Atheists At Catholic Forums

[Gilbert_Keith]

Well said, Tenorman. And welcome aboard!!!

 

[Savonarola]

Gilbert Keith:

Savonarola

You can always find people who are warped by their false idea of religion. The examples you give are typical. But these people really are the exceptions to the rule. You have suggested them as the rule. Most Catholics I know do not live in dread fear of hell that is so morbid it make them disfunctional. Rather, they live with a healthy fear of displeasing God because they love God … just as it would be healthy for any man to fear displeasing his wife because he loves her.

Yes, fear is an essential part of religion … and lack of fear is an essential part of the notion that one can sin and commit crimes with impunity and never get caught.

Not a smart move, as some dudes in jail will sometimes admit.

I agree that most have not taken fear to the extent of Steven87 but I show that example because the effects of the fear can so clearly be seen at that level. I don’t think he is warped by his false ideas of religion. What he is saying he is afraid of is exactly what Catholicism teaches. You boldly stated that I could not give an example of a good catholic who denied thier happiness so I gave you one that was obvious to avoid any confusion.

Fear affects everyone in basically the same way. The more you buy into it the stonger its consequences in your life. If you buy into it at a lower level it still has it’s negative effects. If you are fearful you can never truly be free.

I agree that fear is an integral part of religion and it is this fear that causes people to be afraid of living. I think most people would recognize that a fear of life does not bring happiness, it blocks it.

By the way, fear has proven to be a horrible deterent for criminal activity. The American justice system is based on making potential criminals fearful of commiting crimes but honestly seems to be having little effect. They literally cannot build the jails fast enough to keep up.

Just as fear gets in the way of living I have found that it gets in the way of loving even more. If you haven’t realized this for yourself all I can say is when you find the courage to drop the fear you will be amazed at how beautiful and simple love actually is and how much the fear was getting in the way of it all along. It is hard to allow yourself to get close to someone you are afraid of.

If you believe that there is a healthy fear of displeasing God then you must not truly believe that he is an all-loving God. A God who loved you unconditionally would never hurt you and would never stop loving you no matter what you did. This is the God I know.

If you believe that God is truly loving then I would ask you what you are afraid of. If you believe he is not truly loving and that he is willing to hurt you then I would say that you are a Chirstian who believes what he has been taught.

 

[Savonarola]

Tenorman, I think our beliefs differ quite a bit.

CTenorman:

I know that while I will temporarily be denying myself pleasure by not having sex, I am increasing my happiness, in the traditional sense of the word.

I don’t see how. Does this mean that by starving myself and living in squalor I am also increasing my happiness, in the traditional sense? You can see my confusion with the statement. Also, for those who are homosexual, single, or unwilling to have more children this is not a temporary denial.

CTenorman:

If your heart and head desire different things, only listening to your head will give you happiness because the desires of your heart are distorted, and your head can still reason. So, down the road, you will receive true, lasting happiness by following your head, and denying that which our distorted appetites desire.

Thoughts in your head can be even more distorted. If you spend your entire life living under the teachings of the Catholic church you are going to believe what you are taught. When it comes time to enjoy yourself, your thoughts, which represent those teachings, are going to tell you it is wrong. How does this lead to happiness again? Also, just to be clear on this, happiness results from the fulfillment of emotional appetites. That is why they call it fulfillment. I don’t think repressing these is necessarily the answer.

CTenorman:

I may be mistaken on this, but Catholics do not deny happiness or acts that lead to it

You are mistaken on this.

CTenorman:

…nuns, priests, and other people who live religious lives save all their drive and energy for God’s work, and by denying themselves for his sake (for his works), they become happy.

Yes, the thought that they are doing “God’s work”, as you put it, may make them happy and that is great. Again, do whatever makes you happy.

But as far as the energy part goes, this is a theory that has never panned out. They end up repressing their inner desires until the pressure for release becomes too great and the desires come out in all kinds of distorted ways such as forcing young boys to have sex with them. I wouldn’t say those priests were happy then or are happy now. Why not just allow the desires that God gave us to be expressed naturally?

Those who have the most energy are not those who are in the habit of repressing their energies but those who are in the habit of expressing them.

