atheists : this is the best way to determine if god exists or not , a new way , see if it is right for yourselves dear friends ...

[John_Russell_Jr]

2511 “ The sacramental seal is inviolable “. Professional secrets must be
kept. Confidences prejudicial to another are not to be divulged.
2512 Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, and
justice. One should practice moderation and discipline in the use of
the social communications media.
2513 The fine arts, but above all sacred art, “ of their nature are directed
toward expressing in some way the infinite beauty of God in works
made by human hands. Their dedication to the increase of Gods
praise and of his glory is more complete, the more exclusively they
are devoted to turning mens minds devoutly toward God”.

1. You shall not covet your neighbours wife.

2528 “ Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed
adultery with her in his heart “ ( Mt 5:28 ).
2529 The ninth commandment warns against lust or carnal concupiscence.
2530 The struggle against carnal lust involves purifying the heart and
practicing temperance.
2531 Purity of heart will enable us to see God: it enables us even now to
see things according to God.
2532 Purification of the heart demands prayer, the practice of chastity,
purity of intention and of vision.
2533 Purity of heart requires the modesty which is patience, decency, and
discretion. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person.

1. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour.

2551 “ Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also “ ( Mt 6:21 ).
2552 The tenth commandment forbids avarice arising from a passion for
riches and their attendant power.
2553 Envy is sadness at the sight of an others goods and the immoderate
desire to have them for oneself. It is a capital sin.
2554 The baptised person combats envy through good will, humility, and
abandonment to the providence of God.
2555 Christ’s faithful “ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”
( Gal 5:24 ); they are led by the Spirit and follow his desires.
2556 Detachment from riches is necessary for entering the Kingdom of
heaven. “ Blessed are the poor in spirit.”
2557 “ I want to see God “ expresses the true desire of man. Thirst for God
is quenched by the water of eternal life ( cf Jn 4:14 ).

There can be no law without a punishment for breaking it. So on the final page we shall look
at the consequences of transgressing the laws of God and precepts of the Church.

continued –

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

The following is from the catechism of the Catholic Church.

IV. Hell

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot
love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbour or against ourselves: “ He
who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you
know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Our Lord warns us that we shall be
separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who
are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love
means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive
self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “ hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “ Gehenna,” of “ the unquenchable fire “ reserved for those
who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both body and soul
can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “ will send his angels, and they will gather…
All evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the
condemnation : “ Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire! “

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately
after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they
suffer the punishments of hell,”eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation
from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created
and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmation of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of
hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view
of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “ Enter by the
narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those
who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those
who find it are few.”
Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord
and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed,
we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the
blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the
eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “ men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God ( a mortal
sin ) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily
prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “ any to
perish, but all to come to repentance “:
Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

To finish I would just like to say, for many it is hard to fathom that such a place as hell exists
but it is a reality and I will quote from a skeptic.

“ I know there aint no heaven , but I pray there aint no hell.”

… may god bless and love you all dear friends ,

… john …

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Geez Bohm…little incomplete there aren’t you?
The reality is a whole lotta wavering back and forth in a pretty short period of time.
When I came to this sight I don’t think you weren’t identifying as anything at all, then you started identifying as atheist, then back to no identification, THEN you were Catholic (for a LOT less than “slightly over a year”), then you were “atheist, former DEVOUT” Catholic", then back to atheist again, and in a recent post while still identifying as atheist, you said you were thinking of returning to the Catholic Church just to kind of be there while still be atheist.
Taken as a whole, the gist of it is that you don’t want to be Christian but can’t succeed at being atheist…something which I suspect is true of all atheists, and most aptly demonstrated by those who claim atheism but can’t stay away from Christians.
You may want to take of more objective look at your own behavior Bohm:thumbsup:

Even Jesus stumbled three times. My previous wavering was indicative of me struggling to discern the Truth. If anything, had I not struggled, you would be the first to exclaim that I didn’t give God a chance. The fact remains that I am now an atheist after the findings of my discovery. Indeed, actions speak louder than words: I’ve missed Mass for over a month (which I used to attend every week); I’ve stopped praying for over a month (which I used to do every day) and every other ‘‘Catholic’’ activity I participated in has now come to a halt. Doesn’t sound too much like “can’t stay away from Christians”, does it?

Besides, what exactly is your religion? The field is blank.

