only one tree and didn't know that it would pick up?
What about the case where you find your wife with another man? Or worse, the case were you find a pedophile with your kid. Would you feel the pain voluntary inflicted by you baseball bat hitting his face?
These would all be solved by a perfect judgement from the god. As I said, this would be arranged to not allow masochists to manipulate the system, or similar exploits.
An argument could be made that applying this system to people accidentally causing suffering would result in people thinking more carefully about the actions they're planning to take. Maybe apply half the suffering, in that case.
Denis Loubet

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #118 on: August 19, 2014, 04:22:16 PM »
My question then is the following. Is the person who hurts someone 100% responsible?
Let's say a army guy who shoot to kill someone because he was ordered too.
Does he and his commandant die too?
I take the example of protestants in the street. They protest, this protest do not allow you to go to work. You need to go to work to feed your family today. Do the protesters suffer?
They are asked to move by the police but chose to stay nevertheless. Do the police suffer when they hit them with bats? Or gas them?
Finally is the perfect judgement from God is perfect according to you? or according to him? or according to someone else? the majority of people? Who?
You're worth more than my time

Offline shnozzola

Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #119 on: August 19, 2014, 04:27:10 PM »
No. I believe that only humans can create evil.

Luk,
           What do you suppose causes this evil?  Where does it come from?  If you are saying somehow the human psyche, the human experience creates it?
Do you think there is a satan, that manipulates people?  I suppose you realize that not believing in evil goes hand in hand with not believing in ****.

edit - weird, why would the nanny simple machines not like the use of g-o-(o)-d?


« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 04:29:30 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #120 on: August 19, 2014, 04:34:06 PM »
For those who wonder why I created this thread here it's mainly because many atheists where blaming God even if they did not believe in him.
They were using this blame as an argument.
So I thought, let's see what they really think about God and evil. Asking it in a theist forum I would get the answer "exactly as he is doing it right now!"

Unfortunately for your god, “exactly as he is doing it right now” is exactly what we would expect if there is no god or gods.

Even worse is that in order for people to hold onto their religion they have to rationalize that “what we would expect if there is no god or gods” is exactly how their god is expected to behave.  This is what religion is, it makes excuses for a god and if that doesn’t work it convinces you that everything is all part of this god’s plan and everything is exactly as it should be.  This is a systematic self-reinforcing delusion to hold onto the flock as no one can question this god’s plan, we are insignificant lowly mortals who can’t possibly comprehend the plan of a god.  Very convenient. 

So, I’m curious, why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?  Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?  Those who disobey your god and the plan are “evil”!  They will burn in hell with Satan because Satan also had the audacity to question god’s plan!  Very convenient.

Innocent children dying of curable and treatable diseases has to be rationalized away as a necessity for god’s plan to achieve a greater good.  Why is it wrong to ask, “why wouldn’t this god make a plan to avoid those children having to die miserably at a young age and unable to enjoy life and still achieve the same greater good?”  Can’t your god do that?  Won’t your god do that?  Apparently your god can’t or won’t.  Take your pick, because that is what you call a god.  A god which behaves as if it doesn’t exist.

Sidestepping the Problem of Evil won’t make it go away, sidestepping will just keep you believing a fantasy represents reality.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #121 on: August 19, 2014, 05:49:00 PM »
          What do you suppose causes this evil? Where does it come from?  If you are saying somehow the human psyche, the human experience creates it?
Do you think there is a satan, that manipulates people?  I suppose you realize that not believing in evil goes hand in hand with not believing in ****.
Evil is a consequence of a choice. The choice of saying "no" to God.
It comes from our ability to say "no". Our freedom.
Evil is not created. It's like the famous quotes about Einstein and the dark vs the light. Dark is not created, its just the absence of light.
I think that Satan can manipulate people. He can convince them that saying no to God is the best way to go. (like he did with Eve)
We have this idea of a little angel and a little demon talking to us when it comes the time to make a choice. I believe in that kind of view. On one side there is Satan and on the other side there is your consciousness. You use you free will to make a choice. This choice can be for Good or for Evil.

weird, why would the nanny simple machines not like the use of g-o-(o)-d?
I don't understand this question. Sorry.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #122 on: August 19, 2014, 05:54:03 PM »
So, I’m curious, why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?  Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?  Those who disobey your god and the plan are “evil”!  They will burn in hell with Satan because Satan also had the audacity to question god’s plan!  Very convenient.
You know that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, right?

