If that were true, then nobody would go to hell, since people would sin only out insecurity, and as soon as God gives them security, they would no-longer sin, since the root of their sin would be eliminated. In which case the faults of our actions would be the responsibility of God alone to fix. The angels have greater amount of certainty than we do, they do not have the excuses that we do. Yet many angels chose hell.
I just love these ironclad assurances. Are you a prophet? But, guess what, you are wrong. I already was on my death bed when I had my first heart attack, and actually died, when somehow the doctors dragged me back - by giving me the “thumb of life”. Rest assured, I did not have any thought about God. None whatsoever. What I thought about was this: “Heart attack is the second best way to go. The first one would be bombed down in a whorehouse in the middle of a huge orgy”. Now that would rock.
Now I see the reason why you are an atheist. Its all clear to me now. Same old story.The first one would be bombed down in a whorehouse in the middle of a huge orgy". Now that would rock.
But you say in your first paragraph that you did believe that God existed. and now you do not. Therefore you went from believing in God (accepting Him) to NOT believing in God (rejecting Him).
What is the term you used in another post? Oh yea - - a vessel of fertilizer.
I can assume fro this flip remark that you have NOT done as I suggested and looked into how the Church defnes the term Church as it applies to your earlier assertion.
All you do in that sentence is to confirm the suspicion of theists that atheists choose atheism because they despise common sense morality.Oh, you poor sucker. It was a JOKE!!! And I indicated it by putting a smiley next to it. By the way, I had a second heart attack, too. And still did not think of God. So much for your “prediction”.It doesn’t take a prophet to understand human nature. Your first heart attack was a wake-up call. If you have not woken up, and would really like to die in a “whorehouse in the middle of a huge orgy,” it’s no wonder you’re an atheist.
Another “vessel of fertilizer”. You know Jack Schitt about my “moral” makeup. Considering your “prophecy” being as inaccurate as it was, I would suggest to refrain from making more assessments.
As usual, you have no clue. I am not certain (much less absolutely certain) that there is no God. However, I am very certain that God, if there is such a being cannot be a mean little peddler of nonsensical “moral” commands. To reiterate, the most convincing argument against the “Christian God” is supplied by you and your cronies. If there would be a God, he would come down and kick the living daylight out of his “followers”, who dare to be as insulting and as disrespectful as you and your peers are. Nothing I can say is as insulting as your assertion that the Almighty Creator of All Things does not have any better things to do than being a despicable “peeping Tom”, whose primary interest lies in whatever two loving humans do in the privacy of their bedroom… Sheesh!Your absolute certainty about there being no God, however, certainly does make you a prophet. You just know you are not going to be confronted by Him when you reach the other side. Now how do you know that unless you can see beyond your own death?
Actually they are most relevant. I stopped believing in God because I realized that the picture you (in the general sense) painted about God is full of nonsensical contradictions. You guys depict God as a dumb tyrant, who wants to “get” our love by commanding it, while he does nothing to earn it. Someone who values “blind faith” over rational arguments. For me the concept of the Christian God is as nonsensical as the concept of the Eastern Rabbit or Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yes, I agree.
Actually, this is only your belief. I think that God (if he exists) would value my lack of belief, since that lack of belief is grounded in the lack of evidence. I also believe that God would be just, and justice demands that in the case of lack of evidence there cannot be full responsibility. Many Christians realize and understand that God’s existence cannot be established without resorting to faith - faith in some “revelation”.
Except that you wasted a sizable portion of your life on meaningless rituals, while I filled my life with meaningful activities. But, of course, when we are dead and gone that does not matter any more.
The first commandment says it, too. Which is curious, since God seems like commanding our love, not “hoping” to earn our love out of free will… think about it. It is asserted that the value of free will is to love God “freely”, without coersion. A coerced, or forced love is of no value. And then you get the first commandent, which commands you to love God. Don’t you see the inconsistancy?
That, brother, is a problem beyond remarkability. I like R.D. and this difficulty truly saddens me.R Daneel
*I must repeat: “I do not reject God, because in order to reject something (or someone) one must at the very least believe (preferably know!) that the object of the rejection exists”. Yes, I reject the concept of God, on the very same ground that I reject the concept of the Tooth Fairy. Neither of them is founded in reality. *
But you are not here to dispute the tooth fairy, are you?
