Lifelong atheist, Hell bound, and Born Again

[goout]

…
This fundamental belief is not an “intellectual” matter. It has to do with the soul of a person. Atheism is a belief that God, or a Creator, does not exist.

This puts the atheist in a unique position, unless the word a-theist is to be redefined.
Atheist implies that with full knowledge and consent, a person rejects God.

I don’t think any atheist would claim ignorance informs their belief, since a well reasoned position is valued by atheists (above God even).

I personally don’t think it’s that black and white.
I don’t believe most atheists really know what it is they are rejecting.
Most reject a caricature of the Christian God. So how can they be said to have full knowledge and consent?

 

[Contarini]

I’d say it’s pretty obvious this deals with those who are not aware of the Gospel.

Those whose consciences are not convicted of the truth of the Gospel, yes. Lumen Gentium speaks elsewhere, with regard to non-Catholics in general, of guilt accruing only to those who know that the Church is true but reject it.

Of course you can argue that atheists have a higher bar to clear, but the Council’s language doesn’t require this. Indeed, I’d argue that my position makes more sense of the teachings of Lumen Gentium (and the ordinary Magisterium over the past 50 years) as a whole.

Further, it is not addressing those who reject belief in God, but rather those who do acknowledge Him, as Creator.

No, it very explicitly speaks of those who do not know God, period.

It’s an oxymoron.

How do you know that?

But the distinction is that I am NOT judging who does or who does not believe.

You’re judging whether or not they are acting in good faith. You are not in a position to do that. No created being is.

An atheist is actually someone who specifically believes there is no God or Creator.
Mark 16
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.*He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

And that has been interpreted by the Church to mean “he who is convicted in his heart of the truth but refuses to believe anyway.”

You seem to be saying something different than your argument here.

No. I said that the language could mean that, but that I interpret it differently.

This fundamental belief is not an “intellectual” matter. It has to do with the soul of a person. Atheism is a belief that God, or a Creator, does not exist.

The last sentence describes an intellectual belief. What “has to do with the soul of a person” is how a person responds to whatever inklings of the truth he or she receives. Intellect and will influence each other mutually, as St. Thomas taught. A person who doesn’t want to believe can turn his intellect away from considering “dangerous” truths. That is culpable ignorance. But we can’t know that any given person is doing that, and it is uncharitable to assume culpability.

Edwin

 

[rcwitness]

Those whose consciences are not convicted of the truth of the Gospel, yes. Lumen Gentium speaks elsewhere, with regard to non-Catholics in general, of guilt accruing only to those who know that the Church is true but reject it.

my simple question to you was “Where?” The passage you provided does not. It is addressing other faiths who believe in the Creator, but do not have the knowledge of Christ (Gospel).

Of course you can argue that atheists have a higher bar to clear, but the Council’s language doesn’t require this. Indeed, I’d argue that my position makes more sense of the teachings of Lumen Gentium (and the ordinary Magisterium over the past 50 years) as a whole.

Then where does it say that?

No, it very explicitly speaks of those who do not know God, period.

Where?

How do you know that?

Because one does not believe that God does not exist out of good faith.

You’re judging whether or not they are acting in good faith. You are not in a position to do that. No created being is.

Right, I am not. They judge themselves, when they profess God is

And that has been interpreted by the Church to mean “he who is convicted in his heart of the truth but refuses to believe anyway.”

Where does the Church Teach this?

The last sentence describes an intellectual belief. What “has to do with the soul of a person” is how a person responds to whatever inklings of the truth he or she receives. Intellect and will influence each other mutually, as St. Thomas taught. A person who doesn’t want to believe can turn his intellect away from considering “dangerous” truths. That is culpable ignorance. But we can’t know that any given person is doing that, and it is uncharitable to assume culpability.

Let’s just say that I view atheism as what it is defined as:
a*:* a disbelief in the existence of deity
b*:* the doctrine that there is no deity
This is not a mere, “I’m just not sure, or convinced, i don’t know” its, “I don’t believe and I support and profess that God is imaginary”

I’m not judging them. It is evident. Please provide a clear Teaching from Scripture or the Church before calling me uncharitable again. I am not being uncharitable to anyone.

 

[rcwitness]

This puts the atheist in a unique position, unless the word a-theist is to be redefined.
Atheist implies that with full knowledge and consent, a person rejects God.

I don’t think any atheist would claim ignorance informs their belief, since a well reasoned position is valued by atheists (above God even).

I personally don’t think it’s that black and white.
I don’t believe most atheists really know what it is they are rejecting.
Most reject a caricature of the Christian God. So how can they be said to have full knowledge and consent?

How do you know what Atheists are rejecting, let alone most? Do you think the Christmas and Easter stories are just “caricatures”?

 

[goout]

How do you know what Atheists are rejecting, let alone most?

By experience in conversations like these. Most atheists reject a god they don’t understand. Most atheists reject the god of the fundamentalists. Have you ever heard the phrase “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”?
Fulton Sheen made a related observation:
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

Do you think the Christmas and Easter stories are just “caricatures”?

How do you glean from my comments that I “think the Christmas and Easter stories are just “caricatures””?

If a person understands what Easter and Christmas are, then they truly know what they are rejecting.
If a person rejects a caricature of those, do they have full knowledge and consent?

 

[rcwitness]

By experience in conversations like these. Most atheists reject a god they don’t understand. Most atheists reject the god of the fundamentalists. Have you ever heard the phrase “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”?
Fulton Sheen made a related observation:
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

How do you glean from my comments that I “think the Christmas and Easter stories are just “caricatures””?

If a person understands what Easter and Christmas are, then they truly know what they are rejecting.
If a person rejects a caricature of those, do they have full knowledge and consent?

Now I’m more confused. Are you saying fundamentalists worship a different God than Catholics?

 

[rcwitness]

How do you glean from my comments that I “think the Christmas and Easter stories are just “caricatures””?

If a person understands what Easter and Christmas are, then they truly know what they are rejecting.
If a person rejects a caricature of those, do they have full knowledge and consent?

Ok. So you think most atheists don’t understand what Christmas and Easter are?

 

[goout]

I’ll just repost my words without the mischaracterizations. If anyone needs a translator, let me know.

Originally Posted by rcwitness
…
This fundamental belief is not an “intellectual” matter. It has to do with the soul of a person. Atheism is a belief that God, or a Creator, does not exist.

This puts the atheist in a unique position, unless the word a-theist is to be redefined.
Atheist implies that with full knowledge and consent, a person rejects God.

I don’t think any atheist would claim ignorance informs their belief, since a well reasoned position is valued by atheists (above God even).

I personally don’t think it’s that black and white.
I don’t believe most atheists really know what it is they are rejecting.
Most reject a caricature of the Christian God. So how can they be said to have full knowledge and consent?

Most atheists reject a god they don’t understand. Most atheists reject the god of the fundamentalists. Have you ever heard the phrase “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”?
Fulton Sheen made a related observation:
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

If a person understands what Easter and Christmas are, then they truly know what they are rejecting.
If a person rejects a caricature of those, do they have full knowledge and consent?

 

[rcwitness]

I’ll just repost my words without the mischaracterizations. If anyone needs a translator, let me know.

I didn’t need a translator, I speak english too. I was asking for deeper clarification. Specifically with posts 86 and 87. But it’s ok, if you don’t feel like it. Maybe I’m just scratching…

 

[goout]

I didn’t need a translator, I speak english too. I was asking for deeper clarification. Specifically with posts 86 and 87. But it’s ok, if you don’t feel like it. Maybe I’m just scratching…

You mischaracterized my words in three successive posts. So? What am I supposed to think?
Who feels like defending themselves against mischaracterizations? Do you? I don’t.
It’s a waste of time.
How is that effective witness?

 

[rcwitness]

You mischaracterized my words in three successive posts. So? What am I supposed to think?
Who feels like defending themselves against mischaracterizations? Do you? I don’t.
It’s a waste of time.
How is that effective witness?

They were legitimate questions based on your posts. I was not witnessing.

 

[MarkInOregon]

God is not a book or a contract, he is a being.

Sorry Goout I see you made the correction in a later post, but I’m leaving my post in case anyone wishes to check out the Mystery of God program.

I’m not sure that God is “a” being–isn’t God rather being itself, the sheer act of being? “God is the being whose essence is existence. God is not one being in the universe, or even a being who exists outside of the universe in a special realm. Instead, God just is ‘existence,’ or in the words of Pope St. John Paul II, 'the great ‘Existent.’” From The Mystery of God study guide from Word on Fire. One can view a sample lesson from the program at the Word on Fire Website if interested.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Contarini]

my simple question to you was “Where?” The passage you provided does not. It is addressing other faiths who believe in the Creator, but do not have the knowledge of Christ (Gospel).

No: it says explicitly “Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God.” It has already addressed people who believe in God but are not Christians. This is talking about people who don’t believe in God at all.

To be sure, you can argue that people surrounded by a Christian culture, who in many cases grew up as Christians, can’t fit this description. I disagree. But this is an empirical, not a doctrinal matter.

Because one does not believe that God does not exist out of good faith.

You keep saying this. That is a judgment on your part. One that you have no right to make.

Right, I am not. They judge themselves

No. They say that they are acting in good faith. You choose to disbelieve them, across the board. That is uncharitable and presumptuous on your part. You can’t possibly know whether they are acting in good faith or not.

Let’s just say that I view atheism as what it is defined as:
a*:* a disbelief in the existence of deity
b*:* the doctrine that there is no deity
This is not a mere, “I’m just not sure, or convinced, i don’t know” its, “I don’t believe and I support and profess that God is imaginary”

I know what an atheist is. The part that you have not explained is how you know that they are not acting in good faith.

Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases they can’t describe orthodox Christian belief in God accurately, so it’s not at all clear that they are even capable of forming the proposition “God is imaginary.” I’m enough of an Anselmian to be unsure that anyone is capable of fforming that proposition except through a deeply flawed understanding of what the word “God” means.

I’m not judging them. It is evident.

No. It isn’t evident that they are acting in bad faith. It is evident that saying that a whole category of other people are not acting in good faith is a judgment, and a presumptuous one at that.

Please provide a clear Teaching from Scripture or the Church before calling me uncharitable again. I am not being uncharitable to anyone.

Yes, you are. You can’t read people’s hearts.

If you want a “clear teaching”, try 1 Cor. 13:7: “caritas omnia credit.”

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

In this article
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/born-again-the-bible-way
Tim Staples writes, “Yes, I have been born again—when I was baptized.”

Does Catholics theology allow for the scenario in which a baptized infant grows into adulthood rejecting God for their entire life?

IOW; as soon as they can think for themselves, they lump the Toothy Fairy, Santa Claus and God all in the same group;

Maybe the parents are agnostic
Perhaps the parents only had their infant baptized to make Grandma happy.
And other than weddings, funerals, Christmas , and Easter the parents really have nothing more to do with the Church.

So little Johnny grows up NEVER believing and out right rejecting God.

Can someone be a Lifelong atheist, Hell bound, and be Born Again?

Yes.

And the reason for this is that we do NOT believe the false Protestant doctrine that “once saved, always saved.”

It is possible for ANYONE to lose his or her salvation.

 

[Cathoholic]

Just rechecking some of the threads I’ve posted on. I just noticed an important typo.

In post 33 I discussed “5000” were brought into Christ via Baptism…

I meant to say “3000”.

The reason accuracy on the number here is so important is the “3,000” is not merely a large number of people, but it is in a sense (as Scott Hahn has pointed out), an “undoing” of the golden calf escapade at the foot of Mount Sinai in Exodus 32.