Satan no match for God, says pope

[CFLarsen]

Satan no match for God, says pope

Satan is still at work in the world unleashing "evil energy" but God will be the final arbiter of history, Pope Benedict XVI said on Wednesday.

Speaking at the third general audience since his election last month, the pope also said that nations and leaders had to look for God's hand in history in the past and learn from it.

"History, in fact, is not in the hands of dark forces, left to chance or just human choices," he told thousands of people in St. Peter's Square.

"Above the unleashing of evil energy, above the vehement interruptions of Satan, above the so many scourges of evil, rises the Lord, supreme arbiter of history," the pope said in an address reflecting on the Book of Revelation in the Bible.

He urged Catholics to look for and recognise what he called "hidden divine interventions in history".
Source (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/11/vatican.pope.satan.reut/index.html)

So, the Catholic Church is promoting an interventionist God? What, then, prevents it from saying that Creationism is true?

Or, is the church saying that God stays out of anything related to Evolution, but intervenes in human history only?

[Nyarlathotep]

Claus you are looking for logical consistaincy, an activity about as likely to yeild results as trying to change the spark plugs in a bannana.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Claus you are looking for logical consistaincy, an activity about as likely to yeild results as trying to change the spark plugs in a bannana.

Sure, I am. And that will land me a future in a hot place? ;)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, the Catholic Church is promoting an interventionist God? What, then, prevents it from saying that Creationism is true?

Or, is the church saying that God stays out of anything related to Evolution, but intervenes in human history only?

The Catholic Church has always promoted the idea of an interventionist God. Nothing really prevents it from saying that creationism is true -- however, as it doesn't actually do that, the point is moot.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The Catholic Church has always promoted the idea of an interventionist God. Nothing really prevents it from saying that creationism is true -- however, as it doesn't actually do that, the point is moot.

I know I am using logic, but...if they don't object to an interventionist god, then why do they rule out an interventionist god when it comes to evolution?

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I know I am using logic, but...if they don't object to an interventionist god, then why do they rule out an interventionist god when it comes to evolution?

Do they?

Has the Catholic church really issued a statement saying that God had nothing to do with evolution? If so, I would be very, very interested in reading that particular document so could you please give a link to it?

My own impression (that is not based on any official Catholic dogma) on Catholic position on evolution is that God "guided" it and that it was the method that God chose to use for creation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
Do they?

Has the Catholic church really issued a statement saying that God had nothing to do with evolution? If so, I would be very, very interested in reading that particular document so could you please give a link to it?

I think Darat posted a link a few weeks ago. I am certain, though, that the Catholic Church has acknowledged that Evolution is real.

Originally posted by LW
My own impression (that is not based on any official Catholic dogma) on Catholic position on evolution is that God "guided" it and that it was the method that God chose to use for creation.

IIRC, John Paul II decreed that Evolution was real. But that the scientists should not investigate the origins of how the Universe came about. As in: The first few split-seconds. As minuscule as you can get.

That, to me, clearly indicates a non-interventionist God (after the moment of Creation).

Hey, I'm just trying to make sense of this, OK? :)

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I think Darat posted a link a few weeks ago. I am certain, though, that the Catholic Church has acknowledged that Evolution is real.

Remember what happened the last time when you made conclusions about Catholic theology based on news articles?

It turned out that the news articles didn't actually describe the official Catholic statements accurately.

The Vatican has hundreds of years of experience of drafting very carefully worded documents and the news agencies tend to butcher these delicate word arragements when they write their bites.

I couldn't find the Darat's link with a quick search, but as I said, I'll be very surprised if the actual document rules out God's direct influence on evolution.

So, I'll give you this suggestion: If you want to find logical flaws in Catholic doctrine, go to the source and read the original decrees. Don't rely on second hand sources, they are not accurate.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I think Darat posted a link a few weeks ago. I am certain, though, that the Catholic Church has acknowledged that Evolution is real.



IIRC, John Paul II decreed that Evolution was real. But that the scientists should not investigate the origins of how the Universe came about. As in: The first few split-seconds. As minuscule as you can get.

That, to me, clearly indicates a non-interventionist God (after the moment of Creation).


There is also the part that while evolution is an undisputed fact, there must have been a point in which God infused a soul into homo sapien.

That is an interventionist God.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
There is also the part that while evolution is an undisputed fact, there must have been a point in which God infused a soul into homo sapien.

That is an interventionist God.

Ah, but the soul isn't empirically provable. Evolution is.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by LW
Remember what happened the last time when you made conclusions about Catholic theology based on news articles?

It turned out that the news articles didn't actually describe the official Catholic statements accurately.

