An Atheist's Letter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
[1971](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1971.htm’)😉 To the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as *Romans *12-15, 1 *Corinthians *12-13, *Colossians *3-4, *Ephesians *4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord’s teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. "Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.30

[1972](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1972.htm’)😉 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a* law of grace*, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ - “For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” - or even to the status of son and heir.31

[1973](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1973.htm’)😉 Besides its precepts, the New Law also includes the evangelical counsels. The traditional distinction between God’s commandments and the evangelical counsels is drawn in relation to charity, the perfection of Christian life. The precepts are intended to remove whatever is incompatible with charity. The aim of the counsels is to remove whatever might hinder the development of charity, even if it is not contrary to it.32

[1974](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1974.htm’)😉 The evangelical counsels manifest the living fullness of charity, which is never satisfied with not giving more. They attest its vitality and call forth our spiritual readiness. The perfection of the New Law consists essentially in the precepts of love of God and neighbor. The counsels point out the more direct ways, the readier means, and are to be practiced in keeping with the vocation of each:

[God] does not want each person to keep all the counsels, but only those appropriate to the diversity of persons, times, opportunities, and strengths, as charity requires; for it is charity, as queen of all virtues, all commandments, all counsels, and, in short, of all laws and all Christian actions that gives to all of them their rank, order, time, and value.33 %between%
 
All you have to do is look up the bible verses and read the passages. The first ones I looked up don’t say what this letter claims they say. There’s no human sacrifice in Lev. 27 and no child rape in Numbers 31. The rest of the quotes are wrenched from their contexts, or are done to prevent a great evil. We’ve become a nation of people who don’t know what the text says or why it says it.
 
Bravo Madaglan!!! :clapping: You are amazingly brilliant. You’ve done a fabulous job of finding some answers to your questions.

Thank you for sharing this with us. You make an excellent researcher. :yup: I’ll be sure to consult with you if ever I’m in need of information.

God bless you with Love, Peace, and Joy ~

Mary
 
40.png
ISABUS:
I’m wondering why you won’t spend the time doing extensive research into this question presented (highlighted in blue) and bring back to us “the” answer/s? Would you terribly mind? As you must already know, the Internet provides a world of information.
Not a bad attempt at all, if just a tad too heavy on the irony… Please note, I’m curious about your answer and not the answer - a subtle but significant difference.
 
40.png
ISABUS:
Bravo Madaglan!!! :clapping: You are amazingly brilliant. You’ve done a fabulous job of finding some answers to your questions.

Thank you for sharing this with us. You make an excellent researcher. :yup: I’ll be sure to consult with you if ever I’m in need of information.

God bless you with Love, Peace, and Joy ~

Mary
I second this, thank you Madaglan.
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
Not a bad attempt at all, if just a tad too heavy on the irony… Please note, I’m curious about your answer and not the answer - a subtle but significant difference.
Very keen of you to see the irony unfold in life! 😃 Where did the irony begin? If my memory serves me correctly, did it not take root within your observation?

Having said that, I note with interest that the fundamental question asked in the opening post has not been answered

Why didn’t you answer the question? I’m sure you have an idea or two to share. Were you afraid there could be a chance that you would be insulted or attacked by a Catholic for speaking what you believe to be a truth so opted to avoid sharing with us. The sad thing here is that a separation has occurred between people who believe in God and those who do not. What do you think it is based on? We should all be united as a whole yet we are fragmented by only thoughts. Honestly, I think it would benefit the group by learning how an atheist thinks since you were the one who stated in thread #14

Even as an outspoken atheist, I wouldn’t write a letter like this.

I’m wondering the reasons behind the “why” you think as an atheist that atheists wouldn’t write such a letter? It’s clearly obvious that many people posting to the message board didn’t take note of that very important fact until I presented it and you acknowledged the truth behind my reasoning. Perhaps what I’m asking of you is to provide us with skillfull, constructive advice flavored with a ounce of criticism so Catholics in general avoid mishaps that result in hurtful remarks toward atheists. It bothers me a great deal that many Catholics on this website have established a mind-set of being mean and cruel to atheists. I don’t know what to do to help my “fallen” so-called christians who are beginning to turn into monsters!:eek:

Please do us the honor by sharing your insights that may produce peace. Hope you will accept the challenge I’ve set before you. 🙂