Why is it wrong to ask, “why wouldn’t this god make a plan to avoid those children having to die miserably at a young age and unable to enjoy life and still achieve the same greater good?”
That's more or less the question I asked you in this thread. 
Can’t your god do that?  Won’t your god do that?  Apparently your god can’t or won’t.  Take your pick, because that is what you call a god.  A god which behaves as if it doesn't exist.
God can and won't. If he would heal amputees for example, it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe. For a greater good he doesn't heal the amputees :)
You're worth more than my time

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1706
  • Darwins +67/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #123 on: August 19, 2014, 10:11:52 PM »

If he would heal amputees for example, it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe. For a greater good he doesn't heal the amputees :)

classic, how would this occur precisely, the extra limb appearing from nowhere would cause extra mass which would perturb the gravitational field causing a wobble in the earth's orbit in a positive feedback loop causing the earth to spiral into the sun causing a perturbation in the sun's gravitational field causing the sun to in turn collide with all the planets in our solar system causing our solar system to eat all the systems in our galaxy causing our galaxy to eat other galaxies, super-clusters....until the universe ate itself all due to an arm appearing on an amputee via god???

good thing he only cures cancer and stuff - smart god always got our backs.

proof he is all knowing, Omni-benevolent and all loving....
Signature goes here...

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #124 on: August 20, 2014, 09:45:05 AM »
^^^Settle down eh!, you don't want to get on this god fellow's bad side. Considering how many animals have the ability to regrow lost limbs, it's a miracle that the universe hasn't yet been destroyed by all the "chain reactions" sparked by THAT.

Based on all the successes, I have to assume that transplants are not a problem because there's no creation of new mass, only using the mass that already exists in the donor's body. I do wonder why transplants don't piss this god character off though - I can't figure out why he doesn't smite surgeons attempting to circumvent death caused by organ failure right on the spot. He could get the intended victim and the entire medical staff that's trying to override his will in one swoop in the OR.

"His ways" sure are mysterious... &)
 
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +43/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #125 on: August 20, 2014, 10:28:12 AM »
If god did heal amputees it would cause a chain reaction that would eventually destroy the world as we know it. Thousands of people would swat a fly with their new arm all at the same time. All that force would cause tsunamis, hurricanes, and blizzards. Similar to the butterfly effect but not as cool. So I will call it the moth effect.     
In all seriousness (and related to the OP) I saw a post somewhere from J Dawg earlier about how we all blame humans for the wrongs of the world when and if we have the resources to fix a problem. Yet god with all his infinite power gets a pass on the negatives and everything positive he is the main cause of.
I think god should intervene against evil (if he actually existed). Isn't that the point?  Is the book not full of your god participating in this world? So why stop now?

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #126 on: August 20, 2014, 11:40:42 AM »
God could use the materials that make up the nipples on male mammals and use them for lost limbs, but He's too fuckin' stupid.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #127 on: August 20, 2014, 12:17:51 PM »
You know that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, right?

Hmm, really?  I didn’t realize the Catholic Church stopped teaching people to follow their god and what god commands.  You know, stuff like not choosing to follow “God” will result in evil.

Kind of like what you said 5 minutes earlier:

Evil is a consequence of a choice. The choice of saying "no" to God.

Wow, you are so fake.

Why is it wrong to ask, “why wouldn’t this god make a plan to avoid those children having to die miserably at a young age and unable to enjoy life and still achieve the same greater good?”
That's more or less the question I asked you in this thread.