The Vatican has hundreds of years of experience of drafting very carefully worded documents and the news agencies tend to butcher these delicate word arragements when they write their bites.

I couldn't find the Darat's link with a quick search, but as I said, I'll be very surprised if the actual document rules out God's direct influence on evolution.

So, I'll give you this suggestion: If you want to find logical flaws in Catholic doctrine, go to the source and read the original decrees. Don't rely on second hand sources, they are not accurate.

Actual text from Pope John Paul II in October, 1996, on Evolution. (http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html)

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ah, but the soul isn't empirically provable. Evolution is.

I made a little bit of searches on vatican.va's archieves but I couldn't find the original papal message. However, I found this:

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution� that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist� and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,� however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap� to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.


From: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html).

Do you still think that Catholic church argues for noninvolment of God in evolution?

[Edited to add a missing sentence to the quote.]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
So, I'll give you this suggestion: If you want to find logical flaws in Catholic doctrine, go to the source and read the original decrees. Don't rely on second hand sources, they are not accurate.

I don't have a problem with that. You got a link to the original decrees?

[Brown]

But I wonder what standards would be applied for determining whether a divine intervention has taken place. Surely, if we are to learn from past interventions, the decision cannot be based upon a mere hunch or a bald opinion. Does it not standx to reason that there must be some objective evidence of intervention? We should be able to review the objective evidence to come to some consensus about what events constituted interventions, and what sort of interventions were made, shouldn't we?

But there I go again, trying to apply logic to religion.

This is just a guess, but I suppose that the Pope would hold that the Reformation--one of the most significant events in religious history--was not a "divine intervention in history."

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I think Darat posted a link a few weeks ago. I am certain, though, that the Catholic Church has acknowledged that Evolution is real.



IIRC, John Paul II decreed that Evolution was real. But that the scientists should not investigate the origins of how the Universe came about. As in: The first few split-seconds. As minuscule as you can get.

That, to me, clearly indicates a non-interventionist God (after the moment of Creation).

Hey, I'm just trying to make sense of this, OK? :)

See: http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

Edited to add some quotes:



In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).




4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

[gnome]

If God intends to defeat Satan, why draw it out? Why not just eliminate him completely?

If Satan is ever able to counter God's will, how can that be except from God allowing it? Which is, in a sense, a contradiction in terms.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by gnome
If God intends to defeat Satan, why draw it out? Why not just eliminate him completely?

If Satan is ever able to counter God's will, how can that be except from God allowing it? Which is, in a sense, a contradiction in terms.

"Free will" issue. Satan can supposedly thwart God's design because God provided us with free will to choose.

[Darat]

Originally posted by jmercer
"Free will" issue. Satan can supposedly thwart God's design because God provided us with free will to choose.

But Satan doesn't have free will...

[LW]

Originally posted by Darat
See: http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

Thanks.

One more quote from it:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Church's acceptance of evolution doesn't seem so total anymore.

[Edited to add:

I have to admit that during the last few months I've come to really admire the writers and PR machine of the Catholic church. Somehow they manage issue a formal decree that you have to read very carefully through before you realize that it means the absolute opposite that you (and everyone else) thought it mean.

The whole world reported that John Paul II accepted evolution and didn't notice that at the same time he specifically denied the scientific theory of evolution.

The EU bureaucrats are amateurs compared with that.]

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by LW
Do they?

Has the Catholic church really issued a statement saying that God had nothing to do with evolution? If so, I would be very, very interested in reading that particular document so could you please give a link to it?

My own impression (that is not based on any official Catholic dogma) on Catholic position on evolution is that God "guided" it and that it was the method that God chose to use for creation.

This is indeed official Catholic doctrine.

Slightly more accurate would be to say, "We don't know exactly how God did it. We don't know whether he set everything up in the beginning, and let it run, or whether he guided it step by step by inserting those 'random' mutations just the way he wanted it. We do know that however he did it, it came out the way he wanted."

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I know I am using logic, but...if they don't object to an interventionist god, then why do they rule out an interventionist god when it comes to evolution?

They don't. Use a little more logic and you will see why.

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Darat
But Satan doesn't have free will... From the Catholic perspective, Satan is a fallen angel, not evil incarnate. In principle he could repent, but he's too selfish too swallow his pride and do so -- that is, his isolation and torment are his own fault.

Having rejected God, however, he's unable to feel true joy or satisfaction (God-is-true-goodness, afterall) and is compulsively driven to the fleeting gratification obtained by manipulating and abusing people. (to feel empowered / drown his pain / etc. -- Classic sadistic model)

He's evil not because he was created Evil, but because he chooses to live in an evil way: disobedient to God.


