Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[Seeker2010]

Atheism is a form of self deception … lying to oneself that there is no God. The atheist can insist that he is being honest, but he is not.

I don’t think that’s a fair statement. That may well be the case for some, perhaps even most (though that may be a stretch), but certainly not ALL. You’re making unreasonable, unsupported assumptions.

So apparently he can sin all day and all night all the days of his life and still get to heaven without confessing his sins and asking God’s forgiveness?

This is something that I happen to believe, although I hesitate when I consider TRULY EVIL people like Bin Laden, Hitler, etc.

But at the end of the day, if you look at the life of a devout Christian and a ‘regular’ (insofar as I’m not talking about mother rapers or father stabbers) atheist, how different are their lives really? You speak of sin all day and all night, but to what do you refer? Killing people? Robbing banks? Stealing cars? Most people, even atheists, do not do those things, so I think 90% of the real world differences boil down to sexual issues!

I look at my own life, and though I do believe in (a) God, I am closer to the atheist’s thinking on matters of sin and punishment. Even viewed through a Catholic lens (that is much more restrictive and demanding then even other Christian denominations), what sins do I commit on a regular basis?

Hmm.

Failure to attend mass.
Failure to attend confession.
Use of birth control.
I cohabitated with my wife before we got married. (AND my marriage was not in a church!)
We had sex before marriage.
I spill my seed in places other than her vajayjay.
We are not sexually monogamous, and we have sex in ‘public’ places. (By public, I mean in places where such activity is normal, expected, and welcome, but that is, more or less, open to the general (but fully informed) public.)
We recreate at the nude beach, in the nude.
We use pornography. Heck, we MAKE pornography, though not for commercial purposes.
We masturbate.
I got divorced once.
I smoke marijuana (occasionally) and drink alcohol (semi-regularly).
I violate traffic laws (speeding, mostly).

My point? Take out sexual ‘sins’, sins that are specific to Catholicism (of which I may have missed a few) and acts that are sins not in and of themselves, but because I am violating the law of man, and it becomes a pretty short list. I don’t want to make this thread about me, rather my motivation for sharing is that I would suspect the same is true for an overwhelming majority of atheists as well, even for those less sexually adventurous than us.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

If you can get me an accurate quote from what I said to the Clark County Rotary Club on August 21, 2001 (without accessing any recording that may exist) then I’ll give more credence to quotes written down years or decades after they were supposedly spoken, by people who may or may not have actually witnessed them spoken.

 

[colmcille1]

I agree. And I see much more good than evil.

Then you must never stop seeking, sir! NEVER!
It is there for you! ‘O taste and see!’
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Seeker2010]

Were Adam and Eve religious? Apparently.

Well, the story of Adam and Eve suggests they literally walked with God, if true it would be hard for them to not believe in him. That said, nothing about that story holds up to scientific scrutiny, and I personally see absolutely no reason to think Adam, Eve, the Tree, the Garden, the Serpent, or anything at all about the story ever existed.

First, the time-line violates that which we know to be true (Adam and Eve supposedly came into existence ~6,000 years ago and we know to a scientific certainty that humans have been around for more than 200k years).

A talking serpent? Please. (And OBTW, if that IS a true story, the serpent did not trick Eve, he told her the truth, in contrast to the lie told to her by God. And then, of course, is the question of why not just get rid of the tree in the first place.)

So the question really is NOT were they religious, the question really is did they exist at all, and the answer seems to be, sadly, no.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I don’t think that’s a fair statement. That may well be the case for some, perhaps even most (though that may be a stretch), but certainly not ALL. You’re making unreasonable, unsupported assumptions.

For a Catholic to say what I said is neither unreasonable nor unsupported … because there is a God … and to say there is not a God is a lie, whether one tells it to someone else or to one’s self.

*If you can get me an accurate quote from what I said to the Clark County Rotary Club on August 21, 2001 (without accessing any recording that may exist) then I’ll give more credence to quotes written down years or decades after they were supposedly spoken, by people who may or may not have actually witnessed them spoken. *

Again, if you challenge what Jesus says in that Gospel passage I cited, you may as well challenge everything in the Gospels. And not being a Catholic, no doubt you believe none of it. You may as well believe all the gospels are a pack of lies, since based on your criteria we could never prove that anything in them was actually said by Jesus.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*So the question really is NOT were they religious, the question really is did they exist at all, and the answer seems to be, sadly, no. *

Ah, yes. You were there, so you would know!

So was the Devil. And he does not want us to believe it either.