CTenorman:

if you’re a Christian, then you have to realize that you aren’t unlovable, because God infinitely loves you.

The church says God infinitely loves you and then contradicts this statement to the extreme leaving you with the exact opposite impression.

The church says that this God that infinitely loves me is willing to send me to a torturous Hell for not being sorry enough for doing something “wrong”. If God is so infinitely and unconditionally loving then why are there so many limitations and conditions on his love? And I thought only Satan was evil enough to inflict another being with a torturous experience as horrifically painful as Hell. The way the church describes him, God is just as evil as Satan.

Also, who ever said there was anything imperfect about us that needed “fixing” in thre first place? God sees us as perfect because he created us that way. Do you think that God is so incompetent that he made mistakes when he created us?

CTenorman:

He forgives, without reservation, every sin we do, so long as we are sorry for it, and ask his forgiveness.

There are people in my life that I love more than this. I would never even think of demanding anything from the people I love for something they did. I could never withhold my love for them. It just wouldn’t be possible. Surely God has at least this capacity for love.

It is pretty common knowledge in psychology that forgiveness benefits the forgiver, not the one forgiven, since forgiveness is really just the letting go of anger toward the one being forgiven. Surely God is aware of this dynamic. Why would he demand that we ask for forgiveness? And why would he harbor anger towards us knowing it would only harm him? God could not possibly be this insecure or ignorant. And again, this would be another one of those limitations on his “infinite” love.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

SAVONAROLA

What is your religion … if any?

At any rate, it’s pretty clear from your last two posts why you are at Catholic Answers. You are not hear to learn, but to instruct and correct Catholics in their misguided way. You preach and have a missionary zeal at least equal to that of many Christians I know … only you are barking up the wrong tree.

Christ does not inspire fear, but rather love. Our whole religion is not based on fear but on the special commandment to love and to discover the joy that love brings us. Anyone who thinks differently, who is obsessed by fear, is not behaving like a true Catholic, but has been duped into something not Catholic at all. As John Paul II so often put it … the motto of his papacy … BE NOT AFRAID. Read his book THRESHOLD OF HOPE and you will be enlightened about the true Catholic faith, not some comic book version of it that you are trying to sell us.

 

[Drew98]

CTenorman:

It’s a very good question why God has not blazoned his presence in the sky in giant letters, or proclaimed his existence in some irrefutable manner. However, there is also a very good answer for this question: he can’t.

Doesn’t the Bible demonstrate that he can and does communicate directly and unambiguously with select human beings? The ones that come to mind are Adam and Eve and Moses. There doesn’t seem to be any effort on God’s part to try to plant a seed of doubt that it’s really Him that’s talking to them. Abraham was so certain it was God talking to him that he was willing to kill his own son.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

DREW

I don’t mean to interrupt Tenorman’s line of thought, but I think he was referring to the way God relates to the average person. He relates to us both directly and indirectly by the graces and revelations we receive from Him.

We don’t have the message emblazoned across the sky. We no longer need it. As Jesus cautioned when he showed himself resurrected to Thomas, blessed rather are those who believe, but have not seen (the mighty miracle of the Lord).

 

[CTenorman]

Hi Savonarola,

Thank you for your well-reasoned response, this is just the sort of dialogue I was hoping for.

I don’t see how. Does this mean that by starving myself and living in squalor I am also increasing my happiness, in the traditional sense? You can see my confusion with the statement. Also, for those who are homosexual, single, or unwilling to have more children this is not a temporary denial.

You’re quite right here, and living in squalor simply for the sake of it is not a good thing. However, what can you do when you live in conditions that are significantly below that which society accepts as normal? You can devote your money to other things, to people that require the money far more than we do. If money is merely a form of power, then using our power to help others is very good. And while all this is happening, you are not focussing on the money itself, or the things you can acquire, but what you can do for God. This in itself is what brings pleasure. This will segway nicely into the next part I’d like to address, from the bottom of your message.

It is pretty common knowledge in psychology that forgiveness benefits the forgiver, not the one forgiven, since forgiveness is really just the letting go of anger toward the one being forgiven. Surely God is aware of this dynamic. Why would he demand that we ask for forgiveness? And why would he harbor anger towards us knowing it would only harm him? God could not possibly be this insecure or ignorant. And again, this would be another one of those limitations on his “infinite” love.