At least, that's what I was taught, back in my X-tian days. While I no longer consider any of this relavent, I do have to give props to Catholic Appologetics: They make fundies look like screaming five year olds in comparison.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
From the Catholic perspective, Satan is a fallen angel, not evil incarnate.

...snip...

He's evil not because he was created Evil, but because he chooses to live in an evil way: disobedient to God.



It does get a bit fuzzy and I've never been able to pin it down even to my own satisfaction. The nature of Satan definitely changes throughout the Bible, I mean at one time him and God are having a good old conversation and God gives Satan free reign to act in a very (to me) evil and nasty manner towards the rather put-upon Job.

Next we know he's a fallen angel, pride and so on comes into it and he’s now a recruiting sergeant. But I don’t think Satan (as an angel) has free will in the sense the Bible seems to indicate man does. After all Satan knows God is real - I mean he's met God, had a coffee with him, played a few frames of snooker with him and the like - he doesn’t have that choice to make.

If you've got some good references on the matter I'd like to look into it more.


Originally posted by Vim Razz

At least, that's what I was taught, back in my X-tian days. While I no longer consider any of this relavent, I do have to give props to Catholic Appologetics: They make fundies look like screaming five year olds in comparison.

Oh yes trying to find internal holes and "real" contradictions in Catholic teachings and doctrines is very difficult, as I always say they've had a thousand or so years of practice explaining why "yes" really means “no�!

[gnome]

I have heard it argued that Satan and Lucifer are different arch-demons, with Lucifer being the fallen angel banished from heaven. Whoever said that has a point, since the Bible describes Satan hanging aroud in heaven sometimes.

[Anders]

He urged Catholics to look for and recognise what he called "hidden divine interventions in history".
Hmm, Catholic Tachyon-technology or what?

[Riddick]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sure, I am. And that will land me a future in a hot place? ;)
giggle

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
From the Catholic perspective, Satan is a fallen angel, not evil incarnate. In principle he could repent, but he's too selfish too swallow his pride and do so -- that is, his isolation and torment are his own fault.

Having rejected God, however, he's unable to feel true joy or satisfaction (God-is-true-goodness, afterall) and is compulsively driven to the fleeting gratification obtained by manipulating and abusing people. (to feel empowered / drown his pain / etc. -- Classic sadistic model)

He's evil not because he was created Evil, but because he chooses to live in an evil way: disobedient to God.


At least, that's what I was taught, back in my X-tian days. While I no longer consider any of this relavent, I do have to give props to Catholic Appologetics: They make fundies look like screaming five year olds in comparison.
atheist fundies or xian fundies?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by gnome
I have heard it argued that Satan and Lucifer are different arch-demons, with Lucifer being the fallen angel banished from heaven. Whoever said that has a point, since the Bible describes Satan hanging aroud in heaven sometimes.

Lucifer is referred to in the Bible in Isaiah, in a passage that speaks about how the false light is banished by the true light of God, or something like that. Interestingly, my Bible, a Catholic version from the 1970s, translates "Lucifer" as "Morning Star". The apparent reference is to the morning star, coming on as a pretender, shedding a tiny faint light as if to portray its greatness, but then being utterly destroyed by the true light of the Sun, which represents God. That's why Lucifer gets the fallen angel role. He was the pretender banished by the true light.

Satan is the character from Job, who bets with God that Job will renounce him if God is very mean to him.

And then there is The Serpent, from the Adam and Eve strory.

At some point, someone decided these were all the same dude, but the Bible doesn't say that.

I don't know what term the New Testament uses when describing various acounts of interactions with the Devil.

ETA: So that's why there is so much confusion. The Bible doesn't say all that much about Satan, and the old testament references are not necessarily talking about the same guy. Most of conventional wisdom about Satan is folklore, not even biblical.

[c4ts]

History is in the hands of the Devil! Let's re-write the whole thing...

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Satan no match for God, says pope


Isn't this straight from the onion? Can we expect world peace or a WWF style grudge match?

[hgc]

If Satan is no match for God, then what in the Hell is everyone worried about?!?!?

I think Pope Ratzi is trying to talk himself out of a job.

[Kitty Chan]

Daret I liked what you said about satan knowing God, vrs humans not knowing, interesting.

--------------
et el

As for the names of satan, lucifier, serpant etc he could be the same person a few names would not make a difference.

If one wanted to get in a contest of names God has more than 200 names to which He would answer to.

Dont tie yourselves to a name each.

But there is a organization of players, a heriarchy in each camp.

:)