Hint:  The answer is because there is no god or gods to be able to prevent children having to die miserably at a young age while still achieving greater good.

Can’t your god do that?  Won’t your god do that?  Apparently your god can’t or won’t.  Take your pick, because that is what you call a god.  A god which behaves as if it doesn't exist.
God can and won't. If he would heal amputees for example, it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe. For a greater good he doesn't heal the amputees :)

BUT DOC!  I’m BACK  …. I’m back FROM the FUTURE!

Lukvance,  you just contradicted yourself again, that is twice in a matter of 5 minutes. 

First you say “God can and won’t” but then you say “it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe” SO if healing amputees would destroy the universe then obviously your god can not heal amputees without destroying the universe.  You’ve just made it so your god can’t while claiming that he won’t.  That’s right, you’ve just described an incompetent god who doesn’t give a shit.  That sounds about par for the course for the Catholic god, or any god for that matter.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #128 on: August 20, 2014, 01:21:36 PM »
So, I’m curious, why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?  Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?  Those who disobey your god and the plan are “evil”!  They will burn in hell with Satan because Satan also had the audacity to question god’s plan!  Very convenient.
You know that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, right?
Hmm, really?  I didn’t realize the Catholic Church stopped teaching people to follow their god and what god commands.  You know, stuff like not choosing to follow “God” will result in evil.
Jesus/God left us only 2 commandments. Neither of them was "believe in me or go to hell". Both of them said "you shall love". I put back your original quote because I felt that the reply you gave me was not on the same subject/related to the question I asked.

First you say “God can and won’t” but then you say “it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe” SO if healing amputees would destroy the universe then obviously your god can not heal amputees without destroying the universe.  You’ve just made it so your god can’t while claiming that he won’t.  That’s right, you’ve just described an incompetent god who doesn’t give a shit.  That sounds about par for the course for the Catholic god, or any god for that matter.
Have you hear of the omnipotence paradox? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Come back to me afterwards about contradicting myself when it comes to omnipotence.
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #129 on: August 20, 2014, 03:58:46 PM »
So, I’m curious, why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?  Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?  Those who disobey your god and the plan are “evil”!  They will burn in hell with Satan because Satan also had the audacity to question god’s plan!  Very convenient.
You know that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, right?
Hmm, really?  I didn’t realize the Catholic Church stopped teaching people to follow their god and what god commands.  You know, stuff like not choosing to follow “God” will result in evil.
Jesus/God left us only 2 commandments. Neither of them was "believe in me or go to hell". Both of them said "you shall love". I put back your original quote because I felt that the reply you gave me was not on the same subject/related to the question I asked.

Yet, I did not ever say that the commandment was “believe in me or go to hell” although I might as well have.  Perhaps you can point out where I said that?  Also, where did I say that was a commandment of “Jesus/God”?  I said “designed by religion” for “teaching people to follow THEIR god” and what THEIR god commands.

Also, apparently you don’t know your own professed religion. 

Quote from: Mark 9:43-48
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.  It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.  And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off.  It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.  And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out.  It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

Quote from: Matthew 25:31-46
When the son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious thrown.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’  Then the righteous will answer him, saying ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?  And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?  And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’  Then they also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?  And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?  Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Quote from: Matthew 13:47-50
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.  When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad.  So it will be at the end of the age.  The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace.  In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Quote from: Peter 2:1-10
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.  And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.  And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.  Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, make them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);  then punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Quote from: Jude 1:5-7
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.  And the angles who did not stay within their own position of authority but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexually immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Quote from: John 5:17-20
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.  He is the true God and eternal life.

Quote from: John 3:16-21
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  And this is the judgment:  the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.  For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.  But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.

I rest my case.

Oh by the way, I’m not going to answer your original question, my reply was exactly on point, you just don’t like that I’m right.  The reason I didn’t answer your question is because it is one of your oft used logical fallacies called a ‘Loaded question’.  Your question contains a false premise, namely, that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that not following Jesus or God will lead to hell.