On your deathbed, I daresay you will not be thinking about the tooth fairy. But you will be thinking very much about God. If you believe nothing else, believe that … or why do you even bother with Catholic Answers?
RD:
Now, you know better than that. There is no burden to the activity of adoring God. I’d rather do that than anything else I do.
Wrong. God is Perfection. If we get a chance to view that, that is much to our good fortune, and faith. We are but cells in a plant leaf, with the exception that He Loves us. How remarkable! With that Grace in hand, who are we, then, to make demands on Him? He has demanded little from us. Belief? Faith? Both the same. One, such as Him, communicates with us as he wishes. He merely asks for our love in return. He asks that we believe in Him and, more particularly, Trust in Him.
As you wish. I always respect explicit wishes.
Wait a little. The poster (JRKH) I replied to said: “IF there is not God, then he did not lose anything”. I hope you see what I meant: “if there is no God then a sizable portion of the believer’s life was spent on adoring a being, which is not there”. It was a counterfactual statement.
The point is that I do not see any sign of “love”. Love should be manifested in acts, otherwise it is just an empty word. And yes, trust must be earned. One may tentatively start from the position of “conditional trust”, that is a reasonable starting point. But as time goes by and there are no actions, the trust will diminish - and justly so.
According to the Bible, one third of the angels turned their back on God. Also according to the Bible, Adam and Eve also had first-hand experience of God, and yet, they broke the only commandment given to them. Also according to the Bible, the Jews had many contacts with God, and turned their backs on him.
You see, I like you, too. You are a very nice person, and I feel sorry for your sadness. Just go back to the exchange you replied to. Charlemagne asserted most forcefully that on my deathbed I will be concerned about God. He presented this as an absolute, inevitable fact of how things will unfold. I find these assertions ironic. As I replied, I am already past my “first and second deathbed”, and I was not thinking about God. Yes, there are atheists in the foxholes.
Ever seen a 2-year-old child asking his or her parents why they won’t let him or her eat chocolate for breakfast, or something else equally pleasant and equally (ultimately) not the right thing?
I heard this one before, many times. You can’t have it both ways.
Either we are literally just like a 2 years old toddler, when compared to God, or you use this as an allegory. Of course, I don’t really care, and simply write off those who do it. Which makes the pool of the people I talk to a rather small one. And I cherish them, just like I neglect the other ones.Since when does a parent owe a detailed explanation to a two year old who either isn’t capable of understanding or will argue even if they do understand?I heard this one before, many times. You can’t have it both ways.
If we are literally not more advanced than a 2 years old (in comparision to God), then God has an obligation to take care of us, just like a parent has an obligation to take care of the toddler. That “care taking” is manifestly absent. You assert that we are unable to comprehend a possible explanation, just like a child. That places us into the “literal 2 years old” category. Also a literal 2 years old is not held responsible for his actions.
If, however we are not “really” like a 2 years old, rather we are adults then God owes us an explanation we can understand. After all we are being treated like adults, when it comes to being held responsible for our actions. So what are we? Adults, who are held responsible for our actions, who are supposed to be able to understand an explanation, or just a 2 years old, who cannot be held responsible due to the lack of understanding?
This is the problem of the parent-child type of allegories. You would like to have your cake and eat it, too. It does not work like that.
You neglected the other part.
If we are just toddlers, below the age of reason, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. No, a toddler does not know the difference between right and wrong, or that obedience is “must”. And the toddlers need to be taken care of. Also, the toddlers need to be reminded frequently and periodically about the commands… None of these happen. Moreover, the punishment is not just a “smack”, it is eternal damnation. Does not look like a “loving” parent to me.Whatever, the fact remains that you went from belief to non-belief which constitutes a rejection of a previously held position (God exists). therefore you have rejected God.
Except that your lack of belief, you renial of Him, blinds you to the “evidence” that he gives us. I won’t bore you with it because it is not anything that you will accept anyway.
Not at all, even if God were not to exist, my time spent on spiritual matters are beneficial to myself personally and, hopefully, make me a better citizen in society. As to “wasting time”, it is no more wasted than a person who loves to read and discuss novels and/or movies.
Nope. I don’t see inconsistancy probably because I don’t reject God to begin with.
ve Him, which is what the first commandment is - A statement of the most important thing we must do in order to Please God. How can I believe in God, who made me and gave me this beautiful world to live in, and NOT Love Him with all my heart.