People who don't believe in God are broken

[Ladygem]

Of the atheists I’ve know personally, those who weren’t using their disbelief as an excuse to hate have had trouble feeling God’s presence or even understanding the concept of it. It could be that something in their soul was blocked up somehow. Of course, we are all broken in various different ways. Only Jesus and his mother Mary were perfect while on Earth.

 

[belorg]

Misanthropy is the hatred or dislike of people. To say that we are all broken does not imply that I don’t love people. It is an admission of imperfection. We all have faults. Or are you perfect?

The use of ‘broken’ instead of ‘imperfect’ seems to indicate a negative, misanthropic view view on mankind. I do not think anybody is perfect, but all in all, most people are good.

 

[belorg]

Of the atheists I’ve know personally, those who weren’t using their disbelief as an excuse to hate have had trouble feeling God’s presence or even understanding the concept of it. It could be that something in their soul was blocked up somehow. Of course, we are all broken in various different ways. Only Jesus and his mother Mary were perfect while on Earth.

Or it could be that something in your mind is blocked up somehow, which makes you unable to understand atheism.

 

[meltzerboy]

The use of ‘broken’ instead of ‘imperfect’ seems to indicate a negative, misanthropic view view on mankind. I do not think anybody is perfect, but all in all, most people are good.

When I hear the words “broken” or “imperfect,” I don’t associate them with being good or evil. To me, it’s more a matter of pain and suffering, which, as I previously stated, I believe to be, in varying degrees, an equal-opportunity lender to all.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

I’m perfect. :angel1: Once I thought I wasn’t, but I was wrong.

Alan

I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

Actually I agree that we are all broken in some way. Until we come into the kingdom of heaven where every tear will be wiped away.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The use of ‘broken’ instead of ‘imperfect’ seems to indicate a negative, misanthropic view view on mankind. I do not think anybody is perfect, but all in all, most people are good.

I don’t see that at all. To draw a physical parallel, if someone is handicapped, any compassionate person would be apt to feel more empathetic towards them, not less. Acknowledging that we are all spiritually (or psychologically, if you please) damaged is grounds to be more understanding and less resentful towards others.

 

[belorg]

I don’t see that at all. To draw a physical parallel, if someone is handicapped, any compassionate person would be apt to feel more empathetic towards them, not less. Acknowledging that we are all spiritually (or psychologically, if you please) damaged is grounds to be more understanding and less resentful towards others.

Sure, but it’s still a negative point of view. I prefer looking at things more positively.

 

[atheistgirl]

Discuss.

Which God?

There’s loads to chose from.

What do you mean by broken?

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

I went ahead and voted yes.

People who don’t believe in God are broken. They just don’t always know it unless they try believing in God. Those believe in God are broken and they know it. :whacky:

'zactly. :sad_yes:

That’s why the Good News of Christianity often doesn’t sound very good to atheists.

As my favorite modern Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says “It’s like a free heart transplant being offered to someone who doesn’t know he is dying.” To him, that doesn’t sound like such a good deal, you know?

 

[ReapReason]

Sure, but it’s still a negative point of view. I prefer looking at things more positively.

While I don’t understand what the OP means by broken, I also don’t see why you should have the intellectual upper-hand just because you refuse to give credence to an idea merely on the basis of it “sounding negative”. If I am an alcoholic then I am an alcoholic. If I am broken then I am broken. There is no point in me saying “that sounds negative”.

The question is, does the OP have any good reason for saying that Atheists are broken.

Of course if the natural end of human nature is to be in union with the perfection of God, then we are all imperfect to varying degrees; and the further we are from that union the more imperfect we are, because God is the measure of perfection. But I am not sure if that’s what the OP means by broken.

In any case I don’t think broken is the correct word to use.

 

[ReapReason]

'zactly. :sad_yes:

That’s why the Good News of Christianity often doesn’t sound very good to atheists.

As my favorite modern Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says “It’s like a free heart transplant being offered to someone who doesn’t know he is dying.” To him, that doesn’t sound like such a good deal, you know?

If that’s true then what good reason do Christians have for thinking that atheists should know God. What is the point of demonizing atheists? What is the point of spreading the good news if by being broken they are incapable of knowing God. Surely that is not their fault, and spreading the good news is a waste of time?

Perhaps the error lies with the Christian apologist, and you don’t know because you’re broken.

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s true then what good reason do Christians have for thinking that atheists should know God. What is the point of demonizing atheists? What is the point of spreading the good news** if by being broken they are incapable of knowing God.** Surely that is not their fault, and spreading the good news is a waste of time?

Declaring that an atheist is broken does not mean they are “incapable of knowing God.”

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s true then what good reason do Christians have for thinking that atheists should know God.

Because it’s* true. Isn’t that, really, the ONLY reason to believe something, Reap?