 

[Touchstone]

… my dearest friends ,

{snip}

… i’m sure you see what i’m saying , you need to experience god to truly know god , god is divine love and to know god you must know divine love , the example uses human love but divine love transcends human love , human love gives us a glimpse of divine love , gods loving fatherly providene and help in our life through thick and thin is his proof of his love for us , and god is that love he has for us , god is love , but more so divine love …

… and no matter if it be roses or thorns we see or experience in life gods divine love is always there , god is not responsible for the thorns but he carries us if there are too many to cope with , the marriage is symbolic of spiritual or mystical marriage which all in grace achieve partially , and when all the rough edges are knocked off us we achieve it fully – saints …

… it doesn’t explain all but tries to put the emphasis on learnng about , believing in and loving and trusting god through experience of god , experience divine love and you experience god , words are cheap and hollow , actions speak volumes and in the end they are all that counts , try to discover god this way through experience and i believe this is the correct way god wants man to get to know him and believe in him and trust and love him , this is how god wants to have a relationship with each man , trying to understand and know and believe in god through intellectual knowledge is rather flimsy , develop a relartionship with god like this and through personal experience you come to know him , try it dear friends …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

Hi John,

Can I point out that your peculiar orthography is a serious distraction that diminishes both the interest in, and effectiveness of your ideas? The gratuitous ellipsis and chains of commas, may I suggest you take your reader a little more seriously than to indulge in that stuff. Clearly, when I try to wade through the grammatical noise you put in the channel, you do have something you want to say an be heard on. Why not focus on that, and leave all the other business behind you?

Just a thought.

On your method, I say to you it’s self-defeating. To take your approach is to evade the question entirely, and to become credulous at the outset, forfeiting the most important tools you have available to you in trying to apprehend the world around you and discern what is real from what is not.

For a time, I lived in Utah, in the heart of Mormondom, even more than Salt Lake City, a Mormon town for sure, but one big enough to host significant secular and non-Mormon religious communities. I lived in the Provo/Orem area. And when you work in such a town, and literally every single local you know there is a Mormon, you will get lots of invitations like yours above. It’s typically framed in the context of asking the Angel Moroni for a witness, but beyond that to just “try believing and see how God’s love shows itself to you”.

The very problem we are looking at initially is whether we have a reasonable basis to even think God exists in the first place. Your recommendation completely corrupts that, suggesting I assume its true, and see if I can contextualize everything that happens in my life in light of that.

Well, of course I can. That is facile, and tells me nothing. That’s what Christianity (and other forms of religion are designed (er, socially evolved) to do: provide an anodyne metanarrative that is at once gratifying, simplifying and utterly unfalsifiable.

There is nothing, nothing at all that one cannot explain as the events governed by a sovereign, yet invisible, undetectable, impassible god. Even abject evil and wide-scale atrocities are no problem to resolve under the model you recommend (see for example, the need for evil in a “best world” with a God, so that “good” can stand in contrast to it, or the rationale for the genocide of the Midianites in the OT, etc.). The little 5 year old did NOT get a miraculous curing of her brain tumor and died a horrible, agonizing death? God knows best, and loves her dearly, and she’s with Him now, God be praised.

All of which to say, this is not right for myself, or anyone who takes the question of God’s existence seriously. Your recommendation is to “pretend God exists, and adopt a psychology in which any and all evidence and experiences just confirm what I am pretending”.

It’s a wonderful thing that a man can “assume” for the sake of argument and investigation. One of the hallmarks of our advanced cognitive development is our ability to think hypothetical and consider counterfactuals. But your plan here completely defeats the benefit of that capability, but by coupling the provisional assumption with a paradigm that will universally and inevitably just confirm the premise. It’s a tautology, a premise and a paradigm that serves only to restate the premise.

I used to ask my Mormon friends what would disconfirm my experiment they wanted me to take up. Well, nothing, as it turns out. If I didn’t feel anything, I wasn’t trying earnestly to begin with, so try harder. If bad things happened, that was all part of the plan of a loving God, and God Knows Best™. If good things happened, that was just the sure sign you need to know that God loves you and has a plan for your life. If injustice gets left undone… well, you’re well aware of this whole regime, just the same thing coming from a Catholic perspective.

That is not a serious way to consider the original question. It does not respect the question as an epistemic challenge. And it can only work to confirm itself, inviting the subject to embrace a plan that leads to self-confirmation of your premise, no matter what, world without end, amen.

-TS

 

[Spirithound]

“1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” - Vatican I, Canons, 2. 1.

The RCC confidently asserts that God’s existence can be known with certainty by human reason alone. But, where are the arguments vatican 1 refers to?

