God created a world without evil. The meme makes the claim that God didn’t create a world without evil. The problem for the meme is that He DID.
Adam and Eve lived in paradise.The term paradise means a place without sin. They were in a state of innocence before the fall. Evil/death did not exist in the world.God knew that man would fall-His knowing would not prevent it anymore than if He didn’t (impossible)know but God also knew Jesus would save man. We can’t call it a sin until it’s committed. We can’t call it a good work unless it’s a good work that’s done. God could have created man and not permitted him to fall;but in order to do that he could not have given man free will.
The only other option is to create man who can do nothing but good.The problem is that it’s not really good because it’s not a choice.
Man is then created as a slave of God incapable of love.
God IS love and we are made in His image and likeness meaning we are also capable of love.Love requires a free choice.
Death entered the world with sin. God knew Jesus would save us and we would have eternal life.
Our problem is that we sometimes see everything as it relates to this world and NOT the next. So we think that living forever here(which we can’t)is better than having eternal life in heaven. Even though that’s not true.God knew that man would use his free will and make the wrong choice but also that Jesus would save us and we would have eternal life. God knew the outcome.Sometimes we’re shortsighted. We don’t see the ‘big’ picture as it were.
GOD DOES. What the meme seems to be trying to do is put the onus for evil on God when the onus for evil falls squarely on man. Could God have created a universe with free will but no evil? Yep. He did. It was the use of free will that brought evil into the world. Keep in mind that FREE WILL itself didn’t bring evil into the world. It was the CHOICE made with free will that did. Has any human used free will to perfectly obey the Will of God? Another words to undo what Eve did? Yep. Mary. Wordsworth referred to her as, “our tainted nature’s solitary boast.”
Saint John Paul II
Then no one needs to believe or worship him.How did they draw that conclusion? If God is an all loving and all forgiving Creator then we ought to love Him in return.Besides, if we don’t believe then how do we conclude He IS an all loving and all forgiving God? That doesn’t make sense.
from the Catechism of Catholic Church
2123 “Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.”58
2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be “an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history.”59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”60
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”62
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, “to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God….”64 “For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart.”65
He is not willing to interfere with man’s free will. That means He is malevolent.
He is able and willing to give man free will and permit him to use it.(that’s why it’s called free will)
and only God could do such a thing.
Meme says they’re winning.I’m not sure what they are winning. Doesn’t say.
We have heard the news, observed videos but nothing compares to hearing it from a child who witnessed the horror of ISIS during his stay in an ISIS children’s camp.
The teenager, named Mohammed reveals that while forced to attend a terror camp in Syria at the age of 13, he and boys younger than him how children were to swear an allegiance to ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Under supervision by militants, he was taught the Quran, trained in the use of weapons and forced to watch men being crucified and women stoned to death….
‘When we go to the mosque, they order us to come the next day at a specific time and place to [watch] heads cut off, lashings or stonings,’ he told CNN.
‘We saw a young man who did not fast for Ramadan, so they crucified him for three days, and we saw…
View original post 96 more words
“This question specifically regards God’s command to slaughter the Canaanites during the Hebrew invasion after their 40 years in the desert, particularly the battle of Jericho, wherein God commanded that all should be killed, man, woman and child alike.
There are two considerations that aren’t normally taken by the Atheist, when looking at this question.
First, why did God command this?
Second, murder is considered the highest form of evil to an Atheist, but to God, death of the soul is.
So, before looking at the second consideration, let’s as the first question, why did God command this? When we consider the context of this war, it can become apparent. The Hebrews were being given their own land wherein they might be protected from the evils of the world about them. Now, we’re not talking about protection from oppression or slavery or murder, etc. We’re talking about protection from false worship of idols, the worship of false gods, murder, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, human sacrifice, child sacrifice, etc. That’s the world they lived in, and they had been handed a better way to live: the Decalogue.
What they specifically wanted to avoid in this new land was what had occurred in Egypt. There, they had assimilated within the Egyptian culture, and began worshipping their false gods and idols. Likewise, even after they left and were in the desert, so ingrained was this cultural assimilation that when separated from Egypt, they continued to worship false idols (i.e., the golden calf). It took many, many signs and miracles, and 40 years of “cleansing” in the desert to bring the people back to proper worship of God. So when they entered the promised land, assimilation into another pagan culture was something to be avoided, particularly because it was their special mission as a people to hold to the Covenant with God, to protect it.
Thus, when they invaded the Promised Land, they had determined to exterminate the local population in order that their culture might be protected against such assimilation as had happened to them in the past. Consider: if they had killed only the fighting men, that would leave the elderly, women and children. What would happen? The elderly would pass on their Pagan culture to their grandchildren, who would continue to live among the Hebrews. Also, the Hebrews may have been tempted to take the women of the Canaanites as wives. That represented a significant threat, considering the story of the Flood (sons of God married the daughters of men), and as we see later in their history, it was through marriage of Pagan wives that Israel came to destruction (most notably Solomon), because when the men take such women as wives, they fall into the idol worship of their wives. Note that this was the most basic problem of their history, Adam giving into the sin of Eve. Thus, they removed that temptation. But what about the children? If they had been allowed to live, they would have grown in hatred toward the Hebrews, constantly representing a future threat to the stability of their nation.
Thus, in order to protect their Covenant with God, and to protect themselves as a nation, they enacted total annihilation of the enemy.
So now, what about the second consideration? While the above may have been the intention of the Hebrews, what about God? In God’s wisdom, we may understand that this command was given in order to protect the Covenant. How is this different than the Hebrew’s desire to protect the Covenant? It’s different because while they did it for the sake of God’s blessings, protection and prosperity, God would have done it in order to bring salvation to mankind as a whole. This is why God destroyed all but Noah and his family in the Flood. It’s why God destroyed the Tower of Babel. It’s why God destroyed the pursuing Egyptian army. And so on and so forth. God’s intention throughout human history was to bring about His plan for our salvation, and that meant the protection of the Covenant.
While we may consider the destruction of the body to be a great evil, the destruction of the soul is an infinitely greater evil. One may consider the slaughter of the Canaanites to be an ultimate good, not merely for the Hebrews, and not even just for mankind as a whole, but also even for the Canaanites themselves. How can this be? Consider, if the Hebrews had not carried this out, and the two cultures in time assimilated, and the Hebrews fell back into Idol worship, as in Egypt, and in Babel, and in the time before the Flood, etc. If God had not intervened, as He had done so throughout history, then neither the Hebrews, nor anyone else, including the Canaanites, would have ever been saved. Note, the Catholic Church does not say anyone is in Hell. It could not even say that the Canaanites are in Hell. Indeed, it may be because of their ultimate annihilation, which in time lead to the fulfillment of God’s plan for Salvation, which lead to the salvation of many of the Canaanites themselves. Eternal salvation.
And that’s really what’s at stake here. The Atheist doesn’t see this though. They see physical death as being it. There is no eternal state of the soul. There is no eternal salvation, or destruction. But there is for us. And the death of the body is not worse than the death of the soul.
But we must not take this principle out of its proper, pre-Christ context. While such killing may have then been justified for the sake of the Covenant, it no longer is. This is because the Covenant has been fulfilled, and a new Covenant has been made, which precludes any such killing.
Thus, the equation with the prohibition against abortion cannot be made to this event. There is no threat to the Covenant from an unborn child. There could be no moral justification for it, neither then nor now.”
Vicky counts herself as one of the lucky ones. Stalked from the age of 15, plied with drink and slipped drugs until she became estranged from her despairing parents; ferried at night by strangers twice her age to unknown male-only parties; on one occasion locked in a house, her only escape through a window.She was bullied and pestered constantly for sex, but unlike some of her friends she was never raped. In modern day Rotherham, that is seen as good fortune.Vicky, now 27 and training to be a paramedic, is one of the countless youngsters groomed by the predatory gangs of Pakistani men allowed to roam the South Yorkshire town with near impunity for so long.
Excerpt from a homily on EWTN
freedom ‘from’ religion.I don’t think so.
“The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
And now for a few words from Fulton J Sheen