Who Let the Dogs Out?

[POI]

Theists will state Satan rules the roost here on earth. But someday, God will (contain/remove/isolate/other) him.

Imagine you possessed a very violent dog. He attacks or disrupts all animals and all people for which he encounters. Your only job is to contain him, by leash. You opt not to, citing free will or something other. Would you be considered wise?

For Debate:

Someday, God is going to contain Satan, but not yet. Why?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

Actually, within that emotional statement, there was one question worth looking at.

Are you really saying that the way of overcoming Evil or Sin is to be 'with' God.

Yes. How else will you do it if my view is correct? My view is that the good is God. The good is perfect and nothing but god can be perfect. If only God is the good, and if evil is the absence of the good, how can you expect to do the good without God? By your own imperfect power? You cannot even hold yourself in existence from moment to moment, i.e. you lack existential inertia, which is clear in that all the molecules that you are a composite of have a half-life.

1. Only God subsists of himself. (Only God is existential inertia) (Or another way to word it. Only God exists because is his nature to exist)
2. Humans are not God.
3. Thus humans do not subsist of themselves.
4. thus humans derive their existence from God.
Therefore, God is the very existence of humans. It is how they exist at all.

So we cannot do anything without God, not even continue to exist. And because God is the good, and because God is how we exist, then it is the good that causes us to exist, thus we derive any goodness from our existence, which is God. Without God at all, we would be completely evil, because evil is the absence of the good, and so nothing can be completely evil for nothing is completely absent from God for anything that exist, exist because God is its existence.

You can disagree with any of those premises but that doesn't make it illogical. To show it is illogical you have to show that IF all the premises are true that the conclusion doesn't follow.

Would your life be so bad if your existence depends on another, i.e. God?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 5:40 pm
1. Satan and his demons exist and are not locked away yet to offer the full temptations of evil to humans, so we can see our weaknesses and turn to Jesus. In turning to Jesus he grants us grace to overcome the devil.
But this does not logically follow. Many die prior to any acknowledgement of theodicy. And/or, according to Christians, we are already given the knowledge of good/evil. Further, people can turn to Jesus without having experienced 'evil'. Further still, you do not need to personally experience every type of 'evil' to know that it IS 'evil'.

You have not shown how it is illogical. You might think you have, but you have not. If you die without God, you failed the test of overcoming evil. You still have a chance in purgatory if you make it there. I said nothing about knowledge of good and evil. We must overcome the temptations of evil and turn to Jesus. No one can turn to Jesus without being tempted by evil. By the time a person is old enough to understand and turn to Jesus, he has already been tempted by evil.

I did not say you must experience every type of evil. I said Satan and his demons ensure that you are tempted with evil to expose your weaknesses.

Oh, I forgot, you not only believe in a heaven and a hell, but you also believe in a purgatory. Okay, not sweat. It really changes nothing.

The Bibles tells it's readers that Adam and Eve possessed the knowledge of good and evil. So, there would be no need for evil to continue. So I ask:

[1213]

...So why doesn't God contain it...

What do you mean with that?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

I don't see how anything you said should make me pause and consider it. It is clearly just an emotional outburst.

Not in the least, it is making a valid point and a logical assessment on the moral issue, too. You are using that as an excuse to ignore the issue. Your mix of faithclaims and denial is not doing you any good, and you probably find it convenient to fabricate an excuse to just ignore the very real point that I made.

In case anyone missed it or you deny it it's this: "Are you really saying that the way of overcoming Evil or Sin is to be 'with' God? I've posted it before -being good or bad isn't what gets you into heaven, but being in the right club." Incidentally, you wouldn't consider a different avatar than a defrocked nun who is into caning? It hurts me to look at it.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I did respond to that. See post 21

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #21]

[JehovahsWitness]

The OP is just a variation on the much asked question : why does God allow wickedness. He does so because it has proved to be the only way to effectively settle the issues raised in Eden.

As for implication God has not restrained Satan in any way, but let him like a rabid dog attack all and sundry, that is biblically untrue. God has protected his people spirituaĺly and at times even physically and Jehovah God has not, nor will he ever allow Satan to pervert divine purpose.