What is the point of demonizing atheists?

There would be no point to demonizing atheists, if anyone were doing that on this thread. Which no one has.

*That God exists.

 

[ReapReason]

Declaring that an atheist is broken does not mean they are “incapable of knowing God.”

The title of this thread clearly implies that “not knowing” God, and consequently Atheism, is the result of being broken, as opposed to simply lacking knowledge of God (ignorance).

You further implied that this “brokeness” is beyond their control by basically saying that the good news is incoherent to them when they hear it, and this is because they are broken. If something is broken it clearly implies that the object in question can no-longer function as intended. This makes the word Broken problematic both as an analogy and as a literal representation of Atheism.

This to me is very poor apologetics, because It would seem that Atheists are incapable of knowing God unless they are first fixed. This “fixing” evidently cannot be provided by quoting the gospel, as you yourself have ruled that out as ineffectual.

 

[Gaber]

I think he means a personified image of God – a God which behaves just like a human.

If not explicitly, then effectively.

Right Gaber?

Yes. but being a hodius and adamant master of obfuscation, and by extention, I am sure, amphigory and nonesuch, I would have said it in a much longer, convoluted, in-and-out carry-me-in-a-basket kind of terpsichorial manner. I would have added bells and whistles, flutes, of various kinds, embellishments, doo-dads, whirlygigs, and some spinners, streamers, and some proximity activated buzzers and out-your-behind type of noise embelishers. Lighting and olefactory considerations would have been next. then footnotes, references, phone numbers and e-maill addresses of expersts and irrelevant folks who nonetheless had much to say on the matter. Other razz ma dazz would be added as well, forays into dimensional effects and space time warps that twist palpable “reality” would start the first course of N-dimensional icing. Oh, and there would be a band and some dancers, and one bottle of Bartles and Jaymes Fuzzy Navel.

So thanks for saving everyone from all that and keeping it simple.

 

[ReapReason]

Because it’s* true. Isn’t that, really, the ONLY reason to believe something.

You agreed that they are atheists (lack knowledge of God) because they are broken, and because they are broken the gospel truth is incoherent to them. So why on Gods green earth would you expect them to know or understand the Gospel truth?

Can’t you see the problem?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Yes. but being a hodius and adamant master of obfuscation, and by extention, I am sure, amphigory and nonesuch, I would have said it in a much longer, convoluted, in-and-out carry-me-in-a-basket kind of terpsichorial manner. I would have added bells and whistles, flutes, of various kinds, embellishments, doo-dads, whirlygigs, and some spinners, streamers, and some proximity activated buzzers and out-your-behind type of noise embelishers. Lighting and olefactory considerations would have been next. then footnotes, references, phone numbers and e-maill addresses of expersts and irrelevant folks who nonetheless had much to say on the matter. Other razz ma dazz would be added as well, forays into dimensional effects and space time warps that twist palpable “reality” would start the first course of N-dimensional icing. Oh, and there would be a band and some dancers, and one bottle of Bartles and Jaymes Fuzzy Navel.

So thanks for saving everyone from all that and keeping it simple.

Disclaimerama!

:dancing:

 

[PRmerger]

The title of this thread clearly implies that “not knowing” God, and consequently Atheism, is the result of being broken, as opposed to simply lacking knowledge of God (ignorance).

I don’t think so.

“Not knowing God”, which you proclaim in the above comment, is distinctively different from “incapable of knowing God”, which you stated below.

They are not synonymous or interchangeable, Reap.

Of course Atheists are capable of knowing God. Every human person is capable of that.

If that’s true then what good reason do Christians have for thinking that atheists should know God. What is the point of demonizing atheists? What is the point of spreading the good news if by being broken** they are incapable of knowing God. **Surely that is not their fault, and spreading the good news is a waste of time?

Perhaps the error lies with the Christian apologist, and you don’t know because you’re broken.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps the error lies with the Christian apologist, and you don’t know because you’re broken.

Broken does not mean incapable of knowing the Truth.

It simply means, as Catholicism proclaims it, “Not the way we were intended to be.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

My question is, “how broken?” Or better yet, “broken how?”

IOW, is a person who doesn’t believe in God more likely to be mean, emotionally unstable, more likely to divorce or exhibit other symptoms that many of us would not like to see? Atheists, believers, agnostics alike could agree on quite a few measures of “broken.”

For example, how about the fruit of the spirit. Is an unbeliever able to obtain these fruit?

love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

And, wouldn’t most unbelievers want these things, too … just that they don’t believe the Bible which lists them is divinely inspired. Right?

Is there a reason that you must believe in God to grow in any or all of these? By “faithfulness” I’d say each person gets to define that for himself because otherwise the advocate and the judge are the same person – not really a useful discussion construct.

Alan