The scientific law of conservation of mass and energy. There is no physical process by which matter or energy are either created or annihilated.
Logical conclusion: They were created by a process on the supernatural order.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The scientific law of conservation of mass and energy. There is no physical process by which matter or energy are either created or annihilated.
Logical conclusion: They were created by a process on the supernatural order.

No, that’s not a “logical conclusion”. Quite to the contrary, it is a form of argumentative fallacy called “special pleading” - whereby you make a logical exception from its premise.

 

[Spirithound]

No, that’s not a “logical conclusion”. Quite to the contrary, it is a form of argumentative fallacy called “special pleading” - whereby you make a logical exception from its premise.

Can you be more explicit please?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Hi John,

Can I point out that your peculiar orthography is a serious distraction that diminishes both the interest in, and effectiveness of your ideas? The gratuitous ellipsis and chains of commas, may I suggest you take your reader a little more seriously than to indulge in that stuff. Clearly, when I try to wade through the grammatical noise you put in the channel, you do have something you want to say an be heard on. Why not focus on that, and leave all the other business behind you?

… my dear friend ,

… to be honest i cannot understand atheists at all , i’ve never even had the slightest doubt god existed among all matters of catholic faith from the first time i heard and understood and appreciated what was said , although my understanding of this holy catholic faith has developed lately , i’m not sily either …

… i cannot comprehend why one would disbelieve in god , i understand some doubt , but if you say your atheist it is choice and a faith you cannot prove , totally illogical and irrational , i should not have to prove god exists at all , i struggle to understan why it must be done , no god = nothing exists , the problem comes with mans mind being fallen , he has the capacity for great knowledge and even photographic memory , but he only has about 5 or 10 % of his normal ability to understand and appreciate thus knowledge , and this is the most important part – and it;'s defective and faulty badly too …

… this is why none can solve a single problem correctly , perfectly and permanently , hence the wotld is an absolute mess , man is not solving a single problem still , but in the modern world he is creating endless new problems and it’s looking like it might become a singularity of problem soon there coming so fast and faster all the time , man is in trouble …

… i write how i do because i believe it a better way to write , it offends because i break the laws and rules in peoples heads which are insanity in all chatrity , if this was to take off all would be happy , they use it at uni – must be ok they’d say , there is tons of logic and reason to why and how i write , and it is better i know personally , i’'ll; explain my reasons if you or any want to know , but you likely won’t appreciate it as minds are fallen and might think the theory behind it silly , nevertheless ask and i’ll explain …

… and i’m not a mormon or like any other person or catholic , although i swear my allegiance to my church , i’m a fellow human being trying to talk to and help my fellow human beings , and i consider all my brothers and sisters no different than if they came from my same parents , or are my very own children , so i love them all and am just doing my best to try and help my brothers and sisters , is that wrong ??? , no , it is not …

… it is very easy to knock people but what all are supposed to do is fully cooperate with reach other constructively to solve problems so we fix this world , all humam communication is suppose to be a process of problem solvuing as we seek the truth , i’m talkin about truth and solving problems , i hope others join in , please do , but let’s be construcyive as man and his world is a mess , never worse , and we need to start solving all the problems , i hope you and all will be part of the solution , what you say here solves nothing and just makes more problems , think dear friend , i’m quire right …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Can you be more explicit please?

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is a law, what makes God an exception to this law? And if he can “break” the law, then it is not really a law; if the law can be broken by God, then assuredly nature can do the same as well, for the only thing certain in nature are death and taxes.

 

[Spirithound]

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is a law, what makes God an exception to this law? And if he can “break” the law, then it is not really a law; if the law can be broken by God, then assuredly nature can do the same as well, for the only thing certain in nature are death and taxes.

God is above nature. He is supernatural. The laws of physics are physical laws and do not apply to the supernatural order.

 

[Equites_Christi]

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is a law, what makes God an exception to this law?

Hello Bohm!

Firstly, I don’t think any believer defines God as a cloud of energy. He is a spirit.

Secondly, I think our modern technology provides us with a convenient metaphor.
A computer programmer programs a computer a certain way, or makes laws within the computer. However, he may change or disrupt them at any time, and is not bound by those laws - indeed, not even the computer! In this way has God written the laws of the world without being subject to them.

The problem with the OP is that while it is a good description of faith, atheists have a very very narrow sieve of for what they’ll even consider thinking about.

It’s like this. A man grows up under the impression that a spoon is the only utensil which may aid in eating food. When he sees a fork or a knife, he says “My, what a misshapen, silly spoon! I cannot eat soup with this, and it is vastly inferior for eating cereal. A truly useless thing.” Likewise, he rejects any food which cannot be eaten with a spoon, because if it cannot be eaten with a spoon then it is not worth eating at all. As a result he lives a very deprived life, missing entirely the full wonder of food, and eventually dies of poor nutrition.

At the Lord’s table, there are indeed spoons, and forks, and knives.

So put your spoon down and let’s have some steak!

 

[Touchstone]

… my dear friend ,

… to be honest i cannot understand atheists at all , i’ve never even had the slightest doubt god existed among all matters of catholic faith from the first time i heard and understood and appreciated what was said , although my understanding of this holy catholic faith has developed lately , i’m not sily either …

John, I hope you will read the paragraph you wrote here back to yourself in all seriousness in thinking self-critically. I won’t say it’s silly. But it’s not serious. If you’ve never had the slightest doubt, then I think you have not more than a child-like appreciation of this problem (and yes, I’m aware of the Christian affection for “child-like” faith in many circles, if you suppose that’s some solace for you that would be novel for me to consider.

You’re signaling by this that you either just do not comprehend the epistemic issues involved here, do not care, or some combination of both. That’s your prerogative, and your welcome to such a stance on this, but if that’s the case, you’ll understand why others who DO take that question seriously, will just have to shrug at your appeal, and move on.

… i cannot comprehend why one would disbelieve in god , i understand some doubt , but if you say your atheist it is choice and a faith you cannot prove , totally illogical and irrational , i should not have to prove god exists at all , i struggle to understan why it must be done , no god = nothing exists , the problem comes with mans mind being fallen , he has the capacity for great knowledge and even photographic memory , but he only has about 5 or 10 % of his normal ability to understand and appreciate thus knowledge , and this is the most important part – and it;'s defective and faulty badly too …

Well, what would a reality that is completely godless look like, do you suppose? How would it operate? I don’t claim to know from the top-down on that one, but I can say that the operations of this world appear to be perfectly congruent with a godless universe/reality. The more we learn, the more impersonal, and law-based the universe appears. Given that, it seems one would have to say “God made the laws”, as a retort, but this is a conclusion we don’t have warrant for on the merits. It is, rather, a conclusion we reach for intuitively, a god to fill the gap, a gap we might fairly expect to be a long-standing gap since that is principally a metaphysical question, in our knowledge.

Or, shorter version: “no god = nothing exists” is not a serious starting point here, or ending point, for that matter.

… this is why none can solve a single problem correctly , perfectly and permanently , hence the wotld is an absolute mess , man is not solving a single problem still , but in the modern world he is creating endless new problems and it’s looking like it might become a singularity of problem soon there coming so fast and faster all the time , man is in trouble …

Parenthetically, it occurs to me know that your peculiar orthography is indicative of this wider sort of alienation from human thinking and convention. I’m all in favor of out-of-the-box thinking and innovation, but there’s being an innovative thought leader, and then there’s being a hermit, an intellectual vagrant, wandering the wilderness, you know?

… i write how i do because i believe it a better way to write , it offends because i break the laws and rules in peoples heads which are insanity in all chatrity , if this was to take off all would be happy , they use it at uni – must be ok they’d say , there is tons of logic and reason to why and how i write , and it is better i know personally , i’'ll; explain my reasons if you or any want to know , but you likely won’t appreciate it as minds are fallen and might think the theory behind it silly , nevertheless ask and i’ll explain …

No, no need for all that. I just suspected no one had taken time to point out how distracting and diminishing your orthography is, and you were communicating ineffectively without being aware that’s all. I’m not the least bit bothered by the “law and rule breaking” per se. It’s not a “wrong” issue, you just make it difficult to understand you, ostensibly gratuitously. If you know that is how it comes across, and you’re OK with that, knock yourself out.

Communication like this is a two-way street. It may make logical sense, etc. internally to you, and I don’t doubt it does, but written exchanges are necessarily some form of social convention… anyway, 'nuff said on that.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

John Russell Jr:

… and i’m not a mormon or like any other person or catholic , although i swear my allegiance to my church , i’m a fellow human being trying to talk to and help my fellow human beings , and i consider all my brothers and sisters no different than if they came from my same parents , or are my very own children , so i love them all and am just doing my best to try and help my brothers and sisters , is that wrong ??? , no , it is not …

I don’t think your intent is wrong; I accept that you want to help, earnestly. I just don’t think you are taking your quest seriously enough to wrestle with the real challenges these questions represent, and have adopted a kind of dreamy-eyed, self-fulfilling self-medicating approach that really just avoids the big question you suppose you are approaching, rather than really engaging them.

… it is very easy to knock people but what all are supposed to do is fully cooperate with reach other constructively to solve problems so we fix this world , all humam communication is suppose to be a process of problem solvuing as we seek the truth , i’m talkin about truth and solving problems , i hope others join in , please do , but let’s be construcyive as man and his world is a mess , never worse , and we need to start solving all the problems , i hope you and all will be part of the solution , what you say here solves nothing and just makes more problems , think dear friend , i’m quire right …

I don’t see this a matter of knocking people. My message to you is that you aren’t using even nominally effective tools to approach the problem you say you are concerned with. Your heart may be in the right place (and it certainly appears to be), but you are being foolhardy with your mental and conceptual tools you are bring to bear, and worse, you are advocating I adopt these foolhardy techniques, to boot.

I just would like to point out that the tools you’ve adopted do not serve your purpose well, and aren’t up to the task you have put them to. In the interest of you being a better you, and not knocking you, let me suggest your ideas and tools in this area are failing you badly, and deserved to be knocked as inadequate tools, because YOU DESERVE BETTER.

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Thanks,

-TS

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

John, I hope you will read the paragraph you wrote here back to yourself in all seriousness in thinking self-critically. I won’t say it’s silly. But it’s not serious. If you’ve never had the slightest doubt, then I think you have not more than a child-like appreciation of this problem (and yes, I’m aware of the Christian affection for “child-like” faith in many circles, if you suppose that’s some solace for you that would be novel for me to consider.

You’re signaling by this that you either just do not comprehend the epistemic issues involved here, do not care, or some combination of both. That’s your prerogative, and your welcome to such a stance on this, but if that’s the case, you’ll understand why others who DO take that question seriously, will just have to shrug at your appeal, and move on.

Well, what would a reality that is completely godless look like, do you suppose? How would it operate? I don’t claim to know from the top-down on that one, but I can say that the operations of this world appear to be perfectly congruent with a godless universe/reality. The more we learn, the more impersonal, and law-based the universe appears. Given that, it seems one would have to say “God made the laws”, as a retort, but this is a conclusion we don’t have warrant for on the merits. It is, rather, a conclusion we reach for intuitively, a god to fill the gap, a gap we might fairly expect to be a long-standing gap since that is principally a metaphysical question, in our knowledge.

Or, shorter version: “no god = nothing exists” is not a serious starting point here, or ending point, for that matter.

Parenthetically, it occurs to me know that your peculiar orthography is indicative of this wider sort of alienation from human thinking and convention. I’m all in favor of out-of-the-box thinking and innovation, but there’s being an innovative thought leader, and then there’s being a hermit, an intellectual vagrant, wandering the wilderness, you know?

No, no need for all that. I just suspected no one had taken time to point out how distracting and diminishing your orthography is, and you were communicating ineffectively without being aware that’s all. I’m not the least bit bothered by the “law and rule breaking” per se. It’s not a “wrong” issue, you just make it difficult to understand you, ostensibly gratuitously. If you know that is how it comes across, and you’re OK with that, knock yourself out.

Communication like this is a two-way street. It may make logical sense, etc. internally to you, and I don’t doubt it does, but written exchanges are necessarily some form of social convention… anyway, 'nuff said on that.

-TS

… my dearest friend ,

… you have said nothing useful in these posts , you don’t offer any constructive crituque that can help solve the probklems , all you do is attack me in any way you can , i don’t see the point in replying to these 2 last posts of yours , if you want to contribute and help solve the problems i’ll talk and your welcome , but if you just tear me down it’s pointless …

… do you really expect me to spend all my time defending myself ??? , i’ve done nothing wrong , and i know my stuff dear friend , don’t try and suck me into these silly games , i know what is going on most assurwedly , if you really think i don’t and i’m going to play into your hands with this think again , can you contribute to the solution dear friend ??? …

… may god bless and lobe you ,

… john …

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… i hope we can all focus on the problems to be solved , and if it happens we lose or look like losing an argument we don’t resort to trying to destroy the arguer and defeat the argument that way , let us not get personal dearest friends , as i’m sure you will do …

… it is late now but this link philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/ provides evcellent philosophical arguments for atheism , good ones , i’ve solved them all to prove god exists , but have not written it down yet , to help with the discussion i’ll try and pen all the solutions over time , it is a lot of work though , so will take time i think …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[babylonsfalling]

Even Jesus stumbled three times. <–You’re not Jesus nor even comparable My previous wavering was indicative of me struggling to discern the Truth. If anything, had I not struggled, you would be the first to exclaim that I didn’t give God a chance. <—Actually no, you don’t know what I’d say, and I don’t even perceive of God as waiting for a chance to begin with. The fact remains that I am now an atheist after the findings of my discovery. Indeed, actions speak louder than words:<—You’re actions are what I was talking about Bohm I’ve missed Mass for over a month (which I used to attend every week); I’ve stopped praying for over a month (which I used to do every day) and every other ‘‘Catholic’’ activity I participated in has now come to a halt. ***<—You’re keeping track of this stuff, is that to prove what a good atheist you’re being this time? ***Doesn’t sound too much like “can’t stay away from Christians”, does it?

Besides, what exactly is your religion? The field is blank.

Here’s the deal Bohm, your inability to stay away from Christians is demonstrated right here, on this board in front of everybody, not by what you say you’re not doing regarding your newest foray into atheism.

Mine is Catholic, but in truth ALL the fields are left blank. I normally don’t even bother with the profile stuff. But if someone does bother with it and kept switching it from Catholic to something else, it would be safe to assume the person wasn’t EVER much of a Catholic. Same applies if a person switches from atheist to something else a lot.

I think it remains as I said to begin with. you don’t want to be Christian but can’t be atheist despite your best efforts. You might learn something from that if you ever get to the point of taking an objective look at yourself.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Here’s the deal Bohm, your inability to stay away from Christians is demonstrated right here, on this board in front of everybody, not by what you say you’re not doing regarding your newest foray into atheism.

You quoted my post first. The only reason why I’m on this thread is to respond to your allegations. I’m not captivated by Christians as it is that you are captivated by me, so much so you seem to be jotting down what label goes into my religious field.

Mine is Catholic, but in truth ALL the fields are left blank. I normally don’t even bother with the profile stuff.

I find it hard to believe a person as assertive as you are wouldn’t enter his own religion into the descriptive field (which should take about 5 seconds, if even that). Unless of course there is something rotten in the State of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare. After all, aren’t you called to be a light of the world?

But if someone does bother with it and kept switching it from Catholic to something else, it would be safe to assume the person wasn’t EVER much of a Catholic. Same applies if a person switches from atheist to something else a lot.

You don’t know me so you aren’t in the position to say how much of a Catholic I was. I find it ironic that you maintain that any Catholic that converts to atheism wasn’t much of a Catholic to begin with. That’s theologically untrue, even according to your book. A person can lose his faith, as faith is a gift from God (according to Catholics). To argue otherwise is in fact to be a Calvinist and to believe in the “once saved, always saved” doctrine. Didn’t St. Paul advise to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12)? You need to learn about what your religion teaches first before discussing the authenticity of another person’s religion. Come to think of it, I find your judgment about how authentic a Catholic I was as reminiscent of Jesus’ parable to take the log out of your own eye before noticing the speck in your brother’s eye. Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of Heaven - that includes you.

I think it remains as I said to begin with. you don’t want to be Christian but can’t be atheist despite your best efforts. You might learn something from that if you ever get to the point of taking an objective look at yourself.

I’m not here on this forum to prove my atheism to anyone. Your assumption is flawed. I’m only here to email CAF friends, and I answer certain threads from time to time for various reasons - from helping to clear up misconceptions about the Church to offering my own personal opinion on a given matter. Freedom of speech is a great thing, isn’t it?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Firstly, I don’t think any believer defines God as a cloud of energy. He is a spirit.

This is just commentary, but if you removed the word “cloud” then you will find that some people do say that “God is energy.” I see it more frequently from people that see God as having more of a panentheistic view of the world.

 

[Equites_Christi]

This is just commentary, but if you removed the word “cloud” then you will find that some people do say that “God is energy.” I see it more frequently from people that see God as having more of a panentheistic view of the world.

Ah. Well I should have clarified that I don’t believe many Catholics would (or should) define God as energy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ah. Well I should have clarified that I don’t believe many Catholics would (or should) define God as energy.

Point taken (though I think you meant to type “shouldn’t” and “wouldn’t” in the above).