First, I would say that there is no common knowledge in psychology. There are many different schools of thought, and many find differing evidence on many issues. Such contrary evidence can be found in a simply example from my youth. When I was a young child, I accidentally ran my bike into Granddad’s car, which he cared about very much and spent many hours maintaining. I ran sobbing over to him and told him I was sorry, and being the incredibly generous man that he was, he forgave me without a second thought. He held no anger against me, and I was the one who was desperate for his forgiveness, not the other way around. Forgiveness is not simply letting go of the anger - anger should not play into it unless the offended did not respond properly. Forgiveness is about the joy of receiving another person’s love in spite of our mistakes.

Also, God is never angry with us in the sense that you are thinking. He is disappointed that we did not do what was best for ourselves. He doesn’t hold a grudge, or resentment, or anything like that. He is angry for our own sake, as we ought to be as well, that we didn’t do what was best. If your child steals from a store, you are not angry with him because he caused you inconvenience, or because he did something against your wishes. You are angry with him because he chose the wrong path, because he is ultimately turning himself into something less than he could be, and is ultimately not going to be brought to the greatest happiness. It is not by mistake that God uses the symbology of Father, Son, and referring to us as children. That is the relationship that we are in with him, and to clarify something, we should always think of a story of a child and his/her father/mother (God the father and the is outside of sex, so using He to refer to him is simply a linguistic convention).

There are people in my life that I love more than this. I would never even think of demanding anything from the people I love for something they did. I could never withhold my love for them. It just wouldn’t be possible. Surely God has at least this capacity for love.

God never withholds anything from us. However, he gave us free will, and so we can choose not to accept his love. He is constantly giving all the love he has to us, regardless of whether we ask for it or not. However, we can’t receive it unless we wish to - that is the nature of free will. God does not demand our forgiveness because he requires something from us, or he holds a grudge. He requires our forgiveness because we can only accept his love when we ask for it ourselves. And if we’ve done something wrong, he doesn’t stop sending love, but we create our own barrier preventing us from receiving that love. And the only way to receive love again is by admitting we’ve put up our own barrier so we can tear it down. If we don’t acknowledge that barrier exists, we can’t ever remove it, and receive the love he never stops giving.

 

[CTenorman]

Sorry for the delay in posting part 2, my internet connection went down. Here it is:

But as far as the energy part goes, this is a theory that has never panned out. They end up repressing their inner desires until the pressure for release becomes too great and the desires come out in all kinds of distorted ways such as forcing young boys to have sex with them. I wouldn’t say those priests were happy then or are happy now. Why not just allow the desires that God gave us to be expressed naturally?

In this case we ought to look at the results of scientific investigation and not the constructions of the media regarding celibacy. Priests are no more likely to abuse boys than any other group. The evidence is not widely known, but you can find the results in a book titled “Pedophiles and Priests” by Jenkins. In fact, married men are every bit as likely to sexually abuse children as celibate priests. And the best way to confirm this is by testing it out yourself. If you’re not married, simply stop masturbating for a while. The first few weeks will be torture, and the next couple of months will be uncomfortable, but then you’ll not hardly notice it, except that you always seem more charged and energetic. And besides, you won’t have to bear it for too long, nature has a way of taking care of itself.

Thoughts in your head can be even more distorted. If you spend your entire life living under the teachings of the Catholic church you are going to believe what you are taught. When it comes time to enjoy yourself, your thoughts, which represent those teachings, are going to tell you it is wrong. How does this lead to happiness again? Also, just to be clear on this, happiness results from the fulfillment of emotional appetites. That is why they call it fulfillment. I don’t think repressing these is necessarily the answer.

First, you need to evaluate the claims of the church to see if they square with what your rational mind tells you is true. You ought not to believe what you are taught if it is false. There are any number of ways of evaluating the truth of a statement, but Socratic logic can do much to clear up almost any difficulty, if it’s properly applied. But, looking through history you find much to corroborate the Catholic position. Most of the great religions involve personal sacrifice of some sort in order to lead to greater happiness.