First you say “God can and won’t” but then you say “it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe” SO if healing amputees would destroy the universe then obviously your god can not heal amputees without destroying the universe.  You’ve just made it so your god can’t while claiming that he won’t.  That’s right, you’ve just described an incompetent god who doesn’t give a shit.  That sounds about par for the course for the Catholic god, or any god for that matter.
Have you hear of the omnipotence paradox? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Come back to me afterwards about contradicting myself when it comes to omnipotence.

LOL.  Yes, I’ve heard of the omnipotence paradox, it is exactly that which makes an omnipotent god impossible.  Have you ever heard of the word paradox?  : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox

Come back to me afterwards when you realize that you contradicted yourself.

You may also want to work on your reading and writing comprehension.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2014, 04:03:30 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #130 on: August 20, 2014, 04:50:25 PM »
SevenPatch I am not the one talking about an omnipotent God. You are the one bringing it on the table. You are the one using a paradox to support the fact that I am contradicting myself.
The Catholic Church represented by the Pope clearly stipulate that atheists can go to heaven.
The Catholic Church teach that following Jesus or God will lead to heaven. It does not teach that if you do not follow Jesus or God you will go to hell.
That's what I was making sure you knew by asking the question. And, apparently you did not. Now you do :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #131 on: August 20, 2014, 06:18:10 PM »
SevenPatch I am not the one talking about an omnipotent God. You are the one bringing it on the table.

Okay,  I have never claimed that YOUR god is omnipotent, please quote where I have done that.  It would seem that we agree that your god is NOT omnipotent. 

You are the one using a paradox to support the fact that I am contradicting myself.

I disagree that I am using a paradox to support the fact that you are contradicting yourself.  I do agree that it is a fact that you contradicted yourself.

Let me break it down for you.

First you say this:

God can and won't.

Please take note that you say “God can”.   You have said that your god CAN.

THEN you say:

If he would heal amputees for example, it would create a chain reaction that would destroy our universe.

SO your god CAN’T heal amputees without destroying the universe.

First you say your god CAN and then you say your god CAN NOT.  This is the contradiction.  YOU created the paradox, not me, I don’t believe your god exists.

What you are trying to do is have your cake and eat it too.  You can’t pick both.  Either your god CAN’T or it WON’T.  Technically, IMO, you picked both and now you’re just trying to rationalize it away as not being a problem.  I can’t stop you from believing in an incompetent wannabe malevolent god.

The Catholic Church represented by the Pope clearly stipulate that atheists can go to heaven.

You might want to do more research on that claim. 

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi

The Catholic Church teach that following Jesus or God will lead to heaven. It does not teach that if you do not follow Jesus or God you will go to hell.

See, yeah sure, atheists can go to heaven, all they have to do is follow “Jesus or God”, at which point they wouldn’t be atheists then would they be, they’d be Christians.  &)

You can claim that it doesn’t teach “if you don’t follow Jesus or God you will go to hell” all you want, I’m sorry but the evidence shows otherwise.

Perhaps you might want to read your own Catholic Church catechism via the official Vatican website - > http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Quote from: Catholic Church Catechism
1033  We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him.  But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves:  “He who does not love remains in death.  Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”  Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.  To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.  This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.  Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” 

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.  Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”  The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmation of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny.  They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion:  “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell, for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.  In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”.

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

Dude, are you even Catholic?  If you are, you’re definitely not learning from a Catholic church. 

That's what I was making sure you knew by asking the question. And, apparently you did not. Now you do :)

Do you always drift into delusional trains of thought like this?  You might want to seek professional help.  So apparently you didn’t know that the Catholic Church teaches that not believing in “Jesus or God” will result in the punishments of hell.  Now you do :)
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #132 on: August 20, 2014, 07:56:08 PM »
We really don't understand the same thing and we've read the same book (CCC 1033 - 1037). That's interesting.
I understand that people that love will be saved even if they don't believe in god.
You understand that God will punish them because they don't believe in him.
"God predestines no one to go to hell, for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end"
"God, [who] does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”."
You're worth more than my time

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 683
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #133 on: August 20, 2014, 09:17:28 PM »
YRM_DM You have many question. Most of them, we seem to agree. The implied response would be mine.
My point was really the last question : Wouldn't all what you say/ask be true if all the world were Catholic?
All before was examples of what an all Catholic world would look like.
Most of us Catholic are such because God gave us more than enough reasons to believe in him. Each catholic I know "met" God in a different manner and received proof of his existence of different manner. Even if I've met some young catholic that were just following their parents teachings, I had the same people give testimony to us some years later on how God "really spoke" to them.

I really love the fact that some Atheist have empathy and love at the center of their lives instead of themselves. I understand why God is not needed by them. I believe that a world with only those kind of Atheists and Catholics will be a world where God intervene against evil, systematically. I believe that these types of Atheist are following the Catholic church teachings/values. Last time, I asked a friend what Good value do you find "in the world" that you don't find "in the Catholic Church". She couldn't find any.

Unfortunately for us, we are not enough to make the whole world like "us" mainly because we don't want to force people to be like us. We tried to force the people and realized that the result wasn't the one expected. (and when I say We I mean "good" Atheists and Catholics)

In conclusion. God does intervene against evil through Catholics.
Null conclusion. First prove that god(s) exist, then make claims of what this thing does.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #134 on: August 20, 2014, 10:18:57 PM »
We really don't understand the same thing and we've read the same book (CCC 1033 - 1037). That's interesting.
I understand that people that love will be saved even if they don't believe in god.
You understand that God will punish them because they don't believe in him.
"God predestines no one to go to hell, for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end"
"God, [who] does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”."

The key word in the first part that you bolded is 'predestines', which means predetermined.  This is basically saying that "God" doesn't determine in advance that someone will go to hell[1].  This doesn't change the fact that "a willful turning away from God" is "a mortal sin" and if you review 1035 you'll see that "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”".  Furthermore, in 1034 it states "Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted".  What this all means is that those who do not believe and convert are willfully turning away from "God" which is a mortal sin and those who die with a mortal sin descend into hell where they suffer the punishments of hell.  According to the Catholic Church, a person could love everyone around them (even the people who hate them) and help everyone they possibly can but none of it would matter if they don't believe, they would still go to hell.

I hate to break it to you Lukvance, but it doesn't sound like you are Catholic.  Your beliefs fit more in line with Christian Universalism which holds the belief of universal reconciliation (aka universal salvation).  Basically universalists believe everyone goes to heaven, believers and non-believers, those who repent and those who don't, good and bad all go to heaven.   
 1. this Christian belief also has problems
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #135 on: August 21, 2014, 05:54:16 AM »
The Catholic Church represented by the Pope clearly stipulate that atheists can go to heaven.
So there is no need to be a Christian Catholic, in fact, it is cheaper and easier to be an atheist?

So, what is the point of Catholicism?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #136 on: August 21, 2014, 07:29:02 AM »
The Catholic Church teach that following Jesus or God will lead to heaven. It does not teach that if you do not follow Jesus or God you will go to hell.
That's what I was making sure you knew by asking the question. And, apparently you did not. Now you do :)


Lukvance???

SevenPatch's kinda seems to dismantle your claim here.  So does god send you to hell with the only crime being that you do not believe in him?  Can you cite your source chapter and verse where Atheists can go to heaven?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2141
  • Darwins +388/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #137 on: August 21, 2014, 09:07:14 AM »
So, what is the point of Catholicism?

Crackers and booze.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #138 on: August 21, 2014, 12:39:28 PM »
We really don't understand the same thing and we've read the same book (CCC 1033 - 1037). That's interesting.
I understand that people that love will be saved even if they don't believe in god.
You understand that God will punish them because they don't believe in him.
"God predestines no one to go to hell, for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end"
"God, [who] does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”."

