Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Many people, knowingly and willingly reject a particular version of God. I am personal proof of that. After nearly 50 years as a Catholic/Christian, I came to realize that I did not believe in that God, but that I still believed in a creator. Some take another path and reject any vision of a god.

John

Hi John, and welcome!

I am convinced that anyone who clearly sees God does not reject God. The person would see the pure, unadulterated Love and know oneness, wholeness, holiness.

What is it that you rejected about “that” version of God? Or shall I say, what version presented eventually became problematic?

thanks for your post.

 

[OneSheep]

I would say yes. As an example, I would use my own sins, which I occasionally commit even while consciously saying (in words in my head) to myself “this is not good, I should not do this.” Often that knowledge stops the sin before it happens, and often it stops it quickly if not, but also rather more often than I’d care to admit, I sin knowing that I’m sinning.

“I do not understand what I do. For the good I want to do I do not do, but the evil I hate I do. (Rom 7:15)”

Original sin is annoying.

Hi Iron Donkey, and welcome!

So, I am using “knowingly” in the broadest, all-inclusive sense. In other words, people reject God because there is a crucial bit of information that they do not know.

For example, if I just told my children not to smoke “because it is wrong”, I am leaving out some crucial information. If I tell someone to be careful with an extremely valuable object “because it is wrong to break it” without explaining its value, I have left out some crucial information.

The crowd who hung Jesus, for example, were completely unaware of Jesus’ value. They thought they were doing the right thing, carrying out justice, and in the endeavor of punishment they were blind to His humanity and divinity.

Are you open to the possibility that when you are saying “this is not good”, you may not know all the reasons why it isn’t good, i.e. harm done? For certainly there are many evil acts that you do not do because the harm done is more clear, right?

Oh, and as far as Paul’s words, he was expressing a frustration. But we need not give up trying to understand what we do! And what is more: after 2000 years more of scientific study, we know a great deal more about why the human behaves the way he does.

Thanks for your addition here.

 

[pocaracas]

Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thread… just a few snippets.
So, apologies if I’m saying something that has already been said.

From a homily at St.Peter’s Basilica, by Fr. Raniero Cantalmessa:

Yet God’s measure of justice is different from ours and if he sees good faith or blameless ignorance he saves even those who had been anxious to fight him in their lives. We believers should prepare ourselves for surprises in this regard.

vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/documents/holy-week_homily-fr-cantalamessa_20090410_en.html

However, has any person been “anxious to fight him” knowingly and willingly? I am looking for an example of this. Ignorance is a huge, if not essential, part of human sin. Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?

Note: I am using “knowingly and willingly” in the broadest sense, i.e. those who crucified Jesus did not do so knowingly and willingly. They “willed” it in terms of choice, but their choice was in ignorance (and in this case, the ignorance was held blameless).

Feel free to make an assertion in your answer, but please provide an example.

Thanks!

I’ve heard many atheists say that (of course) they don’t believe that a god exists, but, if it turns out that the god of the bible does exist, then they would never worship that god, for it is, in the words of R.Dawkins, "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Would this mean they knowingly and willingly reject god?
Shouldn’t all us humans reject such a god?

But that Dawkins tirade was only about the god of the Old Testament.
About the New… well… too much fluff and a clear change in attitude towards mankind… perhaps because J.C. was a man and not in any law-giving position of power that many previous prophets were… but let’s leave that for another day.

To knowingly and willingly reject the fluff in the NT version of god?
There is the prospect of eternal boredom… sure, “eternal” bliss may be great for a while… but there still more eternity after that while.
Remember “The Architect’s first attempt at a Matrix was a utopia, but it failed miserably and many human lives were lost when the inhabitants refused to accept it.”
Mankind cannot handle utopia… much less eternal utopia.
Knowing this, why would anyone put themselves in a position to go to such a state?

Now to some more practical business: How would a human “know” about a god? Not only know that a god exists, but also know his characteristics so that this human can make an informed decision whether to follow or reject the god.
Keep in mind that “belief” is not a reliable enough means of acquiring knowledge.