You also seem to be setting up a false situation here, by saying that when you wish to enjoy yourself, you have to go against church teaching. What sort of enjoyment are you referring to here, and what teachings of the church are you violating? If you mean the quick physical pleasures of daily life, they quickly fade, and do not produce lasting happiness. In fact, even if you are referring to the good feeling that many get when acquiring goods or possessions they desire, they are only sated for a short time, and then even greater number of these goods are required. Psychologists are now discovering that the hedonistic paradox is very real, and the only way to achieve lasting pleasure is by focussing on something other than the pursuit of happiness itself. In a book titled “Happiness: the Science Behind your Smile”, you’ll find that all the recent research supports the position that happiness is only found when one is not looking for it. But the Christian mystics have far greater insight into this than the psychologists, as they deal purely in the realm of science. C.S. Lewis says it best I think: “The moment good taste knows itself, some of its goodness is lost.” The only way to achieve happiness is not by giving into the pleasures we might suspect, but by not looking for it. This naturally leads to the question: if life is all about the pursuit of happiness, and we’ll never achieve it by looking for it, what can we do? The answer was given about 2000 years ago: That you must give up your life in order to save it. Giving yourself to God, pursuing the pleasures that he adores (because he knows we adore them even if we have forgotten), we can find true happiness. That Christianity got it right thousands of years before scientific studies could have confirmed what no naturalist/materialist would have suspected is another little hint about God’s existence. Not conclusive, but it’s something to bear in mind all the same.

Finally, you also say that happiness is the fulfilment of emotional appetites. The difficulty here is deciding which emotional appetite to choose from. We have a thousand different emotions pulling us in a thousand different directions. Before a music performance (I used to sing in a university jazz choir, where I was the only tenor), I would often get quite anxious, and many of my emotions were screaming at me to get off that stage and run for the sidelines. However, I didn’t follow those voices, because I knew they weren’t justified, and they ought not to be listened to. And after the performance had ended, I felt wonderful, and was much more fulfilled than if I had followed what my emotions had told me.

Continued

 

[CTenorman]

As your emotions tell you to do many different things, and the loudest one can’t be relied upon to tell you which will bring you happiness (just as in my singing example above), the fulfilment of any old emotion will obviously not make you happy. They have to be the right emotions sated at the right time in the right way, and you need a framework outside the emotions to do that.

This is quite enjoyable Savonarola, I hope we can keep this up, as I rarely get to speak with non-Christians about these issues in such depth. Take care,

Scott

 

[Drew98]

Gilbert Keith:

I don’t mean to interrupt Tenorman’s line of thought, but I think he was referring to the way God relates to the average person.

Well I reread his post and I don’t see any hint of a distinction between “average” people and “non-average” people. He seems to be referring to all human beings. I guess we’ll just have to wait for a response from him…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Re: the thread:

Recently I was reading in a guide to the Catechism that God searches for us until we find him.

One of the reasons so many atheists will come to Catholic forums such as this is that they have been chased by God right up our tree. It is another way God finds to reveal himself to those who are so persistent in denying Him. Such atheists, when asked why they are here, will often say they are here to learn. Why not? There are always three aspects to faith: knowing the faith, living the faith, and spreading the faith. But you have to start first by knowing the faith … and to know the faith one must approach it with an open mind … not with the single intent to rebut or debunk what others believe.

And it takes a long time to know the faith. It takes just as long a time, till our dying day, to live the faith. But I have known and heard of atheists who, having made at last the leap of faith, have become some of the greatest champions and spreaders of the Catholic faith.

Saint Augustine, John Henry Newman, and G.K. Chesterton, to name just three.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I meant to say “converts”, not atheists. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Atreyu]

At any rate, it’s pretty clear from your last two posts why you are at Catholic Answers. You are not hear to learn, but to instruct and correct Catholics in their misguided way. You preach and have a missionary zeal at least equal to that of many Christians I know … only you are barking up the wrong tree.

Gilbert let’s not accuse anyone of anything here, it doesn’t really matter if he is trying to correct our misguided ways (and I’m not saying that he is) because as you said, if he is then he is barking up the wrong tree. So it really shouldn’t matter to us why he’s here, especially as there is no way we can know why. Gilbert I just want to make sure that we treat Savonarola with the charity that anybody deserves.