The key word in the first part that you bolded is 'predestines', which means predetermined.  This is basically saying that "God" doesn't determine in advance that someone will go to hell[1].  This doesn't change the fact that "a willful turning away from God" is "a mortal sin" and if you review 1035 you'll see that "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”".  Furthermore, in 1034 it states "Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted".  What this all means is that those who do not believe and convert are willfully turning away from "God" which is a mortal sin and those who die with a mortal sin descend into hell where they suffer the punishments of hell.  According to the Catholic Church, a person could love everyone around them (even the people who hate them) and help everyone they possibly can but none of it would matter if they don't believe, they would still go to hell.

I hate to break it to you Lukvance, but it doesn't sound like you are Catholic.  Your beliefs fit more in line with Christian Universalism which holds the belief of universal reconciliation (aka universal salvation).  Basically universalists believe everyone goes to heaven, believers and non-believers, those who repent and those who don't, good and bad all go to heaven.   
 1. this Christian belief also has problems
Thank you for underlining what makes you understand that about the church.
Here is where our view differs. The mortal sin. It's something almost impossible for us regular human to attain. Beside the obvious killing. raping and child abuse of course.
Here is what the CCC has to say about mortal sin I will bold the part that support my view :
Quote
1857 - For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

1858 - Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."
The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 - Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 - Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

The way I understand mortal sin, we never have full knowledge. We rarely do something wrong deliberately (most of the time we are guided by rage and/or fear).
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #139 on: August 21, 2014, 01:58:58 PM »
Here is what the CCC has to say about mortal sin I will bold the part that support my view :
Quote
1857 - For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

1858 - Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."
The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 - Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 - Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

The way I understand mortal sin, we never have full knowledge. We rarely do something wrong deliberately (most of the time we are guided by rage and/or fear).

So this section regarding mortal sin states that three conditions must be met.  First condition;  it must be a “grave matter” (we’ve already established that willfully turning away from “God” aka not believing and converting is a “grave matter”).  Second condition; it must be committed with full knowledge (do we not fully know that willfully turning away from “God” is a mortal sin?).  Third condition; the person committing the mortal sin does so with deliberate consent (if someone doesn’t believe or convert after being informed that it is a mortal sin to not do so, are they not giving deliberate consent to committing the mortal sin?).

These parts in the CCC basically cover those who never hear the teachings of Christianity.  Maybe they live in a small town in India their whole lives and no one there ever teaches them about Christianity.  They never learn that not believing and converting is a mortal sin so they don’t know.

Problem is, once you receive the message of Christianity, you know, so you better believe and convert or you’ll suffer an eternity of punishments in hell.

Still, maybe you’re right.  Maybe because I don’t actually know that “God”, heaven or hell exist that means I don’t actually know any better when I don’t believe or convert SO if that is the case, I will go to heaven even though I don’t believe “God” or heaven exist.  If this is true though, wouldn’t it be better to not spread the message of Jesus and “God”?  Wouldn’t it be better if everyone didn’t know that they had to believe and convert?  If unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove imputability then wouldn’t it be better to remain in unintentional ignorance as to avoid committing mortal sin and descending into hell to receive eternal punishments?

Although, even if you are right, that still doesn’t change the fact that if you do know and don’t believe and convert, then you will descend into hell and receive eternal punishments.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #140 on: August 21, 2014, 02:31:56 PM »
Quote
1857 - For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

1858 - Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."
The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 - Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 - Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

The way I understand mortal sin, we never have full knowledge. We rarely do something wrong deliberately (most of the time we are guided by rage and/or fear).

Now the fact that this is diametrically opposed to what is written in John a guy who actually walked and talked with Jesus does not bother your?

Quote
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  And this is the judgment:  the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.  For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.  But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.

