I am an atheist

[_A]

But, I need to know what you mean by unsaved- and I think you misunderstand the catholic position of who is going to hell…but- I will not assume that, I am just wondering if you have just been feeling this way or if you have any evidence to support this idea?

Catholocism, or nationalism, or racism, or clanism do the same kind of dividing. I don’t explain it well, but it creates us/them divisions in places like Ireland.

So, its neutral or benevolent then? It can not be worse or better if the same result (work) can be done by both right?

Not quite. I personally, if I felt it was right, could advocate sex education including birth control methods, and even legal and freely accessible abortion. If I was convinced that it was the best way to help the most people, I could do it. I think you will find that, while churchgoers are wrestling with these complicated questions, the church is still preaching dogma. The dogma which will do harm to real people and their bodies, in favour of protecting their ‘souls’, which may or may not exist.

I can’t tell you how much effort I have made, yet failed at in this.

Thanks again, I am pleased that so many people here are trying to understand my position in a rational way.

 

[Hellisreal]

Catholocism, or nationalism, or racism, or clanism do the same kind of dividing. I don’t explain it well, but it creates us/them divisions in places like Ireland.

Okay, I see that. But, we did not do the dividing. We were all united until the “dividers” left us.(this is our POV of course) Since then, the ones who left us have continually divided and divided.
We did not wish for division- neither did Christ. He prayed we would all be one.

These divisions caused much pain on all sides.

Today, you can be an atheist, a deist, a Buhddist or whatever you chose and Catholic Charities will help you if you are in need. Is that division?

Not quite. I personally, if I felt it was right, could advocate sex education including birth control methods, and even legal and freely accessible abortion. If I was convinced that it was the best way to help the most people, I could do it. I think you will find that, while churchgoers are wrestling with these complicated questions, the church is still preaching dogma.

We all have dogmas, as I established earlier in another post. You do too. Your dogmas reject things that can not be tested. The Church is still providing help to those who have made decisions against church dogma.
There are catholic ministries for those who choose abortion and rejected all the help to avoid it. And, the church does feel it is right to preach this dogma, with love- and rescources to those who dont agree.

The dogma which will do harm to real people and their bodies, in favour of protecting their ‘souls’, which may or may not exist.

How so? That is a subjective and emotional appeal. Not presenting evidence, its hard to say if I can agree with your statement. I need evidence this is fact.

Thanks again, I am pleased that so many people here are trying to understand my position in a rational way.

You deserve to be respected, and treated with kindness,as our faith teaches us this.

 

[Tracyms1974]

Tracy, I have to agree that jealousy has no place in a loving relationship. If you were to be with me, and want to be with someone else, I would not be right to be jealous, not if I wanted to be respectful of you. I would get out of your way, and consider that we were not together (in the exclusive sex way) anymore. How would being jealous add anything to a relationship?

Jealousy would at least prompt you to express your disappointment. What you describe is APATHY.

 

[Hellisreal]

Jealousy would at least prompt you to express your disappointment. What you describe is APATHY.

Why dont you tell me what the bible says in corinthians about love?

Come on, dont be apathetic about it either.

 

[stringbeanduck]

knowing that there is no reward at the end. I think it is inspiring,

Really? Well I would think different if were an atheist. But then again I’m not soooo…

Well hellisreal. I in no way was in any wrong by my statement. As I’ve said before, I’ve imagined a world with no God. And it is sad. However one thing I for got to say is I can’t fully understand the atheists’ way. In order for me to understand atheists’ way I would have to close my heart to God. And I don’t think it would be wise for you to try to understand the atheists’ way completely also.

I have consulted all my faculties and did not detect any gods. Does that mean, in keeping with your statement, that gods do not exist?

I don’t think you’ve tried hard enough. Other atheists have found God. A you have to open your heart to God in way that is all new to you. It is a hard concept to understand. As I’ve said I can’t close my heart to God. But you can always open your to Him.

-SBD

 

[Tracyms1974]

Obviously, we disagree on what constitutes a happy marriage. That does not mean that any apologies are necessary. So, please don’t apologize.

I think we’re arguing semantics here. Jealous is the word used in the Old Testament. God said, “I am a Jealous God.” I was told what this meant in Church which I have already said and will not say again. Are you saying that God should not care what god we choose to hang out with?

Without a healthy dose of jealousy, concern, awareness, whatever you want to call it, you enter the realm of APATHY. I would rather not be married to somebody who could care less whether or not I commit adultery. Why get married?

Specifically, I wanted an apology for the “Get it out of yours” remark. I took it as a caustic command that did not need to be made and, obviously, have no desire to heed. This is not some first grade playground where we shove people saying “Move!” and “That’s mine! I saw it first!” Whether I “Get it out of mine,” is my business and will not be your business unless and until I say further.

Tracy

 

[Hellisreal]

Well hellisreal. I in no way was in any wrong by my statement. As I’ve said before, I’ve imagined a world with no God. And it is sad. However one thing I for got to say is I can’t fully understand the atheists’ way. In order for me to understand atheists’ way I would have to close my heart to God. And I don’t think it would be wise for you to try to understand the atheists’ way completely also.

Funny, I feel I am opening myself up to God more, by trying to see other’s points of view that are unlike mine. After all, God gave me a brain, and he told me that I should love. He never said I had to stop thinking or loving.
Too bad I dont have enough of either, but I do my best.
I may never understand “atheists’ way” but I never will if I slam the door either. I do not think its shutting out God to dialouge in love with (sorry A, but from our point of view-) His child. My faith is in no way threatend by speaking from my heart, nor is it from hearing A out. I am sorry you think its unwise or that I should be hesitant to do so. I am willing to put it all out there and hear everything he has to say. I fear not. Love is not fear.
What can I fear? I dont even fear death!

I don’t think you’ve tried hard enough. Other atheists have found God. A you have to open your heart to God in way that is all new to you. It is a hard concept to understand. As I’ve said I can’t close my heart to God. But you can always open your to Him.-SBD

Woah. Who made you the reader of hearts and minds!?!

How can you say A has not “tried hard enough?”

Urrrgh.

This is very likely why my friend strangeld herself in her basement.
Too many people saying **** like this to her over time, and not with any authority to do so!

 

[Pax]

As humans, we eat life.
You are comparing the value of a human life to that of a fish? Why aren’t you out saving fish souls, if they are the same?
I can tell you. It is because humans are our group and we feel a group loyalty. You likely will keep saving humans until they are all saved, only then to move on to the souls of the fishes.
I could accept your god killing enough fish to feed himself. I will not accept the notion that a being who kills and hates so much is good.
I think it is clear that out societies, for the most part, have moved past all that. I know that I have. Have you considered just how wrong it looks for your Yahweh to punish people for being sinners, after he made everyone a sinner?

My purpose is not to compare human life to that of a fish per se, and I am not setting up an equality between the two. You know very well from my prior posts that I believe that there is a huge distance between our infinite Creator and finite man. I also made it clear that the distance between us and animals is substantial but that this distance is very small when compared to the distance between us and God.

My point still remains unanswered. You don’t seem to have a problem dispatching living creatures that are far closer to you in kind than the infinite difference that exists between God and man. Nevertheless, you object to God doing as He sees fit to His creation which is infinitely inferior to Him. So far you still haven’t addressed this problem. If you have no answer to this just say so and we’ll move on.

 

[Jacafamala]

What could men do do cause an all-powerful god to suffer? I would have to say that he publicly ‘punished’ himself for a few days, then went back to whatever his real life was. We don’t have a crime so light that 3 days in jail is the regular sentence. He chooses to torture some beings for eternity for crimes that can only be considered tiny by comparison.No, but some will suffer for eternity. Think about that - eternity of torture and torment for, at most, a hundred years of evil.
That sounds fair to you? Just?
To me it is a positively beastly story. I am told that my outlook would change if I were to ‘believe’.
I still have no reason to believe.

People get what they want. They suffer because they choose to suffer. God simply respects that out of love, because God respects their free will. And yes: it is horrible.

 

[Jacafamala]

No I don’t, because there is no real god to have such a contest with. I was merely pointing out one of the problems with suggesting that the god you believe in is all-powerful. If he does not appear in the next 10 seconds, I will have to declare the win be default - I would rather not do that…but…
Sorry, the time is up, and your god lost by default.

Still say all-powerful?

Indeed He is all-powerful, and He’s not at our beck and call for every whim. And we will never figure Him out entirely, He’s too wonderful.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Quietly doing noble and dangerous work, while not being noted for nobility or bravery.

Sounds like Jesus himself, from what i understand about him from the gospels. Maybe he was looking for like-minded men. Also, i think he got a chuckle out of his play on words when he told the fisherman Peter that if Peter would follow him then he would make him a fisher of men.

If you don’t think it out of line for me to ask, please let me know what you think about Jesus himself (not as God, of course, but as a man).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m not sure about A, I get the impression he will probably say he believes none of those things, but will live his life going by the best evidence available at the time.

Myself, I will believe some of those things, but will be happy to change my belief upon contrary evidence.

I’d have to say the same about A.


So what do you think about the evidence of predictive prophecy in the Bible, Phooney?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… As my thread seems to have died a death now,did you have a chance to look into the evidence I mentioned regarding the pentateuch authorship?

Well, i think we have the power to raise your discussion thread from the dead!



Rather than hijack this one, lets continue the discussion about the historical reliability of the biblical texts there.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

@Socrates4Jesus

Sorry for the delay in my response, I read your post and then had to go away for a while, and forgot you had responded! My bad.

“There is a basic principle of scriptural interpretation (which also applies to interpreting any ancient text) that context dictates the meaning.”

But if there HAD been a tidal wave, and I had said that the scripture indicated that the conquerer was supposed to throw the city into the sea, it would have been possible to use the piece I originally quoted to claim the prophecy was still fulfilled on the grounds of contextual meaning.

I think perhaps for this reason alone we may have to agree that this example is not specific enough. However, if you want to still respond to the other problems I had with it, then by all means I would love to hear your thoughts, you are a very thoughtful and considerate person as far as I can gather. …

It is worth saying that there is a difference between a text being vague and a text being ambiguous. I think you might make the argument that Ezekiel might be taken the wrong way, but this is not the same thing as accusing him of a lack of precise and exact details. Please read his words again and tell me if they are too vague to verify their historical accuracy:

“They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

(Ezekiel 26:12-14)
How is this not specific? Can you see that these words describe in detail what many modern historians call the greatest military and engineering feat in the ancient world accomplished by Alexander the Great?

 

[_A]

Okay, I see that. But, we did not do the dividing. We were all united until the “dividers” left us.(this is our POV of course) Since then, the ones who left us have continually divided and divided.
We did not wish for division- neither did Christ. He prayed we would all be one.

These divisions caused much pain on all sides.

Today, you can be an atheist, a deist, a Buhddist or whatever you chose and Catholic Charities will help you if you are in need. Is that division?

If Ireland had only protestants, no catholics, they would have to find something else to fight about.

We all have dogmas, as I established earlier in another post. You do too. Your dogmas reject things that can not be tested.

This is ‘dogma’? Even though it is open to change if I find out it is wrong? I don’t think so.

The Church is still providing help to those who have made decisions against church dogma.
There are catholic ministries for those who choose abortion and rejected all the help to avoid it. And, the church does feel it is right to preach this dogma, with love- and rescources to those who dont agree.

When you mention ‘all the help to avoid it’, don’t you mean when the church does all that it can to influence someone’s decision? If a young woman decided to get an abortion, that decision is hers and hers alone. No-one else’s business.
The church cultivates a dislike of abortion, as your ‘all the help to avoid it’ comment indicates. How is this different than any other medical procedure? Why is it church business? Does the church support sex-education including birth-control? Or does it stay with ‘abstinence-only’ education, despite the fact that it often leads to abortion?

How so? That is a subjective and emotional appeal. Not presenting evidence, its hard to say if I can agree with your statement. I need evidence this is fact.

You wanted specific examples?
Catholic Church in Nicaragua Outlaws Abortion

• The anti-abortion laws are so strict that they include the banning of surgeries that are meant to save the life of a pregnant woman

the article:

Some of the provisions of the law highlight sentences of six to 30 years for those who perform abortions, be they doctors or patients, and even ban the surgery to save the life of a pregnant woman.

 

[_A]

Jealousy would at least prompt you to express your disappointment. What you describe is APATHY.

Nope. What I describe is respectful and caring. I have been together happily for over 7 years with the same wonderful woman.
She doesn’t own me - I don’t own her. I have no right to ask her where she was on Friday night - it is only my business if she decides to tell me. Same goes for me. What we have is trust, rather than a binding contract forcing fidelity on us. We will be true to each other just as long as we want to be - and not one minute more.
I know she is here today because she loves me and wants to be here - same reason that I am here with her.
Please don’t suggest that I don’t feel for her just because I don’t consider jealousy a healthy feeling.

 

[_A]

. And I don’t think it would be wise for you to try to understand the atheists’ way completely also.

I think this is very telling. You won’t try to see things my way out of fear. I understand. I wish you a long life of learning.

I don’t think you’ve tried hard enough.

But I did. You are just trying to make me invent some experience. There was none. You said there would be.

Other atheists have found God. A you have to open your heart to God in way that is all new to you.

If you could explain exactly what I did wrong, we could continue to try. Trouble is, you are using meaningless metaphor to try to show how I have failed. If I open my heart, all the blood will fall out. What exactly should I do to see this ‘god’ you describe?

It is a hard concept to understand. As I’ve said I can’t close my heart to God. But you can always open your to Him.

-SBD

If you feel like describing it in another way, I may understand. This ‘open your heart’ phrase means nothing more to me. I have tried as well as I can with this description, and felt nothing.

 

[_A]

My purpose is not to compare human life to that of a fish per se, and I am not setting up an equality between the two. You know very well from my prior posts that I believe that there is a huge distance between our infinite Creator and finite man. I also made it clear that the distance between us and animals is substantial but that this distance is very small when compared to the distance between us and God.

My point still remains unanswered. You don’t seem to have a problem dispatching living creatures that are far closer to you in kind than the infinite difference that exists between God and man. Nevertheless, you object to God doing as He sees fit to His creation which is infinitely inferior to Him. So far you still haven’t addressed this problem. If you have no answer to this just say so and we’ll move on.

Your god stated these morals (in some cases, like thou shalt not kill) and can’t live by them himself. I say that makes him sit well beneath anyone who can live by those morals.
We have much better morals now than were offered by this ‘god’. To me that also proves our moral superiority.
When was the last time you stoned someone for working on the sabbath?
Do you think that such an act would be ‘moral’?

 

[_A]

People get what they want. They suffer because they choose to suffer. God simply respects that out of love, because God respects their free will. And yes: it is horrible.

It is horrible that you believe everyone who doesn’t answer the ‘god question’ correctly will be choosing suffering.

 

[_A]

Sounds like Jesus himself, from what i understand about him from the gospels. Maybe he was looking for like-minded men. Also, i think he got a chuckle out of his play on words when he told the fisherman Peter that if Peter would follow him then he would make him a fisher of men.

If you don’t think it out of line for me to ask, please let me know what you think about Jesus himself (not as God, of course, but as a man).

I think all the stories were written (and edited) so long after his death that little can be said about the man himself.(If he did indeed exist)