Part Two - Atheism and Salvation
Phenomenology of Atheism [1]
The atheist, like Prometheus, feels powerful and capable of performing divine deeds; from atheism arises the impious enterprise of magic, not without the assistance of the Evil one, the master of pride, always ready to intervene where man allows himself to be deceived by pride. The atheist is "presumptuous"
[ another synonym is ‘overweening,’ a noun developed from a form of the Middle English verb ‘overween,’ meaning ‘to be arrogant.’ That term is built on ‘wenen,’ meaning “to think” or “to suppose.” In Italian ‘tracotante,’ that’s, trans (or over)-thinking, (trans-cogitans) Ed.]
and a "transgressor" (trans-grediens) because, with his thinking and acting, he exceeds the proper limits, regulating himself solely by his own will.
The atheist is the heir and emulator of Adam, who prefers to listen to the serpent rather than God. Hegel, in his interpretation of original sin, argues that the serpent teaches man how to become God by freeing himself from the dominion of the Creator God. By prohibiting the eating of the tree of good and evil, God lied, warning man that he would die [2].
The atheist knows very well that death is the consequence of his sin, yet he considers Satan, not God, his Lord, and liberator, believing that Satan is the true God. At the same time, the atheist makes a god of himself when he chooses Satan over God. All of this is illustrated in poetic verses by Giosuè Carducci
[ Carducci (1835 – 1907) was an Italian poet, writer, literary critic and teacher. In 1906, he became the first Italian to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature. His anti-clerical revolutionary vehemence was prominently showcased in one famous poem, the deliberately blasphemous and provocative "Inno a Satana" ("Hymn to Satan"). "Satan" / "Lucifer" was considered by Italian leftists of the time as a metaphor for the rebellious and freethinking spirit. Carducci confessed his sins and was reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1895, thanks to St. Luigi Orione (Ed., Cf. WIKI source]
in the famous "Hymn to Satan," where the demon appears as the "immense beginning of being, matter and spirit, reason and sense." This, of course, entails the rejection of the Church, its sacraments, and its doctrine: "Away with the aspergillum, priest, and your meter!" - that is, your word. "No, priest, Satan does not go back!" Christ is powerless to overcome Satan.
For the atheist, the world of pure spirit, of God, of souls, and angels are empty and useless abstractions. True reality is Satan, the ruler of the world, eternal and infinite matter and spirit, the God that man chooses because he has made himself God:
«Vedi: la ruggine rode a Michele il brando mistico ed il fedele spennato arcangelo cade nel vano. Ghiacciato è il fulminea Geova in mano. Meteore pallide, pianeti spenti, piovono gli angeli dai firmamenti. Ne la materia che mai non dorme, re de i fenomeni, re de le forme, sol vive Satana … la rapida gioia non langue che la fuggevole vita ristora, che il dolor proroga che amor ne incora»
"See: the rust corrodes the mystical sword of Michael, and the faithful plucked archangel falls in vain. The lightning bolt that Jehovah (the Jewish god) was holding in his hand has frozen. Pale meteors, extinguished planets, and angels rain from the firmaments. In eternal matter that never sleeps, king of phenomena, king of forms, only Satan lives." Joy, then, does not lie in that eternal joy given by the vision within the vision of God, but in the fleeting enjoyment of the pleasures of this life: wine, nature, love: "the rapid joy does not wane, which restores the fleeting life, which prolongs the pain that love anchors."
The atheist's bravado towards God is evident in his lack of fear of God. God does not instill in him respect and reverence but contempt, for the atheist, in his mind, diminishes God's infinite dignity to the level of a creature, thinking he can dominate, defeat, and subject God to his power. He believes he can ignore God, and the divine punishment that threatens him does not frighten him: better to be in hell without God than in paradise subject to God.
[ “The modern age in which we live - said Stephen Eyre, a C.S. Lewis scholar -, and with which C.S. Lewis contested throughout his writings, denies the supernatural. John Lennon brilliantly expressed this modern mind in his song ‘Imagine’: ‘Imagine there’s no heaven… No hell… Imagine all the people, living for today…’
Lennon was merely lyrically distilling the growing consensus of the modern mind that has been developing in Western culture since the Enlightenment. A hundred years earlier, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, ‘Otherworld, there is no other world. Here or nowhere is the whole fact of the matter!’ (…)
Lewis eventually encounters his solid person/host, George MacDonald, the author whose imaginative works first opened his mind to the possibility of belief in God. The conversations between Lewis and MacDonald provide insights into the nature of the great divorce between heaven and hell.