Personally I am fascinated by this discussion between Tenorman and Savonarola. I don’t think I can really contribute too much to the discussion, but I would like to add that in my opinion, being fearful of God is not really the best reason to get involved with religion. I think it is looking at religion (in particular, Catholicism) from the wrong way around. Catholics are supposed to have hope, not fear! I can well understand that anybody whose life is ruled by fear, would not be very happy at all! But I sincerely don’t think that this is what the Catholic Church is about.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Atreyu

*Gilbert I just want to make sure that we treat Savonarola with the charity that anybody deserves.
*
Savonarola has been blunt with us. I have been blunt with Savonarola. You have been blunt with me.

I’d say that’s charity for all of us. Thank you.

 

[ncrown23334]

i’m an atheist, been one pretty much forever, i don’t disrespect religion, i just choose my own path, and i believe that if there is a god, and he is as loving, merciful, and understanding as churchs, portray him, then he will understand why i find it difficult to believe, i enjoy posting comments in the forums mainly because i always like to see whether my opinions are the same or different, i always feel the need to understand every opinion, i ask only that people respect my personal decisions in faith, and that i will respect theirs…

 

[Atreyu]

Gilbert in my experience of trying to post at Protestant boards, I have been accused of “having an agenda” and of leading a discussion on one thing into a Catholic doctrine. It annoys me so much when people put words into my mouth, and see intentions when there are none, and then accuse me of having these intentions. I only ask that we do not do the same thing here, as I don’t think it is very charitable. Bluntess can be good, but don’t accuse Savoranola of something you think he might do, please. Do you understand what I’m trying to say?

Welcome to the board, ncrown. I hope you enjoy your time here. I suggest - if you haven’t done it already - that you read all the way through this thread, as there have been some really interesting discussions, in my opinion. Have fun!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ncrown

Your sentiment is appreciated. But there is a culture war in this country because it is difficult for each side to respect the values of the other side. We co-exist … but we don’t really have to hold our opinions to ourselves. Indeed, I know few atheists who do. When you read the writings of the most famous atheists (such as Bertrand Russell, George Santayana, Clarence Darrow, H.L. Mencken, etc.) you know they never keep contempt for religion to themselves. They broadcast it as far and wide as possible.

By the same token, Jesus tells his followers to preach the Gospel as far and wide as possible. At the heart of that Gospel is the message that those who reject him at the end cannot be saved. We have no choice but to accept his caution and pass it on to those who reject him. That in itself is a form of respecting others, because it is meant to help those who reject Christ to accept him before it is too late. Jesus wants us all to behave better than the apostle Thomas. “Blessed rather are those who have not seen, yet believe.”

To say that God will forgive those who reject him honestly is not convincing … because from the start rejection of God is to play into Satan’s hand … and Satan is, as Jesus said, the Father of Lies.

I do not judge atheists in this forum … or any other. That will be done by Jesus who knows that all of us lie, not only to each other, but also to ourselves when we say that we cannot help being what we are … so why should we be judged?

Scripture and the Church teach that rejecting God is a sin. Atheists do not get a free pass just because they claim to be sincere in their repudiation of their Creator.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” (Psalms 14:1)

He has fooled only himself.

 

[Savonarola]

Scott (CTenorman), I also value the sincerity and thoughfulness you bring to this discussion. I am enjoying it as well. These posts are getting a bit long so, like yours, this will span a few entries.

CTenorman:

Finally, you also say that happiness is the fulfilment of emotional appetites. The difficulty here is deciding which emotional appetite to choose from. We have a thousand different emotions pulling us in a thousand different directions. Before a music performance (I used to sing in a university jazz choir, where I was the only tenor), I would often get quite anxious, and many of my emotions were screaming at me to get off that stage and run for the sidelines. However, I didn’t follow those voices, because I knew they weren’t justified, and they ought not to be listened to. And after the performance had ended, I felt wonderful, and was much more fulfilled than if I had followed what my emotions had told me.

I agree with your what you are saying. However, what you describe in your example is a fear not a true desire. We have many emotions as you said. It is very worthwhile to be able to recognize the difference between a desire and a fear. In this case you had a true desire to perform accompanied by a fear of performing. You acted out of wisdom in choosing to ignore the fear and fulfill the desire.

CTenorman:

As your emotions tell you to do many different things, and the loudest one can’t be relied upon to tell you which will bring you happiness (just as in my singing example above), the fulfilment of any old emotion will obviously not make you happy. They have to be the right emotions sated at the right time in the right way, and you need a framework outside the emotions to do that.

You see how much we are in agreement? Again, knowing your emotions becomes very important. Acting out of fear never works well and fear is a very strong emotion as we all know. It often screams very loudly but sometimes is very subtle. Giving in to the fear can release the anxiety and make you temprorarily “happier” but, of course, it is just temporarily sidestepping the unhappiness of the fear. It can take a lot of self honesty to admit that something you “want” is actually something you are afraid of not having. Or that something you “don’t want” is really something you are afraid of. It makes all the difference.

That said, beyond the fears we do actually have real, honest desires that when fulfilled add to our happiness such as your true desire to perform. If we allow these to be fulfilled then we will be open to God’s love for us in whatever form it may take (loved ones, money, affection, healing, pleasure, artistic expression, warm feelings, etc.) instead of fearful and shunning.

CTenorman:

You’re quite right here, and living in squalor simply for the sake of it is not a good thing. However, what can you do when you live in conditions that are significantly below that which society accepts as normal? You can devote your money to other things, to people that require the money far more than we do. If money is merely a form of power, then using our power to help others is very good. And while all this is happening, you are not focussing on the money itself, or the things you can acquire, but what you can do for God. This in itself is what brings pleasure.

I agree with your first sentence. The rest of the paragraph doesn’t quite seem to go with it.

What is it you can do for God that he is unable to do for himself? And if you feel there is something, why do you have to deny yourself of anything to provide this? Beyond feeling that you will be in God’s favor more by doing stuff for him, how does this make somebody happy?

Denying yourself does not make God happy. Why would it? If it is something you want, what good does it do for God or yourself to deny yourself of it? Does a child starving him or herself make a loving parent happy? Why not allow the inner joy and abundance that is God’s energy inside of you to be expressed in every part of your life?

I agree that doing for others can be good but doing for yourself is essential. I know this is generally taught the other way around in the church but it just doesn’t work that way. As you say in a later part of your post, God is always sending his love, “we can’t receive it unless we wish to - that is the nature of free will.” Like a loving parent, he is trying to give us everything that makes us happy. We can reason that we don’t deserve it or that someone else deserves it more but if everyone uses that strategy nobody will be allowing themselves anything.
(cont.)

 

[Savonarola]

I know there is the saying that “money doesn’t buy you happiness” but what that is really talking about is that if there is something else making you unhappy, money is usually not going to solve that problem for you. However, money does otherwise enrich happiness by giving you the power to fulfill your true desires.

CTenorman:

What sort of enjoyment are you referring to here, and what teachings of the church are you violating? If you mean the quick physical pleasures of daily life, they quickly fade, and do not produce lasting happiness.

There are other things but let’s just say physical pleasures for now to keep it simple. The main question I have is this: why have a teaching that goes against something just because it does not produce “lasting” happiness? Does that mean we should outlaw cheesecake, chocolate, sports, kissing, joke telling, art, music, forum discussions and every other form of “non-lasting” pleasure? How happy would your life be then? You are constantly immersed in the simple pleasures of life that God provides yet you are so willing to throw them away.

CTenorman:

In this case we ought to look at the results of scientific investigation and not the constructions of the media regarding celibacy. Priests are no more likely to abuse boys than any other group.

Catholic priests are not the only sexually repressed people in the world. Sexual repression is quite rampant. I have no doubt that similar behavior shows up in other groups. Speaking of scientific investigation, there are many studies on the effects of sexual repression that back up what I am saying. Some of these findings are quite dramatic and even a bit scary. I can post some examples of the findings of these if you like.

CTenorman:

The first few weeks will be torture, and the next couple of months will be uncomfortable, but then you’ll not hardly notice it, except that you always seem more charged and energetic. And besides, you won’t have to bear it for too long, nature has a way of taking care of itself.

Keep in mind that I am talking about longer term effects than just a few weeks or months. And again, why not just allow for the natural expression of these desires? There would be much more pleasure, no torture, and you wouldn’t be a need to bear anything. Translated, that means more happiness. Nature does indeed have a way of taking care of itself and these desires are part of nature. If not expressed naturally they do not just go away. They have their ways of finding expression.

By the way, studies have also been done on the effects of masturbation and sex on sports performance since there is that idea out there that says you will be more energetic if you abstain. The studies show that abstainance provides no improvement in energy levels whatsoever.

CTenorman:

First, I would say that there is no common knowledge in psychology. There are many different schools of thought, and many find differing evidence on many issues.

That is a very general statement to make and it just plain isn’t true. In fact, I believe you used an example in your post taken from what has been learned in the field of psychology (“Psychologists are now discovering…”).

The definition of forgiveness is common knowledge, not only in psychology but in Webster’s dictionary. The bottom line is that forgiveness is the releasing of anger towards the forgiven. You don’t need Webster to tell you this if you are willing to investigate your own feelings and question what it is you feel when you are in a state of non-forgiveness toward someone. But since we are conversing with words, here are the definitions I found on-line:

for·give (dictionary.com)
To renounce anger or resentment against.

for·give (Webster.com)
1 : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)

re·sent·ment (Webster.com)
a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury

in·dig·na·tion (Webster.com)
anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean

anger (Webster.com)
a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism

(cont.)

 

[Savonarola]

CTenorman:

When I was a young child, I accidentally ran my bike into Granddad’s car, which he cared about very much and spent many hours maintaining. I ran sobbing over to him and told him I was sorry, and being the incredibly generous man that he was, he forgave me without a second thought. He held no anger against me, and I was the one who was desperate for his forgiveness, not the other way around. Forgiveness is not simply letting go of the anger - anger should not play into it unless the offended did not respond properly. Forgiveness is about the joy of receiving another person’s love in spite of our mistakes.

This is an excellent example. You say he forgave you but more likely he never was upset with you in the first place and never stopped loving you. You were just afraid that he did. You just didn’t realize that he did not require you asking for forgiveness. It was simply up to you to realize this.

If begging for forgiveness is what it takes for you to realize that he still loves you and is not angry then go ahead and obtain your reassurance. You wouldn’t have to go through this every time if you just realized that he truly loves you and would never get angry with you for something you did. Receiving love is always joyful. You just assumed you needed to get his forgiveness before being able to receive it.

It is this same belief that keeps us from experiencing God’s love. We think he will be uspet with us if we are bad. Like your grandfather, God’s capacity for love is such that he could never withhold it from you and would never be angry with you. There is never a need to ask for his forgiveness. He just loves you no matter what you do, period.

Again, like your grandfather, God is not going to send you to a torturous Hell for doing something wrong. The only way he possibly could is if God has a much, much, much lower capcity for love than your grandfather. I believe, on the other hand, that God has a much higher capacity for love and understanding than we can even imagine.

Here is the deal, though. If you believe God will torture you for your “sins” then you will feel a need to apease him and beg for his forgiveness before allowing yourself to experience his love again. This is what happened to you when you were a child with your grandfather. It is up to you as an individual to acknowledge that you don’t need to do this. God simply loves you, does not judge, and requires nothing.

CTenorman:

Also, God is never angry with us in the sense that you are thinking. He is disappointed that we did not do what was best for ourselves. He doesn’t hold a grudge, or resentment, or anything like that. He is angry for our own sake, as we ought to be as well, that we didn’t do what was best.

Again I refer back to the definition of forgiveness and anger. If he hasn’t forgiven us it is because of anger. The subtle distinction you are making here is not made by the church teachings as far as I know. And honestly, when the end result is burning in Hell or Purgatory either way I’m not sure it makes much difference. Either he is so angry he wants you to suffer or he is so ignorant that he thinks making you suffer will benefit you.

Following this logic we should all beat and torture our children to help them learn. Why not just point out what would work better for them and allow them to enjoy the learning process? It is well proven that children learn best through enjoyment and reward and worst through punishment. Think of which classes you learned the most in during school.

You say we should be angry with ourselves if we didn’t do what what best for us. I strongly disagree with this statement. I have found that what is best for myself and others around me is to be loving, not to inflict anger.
(cont.)