Thank you in advance for your consideration ~

Mary
 
40.png
ISABUS:
Why didn’t you answer the question?
To me, the OT is simply a product of its time and the authors unfortunately chose to spread their message with a big carrot and a big stick. Having said that, watching contemporary news makes me wonder how different the times actually were. I’m afraid I don’t have a ready-made sophisticated answer, but then I’m not a Christian apologist. If anything, it’s a hopeful sign that the OT is something to be apologetic about.
Were you afraid there could be a chance that you would be insulted or attacked by a Catholic for speaking what you believe to be a truth so opted to avoid sharing with us.
That’s what the ignore filter is for, isn’t it? Admittedly, I’ve been gone from this board for a while because of the prevailing attitude.
The sad thing here is that a separation has occurred between people who believe in God and those who do not.
I see good people, bad people, and anything in between; god belief or not doesn’t sway my opinion about any given individual and I often wonder why we all just can’t get along.
I’m wondering the reasons behind the “why” you think as an atheist that atheists wouldn’t write such a letter?
Unless I phrased my original comment carelessly, I meant to convey no such thing. I am an atheist and wouldn’t write such a letter because it’s not my mission in life to convert Christians to atheism and a cheap appeal to the (atheistic) gallery only serves to further entrench both sides. None of this means, however, that other atheists wouldn’t or haven’t written similar missives.
Perhaps what I’m asking of you is to provide us with skillfull, constructive advice flavored with a ounce of criticism so Catholics in general avoid mishaps that result in hurtful remarks toward atheists.
A tall order, but everybody following the Golden Rule would make my day.
It bothers me a great deal that many Catholics on this website have established a mind-set of being mean and cruel to atheists.
Alas, it’s not like this attitude is limited to this board. Ultimately, I believe atheists are simply convenient scapegoats.

More than a few of your questions deserve a longer answer, but there’s only so much I can fit into a single post.
 
40.png
JamesS:
What do you believe will happen to you when you die?
The gory biological details are of but passing interest to me. If the intent of your question was to ascertain whether or not I believe in an afterlife, then I’d have to the answer that I lack both knowledge and belief in such.
 
Wolpertinger, I believe you don’t understand what apologetics means.

You say that you think
it’s a hopeful sign that the OT is something to be apologetic about.
This seems to indicate that you view “apologetics” as being SORRY FOR something.

It is not.
The definition of “apologetics” as used in the context of Christian apologetics (or, indeed, as would be used in the context of ATHEIST apologetics) is this:

a·pol·o·get·ics Audio pronunciation of “apologetics” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jtks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
  1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
  2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
Now, this is a far cry from apologizing, which is this:

a·pol·o·gize Audio pronunciation of “apologizing” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jz)
intr.v. a·pol·o·gized, a·pol·o·giz·ing, a·pol·o·giz·es
  1. To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.
The O.T. is nothing to apologize for; it IS something we can have apologetics for.
 
Tantum ergo:
Wolpertinger, I believe you don’t understand what apologetics means.
Your belief is mistaken, but I’ll resort to special pleading and note that English isn’t my native language and I’m therefore bound to slip up once in a while. Please let me rephrase my original statement to read:

“it’s a hopeful sign that the OT is something to apply apologetics to.”

(on edit: or to have apologetics for, to stay with your turn of phrase)

I wasn’t aware of a need for atheist apologetics. Most of us don’t make a positive claim whether deities exist or not, consequently we have no position to prove or defend. However, this has been already been discussed at length in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.
 
Hello Wolpertinger,

You were very kind to reply to my last post. After reviewing your responses, I reflected upon your expressions which I sensed were truly genuine. As a poet this is what I admire and respect the most in a human being.

My wish is to return later today to our dialogue and address your thread #27 because after reading today’s threads I was immediately drawn to the following three books in my library ~
A Mathematician’s Apology by G.H. Hardy**, Communication as Creative Experience** by Bois**, **and Golden Nuggets by Sir John Templeton. I need more time to figure out why. And why I keep connecting God to TIME and to another topic under discussion on message board "uncaused cause". Please bare with me, your dealing with the mind of a poet! 😃

Thank you in advance for your patience ~

Mary aka Isabus
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
Please rephrase your question more perspicuously.
I struggle with the concept of Atheism and the Golden Rule.
My problem here will likely be in effectively articulating the problem I am having. There is no impication here that an Athiest is any less potetially loving then any person of any faith system. My problem is with the practicality of the mixing of the two.

Having come from a strong agnostic/athiest philiosphy not too long ago I found I was often contimplating whether my life had any meaning at all. The problem I had was reconciling how anything that eventually was totally terminated could be of any meaning at all. If our life eventually fades away into absolute nothingness the Golden Rule seems hardly an item of concern.

I guess I saw two potential ways to look at life.
  1. Since everything is going to terminate at any moment (even if I live to a ripe old age the time is infinately temporal mathmatically speaking) then I might as well grasp every moment of pleasure I can.
However inherent in this view is the idea of; why should I draw any line? In other words why not go for ALL the self fulling pleasues I can? After all, anyone I hurt including myself will effectively be reduced to nothingness in very little time anyway. Much like the saying, “in 100 years what difference will it make”? This saying used to float in my mind at all times. If I get a deadly disease, “in 100 years what difference will it make”? , if a friend dies, “in 100 years what difference will it make”? If I die, “in 100 years what difference will it make”? If the most beautiful woman on earth fell in love with me, “in 100 years what difference will it make”? If I become rich, “in 100 years what difference will it make”?
  1. Why get excited about anything at all? Why not just wait till the end. I was often reminded of a horrific TV movie I saw one time about the aftermath of a nuclear war. I forget the name of the movie. The movie never showed bombs going off, the idea you were suppose to get was that the bombs went off far enough away to not directly and immediately effect this particular town. But, in time, the people of the town were all becoming ill. Eventually the people int he town were all carrying out thier dead with no emotion. All were simply awaiting thier turn. The difference, I felt, between them and me is simply just a little time.
I qualify this by saying this my perspective alone. It was the concept of anything being temporal being of little or no importance with respect to the eternal, that initially brought me back to faith. It was love that kept me here. But it prompts me to ask the question to your quote. “why?”
 
40.png
Mijoy2:
I struggle with the concept of Atheism and the Golden Rule.
My problem here will likely be in effectively articulating the problem I am having. There is no impication here that an Athiest is any less potetially loving then any person of any faith system. My problem is with the practicality of the mixing of the two.
That was a longer response than expected. All I have time for right now is a short answer.

Granted, in my worldview nothing matters if you look forward sufficiently far into the future. However, rather than making the ethic of reciprocity futile, it makes it more acute. Christian theology is often used (perhaps even abused) to justify the toleration of temporal tribulations for the sake of a reward in the afterlife. From my point of view, I want to be as happy as I can be during my lifetime, but if I take unfair advantage over others I still have to live with my conscience and invite the enmity of others on top of that. To put it this way, mistreating another human being is less excusable for me than it is for you, because in your view it’s just a temporary inconvenience pending an ultimate reward or punishment, whereas I would irrevocably harm somebody. I realize that what I just wrote is an oversimplification and leaves a few thoughts unfinished, but it’ll have to do for now.

Further, the doom-and-gloom outlook portrayed in your two scenarios is simply foreign to me.
 
40.png
Mijoy2:
I struggle with the concept of Atheism and the Golden Rule.

However inherent in this view is the idea of; why should I draw any line? In other words why not go for ALL the self fulling pleasues I can? After all, anyone I hurt including myself will effectively be reduced to nothingness in very little time anyway. Much like the saying, “in 100 years what difference will it make”?
If I may,
Are you suggesting that there are some sort of “self fulling pleasures” that may invlove anyone or you getting hurt in order to fulfill these so called pleasures, that you would consider if you were not a Christian? I would be interested to know just what these pleasures your thinking of would be.
I am also a atheist, I know the lives I touch now will reflect on my life now and how others perceive me, so the Golden Rule is in the best interest of all concerned. This makes me happy.
 
40.png
Hilly:
If I may,
Are you suggesting that there are some sort of “self fulling pleasures” that may invlove anyone or you getting hurt in order to fulfill these so called pleasures, that you would consider if you were not a Christian? I would be interested to know just what these pleasures your thinking of would be.
I am also a atheist, I know the lives I touch now will reflect on my life now and how others perceive me, so the Golden Rule is in the best interest of all concerned. This makes me happy.
It wasn’t until I became aware, during my journey to Faith, of the pride that was directing my every activity. I never “hurt” anyone in any obvious manner. I didn’t need a Faith in God to prevent me from hurting another person. That is if you define hurt by physical harm, or deliberate emotional hurt. Never in my life was I capable of such a thing.

My philosophy of life, though, was a philosophy of selfishness. Through this selfishness I now know I certainly did hurt others. Not so much by things I did but by things I didn’t do. I hurt others by putting myself first.

Reading C.S.Lewis’s Mere Christianity, particularily the chapters on pride and humility illustrated to me the true meaning of these words. I now know I will never be able to release my pride or be truly humble. But, I do know, now, that pride is the predecesor of all sin and humility is a wonderful virtue indeed. Faith taught be I had a mountain to climb and the true joy of this world is the efforts of the ascent.
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
That was a longer response than expected. All I have time for right now is a short answer.

Granted, in my worldview nothing matters if you look forward sufficiently far into the future. However, rather than making the ethic of reciprocity futile, it makes it more acute. Christian theology is often used (perhaps even abused) to justify the toleration of temporal tribulations for the sake of a reward in the afterlife.
.
I think reward in the afterlife may sometimes be the initial factor in someone contimplating Faith. But the joy of everlasting love becomes the force that one grows to a greater faith.
40.png
wolpertinger:
From my point of view, I want to be as happy as I can be during my lifetime, .
This is how I used to feel. That is until I witnessed myself growing older. Until I began to realize just how fleeting this life really is.
40.png
wolpertinger:
To put it this way, mistreating another human being is less excusable for me than it is for you, because in your view it’s just a temporary inconvenience pending an ultimate reward or punishment, whereas I would irrevocably harm somebody.
.
This is an assumption of yours. Since coming to a Faith in God I am now more keenly aware of the pain I may inflict on others then I ever was when God was not a part of my life. “reward” has nothing to do with it.
40.png
wolpertinger:
Further, the doom-and-gloom outlook portrayed in your two scenarios is simply foreign to me.
I didn’ t think you’d understand. It took me some time to get to that point. However I eventually did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top