GOD DOES NOT ALLOW EVIL. SATAN DOES. MAN DOES. BUT NOT GOD.
IT IS MAN WHO STARTED WARS, NOT GOD. AND WHEN GOD DOES TRY HIS BEST TO GET THROUGH TO US, WE BLOCK HIM OUT. THAT IS WHY HE CANNOT STOP OUR FAULTS, OUR WARS. GOD IS THERE IF YOU SUMMON HIM UP. BUT, NO, WE WOULD RATHER SUM UP SATAN OR WHATEVER. THEN WE BLAME GOD FOR OUR OWN TRAGEDIES. COP ON.
GOD LOST HIS MAGIC WAND. HE NEED YOU TO BE HIS MAGIC WANT. TRY IT. IT WO RKS. GOD BLESS.
IN LATIN, LUCIFER MEANS THE BRINGER OF LIGHT. WHY? I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SATAN WAS THE BRINGER OF DARKNESS. JUST LOOK AT T HE WORLD AROUND YOU. SPIRITUAL DARKNESS, VOID. AND SATAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
"We must go beyond good and evil": Around two years ago Michael Schmidt-Salomon from the atheistic (he calls it freethought) Giordano-Bruno-Foundation wrote the book "Jenseits von Gut und Böse" ("Beyond good and evil"). He says, that there is no evil, because the man have no free will because he is an animal like other animals who have no free will. There is the brain (nice greetings from Dawkins;-) And this 100 years after Fredrick Nietzsche and Ernst Haekel ...
Kevin, forgive me for making over three comments in a row, but is the opening theme to "The Apostle of Common Sense"? I love its hokey, old-fashioned lightnearted tone. :-) It's... nifty.
@GenghisKhan44 I can't make any sense out of your question. If you insist, Goodness is good. I am sure you have experienced something that you knew to be good, or sharing in a measure or degree of goodness. Evil is not so much some thing as much as the lack of something. Evil is simply put, a lack or absence of goodness, like darkness is an absence of light and cold is an absence of heat. Have a good day! ;)
@MariaCGMF25 Interesting theory. Your first statement is obvious. Good, like God, can be self-evident at times, but not always. Therefore, it's necessary to define good so we know what it is. I also say this because I believe many evils are not lacks of good, but excesses and mishandlings of good. Evil can be akin to missing your cue on stage or not saying your lines, but it also can be like needless improvising or being overly dramatic when saying them. I think good is moderate and well-timed.
@MariaCGMF25 Does it not make sense for all things good to have their time and place? Even death is not ultimately evil, I believe, for it is the beginning of new life. Sex is very good, definitely. But its time is when children are desired and a place is made for them to grow up in (a family, as it's called). Food is good because it helps your body to survive, but eating too often or too much is bad for you because it reduces your quality of life. Yes, i think LIFE is the ultimate good.
@MariaCGMF25 But even life must take a back seat to corporal death eventually because, after this life, is a life so much more vivid, enjoyable, and lovely than this. This world will never be Heaven (life perfect) , but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for it all the same. It's what our destiny is. At least, that is what I believe.
This is would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic. If I had not read articles of people stating positions similar to those being parodied by these actors, I would not believe that anybody could believe that we should not be concerned with the "problem of evil" or with evil versus good at all. The first step of practical reasoning is "Do good, avoid evil." It just seems so basic. Whether or not one believes in an omnipotent and benevolent God, can one not believe in goodness?
@neacej1 No one mentioned original sin because modern scholars have their heads where the sun don't shine. They are more focused on man's side of it than God's side. It's like a young child claiming their father doesn't love them, is weak, or isn't real because they burn their hands on the stove they were told not to touch.
And I deleted your last three comments because they were just attacks on Catholics, entirely ignoring what I had said in my replies to you. I won't tolerate that on my blog, either - but I do enjoy a good debate, if you can follow the thread and not get snippy.
By the way, Jorbie, I do appreciate that you are indeed a Christian, and I don't mean to disparage you, but if you want to delve into this, youtube comboxes are not the place. In any event, be warned. Reason and Faith go together, and you may be surprised at what you discover if you really apply your reason to what God has given us.
Jorbie, I've blocked you because you can't follow a simple argument and you are ignoring my points. If you'd like to follow our blogs, which you can access from our wesite (see our youtube page for the link), you can engage me there, but be prepared to think and argue clearly.
Jorbz, as Dale Ahlquist says, there is nothing said by Lewis that was not first said by Chesterton, and said better. But Lewis was a great writer. And is now a Catholic - finally!
@TheaterOfTheWordInc C.S. Lewis was, by all indications, as Bishop Kallistos Ware said, "An anonymous Orthodox" - Sobornost (an Anglican-Orthodox Ecumenical magazine) entitled "C.S. Lewis: an 'Anonymous Orthodox'?"
Yes. I have done some research since my last comment on Lewis' conversion, and found out how integral Chesterton's writing was, and Tolkien's influence over Lewis' conversion.
He did, however, choose to be other than Roman Catholic.
I'm not sure what you mean as to him being "Catholic- finally".
Only in the sense that he always was.It is Christianity, not Roman Catholicism. I follow the trinity, not the organization that claims it is the one true church.
@Jorbz150 He's either much more Catholic now, or he's working on it.
But Jorbz, you and I both agree that there is only one true Church, and that it is the Body of Christ. We just disagree on where that Church subsists. And by the way, any "church" that does not claim to be the one true Church that Christ founded must therefore be suspect.
Incidentally, you only know of the Trinity because of the Catholic Church. But I won't pick on you.
Christianity is the one true church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Just as there are many buildings in each denomination, there are many denominations in the one true church. They don't have to agree with each other on everything. Paul writes about Christians disagreeing with each other.
Surely, though, God doesn't want us to talk with dead people.
An organization doesn't need to interpret that. We know what it means.
@Jorbz150 You manage to fit a lot of errors into a brief comment.
"There is no such thing as a religion called
"Christianity"_there never has been such a religion. There is and always has been the Church, and various heresies proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church's doctrines by men who still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals." - Hilaire Belloc.
Also, when Paul writes about Christians disagreeing with each other ... does he EVER present that as a good thing?
Christianity is the Church, and I didn't ask for your analysis. I can read the Bible, and I don't need the Roman Catholic Church to interpret it for me. The Holy Spirit is available for all, and the Roman Catholic Church has no right to stand in the way.
@Jorbz150@Jorbz150 Jorbie, when I was an atheist and people used to tell me they'd pray for me, I'd be furious. I now tell you I'll pray for you. Hope that doesn't make you furious.
Meanwhile, you can follow us and my blog at.our website.
@Jorbz150 And (continued) is God the God of the living or the God of the dead? See Luke 20:38. What did Jesus himself say about those saints such as Abraham who had gone before us? As a Catholic, I look to Scripture, Jorbie, not to the teachings of men, on such things as what you call "talking to the dead". Luke 20:38 and elsewhere.
@Jorbz150 To sum up, there is only one Church, and one baptism. We confess that every week, both in Catholic and Anglican services. We were all baptized unto Christ, not unto Paul or Apolos or for that matter Henry VIII. There is no "Christianity", there is Christ and His body. He did not found a system, He gave us Himself, the Living Word of God.
Lewis was wrong about the many appartments in the Church, and you're wrong - very wrong - about the harmlessness of disagreement in the Church.
@Jorbz150 Again, read Paul's epistles when it comes to dissentions within the Body of Christ. Look to Scripture, Jorbie, and you may become Catholic yet.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc I don't know where Jorbz is coming from, but are you saying that the RCC created the Trinity? Does not the Bible clearly teach the doctrine? Is it a truth about God that the RCC affirms, or do you believe the RCC conceived it? I know debates on YouTube are impossible, but I was put back by the statement and had to say something. Thank you for your vids.
@zinigoe The Trinity is the nature of God. It is implied in certain passages of Scripture, but never spelled out clearly in Scripture. It is a truth about God that the Catholic Church affirms, and which almost all Protestants accept - but only because the Catholic Church fought a long and hard battle for it in the first few centuries after Christ. Without the authority of the Catholic Church, the truth of the Trinity would not have survived. The doctrine was attacked from the start.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc So to make sure I am addressing your comment correctly: When you meant that without the RCC we would not know the Trinity, you were making the statement that without the RCC, the doctrine would not have survived and we would all be Unitarians, or some other heresy? Also, are you saying that the Bible is insufficient in teaching us the truth about the nature of God? Thank you.
To clarify: the Bible alone does not comprise the entirety of God's revelation to us.
If it did, we would not have 20,000 competing Protestant sects as we do now, almost all of whom preach "sola scriptura".
This is not to say the Bible is to be ignored, by any means. In fact, if the Bible said that the Bible alone were sufficient, I would accept the teaching of "sola scriptura". But that doctrine itself is not in Scripture.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Thank you for clearing up your statements on the Trinity, that's all I wanted to discuss. To your assertions: Research how the 20,000 number is put together by RCC apologist from the World Christian Encyclopedia, it’s sadly misleading. There is a great refutation on aomin’s webite titled, “The 33,000 Denominations Myth”, which also addresses your sola scriptura comment. To a Biblical defense of this sola: Find the 2007 debate with Pacwa and White, it's really good. God bless
@zinigoe All the same, there are too many divisions among Protestants: Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh-Day, Lutheran, Calvinist, Assembly of God, Quakers, Congregational, Anabaptist, Mennonites, Irvingites, Pentecostals, not to mention virtually extinct variants such as Swedenborgianism, the Shakers, and the Huguenots.
That may not be 30000, not even 5000 ( actual list of 5000 distinct sects). But that list is still 15 churches and 15 viewpoints too many. So which is "the One"?
Ha ha - this is so ace! I really enjoyed watching it again today a couple more times. I'm thinking of getting a TV license again just to watch EWTN for this show. The characters in this clip are brilliantly observed. I love the Nietzschian guy - he is SO true.
You must have our big brother Gilbert helping your writers with this. Just like Mr Chesterton, you've made an obvious problem obvious. And thank God for that!
It almost makes my head spin to see believers trying their hardest to not believe.
mildly humourous, i pay my actors in beer and pizza. You may want to get a better director (I am up for it).
stevenpeterse 4 months ago
GOD DOES NOT ALLOW EVIL. SATAN DOES. MAN DOES. BUT NOT GOD.
IT IS MAN WHO STARTED WARS, NOT GOD. AND WHEN GOD DOES TRY HIS BEST TO GET THROUGH TO US, WE BLOCK HIM OUT. THAT IS WHY HE CANNOT STOP OUR FAULTS, OUR WARS. GOD IS THERE IF YOU SUMMON HIM UP. BUT, NO, WE WOULD RATHER SUM UP SATAN OR WHATEVER. THEN WE BLAME GOD FOR OUR OWN TRAGEDIES. COP ON.
GOD LOST HIS MAGIC WAND. HE NEED YOU TO BE HIS MAGIC WANT. TRY IT. IT WO RKS. GOD BLESS.
squirell1952 4 months ago
@squirell1952 dont yell.
Ulrna 3 months ago
IN LATIN, LUCIFER MEANS THE BRINGER OF LIGHT. WHY? I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SATAN WAS THE BRINGER OF DARKNESS. JUST LOOK AT T HE WORLD AROUND YOU. SPIRITUAL DARKNESS, VOID. AND SATAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
squirell1952 4 months ago
I wasn't really paying attention at first, and thought this was real... and nearly shat myself when I saw Dr. Strangelove.
graceofbaal 7 months ago
... So I really can understand, why such a Prof. must be a German.
Beaconsfielder 8 months ago
"We must go beyond good and evil": Around two years ago Michael Schmidt-Salomon from the atheistic (he calls it freethought) Giordano-Bruno-Foundation wrote the book "Jenseits von Gut und Böse" ("Beyond good and evil"). He says, that there is no evil, because the man have no free will because he is an animal like other animals who have no free will. There is the brain (nice greetings from Dawkins;-) And this 100 years after Fredrick Nietzsche and Ernst Haekel ...
Beaconsfielder 8 months ago
Kevin, forgive me for making over three comments in a row, but is the opening theme to "The Apostle of Common Sense"? I love its hokey, old-fashioned lightnearted tone. :-) It's... nifty.
GenghisKhan44 8 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 I can't make any sense out of your question. If you insist, Goodness is good. I am sure you have experienced something that you knew to be good, or sharing in a measure or degree of goodness. Evil is not so much some thing as much as the lack of something. Evil is simply put, a lack or absence of goodness, like darkness is an absence of light and cold is an absence of heat. Have a good day! ;)
MariaCGMF25 9 months ago
@MariaCGMF25 Interesting theory. Your first statement is obvious. Good, like God, can be self-evident at times, but not always. Therefore, it's necessary to define good so we know what it is. I also say this because I believe many evils are not lacks of good, but excesses and mishandlings of good. Evil can be akin to missing your cue on stage or not saying your lines, but it also can be like needless improvising or being overly dramatic when saying them. I think good is moderate and well-timed.
GenghisKhan44 8 months ago
@MariaCGMF25 Does it not make sense for all things good to have their time and place? Even death is not ultimately evil, I believe, for it is the beginning of new life. Sex is very good, definitely. But its time is when children are desired and a place is made for them to grow up in (a family, as it's called). Food is good because it helps your body to survive, but eating too often or too much is bad for you because it reduces your quality of life. Yes, i think LIFE is the ultimate good.
GenghisKhan44 8 months ago
@MariaCGMF25 But even life must take a back seat to corporal death eventually because, after this life, is a life so much more vivid, enjoyable, and lovely than this. This world will never be Heaven (life perfect) , but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for it all the same. It's what our destiny is. At least, that is what I believe.
GenghisKhan44 8 months ago
This is would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic. If I had not read articles of people stating positions similar to those being parodied by these actors, I would not believe that anybody could believe that we should not be concerned with the "problem of evil" or with evil versus good at all. The first step of practical reasoning is "Do good, avoid evil." It just seems so basic. Whether or not one believes in an omnipotent and benevolent God, can one not believe in goodness?
MariaCGMF25 1 year ago
@MariaCGMF25 Then by all means, define good and evil. And if it is good, it ought to be universally good, and if not, universally evil.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
I'm not a Roman Catholic (although I would be catholic in the historic sense of the word), but why did no one mention original sin in this video?
neacej1 1 year ago
@neacej1 With that comment, you sound like one to me.
TenderTrap86 9 months ago
@TenderTrap86 I'm a Baptist, but I know what the world 'catholic' means, and it predates Roman Catholicism.
neacej1 9 months ago
@neacej1 Yes. "Catholic" is a Greek word that means universal. Just like messiah, savior and redeemer were all words that predate Jesus.
Do the Baptists predate Roman Catholics? You do know what year the Catholic Church started, don't you?
TenderTrap86 9 months ago
@neacej1 Catholic is a Greek word. It means: "universal".
TenderTrap86 7 months ago
@TenderTrap86 I knew that.
neacej1 7 months ago
@neacej1 No one mentioned original sin because modern scholars have their heads where the sun don't shine. They are more focused on man's side of it than God's side. It's like a young child claiming their father doesn't love them, is weak, or isn't real because they burn their hands on the stove they were told not to touch.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
And I deleted your last three comments because they were just attacks on Catholics, entirely ignoring what I had said in my replies to you. I won't tolerate that on my blog, either - but I do enjoy a good debate, if you can follow the thread and not get snippy.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
By the way, Jorbie, I do appreciate that you are indeed a Christian, and I don't mean to disparage you, but if you want to delve into this, youtube comboxes are not the place. In any event, be warned. Reason and Faith go together, and you may be surprised at what you discover if you really apply your reason to what God has given us.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Jorbie, I've blocked you because you can't follow a simple argument and you are ignoring my points. If you'd like to follow our blogs, which you can access from our wesite (see our youtube page for the link), you can engage me there, but be prepared to think and argue clearly.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@89commonsense hah.. what! what did you saying...
roypeter347 1 year ago
Jorbz, as Dale Ahlquist says, there is nothing said by Lewis that was not first said by Chesterton, and said better. But Lewis was a great writer. And is now a Catholic - finally!
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc C.S. Lewis was, by all indications, as Bishop Kallistos Ware said, "An anonymous Orthodox" - Sobornost (an Anglican-Orthodox Ecumenical magazine) entitled "C.S. Lewis: an 'Anonymous Orthodox'?"
Tov0voT 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
Yes. I have done some research since my last comment on Lewis' conversion, and found out how integral Chesterton's writing was, and Tolkien's influence over Lewis' conversion.
He did, however, choose to be other than Roman Catholic.
I'm not sure what you mean as to him being "Catholic- finally".
Jorbz150 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 I mean he's Catholic now.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
Only in the sense that he always was.It is Christianity, not Roman Catholicism. I follow the trinity, not the organization that claims it is the one true church.
Jorbz150 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 He's either much more Catholic now, or he's working on it.
But Jorbz, you and I both agree that there is only one true Church, and that it is the Body of Christ. We just disagree on where that Church subsists. And by the way, any "church" that does not claim to be the one true Church that Christ founded must therefore be suspect.
Incidentally, you only know of the Trinity because of the Catholic Church. But I won't pick on you.
We are, at least, brothers in Christ!
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
Christianity is the one true church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Just as there are many buildings in each denomination, there are many denominations in the one true church. They don't have to agree with each other on everything. Paul writes about Christians disagreeing with each other.
Surely, though, God doesn't want us to talk with dead people.
An organization doesn't need to interpret that. We know what it means.
Jorbz150 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 You manage to fit a lot of errors into a brief comment.
"There is no such thing as a religion called
"Christianity"_there never has been such a religion. There is and always has been the Church, and various heresies proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church's doctrines by men who still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals." - Hilaire Belloc.
Also, when Paul writes about Christians disagreeing with each other ... does he EVER present that as a good thing?
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
I don't care what Hilaire Belloc said.
Christianity is the Church, and I didn't ask for your analysis. I can read the Bible, and I don't need the Roman Catholic Church to interpret it for me. The Holy Spirit is available for all, and the Roman Catholic Church has no right to stand in the way.
Jorbz150 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 @Jorbz150 Jorbie, when I was an atheist and people used to tell me they'd pray for me, I'd be furious. I now tell you I'll pray for you. Hope that doesn't make you furious.
Meanwhile, you can follow us and my blog at.our website.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 And (continued) is God the God of the living or the God of the dead? See Luke 20:38. What did Jesus himself say about those saints such as Abraham who had gone before us? As a Catholic, I look to Scripture, Jorbie, not to the teachings of men, on such things as what you call "talking to the dead". Luke 20:38 and elsewhere.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 To sum up, there is only one Church, and one baptism. We confess that every week, both in Catholic and Anglican services. We were all baptized unto Christ, not unto Paul or Apolos or for that matter Henry VIII. There is no "Christianity", there is Christ and His body. He did not found a system, He gave us Himself, the Living Word of God.
Lewis was wrong about the many appartments in the Church, and you're wrong - very wrong - about the harmlessness of disagreement in the Church.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@Jorbz150 Again, read Paul's epistles when it comes to dissentions within the Body of Christ. Look to Scripture, Jorbie, and you may become Catholic yet.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc I don't know where Jorbz is coming from, but are you saying that the RCC created the Trinity? Does not the Bible clearly teach the doctrine? Is it a truth about God that the RCC affirms, or do you believe the RCC conceived it? I know debates on YouTube are impossible, but I was put back by the statement and had to say something. Thank you for your vids.
zinigoe 1 year ago
@zinigoe The Trinity is the nature of God. It is implied in certain passages of Scripture, but never spelled out clearly in Scripture. It is a truth about God that the Catholic Church affirms, and which almost all Protestants accept - but only because the Catholic Church fought a long and hard battle for it in the first few centuries after Christ. Without the authority of the Catholic Church, the truth of the Trinity would not have survived. The doctrine was attacked from the start.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc So to make sure I am addressing your comment correctly: When you meant that without the RCC we would not know the Trinity, you were making the statement that without the RCC, the doctrine would not have survived and we would all be Unitarians, or some other heresy? Also, are you saying that the Bible is insufficient in teaching us the truth about the nature of God? Thank you.
zinigoe 1 year ago
@zinigoe Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
To clarify: the Bible alone does not comprise the entirety of God's revelation to us.
If it did, we would not have 20,000 competing Protestant sects as we do now, almost all of whom preach "sola scriptura".
This is not to say the Bible is to be ignored, by any means. In fact, if the Bible said that the Bible alone were sufficient, I would accept the teaching of "sola scriptura". But that doctrine itself is not in Scripture.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Comment removed
zinigoe 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Thank you for clearing up your statements on the Trinity, that's all I wanted to discuss. To your assertions: Research how the 20,000 number is put together by RCC apologist from the World Christian Encyclopedia, it’s sadly misleading. There is a great refutation on aomin’s webite titled, “The 33,000 Denominations Myth”, which also addresses your sola scriptura comment. To a Biblical defense of this sola: Find the 2007 debate with Pacwa and White, it's really good. God bless
zinigoe 1 year ago
@zinigoe All the same, there are too many divisions among Protestants: Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh-Day, Lutheran, Calvinist, Assembly of God, Quakers, Congregational, Anabaptist, Mennonites, Irvingites, Pentecostals, not to mention virtually extinct variants such as Swedenborgianism, the Shakers, and the Huguenots.
That may not be 30000, not even 5000 ( actual list of 5000 distinct sects). But that list is still 15 churches and 15 viewpoints too many. So which is "the One"?
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
I prefer C.S. Lewis. Probably because of his protestantism against the Roman Catholic Church.
Jorbz150 1 year ago
Ha ha - this is so ace! I really enjoyed watching it again today a couple more times. I'm thinking of getting a TV license again just to watch EWTN for this show. The characters in this clip are brilliantly observed. I love the Nietzschian guy - he is SO true.
martialtaichi 1 year ago
hahaha!... I respect all of them but finally he said "I think you all need to read G. K Chesterton."
roypeter347 1 year ago
hahahahha
really funny
TheEcumenator 1 year ago
You must have our big brother Gilbert helping your writers with this. Just like Mr Chesterton, you've made an obvious problem obvious. And thank God for that!
It almost makes my head spin to see believers trying their hardest to not believe.
TheWizzooo 2 years ago
Great work guys - keep it up. And people really should read Chesterton.
martialtaichi 2 years ago