“anxious to fight him”, said the Fr…
I don’t know why this happens, but believers seem to operate under the assumption that atheists fight against their god…in reality, atheists do not assume that a god exists in the first place, so, fighting something that doesn’t exist… doesn’t make much sense.
If atheists are to fight anything, it is the potentially wrong beliefs that some people hold… and the results that such beliefs can have on the way the world is managed.
And I wouldn’t call it a fight… more like an attempt at reasoning… at explaining where beliefs come from, why they take such a hold on the human mind, why they were necessary, how we can let go of them nowadays, how the human mind is open to many other kinds of reasoning pitfalls which lead to bad judgements, etc…

If a god is real and wishes mankind to adhere to its guidelines, then relying on belief is probably not the best of means… just look at all the disparity of beliefs such a tactic has generated in the world!
“Anxious to fight him”… What challenge would such incompetence be?

 

[OneSheep]

ONE SHEEP

Read 247. Are you serious? After all the discussing we’ve had you don’t know how I would answer??

The woman sounds depressed. Do you think God is not just? I really don’t care to discuss her case anymore. God sees each act on an individual basis. I mean, are maybe YOU doing some projecting here?

Hi Fran,

The point I was making about the woman was not that “God is just”, though He is. The point I was making was that her depression is affecting her knowing. She does not know what she is saying, she sees her life as worthless and disposable. She is blind.

If she were not blind, then she would not have the abortion.

Yes, every case is individual! We don’t have to talk about the woman, but can you think of any individual (though fictional) case where a person K&WRG? Do you see what happens when we really enter into a person’s thinking?

The correct meaning of projecting. How can I ever trust you again?? Just kidding. I misspeak many times. You should also go back and find out what empathy really is too. I mean REALLY is. But that’s a differnt thread.

Those that countered Freud sought to redefine “projection”. I must have gotten the definition from those who redefined it. I obviously agree with those who countered Freud, because it is true: we do guess about the reactions and motives of others based on our own personal experiences.

Now why have you given Tantum Ergo at no. 264 the explanation I’ve been asking for since the git go? I’m glad you put that last pp in there. I do believe you have visited that place I was speaking of in the post just above this one. “God took full ownership of the consequences of pushing that button - our actions”. Paraphrased. Okay. But do we have no resposibility at all? What is choice all about?

Choice is limited by our awareness, but we do the best we can given the circumstances! We are all rather dumb sheep.

You tell Aloysium in post no. 266 that we fear sin being excused. If I understood. Do you think we here on this thread FEAR sin being excused?? It’s excused millions of times a day.

I think every individual fears letting go of self-condemnation out of fear that if we no longer condemn ourselves about something, we may repeat the action. There is a process of “letting go” that can be allowed when empathy and love for others is our guide rather than fear of breaking a rule.

I think you’re experiencing the same problem as simpleas, in a way. He can’t seem to understand that man is not good but is inherently bad. We could discuss this on a theological level, but it’s okay. One day he’ll come around and understand better. The CCC causes problems, as I’ve said many times.

And you. Maybe you belong in a grace movement church? No, seriously. It’s the closest thing you’re going to get with your idea. They don’t like thinking about sin either and are getting pretty close to saying that you don’t even have to ask for forgiveness. In fact, some denominations (independent) are already teaching this.

You’re a fun person too One Sheep.
No, really. I’ll be sorry when this thread ends.

Fran

Simpleas is a “she”, and her seeing humanity as basically good is not only not a problem, but is our Church’s teaching.

That said, I find the view that man is “depraved” or “bad” is a natural or “organic” approach. I say that there is room for this view, even though it is clearly against Church teaching.

When Jesus said, “You have heard the saying, ‘love your friends and hate your enemy’”, He was addressing the organic approach, it is our nature to follow that saying. Instead, He gave us a supernatural (beyond nature) means of addressing enemies.

And who are our enemies if they are not the people we resent? And who are the people we resent (enemies) if they are not exactly the ones we have labeled as “wicked” or “evil”? And how do we love and forgive our enemies? We understand them. And how do we understand them? It starts with prayer, but it is helpful to discern why my enemy did what he did. And why he did what he did is directly related to his lack of awareness or blindness, which brings us back to the purpose of this thread.

Now, can you think of another case of a person K&WRG? I think you saw that the woman did not know what she was doing.

Thank you, God Bless your day.

 

[grannymh]

But that Dawkins tirade was only about the god of the Old Testament.
About the New… well… too much fluff and a clear change in attitude towards mankind… perhaps because J.C. was a man and not in any law-giving position of power that many previous prophets were… but let’s leave that for another day.

You just hit the nail on the head while most people now have sore thumbs.

The very old heresy that Jesus Christ was really a great prophet Who could perform a few miracles, but was not necessarily a real God, has returned as modern Arianism. This is seen in the downgrading of Christ’s words on the cross. Its base is demonstrated in the suggestion – “perhaps because J.C. was a man and not in any law-giving position of power that many previous prophets were …”

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, pocaracas, and thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut!

I’ve heard many atheists say that (of course) they don’t believe that a god exists, but, if it turns out that the god of the bible does exist, then they would never worship that god, for it is, in the words of R.Dawkins, "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Would this mean they knowingly and willingly reject god?
Shouldn’t all us humans reject such a god?

I would hope so.

But that Dawkins tirade was only about the god of the Old Testament.
About the New… well… too much fluff and a clear change in attitude towards mankind… perhaps because J.C. was a man and not in any law-giving position of power that many previous prophets were… but let’s leave that for another day.

To knowingly and willingly reject the fluff in the NT version of god?
There is the prospect of eternal boredom… sure, “eternal” bliss may be great for a while… but there still more eternity after that while.
Remember “The Architect’s first attempt at a Matrix was a utopia, but it failed miserably and many human lives were lost when the inhabitants refused to accept it.”
Mankind cannot handle utopia… much less eternal utopia.
Knowing this, why would anyone put themselves in a position to go to such a state?

If it is boring, it is not a utopia, right? I could never tire of creating beautiful things or learning more. But wow, what if we were to know everything? Gosh, how could life have any thrill without discovery? Then, I suppose, all my focus would have to turn to making life better for everyone else, which is even more rewarding!

Now to some more practical business: How would a human “know” about a god? Not only know that a god exists, but also know his characteristics so that this human can make an informed decision whether to follow or reject the god.
Keep in mind that “belief” is not a reliable enough means of acquiring knowledge.

We can know by self-reflection and observation of beauty. There is a connection we can find in All that Exists, a Love. And faith also presents a “better story”. Have you read* Life of Pi?*

“anxious to fight him”, said the Fr…
I don’t know why this happens, but believers seem to operate under the assumption that atheists fight against their god…in reality, atheists do not assume that a god exists in the first place, so, fighting something that doesn’t exist… doesn’t make much sense.
If atheists are to fight anything, it is the potentially wrong beliefs that some people hold… and the results that such beliefs can have on the way the world is managed.
And I wouldn’t call it a fight… more like an attempt at reasoning… at explaining where beliefs come from, why they take such a hold on the human mind, why they were necessary, how we can let go of them nowadays, how the human mind is open to many other kinds of reasoning pitfalls which lead to bad judgements, etc…

If a god is real and wishes mankind to adhere to its guidelines, then relying on belief is probably not the best of means… just look at all the disparity of beliefs such a tactic has generated in the world!
“Anxious to fight him”… What challenge would such incompetence be?

Yes, very good points. There is a “knowing” accessible through prayer and self-reflection, but revelation is not easy to gain for people. The information is out there; when the human appreciates the beauty of a hover fly dancing between blossoms, her appreciation comes from the source of the same beauty. Appreciation is in itself beautiful! And what are “guidelines” if they are not means by which we protect that which we hold dear? Indeed, the guidelines themselves are innate to a large degree. The software is all there, it is experience that fills in all the necessary data. I know that sounds a little spacey, but we Westerners are a bit too left-brained in our approach to the world.

I think that Dawkins is operating from what he sees as an evil - religion and faith itself. Dawkin’s approach is “organic” in that he sees a “power of goodness” in science and a “power of evil” in religion. He would not word it that way, of course, but that is the impression I get from his approach. I wish that He could understand and forgive “religious people”; all of us suffer a bit of ignorance whether we believe in God or not.

Have a great day.

 

[grannymh]

That said, I find the view that man is “depraved” or “bad” is a natural or “organic” approach. I say that there is room for this view, even though it is clearly against Church teaching.

I do admire your creative imagination. I wonder about your intentions.

You are presenting a wrong idea about the Catholic Church when you say that you “find the view that man is “depraved” or “bad” is a natural or “organic” approach. I say that there is room for this view, even though it is clearly against Church teaching.”

I underlined the really weird statement above.

There is no room in the Catholic Church for a view clearly against its teaching. That is clearly a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. So which “Catholic Church” are you referring to? Obviously, it is not the Catholic Church which has seven Sacraments and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Iron Donkey, and welcome!

So, I am using “knowingly” in the broadest, all-inclusive sense. In other words, people reject God because there is a crucial bit of information that they do not know.

Pardon me for jumping in.

However, I need to point out that in the Catholic Church, there is the recognition that people are not clones of each other. This is because the Catholic Church teaches that human nature consists of a rotting anatomy and an immortal spiritual intellect which can choose either good or bad or neither. A spiritual intellect capable of accepting or rejecting God is an essential part of human nature’s free choice to live in relationship to the Creator or not.
(*CCC *1730-31; *CCC *355-356).

Now it so happens that a real God is the only one who can determine the amount of necessary information that is within the capability of an individual human.

In other words, we cannot assume that the crowd at the foot of Jesus during His execution, are like clones of each other. This assumption is the huge error in determining the meaning of Christ’s words during His chosen bodily death. Unfortunately, it often sounds, when interpreting the meaning of Christ’s words, that Christ is no longer truly God. Modern Arianism would easily admit that Christ can perform miracles. But when it comes to Jesus Divinely knowing the state of each soul of each person, the current Arianism might choose a possible proposition that there is no need for Christ to individually know each person because His words can be interpreted as a strictly universal human observation. This downgrading is evinced in some current explanations about Christ’s words.

The information that is skipped in these Arian type explanations is the fact that individuals need to freely choose reconciliation or to continue rejection of God. Choosing God is demonstrated by the individual recognizing his sin, expressing his sorrow, seeking God’s mercy, and deciding against that sin in the future. It should be obvious that what is being denied are the Catholic teachings on Mortal Sin and the State of Mortal Sin.

 

[OneSheep]

I do admire your creative imagination. I wonder about your intentions.

You are presenting a wrong idea about the Catholic Church when you say that you “find the view that man is “depraved” or “bad” is a natural or “organic” approach. I say that there is room for this view, even though it is clearly against Church teaching.”

I underlined the really weird statement above.

There is no room in the Catholic Church for a view clearly against its teaching. That is clearly a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. So which “Catholic Church” are you referring to? Obviously, it is not the Catholic Church which has seven Sacraments and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Granny,

I can explain further, but first, do you think that there is room in the Church for those who think that man is evil or depraved?

I thought you were on my side on this one. Remember the three thumbs up?

I need to point out that in the Catholic Church, there is the recognition that people are not clones of each other. This is because the Catholic Church teaches that human nature consists of a rotting anatomy and an immortal spiritual intellect which can choose either good or bad or neither.

Now it so happens that a real God is the only one who can determine the amount of necessary information that is within the capability of an individual human.

In other words, we cannot assume that the crowd at the foot of Jesus during His execution, are like clones of each other. This assumption is the huge error in determining the meaning of Christ’s words during His chosen bodily death. Unfortunately, it often sounds, when interpreting the meaning of Christ’s words, that Christ is no longer truly God. Modern Arianism would easily admit that Christ can perform miracles. But when it comes to Jesus Divinely knowing the state of each soul of each person, the current Arianism would propose that there is no need for Christ to individually know each person because His words can be interpreted as a strictly human observation. This downgrading is evinced in some current explanations about Christ’s words.

We can readily assume that Jesus was addressing all the people who wanted Him dead or punished. If you won’t take my word for that, ask a priest. Christ knew, individually what was on their minds. He was not addressing Mary. He was addressing the people who resented Him.