 

[colmcille1]

Seeker

*So the question really is NOT were they religious, the question really is did they exist at all, and the answer seems to be, sadly, no. *

Ah, yes. You were there, so you would know!

So was the Devil. And he does not want us to believe it either.

Well said, sir!

 

[Seeker2010]

For a Catholic to say what I said is neither unreasonable nor unsupported … because there is a God … and to say there is not a God is a lie, whether one tells it to someone else or to one’s self.

For a Catholic to say that, it would be a lie, for one cannot BE Catholic and simultaneously believe there is no God. Rest assured, many atheists truly believe that.

You may as well believe all the gospels are a pack of lies, since based on your criteria we could never prove that anything in them was actually said by Jesus.

I think they’re full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, some innocent others not so much. ‘Pack of lies’ is a little, if only a little, over the top.

 

[Seeker2010]

Ah, yes. You were there, so you would know!

I was not. Neither were you. Neither was Moses, for that matter. And since Adam and Eve didn’t bother recording their lives for posterity (perhaps they were embarrassed for screwing it up for the rest of us?), so we must rely upon the fact that an omnipotent God told the story accurately to Moses. Except the story told has holes big enough to drive a mack truck through, not to mention outright inaccuracies. God didn’t know there was no global flood? That humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years? Why not mention dinosaurs?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Well, the story of Adam and Eve suggests they literally walked with God, if true it would be hard for them to not believe in him. That said, nothing about that story holds up to scientific scrutiny, and I personally see absolutely no reason to think Adam, Eve, the Tree, the Garden, the Serpent, or anything at all about the story ever existed.

First, the time-line violates that which we know to be true (Adam and Eve supposedly came into existence ~6,000 years ago and we know to a scientific certainty that humans have been around for more than 200k years).

A talking serpent? Please. (And OBTW, if that IS a true story, the serpent did not trick Eve, he told her the truth, in contrast to the lie told to her by God. And then, of course, is the question of why not just get rid of the tree in the first place.)

So the question really is NOT were they religious, the question really is did they exist at all, and the answer seems to be, sadly, no.

The Serpent LIED to Eve, as he LIES to anyone who will lend him an ear.

 

[Seeker2010]

The Serpent LIED to Eve, as he LIES to anyone who will lend him an ear.

Genesis 3:
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Editorial:
Verse 4: God told Adam & Eve the DAY they eat of the tree, surely they shall die. That did not happen. Ergo, when he told them that, he was either wrong or lying.

Verse 5: Well, seems that’s the truth.

So who lied, exactly?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

For a Catholic to say that, it would be a lie, for one cannot BE Catholic and simultaneously believe there is no God. Rest assured, many atheists truly believe that.

Excuse me? Which Catholic said there is no God?

 

[fhansen]

In Catholic thought, separation from God is the death of the soul. This occurred on the day they sinned. Man has been separated from God ever since, thus we’re said to be dead in our sins but made alive by Christ. How can a man be born again if he hasn’t physically died? And yet, this is what Christianity claims happens if we’re reborn spiritually, when man and God are reconciled.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. John 6:63

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

You said:

Editorial:
Verse 4: God told Adam & Eve the DAY they eat of the tree, surely they shall die. That did not happen. Ergo, when he told them that, he was either wrong or lying.

Genesis says in chapter 2:
16 "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

Seeker, you need to seek the truth, not your favorite fictions! Doomed to die does not mean you die the same moment.

Is English your second language?

 

[Seeker2010]

Seeker, you need to seek the truth, not your favorite fictions! Doomed to die does not mean you die the same moment.

I suppose that’s true.

Unfortunately, there’s about 1,000 different versions of the bible to choose from, including some that include this language:

“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

For IN THE DAY that you eat, you shall surely die. Words that were, apparently, not true. Well, which is it? The version is wrong? The translation is wrong? God was wrong?

I note the irony of the fact that you’re not claiming the serpent was wrong. For it seems he told the truth, even if that caused consequences from a pissy God.

 

[nickybr38]

I suppose that’s true.

Unfortunately, there’s about 1,000 different versions of the bible to choose from, including some that include this language:

“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

For IN THE DAY that you eat, you shall surely die. Words that were, apparently, not true. Well, which is it? The version is wrong? The translation is wrong? God was wrong?

I note the irony of the fact that you’re not claiming the serpent was wrong. For it seems he told the truth, even if that caused consequences from a pissy God.

He was not speaking of literal death, but a spiritual death. And they did, indeed, die spiritually. Others believe that it was in this moment that men became mortal - able to die. So there are two interpretations. Both are, perhaps correct, and God was not lying in either.

You are forgetting that the language being used is a language that has no middle ground. The people spoke in exaggerated manners. You cannot interpret using modern English, nor can you interpret through the glasses of this culture.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Anything you do for your own enjoyment, rather than the glorification of God, is sin.

 

[JRKH]

I am not an atheist, insofar as I believe there is a supernatural creator, God if you will, though I’m decidedly undecided on the Jesus story (myth?), and ascribe to no particular religion. That said, I would point out that it’s quite literally impossible to disavow a relationship with an entity that you do not believe exists, if you lack of belief is true. There is a difference between ‘I believe there is no God’ and ‘I disavow God’. The latter requires belief.

Trying to split the difference between rejecting “God” or the “Concept of God” is of little matter.
The fact remains that an athiest, by his ouright denial of a “supernatural creator”, even in concept, has closed themselves off from the possiblility being judged acceptable by that creator. The Atheist, by his denial, by his opposition to those who DO believe, by his reference to “Flying Spagetti Monsters” etc (not referenceing any one person specifically) figuratively spits at God. There is much Pride involved in such an attitude.

On the other hand you Seeker2010, leave the door open. You (correct me if I’m wrong) look at the various “Descriptions” of God the various “religious” developments and find much that is good and bad in each. In the end you say - “Well I’m not sure about anything except that I cannot know for sure”. There is much Humility in this attitude. A recognition that, while we may know a great deal, we definitely don’t know it all, so to presume there is Definitely no “supernatural creator” is a foolish position to take.

Personally, I cannot fathom that a truly loving God would punish someone for examining their surroundings and deciding they truly believed there is no supernatural.

If a person does, like you do, examine their surroundings and say, “well I don’t buy into any of the existing religious explanations, but I’m not ruling out that God exists…” I would agree that such a person might have some justification before God. If the person, in their pride, feels they know SSSOOOOO much that they can deny the possibility of God, then I can definitely see God punish them (perhaps God will feed them to their favorite cliche, the Flying Spagetti Monster…

I know Christians like the phrase ‘What Would Jesus Do’. Do you suppose that, if he was real and was what the Church claims, that he would look upon a fallen soul and say ‘My Son, you studied things and concluded that I wasn’t real. I am therefore going to torture you for all of eternity. Off you go!’

Or would it be more like: ‘My child, it doesn’t matter whether you believed in me or not, for I believed in you! Welcome!’?

Or He might say - My Son, two clear choices were set before you, the path to Life and the path to Death. You chose death and I respect your choice. Be off with you to that which you have chosen.

I’d bet my life (perhaps I am) that it would be the latter.

Yes indeed you are betting your life.
Keep reading, keep searching, It took me some 35 years to finally come to rest in The Church.

This I DO know: Anyone who claims they truly understand God is lying to themselves, the rest of us, or both. Personally, I don’t think we’re CAPABLE of truly understanding him even if he literally gave us a powerpoint presentation explaining it.

Agreed.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Anything you do for your own enjoyment, rather than the glorification of God, is sin.

I don’t know if I would go so far as to say this, but I will say that If ones life is properly ordered, then the Glorification of God IS our greatest enjoyment.
We give Him the greatest Glory by conforming our Lives to the Two Great Commandments given by Christ:
Mt 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, " YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

John 13:34-35 “34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Peace
James

 

[reggieM]

Well said. This is what those in the quality profession call - Root cause analysis.

Something we should all apply to our lives and our journey toward God.

Peace
James

Thanks, James. It’s funny that you mention that because I worked in the quality profession for a while (still do, sort of) and we did that very same thing.
I must have subconsciously used that method – and you quickly detected it.

I never thought about it as a tool for our spiritual journey – but you’re right. It definitely can help.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, James. It’s funny that you mention that because I worked in the quality profession for a while (still do, sort of) and we did that very same thing.
I must have subconsciously used that method – and you quickly detected it.

I never thought about it as a tool for our spiritual journey – but you’re right. It definitely can help.

No Problem. It is a good tool.
I’m drawn to the mystics of the church and as I read more on them the more I see this same thing in their journey. Things that the quality professional would immediately recognize like “continuous improvement” and the PDCA cycle are either explicit or implicit in their writings.

For myself, this idea of Root Cause Analysis is why I prefer to look at the “Seven Deadly Sins” for my examination of conscience rather than the 10 commandments. The deadly 7 really look more to the underlying cause of sin rather than acts and thoughts of sin.

Peace
James