Why are the Clergy able to change the words of god in john 3:17-21?  How can the CCC contradict the bible and still be right?  It would seem that the CCC is attempting to make religion more palatable to people as time goes on not clarify the world of god but rather to make it more appealing.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #141 on: August 21, 2014, 02:40:34 PM »
Ah but wait, committing a sin with unintentional ignorance is still a sin, which is called a “venial sin”.

Quote from: Catholic Church Catechism
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

What does the Catholic Church say about “venial sin”?

Quote from: Catholic Church Catechism
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment.  Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin.  However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God;  it does not break the covenant with God.  With God’s grace it is humanly reparable.  “venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity and consequently eternal happiness.”

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins.  But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them.  A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river, a number of grains makes a heap.  What then is our hope?  Above all, confession.

Oh gee, there is hope for ignorance of committing mortal sin, all  you have to do is repent and confess AKA believe and convert.

And what happens to those who refuse to repent and confess?

Quote from: Catholic Church Catechism
1864 “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of eternal sin.”   There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.  Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

What a surprise.  Hell awaits those who refuse to repent and confess.

Welcome to the game show called Catholicism!  What is that?  You don’t believe in God?!?!?! Well you can pick from door number 1 or door number 2 my good fellow!  What is behind door number 1 you ask?  Well Hell of course you silly goose! Don’t worry, you can still pick door number 2!  What is behind door number 2 you ask? Well Hell of course you silly goose!  Don’t worry, you can still pick door number 1!
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #142 on: August 21, 2014, 05:26:53 PM »
Still, maybe you’re right.  Maybe because I don’t actually know that “God”, heaven or hell exist that means I don’t actually know any better when I don’t believe or convert SO if that is the case, I will go to heaven even though I don’t believe “God” or heaven exist.  If this is true though, wouldn’t it be better to not spread the message of Jesus and “God”?  Wouldn’t it be better if everyone didn’t know that they had to believe and convert?  If unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove imputability then wouldn’t it be better to remain in unintentional ignorance as to avoid committing mortal sin and descending into hell to receive eternal punishments?
There, we agree on your statement. :)
The questions now. The reason why I believe it is a good thing to spread the word is because I believe it is good to know God.
Do you remember the example of the new thing you tried at the restaurant. Maybe it wouldn't be such a good idea to spread the news because it will force people to exercise more to lose all the calories the new thing gave them at the restaurant. But such new thing can be worth the effort don't you think?
There are plenty of other examples I can think of (like your child recital)

About the second thing "venial sin" the CCC 1864 stipulate very clearly that "Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss." I understand that it can not lead to Hell too.
Confessions can be made in the place we call Purgatory. I believe that all non believer that knew about God but deliberately refused to believe in him would first have to go through the Purgatory before going to heaven.
As you said yourself "I don’t actually know any better when I don’t believe or convert" When faced with God you can still play stupid and pretend you don't know (then chose Hell) or accept God and repent for all those venial sins committed (then go through purgatory then heaven)

Could you imagine if venial sinners were able to go to heaven without repent? Doesn't make much sense does it?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #143 on: August 21, 2014, 05:32:22 PM »
Now the fact that this is diametrically opposed to what is written in John a guy who actually walked and talked with Jesus does not bother your?
[...]
Why are the Clergy able to change the words of god in john 3:17-21?  How can the CCC contradict the bible and still be right?  It would seem that the CCC is attempting to make religion more palatable to people as time goes on not clarify the world of god but rather to make it more appealing.
No it does not bother me at all. When you learn about Catholic God you learn that the bible shouldn't be taken literally. There is always a context that influence the world used. In the case of John I believe this : http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-purgatory-in-the-bible will help you understand better.
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #144 on: August 21, 2014, 05:49:51 PM »
When faced with God you can still play stupid and pretend you don't know (then chose Hell) or accept God and repent for all those venial sins committed (then go through purgatory then heaven)

So you agree that the Catholic Church does in fact teach "believe in Jesus/God or go to hell".
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks