Atheists in Heaven?

[wmscott]

Isn’t atheism an exercise in free will? If so, isn’t that exercise of free will denying or denouncing God and his existence and authority? So the devil is in the details

 

[wmscott]

This is to funny, look at the number of posts in my last posting and then look at what I posted.

 

[wmscott]

This is to funny, look at the number of posts in my last posting and then look at what I posted.

I am not sure what happened, and those viewing are probably wondering what in the world I am talking about. Something changed in my post number because it was 666 when I posted this.

 

[anon5216]

If God made Himself impossible to find, with zero revelation from Him, teaching and learning about him would be as fruitful as learning at the feet of a Canary.

But God doesn’t make Himself unknown. And He does reveal Himself to us. As Paul says, He makes it abundantly clear to EVERYONE such that no one has an excuse for not believing God exists.

• 2 Pet 1:16-21 "16 we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17* For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, * with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
• Rm 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

IOW, a person can choose not to see, but that doesn’t necessarily excuse him of guilt.

From the Catechism

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Ignorance

**1792 **Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

**1791 **This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

**1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

**2104 **“All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.” It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians “to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith.”

Some people look for excuses not to believe, because it’s inconvenient to their lifestyle.

Yes, I realize you are quoting CC teachings and these are things that Catholics are required to believe.

Believing that God makes Himself known by the means of what we call scripture is an assumption based on limited human understanding.
Assuming that if this ‘scripture’ is not really the Word of God, (in the manner typically believed), means God has not revealed Himself is just another very flawed human assumption.

God is not in any way limited to revealing himself via human documents.

And while some people, as you suggest, may claim they don’t believe because of their lifestyle choices, whether or not they deep down actually believe or not is entirely independent of their claims of believing or not.

Others believe or disbelieve based on a deep personal spiritual sincerity and experience - in no way connected to any willingness or unwillingness to submit to a particular set of behavioral rules.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, I realize you are quoting CC teachings and these are things that Catholics are required to believe.

There’s nothing there that goes against the natural law OR Divine revelation.
a:

Believing that God makes Himself known by the means of what we call scripture is an assumption based on limited human understanding.

Paul said

“what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made So they are without excuse”

Therefore, Paul is saying, unless one is mentally retarded, or has a learning disability, then the diety and eternal power of God is clear through what God has made, simple as that. Therefore, one is without excuse.

So trying to invent an excuse won’t work.
a:

Assuming that if this ‘scripture’ is not really the Word of God, (in the manner typically believed), means God has not revealed Himself is just another very flawed human assumption.

scripture IS the word of God. No assumptions. The Catholic Church was there.
a:

God is not in any way limited to revealing himself via human documents.

1. 
   *]Not scripture alone, that’s true. But He DOES reveal Himself there.
   *]even though scripture was written by humans, it was inspired by God.
   a:
   

   And while some people, as you suggest, may claim they don’t believe because of their lifestyle choices, whether or not they deep down actually believe or not is entirely independent of their claims of believing or not.

   Bottomline, people who don’t believe in God, find believing in God inconvenient.That’s why scripture calls such people fools.
   a:
   

   Others disbelieve based on a deep personal spiritual sincerity and experience - in no way connected to any willingness or unwillingness to submit to a particular set of behavioral rules.

   Like I said. Believing in God is inconvenient for some, and they will have no part of Him. For to do so would mean a lifwstyle change. And in the end if nothing changes with them, He will have no part of THEM.

 

[anon5216]

There’s nothing there that goes against the natural law OR Divine revelation.

Paul said

“what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made So they are without excuse”
That is what Paul believed based on his understanding of his spiritual experiences, yes.

Therefore, Paul is saying, unless one is mentally retarded, or has a learning disability, then the diety and eternal power of God is clear through what God has made, simple as that. Therefore, one is without excuse.

So trying to invent an excuse won’t work.
Paul is only conveying his understanding of his experiences. And he was only a fallible human.
Note that I am not denying his spiritual experiences, but people can certainly question his interpretation of the meaning, ramifications and significance of his experiences.

scripture IS the word of God. No assumptions. The Catholic Church was there.
It is humans who claim scripture is the word of God, humans who wrote scripture and humans who claim scripture is inspired by God.
All of which are very fallible human assumptions.
(Not to mention, I hope you don’t believe that films “inspired by true events” are factual documentaries down to the last detail. )

1. 
   *]Not scripture alone, that’s true. But He DOES reveal Himself there.
   *]even though scripture was written by humans, it was inspired by God.
   
   see above
   
   Bottomline, people who don’t believe in God, find believing in God inconvenient.That’s why scripture calls such people fools.
   As I mentioned in a previous post, many people who claim they don’t believe in God really just “don’t believe in God as defined by whoever defined God for them”.
   
   Like I said. Believing in God is inconvenient for some, and they will have no part of Him. For to do so would mean a lifwstyle change. And in the end if nothing changes with them, He will have no part of THEM.

1. 
   Again, as I said in a previous post, belief in God is not related to lifestyle choices.
   A person may look for excuses to support those choices and then claim to not believe in God as defined by religions who condemn those lifestyle choices, but that is only a public facade.
   Whether or not a person deep down actually believes in God or not has nothing whatsoever to do with their willingness or lack thereof to submit to behavioral rules laid down by the various religions.

 

[crazzeto]

Again, as I said in a previous post, belief in God is not related to lifestyle choices.
A person may look for excuses to support those choices and then claim to not believe in God as defined by religions who condemn those lifestyle choices, but that is only a public facade.
Whether or not a person deep down actually believes in God or not has nothing whatsoever to do with their willingness or lack thereof to submit to behavioral rules laid down by the various religions.

In which case, they would be in a lot of trouble if, for instance they beleive in God but publical profess that they don’t beleive in “religion” to quiet their contience over say, a career in the porn industry or some such. If one believes in God, then they definently should know better, they should adjust their lives to match Gods expectations.

 

[steve_b]

Whether or not a person deep down actually believes in God or not has nothing whatsoever to do with their willingness or lack thereof to submit to behavioral rules laid down by the various religions.

What ultimately condemns a person is their rebellion to the end, to God.

• Satan said I will not serve,
• Adam and Eve and all sin is a result of saying to God, or to the authority He appoints, I will not obey. I will not serve.

If one rebels till the end, to God or the authority He appoints, and they do it willingly, that is the unforgivable sin. No heaven for them, only hell. For all eternity

 

[anon5216]

What ultimately condemns a person is their rebellion to the end, to God.

• Satan said I will not serve,
• Adam and Eve and all sin is a result of saying to God, or to the authority He appoints, I will not obey. I will not serve.

If one rebels till the end, to God or the authority He appoints, and they do it willingly, that is the unforgivable sin. No heaven for them, only hell. For all eternity

Rebellion against ideas and definitions of God as presented by self-appointed human keepers of “Truth” is not synonymous with rebellion against God.

Similarly, lack of willingness to submit to behavioral rules laid down by one religion or another is not automatically opposing God.
Of course, a person might actually believe one of these sets of rules is truly God’s set, and then rebel with that understanding.

The bottom line on these behavioral rules is:
“Are you using them to genuinely guide and accelerate your own personal spiritual development, or are you just obsessed with an authoritarian imposition of rules on everyone?”.

 

[steve_b]

Rebellion against ideas and definitions of God as presented by self-appointed human keepers of “Truth” is not synonymous with rebellion against God.

That’s precisely why Jesus said to His apostles, those who hear you hear me. Those who won’t listen to you won’t listen to me OR the One who sent Me. Apostles are NOT self appointed. Anymore than a bishop or priest is self appointed. They are in a long line of apostolically appointed positions that have been maintained in the Catholic Church going back to Jesus through His apostles in an unbroken line.

As you can see, Jesus anticipated your argument in advance because He knows all the games people play or would play… That’s why Paul says there is no excuse. The argument is airtight. Only a fool argues with it.
a:

Similarly, lack of willingness to submit to behavioral rules laid down by one religion or another is not automatically opposing God.

God established ONE Church. ONE religion. Using your will against the Divine will, is as reckless with one’s eternal destiny as one can be.
a:

Of course, a person might actually believe one of these sets of rules is truly God’s set, and then rebel with that understanding.

and consequences occur
a:

The bottom line on these behavioral rules is:
“Are you using them to genuinely guide and accelerate your own personal spiritual development, or are you just obsessed with an authoritarian imposition of rules on everyone?”.

Try using that argument with a cop after he pulls you over for speeding. Try using that with a judge in court after you’ve broken some law and you challenge him like that. See where it gets you.

Now think of the Divine Judge. He has spoken on this subject as well. He’s not ambiguous. He’s very clear. He threw Satan out of heaven for not serving and obeying, He threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of paradise for disobeying a direct order, what do you think He will do to everyone else who does the same, and remains rebellious till the end.

 

[anon5216]

anon5216;5956374:

Rebellion against ideas and definitions of God as presented by self-appointed human keepers of “Truth” is not synonymous with rebellion against God.

That’s precisely why Jesus said to His apostles, those who hear you hear me. Those who won’t listen to you won’t listen to me OR the One who sent Me. Apostles are NOT self appointed. Anymore than a bishop or priest is self appointed. They are in a long line of apostolically appointed positions that have been maintained in the Catholic Church going back to Jesus through His apostles in an unbroken line.
It may be what early writers remembered was the oral tradition regarding what Jesus said, and it may be what the CC says that Jesus said.
But these claims are not provable fact. They rely entirely on you already believing the inerrancy of scripture.
And that is purely a matter of faith.
As you can see, Jesus anticipated your argument in advance because He knows all the games people play or would play… That’s why Paul says there is no excuse. The argument is airtight. Only a fool argues with it.
Again, you are assuming that scripture is fact. It is faith.

Similarly, lack of willingness to submit to behavioral rules laid down by one religion or another is not automatically opposing God.

God established ONE Church. ONE religion. Using your will against the Divine will, is as reckless with one’s eternal destiny as one can be.
This is based on the same assumptions again.

Of course, a person might actually believe one of these sets of rules is truly God’s set, and then rebel with that understanding.

and consequences occur
My point was that in that particular scenario, the person in question would believe they were rebelling against God and not just against some human rules.
I agree that consequences (positive or negative) occur - regardless of what you or I believe, and they are what they are regardless of what any of us think they might or should be.

The bottom line on these behavioral rules is:
“Are you using them to genuinely guide and accelerate your own personal spiritual development, or are you just obsessed with an authoritarian imposition of rules on everyone?”.

Try using that argument with a cop after he pulls you over for speeding. Try using that with a judge in court after you’ve broken some law and you challenge him like that. See where it gets you.
You are confusing my point.
I seem to remember something about the spirit vs. the letter of the law.

It is still possible to break the spirit of the law while outwardly following the letter.

Now think of the Divine Judge. He has spoken on this subject as well. He’s not ambiguous. He’s very clear. He threw Satan out of heaven for not serving and obeying, He threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of paradise for disobeying a direct order, what do you think He will do to everyone else who does the same, and remains rebellious till the end.
Yes, perhaps you should.

Are you going to stand in front of the Divine Judge and when He asks “Describe for Me the manner in which you used spiritual rules to guide and accelerate your personal spiritual development while on earth.”;
respond with "What do you mean?!? I followed every single rule to the letter. I made sure everyone I interacted with knew what those letters were. What more is there?!?

If your god is nothing more than an authoritarian military dictator spewing out “direct orders” for us humans to follow empty headed and without question, you can have that ‘god’.
But then again, I really wouldn’t wish such a ‘god’ on anyone.

 

[steve_b]

:
Originally posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

rebellion against ideas and definitions of god as presented by self-appointed human keepers of “truth” is not synonymous with rebellion against god.

that’s precisely why jesus said to his apostles, those who hear you hear me. Those who won’t listen to you won’t listen to me or the one who sent me. Apostles are not self appointed. Anymore than a bishop or priest is self appointed. They are in a long line of apostolically appointed positions that have been maintained in the catholic church going back to jesus through his apostles in an unbroken line.

as you can see, jesus anticipated your argument in advance because he knows all the games people play or would play… That’s why paul says there is no excuse. The argument is airtight. Only a fool argues with it.

similarly, lack of willingness to submit to behavioral rules laid down by one religion or another is not automatically opposing god.

god established one church. One religion. Using your will against the divine will, is as reckless with one’s eternal destiny as one can be.

and consequences occur

*try using that argument with a cop after he pulls you over for speeding. Try using that with a judge in court after you’ve broken some law and you challenge him like that. See where it gets you. *

now think of the divine judge. He has spoken on this subject as well. He’s not ambiguous. He’s very clear. He threw satan out of heaven for not serving and obeying, he threw adam and eve out of the garden of paradise for disobeying a direct order, what do you think he will do to everyone else who does the same, and remains rebellious till the end.

quote:
originally posted by anon5216 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

it may be what early writers remembered was the oral tradition regarding what jesus said, and it may be what the cc says that jesus said.
but these claims are not provable fact. They rely entirely on you already believing the inerrancy of scripture.
and that is purely a matter of faith.
again, you are assuming that scripture is fact. It is faith.

quote:
originally posted by anon5216 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

this is based on the same assumptions again.

quote:
originally posted by anon5216 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
of course, a person might actually believe one of these sets of rules is truly god’s set, and then rebel with that understanding.

my point was that in that particular scenario, the person in question would believe they were rebelling against god and not just against some human rules.
i agree that consequences (positive or negative) occur - regardless of what you or i believe, and they are what they are regardless of what any of us think they might or should be.

quote:
originally posted by anon5216 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
the bottom line on these behavioral rules is:
"are you using them to genuinely guide and accelerate your own personal spiritual development, or are you just obsessed with an authoritarian imposition of rules on everyone?".

you are confusing my point.
i seem to remember something about the spirit vs. The letter of the law.

it is still possible to break the spirit of the law while outwardly following the letter.

yes, perhaps you should.

are you going to stand in front of the divine judge and when he asks “describe for me the manner in which you used spiritual rules to guide and accelerate your personal spiritual development while on earth.”;
respond with "what do you mean?!? I followed every single rule to the letter. I made sure everyone i interacted with knew what those letters were. What more is there?!?

if your god is nothing more than an authoritarian military dictator spewing out “direct orders” for us humans to follow empty headed and without question, you can have that ‘god’.
but then again, i really wouldn’t wish such a ‘god’ on anyone.

steve:

titus 3: 10
reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

i’ve already gone way past that number with you.

 

[anon5216]

titus 3: 10
reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

i’ve already gone way past that number with you.

You definitely seem to be in the “all is black & white”, “letter of the law” camp.

If you didn’t just cherry pick a quote (in your signature) to support that perspective,
Padre Pio is a saint that could take you spiritually far beyond that very limited and suffocating mind set.
And he could do it entirely within the parameters of the CC religion.