“Milton was right,” said my Teacher. “The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words, ‘Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.’ There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy—that is, to reality. Ye see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss its play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends. Ye call it the Sulks. But in adult life, it has a hundred fine names — Achilles’ wrath… Revenge and Injured Merit and Self-Respect and Tragic Greatness and Proper Pride.” Cf. https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/c-s-lewis-on-heaven-and-hell/ Ed.]
But atheism also goes hand in hand with idolatry, in which the idolater worships the creature instead of the Creator. The idolater calls a creature by the name of God and considers it as God. Atheism can also be accompanied by pantheism, in which man arrogantly raises himself beyond himself. He confuses looking up, an act of thought, which is our duty, with an impossible elevation of his being, an act of being, which, on the contrary, is finite, and only God can enrich it with His grace.
On the contrary, let us keep in mind that Scripture teaches us that, to be saved, that is, to be freed from our sins and reach eternal life, it is not enough to believe in God in any way or believe in any God or use the word ‘God’ arbitrarily. It is necessary to possess a truthful notion of God as He Who Is, as revealed in Exodus 3:14. That is, one must know what the true Name of God is and invoke Him, asking Him for forgiveness for our sins.
Some are concerned with forming a correct concept of God, and there is, on the other hand, someone to whom forming such a concept is of no interest because they believe the issue is outdated and no longer relevant for the modern and progressive individual, thanks to the development of science. Some believe that religious interest prevents man from fully asserting himself and is a sign of primitive philosophy, mental childishness, and a lack of critical sense.
The atheist, for his part, looks at the believer with pity and a sense of superiority as someone who is still attached to old illusions, has fallen behind in mental development, imprisons himself with his own hands, and creates unnecessary scruples.
According to the atheist, the believer poses insoluble problems or offers vain and ridiculous solutions for them, neglecting to solve the real ones of concrete and daily life. He neglects his true duties for useless practices. According to Nietzsche, he deprives himself of life's pleasures and harms himself by mortifying and feeding on the products of his imagination. He considers himself truly intelligent and would like to impose his fables on all of humanity.
I observe that the atheist would like to convince himself that he does not need to explain his existence because he is the absolute. He does not have to answer to any God and has no Father in the heavens because he has placed himself, exists by himself, and sets the law for his conduct.
Or, he provides a materialistic and fantastic explanation of the origin of the world and man, mistaking it for "science," which is insufficient because it violates the principle of causality, and even goes so far as to attribute the origin of the universe to chance or chaos.
For the atheist, who does not disdain idealistic epistemology, the world itself and others do not exist in themselves, outside of him and independently of him but are products of his thought in the service of his interests. Being does not exist independently of him but is the being that he perceives and thinks, so it was not produced by another but by himself. The absolute is not above and outside of him, but he is the appearance and empirical determination of the absolute. No God outside of him, but God, if one can use this word, is himself.
A form of modern atheism arises from the positivist scientism of the world of physicists who, unable to transcend the level of physical-mathematical knowledge, on the one hand, fail to place themselves on the plane of metaphysics, which they consider a medieval cosmology, but on the other hand, unable to avoid questioning the origin of the universe, develop absurd imaginary visions, rejecting the principles of causality and purpose, replacing them with the ancestral unscientific and irrational ideas of chance and chaos.
There is also the so-called "scientific atheism," which was very popular in the Soviet Union. Since its dissolution, it no longer attracts attention and has lost credibility and persuasiveness. As much as the idea of demonstrating apodictically that God does not exist may be attractive, deep down, we all realize that it is impossible. In any case, the refutations of this absurd claim are well-known. Debates and discussions on this problem no longer exist.
Today's atheism simply consists of ignoring or pretending to ignore the question. Simply put, God is not discussed. Of course, this does not mean that, in practice, people today do not have a god or gods of their own making. Indeed, Heidegger does not speak of God but of "the god," as was customary in ancient paganism and is still present today in African, Amazonian, and Australian tribes.