Will you please get off your high horse about this Arianism business! Enough! When you find what you think is an Arianist, let me know, and we can discuss him. In the mean time, stop judging! Please! What was your last suggestion, that even those who use the term “omni” are arianists? Granny, get a grip!

Grrrr… Love you though… … Grrrr…

 

[OneSheep]

I do admire your creative imagination. I wonder about your intentions.

Oops. Didn’t address this.

Intention: As always, pastoral. Inclusion. Acknowledgement and acceptance of different journeys.

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

I can explain further, but first, do you think that there is room in the Church for those who think that man is evil or depraved?

I thought you were on my side on this one. Remember the three thumbs up?

Thanks

I have been responding to your post 283, where you stated: "That said, I find the view that man is “depraved” or “bad” is a natural or “organic” approach. I say that there is room for this view, even though it is clearly against Church teaching. "

There is no room in the Catholic Church for a view clearly against its teaching. That is clearly a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. Perhaps you are referring to some other religion.

If you wish to continue discussion on the topic of non-contradiction of teachings in the Catholic Church, we can do so. However, I am not interested in a distracting question about my thoughts on evil.

 

[pocaracas]

You just hit the nail on the head while most people now have sore thumbs.

The very old heresy that Jesus Christ was really a great prophet Who could perform a few miracles, but was not necessarily a real God, has returned as modern Arianism. This is seen in the downgrading of Christ’s words on the cross. Its base is demonstrated in the suggestion – “perhaps because J.C. was a man and not in any law-giving position of power that many previous prophets were …”

I’m not sure what you mean, here…
Are you thinking that I’m arguing that J.C. was a prophet?

All I was saying is that he wasn’t a person in a position to give out a law, like… for example… Moses was.

 

[frangiuliano115]

That means that you now recognize that the reason there is no problem with huge variations is that the true Catholic Church has defined the specific truth. Those huge variations have no power to change Catholic doctrines. So why should I be concerned about them?

Only the Catholic Church as the power to proclaim Divine Revelation. Other variations are discarded.

Historical note: Not all variations presented by great saints become Catholic doctrines. This is because the promised Holy Spirit has the final say as He guides the major ecumenical councils. His wisdom was promised by the truly Divine Jesus. Refer to chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Of course, because of free speech, you can continue to avoid Catholic doctrines and promote your own variation.

grannymh,
I’m not sure yet, but I’d say from what I heard in church last evening, the church MIGHT just be starting to give up on Thomas and Augustine. Even on religion. Maybe we’re headed for that one world thingy.

Let me know if you learn anything. I have to still speak to a few people.

God bless

 

[pocaracas]

Good morning, pocaracas, and thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut!

Cheers!

If it is boring, it is not a utopia, right? I could never tire of creating beautiful things or learning more. But wow, what if we were to know everything? Gosh, how could life have any thrill without discovery? Then, I suppose, all my focus would have to turn to making life better for everyone else, which is even more rewarding!

It’s eternal… you would tire of it.
Everyone else would also be ok… or gone…

We can know by self-reflection and observation of beauty. There is a connection we can find in All that Exists, a Love. And faith also presents a “better story”. Have you read* Life of Pi?*

I saw the movie

Yes, very good points. There is a “knowing” accessible through prayer and self-reflection, but revelation is not easy to gain for people. The information is out there; when the human appreciates the beauty of a hover fly dancing between blossoms, her appreciation comes from the source of the same beauty. Appreciation is in itself beautiful! And what are “guidelines” if they are not means by which we protect that which we hold dear? Indeed, the guidelines themselves are innate to a large degree. The software is all there, it is experience that fills in all the necessary data. I know that sounds a little spacey, but we Westerners are a bit too left-brained in our approach to the world.

I think that Dawkins is operating from what he sees as an evil - religion and faith itself. Dawkin’s approach is “organic” in that he sees a “power of goodness” in science and a “power of evil” in religion. He would not word it that way, of course, but that is the impression I get from his approach. I wish that He could understand and forgive “religious people”; all of us suffer a bit of ignorance whether we believe in God or not.

Yeah…
But that’s still not a good method of acquiring information… as I said, its failure is patent in the multitude of concurrent (and, often, contradicting) faith based institutions in the world.

Have a great day.

Thanks, you too!
Around here, the day is almost at an end… at least the work part of it!

 

[davidv]

I’m not sure what you mean, here…
Are you thinking that I’m arguing that J.C. was a prophet?

All I was saying is that he wasn’t a person in a position to give out a law, like… for example… Moses was.

If Jesus is God, why would He not be in the position to give out a law?

 

[simpleas]

ONE SHEEP

Read 247. Are you serious? After all the discussing we’ve had you don’t know how I would answer??

The woman sounds depressed. Do you think God is not just? I really don’t care to discuss her case anymore. God sees each act on an individual basis. I mean, are maybe YOU doing some projecting here?

The correct meaning of projecting. How can I ever trust you again?? Just kidding. I misspeak many times. You should also go back and find out what empathy really is too. I mean REALLY is. But that’s a differnt thread.

Now why have you given Tantum Ergo at no. 264 the explanation I’ve been asking for since the git go? I’m glad you put that last pp in there. I do believe you have visited that place I was speaking of in the post just above this one. “God took full ownership of the consequences of pushing that button - our actions”. Paraphrased. Okay. But do we have no resposibility at all? What is choice all about?

You tell Aloysium in post no. 266 that we fear sin being excused. If I understood. Do you think we here on this thread FEAR sin being excused?? It’s excused millions of times a day.

I think you’re experiencing the same problem as simpleas, in a way. He can’t seem to understand that man is not good but is inherently bad. We could discuss this on a theological level, but it’s okay. One day he’ll come around and understand better. The CCC causes problems, as I’ve said many times.

And you. Maybe you belong in a grace movement church? No, seriously. It’s the closest thing you’re going to get with your idea. They don’t like thinking about sin either and are getting pretty close to saying that you don’t even have to ask for forgiveness. In fact, some denominations (independent) are already teaching this.

You’re a fun person too One Sheep.
No, really. I’ll be sorry when this thread ends.

Fran

I think you’re experiencing the same problem as simpleas, in a way. He can’t seem to understand that man is not good but is inherently bad. We could discuss this on a theological level, but it’s okay. One day he’ll come around and understand better. The CCC causes problems, as I’ve said many times.

Do you always presume to know what a person thinks when you have no idea about them?

BTW I am female, should have corrected you many posts back.

Man is inherently bad? Sorry this is not what I have come to learn in my Catholic journey. I am aware that man can do much harm, but I’m a big believer in freewill, that no one is born a “wretch” but they can choose goodness.

Of course you sound like you know much more than me as you are teaching the bible to others.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thread… just a few snippets.
So, apologies if I’m saying something that has already been said.

I’ve heard many atheists say that (of course) they don’t believe that a god exists, but, if it turns out that the god of the bible does exist, then they would never worship that god, for it is, in the words of R.Dawkins, "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Would this mean they knowingly and willingly reject god?
Shouldn’t all us humans reject such a god?

But that Dawkins tirade was only about the god of the Old Testament.
About the New… well… too much fluff and a clear change in attitude towards mankind… perhaps because J.C. was a man and not in any law-giving position of power that many previous prophets were… but let’s leave that for another day.

To knowingly and willingly reject the fluff in the NT version of god?
There is the prospect of eternal boredom… sure, “eternal” bliss may be great for a while… but there still more eternity after that while.
Remember “The Architect’s first attempt at a Matrix was a utopia, but it failed miserably and many human lives were lost when the inhabitants refused to accept it.”
Mankind cannot handle utopia… much less eternal utopia.
Knowing this, why would anyone put themselves in a position to go to such a state?

Now to some more practical business: How would a human “know” about a god? Not only know that a god exists, but also know his characteristics so that this human can make an informed decision whether to follow or reject the god.
Keep in mind that “belief” is not a reliable enough means of acquiring knowledge.

“anxious to fight him”, said the Fr…
I don’t know why this happens, but believers seem to operate under the assumption that atheists fight against their god…in reality, atheists do not assume that a god exists in the first place, so, fighting something that doesn’t exist… doesn’t make much sense.
If atheists are to fight anything, it is the potentially wrong beliefs that some people hold… and the results that such beliefs can have on the way the world is managed.
And I wouldn’t call it a fight… more like an attempt at reasoning… at explaining where beliefs come from, why they take such a hold on the human mind, why they were necessary, how we can let go of them nowadays, how the human mind is open to many other kinds of reasoning pitfalls which lead to bad judgements, etc…

If a god is real and wishes mankind to adhere to its guidelines, then relying on belief is probably not the best of means… just look at all the disparity of beliefs such a tactic has generated in the world!
“Anxious to fight him”… What challenge would such incompetence be?

Are you trying desperately to change this thread?

Can you atheists not come up with any new ideas, for goodness sake? Are we going to keep arguing about the same ole’s stuff? ho hum.

Oh. And we always have the same ideas too. Which is why, maybe, these conversations go nowhere.

Dawkins is great isn’t he? Like a god to you guys. I guess everybody needs a god. The new ateism and all that. I prefer the guy who wrote the bible. It took him a long time, over 1,500 years, but it turned out really great.

Now, I have a slight headache and you’ll forgive me if I sound brusque. I can’t remember if it was One Sheep who told me I have a gentle voice - well, not always, sometimes it gets all out of control. Must be God’s fault somehow. If he existed, I’d be able to control myself.

Here’s a question for you pocaracas:

WHY are you so anxious to convince us that God doesn’t exist?
Is it just to make us smarter? We should be beholdin’ to ya.

You want to know what I really think, pocaracas?

I think you could stop arguing with us. I think you’ve won.

God’s grace falls on all

 

[frangiuliano115]

Do you always presume to know what a person thinks when you have no idea about them?

BTW I am female, should have corrected you many posts back.

Man is inherently bad? Sorry this is not what I have come to learn in my Catholic journey. I am aware that man can do much harm, but I’m a big believer in freewill, that no one is born a “wretch” but they can choose goodness.

Of course you sound like you know much more than me as you are teaching the bible to others.

simpleas,

I didn’t presume anything about you. You yourself said that you read the CCC from pp 390 on and came to the conclusion that man is good but has the capability to do harm. I was just saying that this is not what the church teaches.

Could I ask you a question?

WHY can man do harm?

I always like to ask what it is that causes hurricanes. A gentle breeze could be so sweet and soothing.

Please, I beg you, don’t read the CCC which can be interpreted differently. Please read the book of Romans. I’ll bet you could do it in two evenings, and then come back here and tell me what you read.

If you want to believe we’re inherently good, that’s okay. You might want to check it out with a priest who is willing to REALLY talk to you sometime. I do think it matters, but let’s let it go at that.

God bless you sister
Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

One Sheep

I really do have a headache. Doncha feel sorry for me?

Pocaracas says:

“Yeah…
But that’s still not a good method of acquiring information… as I said, its failure is patent in the multitude of concurrent (and, often, contradicting) faith based institutions in the world.”

Yeah…
Jesus is just another religion.

Why do people from Mars insist on speaking to people on Earth?

Oh. And I think we’re the ones from Mars.

A domani
Fran

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what you mean, here…
Are you thinking that I’m arguing that J.C. was a prophet?

All I was saying is that he wasn’t a person in a position to give out a law, like… for example… Moses was.

I just lost my post to you and I am out of intellectual energy needed to figure out what I wrote.

What you were saying about Jesus not being "a person in a position to give out a law, like… for example… Moses was.’’ is an excellent example of modern Arianism.

My guess is that 73% of the readers, including guests, have no clue what modern Arianism refers to. It is related to the thread’s title because in searching for any human knowingly and willingly rejecting God, one has to examine the position of God in His relationship with human creatures. Christ’s words on the cross have been mentioned.

By the way, I am comfortable with “none” as the religion designation. We both have an interest in Jesus Christ as He appears in Scripture. We have different approaches but that is not a problem for me.

Here is a Catholic Answers Tract. Following the introductory paragraphs, one needs to scroll down to Arianism. Please note that you are not an Arianist. There is an innocent poster asking me about finding an Arianist. Some people have difficulties with the changes from ancient Arianism to modern Arianism.

catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies