SPLIT: Fear of God and authority

[Dameedna]

It is the indisputable authority of God that makes us fear Him, and the only way we have to avoid the spectre of this authority is to doubt His existence. If he existed, then we would have to change. I do not disparage the concept of doubting God, mind you – I think such doubt is quite natural and reasonable. But I do sometimes question the motives of those who doubt on principle, without ever questioning themselves.

This seems rather presumptuous. I think your fear laden God is perhaps what you need.

You, cannot change without the fear of a God that expects you to.

What about those humans who change, willingly and for a concept bigger than themselves(IE mankind) and do not believe?

Whenever I see this kind of reasoning I see a rather strong projection of an individuals own nature. Without a God to fear, you would do what you want.

It is why so many believers dont’ understand athiests. We actually have the capacity for change, for a greater good even if the good is not absolute, and we do not do it in fear, or for a reward. We do it fundamentlaly as a result of love and a recognition and submission to it.

Quite frankly, we will do what is good, right and will grow, change and admit we are wrong, just for the sheer damn joy of attempting to be decent humans. It brings it’s own rewards. No eternal life required here.

Cheers

 

[Fran65]

Quite frankly, we will do what is good, right and will grow, change and admit we are wrong, just for the sheer damn joy of attempting to be decent humans.

Why do you want to be a ‘decent human’?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What about those humans who change, willingly and for a concept bigger than themselves(IE mankind) and do not believe?

I don’t understand how “mankind”, as such, has any sort of will that can be catered to, or good that can be accomplished. Different human beings have wildly divergent ideas about what is best for “mankind”, and they will all claim that their understanding of the good of mankind is the correct one.

In essence, I’m saying that “mankind” is not an entity; there are only men and women. You may choose to make their lives more pleasant or less painful, and that may be a good thing. But what fixed standard do you use for your moral activity, to make sure you are making things better and not worse?

Whenever I see this kind of reasoning I see a rather strong projection of an individuals own nature. Without a God to fear, you would do what you want.

Anyone who wouldn’t is illogical. I have great respect for atheists who do good deeds, but at the same time I think they are quite unreasonable (unless they do good because they enjoy it). Without God, morality has no reference. Law can still exist, but I have no reason (except self-interest) to obey the law. Read about Thrasymachus’ ideas in the first book of Plato’s Republic.

It is why so many believers dont’ understand athiests. We actually have the capacity for change, for a greater good even if the good is not absolute, and we do not do it in fear, or for a reward. We do it fundamentlaly as a result of love and a recognition and submission to it.

Love of what? Submission to what? What about mankind is lovable or worthy of submission? If God doesn’t exist, you are as dignified and “worthy” as anything in creation – what ought you prostrate yourself before?

Quite frankly, we will do what is good, right and will grow, change and admit we are wrong, just for the sheer damn joy of attempting to be decent humans. It brings it’s own rewards.

What is good? How do you know it? There are a ton of epistemological holes here. I’m glad you have such a passion for being a decent human being. But I think your ideas are based on an intuition of right and wrong, not sound reasoning. The question is: where does that intuition come from?

All I’ll say is, if I were designing a universe, I’d give you such an intuition.

 

[buffalo]

This seems rather presumptuous. I think your fear laden God is perhaps what you need.

You, cannot change without the fear of a God that expects you to.

What about those humans who change, willingly and for a concept bigger than themselves(IE mankind) and do not believe?

Whenever I see this kind of reasoning I see a rather strong projection of an individuals own nature. Without a God to fear, you would do what you want.

It is why so many believers dont’ understand athiests. We actually have the capacity for change, for a greater good even if the good is not absolute, and we do not do it in fear, or for a reward. We do it fundamentlaly as a result of love and a recognition and submission to it.

Quite frankly, we will do what is good, right and will grow, change and admit we are wrong, just for the sheer damn joy of attempting to be decent humans. It brings it’s own rewards. No eternal life required here.

Cheers

As an infant perhaps, but as we grow the fear slowly changes to complete love. I want the beatific vision much more than I want hell.

 

[Detales]

What, P_S. has Love to do with fear? That is the companion of greed that has us in the turmoil of the world today. God by any other name is still God. Love, Truth, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Life, Principle, all these are synonyms for God. And what good is the anthropomorphic God of christianism other than a veil before Love? Perhaps that is the source of your need for fear? Christianity has put starched and opaque garments of dissuasion and diversion on the God it claims to worship. At least an atheist might have chance of directly worshiping some aspect of purity without the covering of faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What, P_S. has Love to do with fear? That is the companion of greed that has us in the turmoil of the world today. God by any other name is still God. Love, Truth, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Life, Principle, all these are synonyms for God.

To obey out of fear is shallow and obligatory. I will agree with that. Any action rooted in fear is not an action of any meaning. Turning from sin is an action of love, not fear, and it is an action rooted in the God that is Love.

But the position of man without God is a position of fear. For the agnostic, the unknown holds terrors that he cannot explain. For the prodigal believer, the Known has become his Enemy – even though, were he to turn, there would be no reproach, only forgiveness.

Fear is man’s relation to his own nonentity, and his own nonentity is realized only when he separates himself from God. (Although nonbelievers need not always be as terribly separated as I, a believer, was).

 

[geometer]

What, P_S. has Love to do with fear? That is the companion of greed that has us in the turmoil of the world today. God by any other name is still God. Love, Truth, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Life, Principle, all these are synonyms for God. And what good is the anthropomorphic God of christianism other than a veil before Love? Perhaps that is the source of your need for fear? Christianity has put starched and opaque garments of dissuasion and diversion on the God it claims to worship. At least an atheist might have chance of directly worshiping some aspect of purity without the covering of faith.

God is the power of love.

Fear of God is really ontological insecurity.

 

[Detales]

“But the position of man without God is a position of fear.” Then your fear is covered up by the power of the habitual assertion of the constructed god of the christianists.

“For the agnostic, the unknown holds terrors that he cannot explain.” Yes, very similar to the screams of my devoted, adamantly Catholic, socially serving , good doing, self sacrificing father on his death bed. He had been so well taught in his youth by the Church that God will extract His punishment for evil that this is the state he died in.

“For the prodigal believer, the Known has become his Enemy – even though, were he to turn, there would be no reproach, only forgiveness.” Thank the God, I am a prodigal from the Church because I Know and am thereby not in that shadow dynamic of forgiveness.

“Fear is man’s relation to his own nonentity, and his own nonentity is realized only when he separates himself from God. (Although nonbelievers need not always be as terribly separated as I, a believer, was).” Please explain how a non-entity realizes? And how someone can have a relationship to something that isn’t? You can do better than that. And how can anyone be seperated from what in Essence thay always already are? (trick question)

 

[buffalo]

God is the power of love.

Fear of God is really ontological insecurity.

I go to the ocean. I have a fear of drowning. So I do respect the ocean and its capability to drown me. That is a healthy fear that keeps me from being reckless. I love the ocean.

I do not want to spend eternity without God. And I respect the fact my humanity and evil puts this at risk. So I have a healthy fear that keeps my soul from being reckless. I love God.

Call me insecure for I am not confident I will make it to heaven.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“But the position of man without God is a position of fear.” Then your fear is covered up by the power of the habitual assertion of the constructed god of the christianists.

“For the agnostic, the unknown holds terrors that he cannot explain.” Yes, very similar to the screams of my devoted, adamantly Catholic, socially serving , good doing, self sacrificing father on his death bed. He had been so well taught in his youth by the Church that God will extract His punishment for evil that this is the state he died in.

I don’t defend the tactics of much of the American Catholic church in the early/mid-1900s. You can’t scare people into doing good – if you do, they will be doing good for the wrong reasons.

“Fear is man’s relation to his own nonentity, and his own nonentity is realized only when he separates himself from God. (Although nonbelievers need not always be as terribly separated as I, a believer, was).” Please explain how a non-entity realizes?

I didn’t say a nonentity realizes. A man’s nonentity *is realized * – is made true – when he is separate from God, the source of reality.

And how someone can have a relationship to something that isn’t?

Not-being is always potentiality (until death). No one ever separates himself entirely from God, but we do become a shadow of what we might be. Our relationship to our not-being is called alienation.

You can do better than that. And how can anyone be seperated from what in Essence thay always already are? (trick question)

Gee, God, you tell me.

 

[tobias]

What about those humans who change, willingly and for a concept bigger than themselves(IE mankind) and do not believe?

No one changes for a ‘concept’ bigger than themselves. People change for a relation, or a relation that goes beyond self, but to insinuate that one will change for a concept apart from self is ridiculous. Your example counters itself, to say a human can change for a concept bigger than one’s self, such as humanity. If one is a human, then the concept of humanity is part of self and not bigger than.

Whenever I see this kind of reasoning I see a rather strong projection of an individuals own nature. Without a God to fear, you would do what you want.

So… without fear of law, I will break the law… without fear of falling, I will ignore the laws of gravity… without fear of death, I will have no respect for my life… without fear of car crashes, I drive on the wrong side of the road… etc…

It is why so many believers dont’ understand athiests. We actually have the capacity for change, for a greater good even if the good is not absolute, and we do not do it in fear, or for a reward. We do it fundamentlaly as a result of love and a recognition and submission to it.

Illogical. If you change as a result of love, you recognize it and submit to it, then your change is based on the beloved (which you fear to lose) and for reciprocation (reward). Change does not occur irrespective of self.

Quite frankly, we will do what is good, right and will grow, change and admit we are wrong, just for the sheer damn joy of attempting to be decent humans. It brings it’s own rewards. No eternal life required here.

As stated above ‘it brings it’s own rewards’. That’a a strange phrase ‘…joy of attempting…’ , an attempt is an unsuccessful try, what joy do you get out of faliure. I appreciate learning from failure, but find no ‘joy’ in it.

 

[tobias]

And what good is the anthropomorphic God of christianism other than a veil before Love? Perhaps that is the source of your need for fear? Christianity has put starched and opaque garments of dissuasion and diversion on the God it claims to worship. At least an atheist might have chance of directly worshiping some aspect of purity without the covering of faith.

And yet you would seek to do so with the covering of athiesm or agnosticism? Any one can ‘cover’ or cloak themself in an ideal, whether athiesm, christianism, socialism, etc…

Sure, I can say athiesm puts blinders of narrow mindedness and nihlism on the observable realities it claims to appreciate, but that would be a diversion

 

[Detales]

Tobias~~"*And yet you would seek to do so with the covering of athiesm or agnosticism? *" Absolutely not. that would just be another religion in the same catagory, as you say.

 

[tobias]

Tobias~~"*And yet you would seek to do so with the covering of athiesm or agnosticism? *" Absolutely not. that would just be another religion in the same catagory, as you say.

That is the point!

 

[GaryCatholicDad]

Every religion is Athiest to all of the other religions. Only difference is Athiests don’t believe in any of you all. Though I realize athiests have the same amount of certaintity as any religious person, making them equally bad in a way. But come on, we don’t all believe in santa clause do we? Well we did, mostly cause everyone told us he was there. As soon as everyone said he wasn’t, boom… there we believed he wasn’t. It’s as simple as cultural. And look at the control factor. “He sees you when your sleeping… he knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good…”. The all seeing and knowing factor, judge of the naughty/nice, good/evil. The reward system. One is Jesus, a guy made up to be a know it all see all judge and overlooker of mankind, starting from a normal guy. And Saint Nicholas(Santa Clause) who used to just be a guy that did what we tell our kids just on a village to village scale (he punched a priest in the nose once in an argument btw lol). Easter bunny, thats a weird one. Anyways, these are all mythical creatures/people superhero’s made up by Christians so all of you can be controlled, believe and be happy… sometimes.
Honestly I like athiests, agnostics and free thinkers. God has changed over time, his laws and commands have been changed to fit the people that speaks for him in my oppinion. Difference between athiests/free thinkers and believers, is that your religion may turn out to be false, your faiths crushed and morals questioned, the meaning of your actions detered (lack of heaven), but free thinkers morality will not change with the times for the most part, it’s a belief from within. Knowledge and wisdom should be drawn out, not pounded in.
peace
Gary
p.s I do think religion does some good. Priests and cops keep the people in line. I’d rather see them walk together willingly though, and choosing between heaven and hell is not will. thats like an election between albert einstein and a **** eating donkey. God should just not tell us about heaven or hell, let it be a suprise and judge people on their actions alone. Kind of makes me see how an athiests who expects nothing (literally) after death would deserve heaven the most if he lived a good life and helped mankind.
god bless all the manimals, womanimals and the innocent animals who probably have the purest souls.

 

[tobias]

Every religion is Athiest to all of the other religions. Only difference is Athiests don’t believe in any of you all. Though I realize athiests have the same amount of certaintity as any religious person, making them equally bad in a way. But come on, we don’t all believe in santa clause do we? Well we did, mostly cause everyone told us he was there. As soon as everyone said he wasn’t, boom… there we believed he wasn’t. It’s as simple as cultural. And look at the control factor. “He sees you when your sleeping… he knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good…”. The all seeing and knowing factor, judge of the naughty/nice, good/evil. The reward system. One is Jesus, a guy made up to be a know it all see all judge and overlooker of mankind, starting from a normal guy. And Saint Nicholas(Santa Clause) who used to just be a guy that did what we tell our kids just on a village to village scale (he punched a priest in the nose once in an argument btw lol). Easter bunny, thats a weird one. Anyways, these are all mythical creatures/people superhero’s made up by Christians so all of you can be controlled, believe and be happy… sometimes.

Pointing to mythical beliefs in no way invalidates belief in God. I think you underestimate human beings if you think it’s ‘poof’ I believe, or ‘poof’ I Don’t believe. Typically the one who comes to disbelief does so at loss, Ironically, many times the one who comes to belief does as well.

Honestly I like athiests, agnostics and free thinkers. God has changed over time, his laws and commands have been changed to fit the people that speaks for him in my oppinion. Difference between athiests/free thinkers and believers, is that your religion may turn out to be false, your faiths crushed and morals questioned, the meaning of your actions detered (lack of heaven), but free thinkers morality will not change with the times for the most part, it’s a belief from within. Knowledge and wisdom should be drawn out, not pounded in.

Where is the difference? Obviously the athiests belief, or lack thereof, may turn out to be false, so your logic is circular.
Morality changes with understanding and capacity. No suprise.
Just curious, What method of teaching does not depend on repetition and reiteration?

 

[GaryCatholicDad]

Pointing to mythical beliefs in no way invalidates belief in God. I think you underestimate human beings if you think it’s ‘poof’ I believe, or ‘poof’ I Don’t believe. Typically the one who comes to disbelief does so at loss, Ironically, many times the one who comes to belief does as well.

Where is the difference? Obviously the athiests belief, or lack thereof, may turn out to be false, so your logic is circular.
Morality changes with understanding and capacity. No suprise.
Just curious, What method of teaching does not depend on repetition and reiteration?

1. Pointing to Mythical things in Christianity does point toward questioning what is truth in Christianity and what is myth. But you question nothing, only beg for answers from the false sense of security that the infallibility of the pope and Catholic teaching gives you.
   If you think about it, it’s not that ironic. People who do this are mostly ruled by their EMOTIONS, which cause them to abandon or grasp a belief that gives them hope. Not ironic, just human nature.
2. Athiests beliefs somewhat depend upon not seeing and logic that isn’t corrupted by the “God can do anything and thats that” argument. Your belief can’t even go into the senses as you are already fooled by the eucharist trick. Your senses are actually warped so much by what your told that they can tell you your smell/taste/sight/touch is wrong. How can you know that what your hearing isn’t wrong, since your other senses aren’t that good at detecting truth anyways. Think about it.
   And your right, what is taught by catholics is pounded in to people with repetition/mass hysteria/ reiterated prayers and is nothing but a meme. Showing no ground support, just another cultural meme that must be forced and disciplined to over time (not masturbating. celibacy of priests) etc

 

[GaryCatholicDad]

And yet you would seek to do so with the covering of athiesm or agnosticism? Any one can ‘cover’ or cloak themself in an ideal, whether athiesm, christianism, socialism, etc…

Sure, I can say athiesm puts blinders of narrow mindedness and nihlism on the observable realities it claims to appreciate, but that would be a diversion

It’s pretty ironic that a Catholic would call someone narrow minded. I guess I’m glad God(if there is one) put all of these things here for you to hate and be annoyed by. Athiesm is not a lack of a belief, it’s a lack of a belief in the supernatural, leaning toward a belief that is more natural and free thinking if used properly. Agnostic is probably the best choice, to quote some guy… “All I am certain about is that there is too much certaintity in the world…”

 

[geometer]

It is why so many believers dont’ understand athiests. We actually have the capacity for change, for a greater good even if the good is not absolute, and we do not do it in fear, or for a reward. We do it fundamentlaly as a result of love and a recognition and submission to it.

If you really knew love so well you would be performing miracles. This is what is so trivial about the atheists worldview.