Atheism or a false concept of God can also hide under the current spread of "good-ism," "merciful-ism," and "forgive-ism." A God who always forgives and never punishes cannot be the true God but is a convenient fiction to sin without fearing punishment, thereby promoting laxity, moral libertinage, and the oppression of man over man. Even the distinction between the stern God of the Old Testament and the merciful God of the New is nothing more than a reissue of the ancient heresy of Marcion [3].
Renouncing to ask why evils come from nature is not a sign of theological wisdom. Here, we must acknowledge Leopardi's intelligence, as he did ponder this "why," even if his answer is incorrect. There is a reluctance to recognize that these evils are the punishment for original sin, and, on the other hand, people do not want to be obliged to acknowledge that they come from a nature governed by God.
The risk is to turn nature into a goddess like Pachamama, who punishes us if we offend her, neglecting to ask why nature also strikes those who respect it. In this view, nature regulates itself, and what's the point of God? Distributing tenderness even to the wicked and murderers?
The question of theism-atheism is fundamentally a moral question
It must also be observed that the question of theism and atheism is not only a theoretical issue concerning abstract metaphysical ideas like being and non-being but touches very concretely on the plane of morality. In our pluralistic society, where believers and non-believers live side by side with mutual respect, the idea may arise that atheism is ultimately just an opinion like any other, which should not cause believers any concern, especially since the notion that everyone is saved is widespread today.
However, St. Paul, who would certainly respect cultural pluralism and freedom of thought today, would not fail to remind us that atheism is a serious act of foolishness that draws divine wrath upon the sinner:
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being" (Romans 1:18-22).
Atheism is a moral fault. It is a sin of selfishness, pride, and impiety. Selfish because instead of turning towards God, man turns towards himself. God created us so that we find our true highest good in Him. However, the atheist, who rejects God, wants to find it in what St. Augustine and St. Catherine of Siena called "self-love" (amor sui), a love that, within proper limits, is lawful and obligatory because we, as creatures of God, are lovable. Still, the atheist exaggerates and distorts it, making themself the absolute and the principle of everything, as if it were God. The atheist, therefore, does not see their good in God but sees it in the love of their self. Therefore, God, who commands them to love Him, appears hateful and an enemy. Hence, about Christianity, the spirit of the Antichrist.
It is a sin of pride because the refusal to love God above all stems from the fact that the proud person considers their self as if it were the apex of being and, therefore, the supreme good. For him, God is not transcendent, but he considers himself transcendent. And if he admits God, it is not God who posits and creates him, but he posits God as correlated to the self. All the atheists can concede is that if God posits the self, then, vice-versa, is truly the self that posits God. In short, God cannot exist without the self.
Impiety arises from pride, and from this disobedience to divine law and the rejection of religion—rendering worship to God. Man rejects the characters and ends of human nature as God created and wills them, insisting on being the free shaper of his nature. The atheist, enslaved by evil tendencies caused by original sin, satisfies these inclinations, seeing them as a way to assert their will against the divine.
In this essay, by reviewing some thinkers, I demonstrate that atheism is not only derived from the formal rejection of the concept and the word ‘God’ but that there exists a concept of God so poor, deficient, wrong, lifeless, and devoid of life that it is insufficient for religion and salvation. Therefore, whoever uses it, even if they do not explicitly deny the existence of God and use the word God, is fundamentally impious and atheist, rebelling against God and therefore cannot be saved.
The issue of forming the right concept of God is essential for our salvation and to achieve our true ultimate goal. Indeed, as we will see if we do not ascribe to God His true attributes, the devil can present himself to us under divine appearances, making the issue of our eternal happiness a choice between God and the demon as a false god. The supremely practical problem is then not to mistake God for the demon, knowing what the attributes of the true God are.
Theism and atheism are two theoretical questions; it is indeed a matter of knowing whether God exists or not; it is indeed a matter of knowing what the right concept of God is and what use to make of the word ‘God’. But all this only lays the theoretical foundations of the problem, which, in the end, is a practical problem of choosing life—a choice that is in our hands.