Satan is not likened to a dog in scripture but rather to a roaring lion. A formidable opponent to be sure, but not one that cannot be faced down.

1 PETER 5 8, 9

Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. But take your stand against him, firm in the faith

JAMES 4:7

Therefore, subject yourselves to God; but oppose the Devil, and he will flee from you

RELATED POSTS

Is SATAN omniscience and omnipresent?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p848009

Why is Satan called "The God of this world"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23#p901623

In what sense does Satan "rule the world"?
viewtopic.php?p=1068633#p1068633

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

ANGELS , DEMONS and ... SATAN THE DEVIL

[Purple Knight]

That's an excellent parable - for the human condition, but does it work with Satan, who - whether supposing himself to be undoing all God's work or (more likely) doing God's dirty work under orders, if logic and evidence is applied to the Bible (and ain't I glad I don't believe it) is simply never going to respond to kindness?

I actually think it's a not a terribly great parable. And no, it doesn't work when applied to creatures that won't respond to kindness. The question was whether I'd be considered wise for setting a violent dog on people to test their souls. Absolutely I would because people love to be tested as long as they pass. As long as they read into the story (or me actually setting the violent dog on people) the moral that puts them on the righteous side, they'll eat it up.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I did respond to that. See post 21

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #21]

And I responded to that to say it was an elitist view and immoral so as to be disgusting, and you dismissed that as a 'emotional outburst' which I said it wasn't but a pertinent objection to your argument. To make the point clear, are you denying that this argument of yours points to an elitist and frankly immoral doctrine, or don't you care?

Ball back in your court and don't make it worse by pretending that you already responded.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #26]

You are right, it is a facet of 'the problem of evil', a if it wasn't bad enough, God allows Satan to do his work apparently without restriction. Though you point to the apologetic to excuse it - God gives us the power to deny Satan. And even I can come up with the apologetic as to why God doesn't make it a bit easier for us. I'm just going to say that it would work just as well if there was no god and no Satan and thus no problem of evil, just the world, and we are stuck with it.

That's an excellent parable - for the human condition, but does it work with Satan, who - whether supposing himself to be undoing all God's work or (more likely) doing God's dirty work under orders, if logic and evidence is applied to the Bible (and ain't I glad I don't believe it) is simply never going to respond to kindness?

I actually think it's a not a terribly great parable. And no, it doesn't work when applied to creatures that won't respond to kindness. The question was whether I'd be considered wise for setting a violent dog on people to test their souls. Absolutely I would because people love to be tested as long as they pass. As long as they read into the story (or me actually setting the violent dog on people) the moral that puts them on the righteous side, they'll eat it up.

I think it is actually a good parable, because human empathy only goes so far. If you let the satanic dog out and let him do his worst, then the pressure becomes intolerable and human beans, being what they are will opt for survival rather than ethics.



The point being, just how perfect does God expect us to be? Ok I know, perfect unto death like a lot of good little Martyrs. I can only say like Toby the devil to the people in Hell "My God, there are a lot of you".

[Purple Knight]

I think it is actually a good parable, because human empathy only goes so far. If you let the satanic dog out and let him do his worst, then the pressure becomes intolerable and human beans, being what they are will opt for survival rather than ethics.

That's exactly why I'd be considered wise if I did it. The situation allows those who didn't have to choose survival to get high horses to tower over those that were actually faced with the no-win situation. The former would praise me for setting up the conundrum. I'd be adulated.

We're expected to be absolutely perfect. Because we're the people at the bottom, and the people at the top need high horses.

This is just my cynical brain talking, but it seems to me (opinion, not fact) that morality is a lot like money, and people like to have it all while those at the bottom have none. And if we actually are perfect, if the standard they set is let-yourself-be-killed-violence-is-wrong, then we're dead and we have no money anyway. Win-win.

Now, this is an ad-hominem. This is me thinking, wow, the structure of morality certainly fits with an elite class of moralitygrubbers, and this well might be their motivation. I don't think ad hominem is a fallacy, but I know I'm engaging in it so I may as well point it out because most people think it is a fallacy.