Given the fact that I am aimed at the highest good and an ultimate end, an eternal existence [4], the whole question boils down to which invitation, which proposal to accept? Christ God's or the devil's one? I cannot not have a god. So, the whole problem is simply this: who will be my god? God or the devil? It is up to me to choose [5].
Finally, note that the fact that someone has a wrong concept of God does not prevent him from having the right one at the same time, which serves him to be saved because as I have said and repeat, everyone, theists and atheists, knows that God exists, and we must deal with Him. How is this possible? The wrong concept is intentional and voluntary; it is not in good faith. But why does the atheist form it if they know it is false? Because it is convenient for him, providing a pretext to rebel against God.
In the matter of theism-atheism, it is easy for Satan's deceptive action to intervene to inspire false concepts of God and the denial of God's existence itself, following the original action he conducted toward the original human couple, inducing them to commit that act of rebellion against God known as original sin. Since then, there remains in man an inclination to yield to the devil's deceit if man does not listen to their conscience under the influence of grace.
In the final analysis, according to Scripture, the issue of theism-atheism boils down to a radical choice: either wanting to see the face of God or not wanting to see it to see only oneself, like Narcissus. Either vision (St. Thomas Aquinas) or self-awareness (Descartes).
The Question of Evil [6]
God did not create death,
nor does He delight in the ruin of the living.
For He fashioned all things that they might have the being.
(Wisdom 1:13)
The theism-atheism debate also involves the issue of the origin and essence of evil and the problem of how to overcome it. Both the theist and the atheist distinguish between good and bad actions, but their criteria are opposite: the theist refers to God, while the atheist refers to himself. Thus, while blasphemy, selfishness, theft, violence, lust, lies, and murder are considered bad actions by the theist, they are viewed as good actions by the atheist. If the atheist appreciates the judgments of the theist, it means they are moving closer to him.
Schelling, following Böhme, understands God's being as the effect (causa sui, cause of Himself) of His free will to be. And since the will can choose between good and evil, which, according to Schelling, are connected, for him, God is indeed infinite goodness, but only because He has conquered evil within Himself, that is, the devil, preventing it from taking effect, though not completely. According to him, evil is necessary for good to exist.
Just as there is no evil without good, so there is no pure good without evil. In this sense, a God of pure goodness does not exist. Therefore, this is a sign of false theism and atheism. This principle is also found in Fichte's and Hegel's dialectics, which is also present in esoteric Freemasonry, probably influenced by Manicheism, which, in turn, derives from Hindu Shaivism.
The problems related to evil in connection with the issue of theism-atheism are twofold. First: who wants evil? Man or God? Second: Is evil objective? What is evil for me is good for God? For the first question, there are two possible answers: the theist and the atheist say that man wants evil. However, the crypto-atheist Hegel says that God wants it. To the second question, the theist answers that evil is objective; it is evil for everyone and fixed by divine law. The atheist says it is subjective; it is evil for me but not for you, fixed by human will.
For the theist, God is supremely lovable, infinite goodness, just and merciful, the omnipotent and provident principle of good, capable of defeating evil or deriving greater good from it. The theist continues to love God even when suffering occurs. The atheist curses God or accepts both evil and misfortune from Fate, as Nietzsche did.
For a pantheist like Hegel, everything is good as it is because God is everything and everything is God; everything is willed by God's infinite goodness. At the same time, for Hegel, as is well known, good and evil are the two dialectical polarities of being as the becoming of the Absolute. Good corresponds to being and evil to non-being. But since, for Hegel, being is the synthesis of being and non-being, evil becomes an ingredient of the Absolute. Therefore, if the Absolute is good, evil in the Absolute becomes good, which is expressly taught by Hegel, as he also teaches the identity of being and nothingness.
For the believer, evil is what displeases God. Suffering can be a good thing as repentance, as punishment endured, and as a means of atonement. On the day of judgment, Christ will separate the righteous from the wicked, rewarding the former and punishing the latter.
Instead, for the atheist, God is supremely hateful, an unbearable tyrant. God is the principle of evil. Evil is the will of God. Consequently, the neighbor, as the image of God, is hateful. Good is limited and fallible; evil is invincible and prevails over good. Suffering is always an evil and must be removed by any lawful means. Good cannot exist without evil. For the atheist, what is good for the theist is evil, and vice versa.
While the theist relies on divine justice, assistance, grace, forgiveness, and protection, the atheist relies solely on themselves, their strength, justice, merits, wealth, and human support. The theist anticipates a final triumph of the righteous over the wicked, the ultimate victory of Christ and the Church over satanic powers, and the world's future resurrection. The atheist expects the disappearance of religion and the extinction of the Church, Christianity, and Christian conduct, with the triumph of libertine, materialistic, overman-like, secularist, relativistic, subjectivist, and Pelagian ethics.
A famous pretext for denying the existence of God is that of Epicurus, as reported by Hume: "Does divinity wish to prevent evil but lack the power? Then it is impotent. Does it possess the power but not the will? Then where does evil come from?"[7].
Some today believe that God Himself is weak and suffers due to human suffering. However, this is an unworthy concept of God. Others, influenced by (Emanuele) Severino's ideas that everything is good as it is, claim that suffering is good and therefore a divine attribute. Others, echoing Hegel, who draws from Spinoza, say that what appears evil to us is good.
Saint Augustine responds to Epicurus by stating that God is so good and powerful that He can derive greater good from evil while demonstrating that the origin of evil can only be attributed to the creature's bad will, as taught in the book of Genesis of Sacred Scripture.
The Notion of God Sufficient for Salvation and the Insufficient One
"You shall again see the distinction
between the righteous and the wicked,
between one who serves God
and one who does not serve Him."
(Malachi 3:18)
It is as easy today as ever to discuss what the true God is or who the Christian God is. Is a punishing God the Christian God? Is an angry God the Christian God? Is a vengeful God a true God? Is a God demanding atonement or satisfaction for our sins a true God? Is a God who desires war the true God? Is an immutable and impassive God the true God? Is a non-incarnate God a true God? Is a God who guarantees us honors, fame, triumphs, success, fortune, power, pleasures, riches, and health the true God?
We understand how important it is to form a correct concept of God. We understand how crucial it is to attribute to God the qualities that befit Him and exclude those that do not. We understand that conceiving God wrongly is tantamount to being an atheist. On the other hand, how do we build a concept of God that encompasses all the attributes that befit Him? How many attributes can be lacking for that God to cease being God? What is the tolerance limit to avoid falling into either idolatry or atheism?
The distinction between theist and atheist is not solely based on affirming or denying God, but it involves a certain concept of God that is insufficient for salvation. It challenges us regarding what the absolute, ultimate end, and supreme good mean to us. Whoever possesses an insufficient concept, even if they use the word God, is already an atheist. A similar principle applies to a living organism. For it to live, it requires a minimum of vital forces, below which the subject dies.
Let us observe that man has the spontaneous tendency to reason, that is, to inquire into the causes, origins, and purposes of things. Now, his reasoning activity, on the one hand, reaches a certain point and becomes satisfied, but on the other hand, it proceeds indefinitely and tirelessly in acquiring ever-new knowledge.
This foundational path of reason stops (Aristotle says: ananke stenai, it is necessary to stop) when we discover the existence of God, the first cause, the highest and infinite good, the most perfect being, the ultimate end. It would be foolish not to be content because once God is found, there is nothing else to seek. After all, reason possesses everything it desires and can possess. We all traverse this path that leads us to know that God exists, even the worst enemies of reason, such as Luther, Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer.
What can happen is that we reason poorly, not following the laws of logic. Here it can indeed happen that we do not go deep enough, we are not radical enough in finding reality, so the God we discover is not the true God but a mere creature, an idol, the world, nature, our ego, an idea of our mind.
Remember also that the life of reason consists in knowing the cause of the effect. In contact with reality, man realizes that he is faced with effects (pragmata). So, he asks: why does this happen? Where does this come from? For what purpose does this exist? What is the reason or purpose of this thing?
As Aristotle teaches us, the formation of the concept of cause (aitia), the concept of "why," and the reason (logos) for something is important to understand reality in depth. Reason asks to know the why of things. God is nothing more than the full and perfect cause, the cause, purely, and solely cause, the sufficient cause that does not need to be caused itself, the necessary cause because without it, the effect would not be explained. The Bible, on this issue, is straightforward: it does not speak, like Aristotle, of effect and cause, but of work and craftsman (Wisdom 13:1-9), immediately making it clear, better than Aristotle, that this cause is a person.
Furthermore, this divine craftsman, something not given to the human craftsman, explains not only the form and becoming of things, as we also do but also their very existence, something not given to us because, in our production, we assume the existence of the things we operate on. Instead, the divine craftsman, as the Bible itself explains, also produces being from nothing, that is, he is a creative cause.
But, to be able to explain the produced being and to be able to be the cause of the being of things, it will be necessary to attribute to such an entity being from Itself (aseitas), it must be the Absolute Being, Being by essence. Hence, God calls Himself "I Am Who I Am" (Exodus 3:14). From this comes the essential importance of metaphysics to understand theology.
The Bible also, to demonstrate the existence of God, does not use, like St. Thomas Aquinas, the process to infinity in the regression of causes. It recognizes that the works of God, especially man, have a causal power, and can produce effects. But, once the effect is known, the Bible immediately discovers the divine cause and, if anything, notes that man, in producing effects, resembles God. The human artist resembles the divine Artist.
Aristotle realizes the possibility of the process to infinity, but he also realizes that it is not worth considering because it explains nothing. Hence his axiom: "one must stop" (ananke stenai). These words correspond to those of Scripture: "Be still, and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10).
From this, we see how important it is to form an analogical concept of causality: the effect, for example, man, exerts a causality similar to that exercised by God. Here we have the distinction between the first cause and the second cause. The first cause is nothing other than the cause in the perfection of its concept.
Now the true God is the cause in the absolute sense of the concept. Calling God an insufficient cause, a second cause means making a wrong and non-salvific concept of God. Such a concept, however, remains sufficient for salvation as long as God is seen as the highest being, the first cause, personal, and producer of the world, biblically, even if some other divine attributes are missing.
The Bible and the history of religions also teach us that in ancient times, every people had its God or its Gods, which the people considered more powerful than the Gods of other peoples, to propose the possibility that, trusting in their Gods, that people would become dominant over other peoples.
In modernity, this religious idea has been replaced by the nationalist-expansionist-imperialistic principle. So, for example, when the Soviet Union, an atheist state, existed, nothing prevented the Communist Party from considering itself the liberator of all peoples oppressed by capitalism, and with this pretext, the Soviets felt authorized to subjugate peoples to Soviet Russia.
Nazi Germany did the same thing, only Hitler's enterprise was carried out with such irrationality and violence that Europe reacted forcefully, destroying the Hitlerian regime. It is not difficult to trace Nietzschean concepts of the Germans to grasp Hitler's enterprise.
The special fate of Israel, desired by God Himself, was that their God was not an idol like those of other peoples, but the true God, the creator of heaven and earth, the savior of all humanity. For this reason, Israel, in its sublimation of the concept revealed by Christ, received the right and duty to preach their God as the only Savior of all peoples. Thus, over the centuries, the Church has adopted some concepts from Greek and Roman culture that have proven useful in explaining the nature of the God of Israel and the Christian God.
A concept related to that of God is the concept of Fate (fatum, meaning 'that which has been said' or decreed, fixed, established, in Greek, Moira, in German, Geschick). By whom? It is not known, but by Someone mysterious, first, most powerful, and irresistible, whose will and decisions are unappealable and inscrutable, always happening and occurring necessarily and infallibly, without anyone, not even the Gods, being able to prevent it or resist it, oppose it, or change it. I think I can choose this or that, but in reality, it is Fate that chooses this or that. Nothing happens, whether good or bad, that is not necessarily willed by Fate.
In Brahmanism, there is no Fate because Brahman is not a person who decides the fate of men, so they infallibly do what he wants, but simply the fundamental hidden and ineffable essence, the first and original of all his appearances, revelations, avatars, determinations, finite manifestations, materializations. Brahman does not provide, does not destine, and does not direct toward an end. This is the popular and religious interpretation, for which Brahman appears as a benevolent, provident, just, and merciful heavenly Lord.
In the Bible, Fate does not exist. No Fate above divinity, but God is above everything. He replaces Fate, with the difference that He creates free, responsible people capable of obeying or disobeying His will, even though it is true that if God wants something, it happens, and if He has predestined someone to salvation, they are saved infallibly, but by acting freely and responsibly.
It is not always easy to distinguish in practice between God and the devil. Whoever does not believe in the existence of the devil starts on the wrong foot and is precisely the best candidate to fall into the traps of the devil because it is obvious that one who ignores him is more exposed to danger. This means that just as the existence of God must be proven, so must the existence of angels and the devil, because our life is a continuous relationship with God and the devil. The whole meaning of our life can be summed up in a choice for God or for the devil [8].
[ The true being is that on which there is no mistake and that always exists, the ideal one. The empirical world is 'being' only because it imitates (image, mimicry, mimesis), and participates in the ideal world. Man has always existed like this - says Erik Peterson in The Book of Angels -. He goes out of himself (only by doing so does he live) and approaches, ascending (metaphysically, not morally), to become a companion of angels (dèmons) or, descending, of demòns, until he touches those limits where they also stand. There, where he is ordered to stop by a boundary he has not drawn, nor any archangel, he begins to resonate with the spheres and to sing with the archangels. His song is not simply an imitation (metexis) of the angels' song, a modest participation in the cry of the Trisagion that resounds spontaneously, encasing and majestic on their lips, but it is also simultaneously something that erupts from the innermost of his being when he reaches the limits of creatures, indeed, at the limits of his creaturely being. In his singing with the Cherubim and Seraphim, his ascent comes to completion; this becoming himself is fulfilled. What else, in fact, can man learn when he has risen to the height of angels, if not the praise of God, the praise of God from the last of the planets to the smallest blade of grass? Now man, having reached his metaphysical, creaturely limits, is only a song, and like a song, he pours out before God and bears witness to God. The primary witness of God, of Christ, is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Then the Blessed Virgin Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles, their successors, with the priests, deacons, monks, good philosophers, artists, ordinary Christians … (Ed.)]
"Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). It is necessary to be able to discern where the thoughts and plans that come to mind come from, whether we realize that they come from outside of us and seem to be proposed, perhaps with arguments, by an intelligent and interesting subject. The good ones are evidence of the existence of God. The evil ones are suggested by the devil. Not the spiritual life as such is a sign of the divine because even Satan is spirit. Not everything that seems divine is truly divine because Satan can pretend to be God.
In Eden, he appeared more authoritative than God, succeeding in portraying God as an envious and deceitful despot. He managed to gain our trust, and even now, he attempts the move, hoping to deceive us once again. It is necessary to refine and continually monitor our concept of God, learning from the defeats suffered, because Satan, along with evil philosophers and heretics, is highly skilled in falsifying it.
Seeking to distill the essential criterion for distinguishing between a sufficient and insufficient notion of God for salvation, we could say that the fundamental differentiator is to observe how the relationship between man and God is framed. Everything, moreover, boils down to the opposition between realism and idealism because here there is the respective opposition between the affirmation and the negation of creation. Now, the true God is the creator of man. While in realism, man is created by God, in idealism, man posits God as an idea produced by man.
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, November 3, 2023
source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/ateismo-e-salvezza-seconda-parte-210.html
[1] See AA.VV., Atheism. Nature and Causes, edited by Battista Mondin, Massimo Publisher, Milan 1981.
[2] Refer to Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Zanichelli Publisher, Bologna 1974, vol. II, p. 79; also see vol. I, 363-366.
[3] It reappears in Walter Kasper's book Mercy. Fundamental Concept of the Gospel, Key to Christian Life, Queriniana, Brescia 2013. In it, Kasper argues that the Christian God forgives everyone and no longer punishes them.
[4] This is the truthful aspect of Severino's eternalism.
[5] The devil himself, as is known, in the temptations in the desert, dares to present himself to Christ as his Lord. He did not realize whom he was dealing with. See my book The Devil's Project. Satan's Perspective and that of Jesus Christ, Chorabooks Editions, Hong Kong 2021.
[6] See C. Journet, Evil, Borla Editions, Turin 1963.
[7] Quoted from: Dialogues on Natural Religion, Laterza Editions, Bari 1963, p. 120.
[8] Refer to my booklet The Devil's Project. The perspective of the devil and that of Jesus Christ, Chorabooks Editions, Hong Kong 2021.