When is an atheist a Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustLamb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Verdanty, that’s a very ugly understanding of Catholicism. It exudes disdain. God is not mad at you, friend. Imperfect contrition is still contrition. Even fear of hell implies the acknowledgement of the evil one has done which further implies a contrite heart. That God responds to the contrite heart is the very beautiful lure of Christianity: God’s mercy and forgiveness. Yet you’re impugning it as an ugly thing, it almost looks like jealousy. God wants to forgive you too.
 
Last edited:
Sin is the failure to keep a law.

Matthew 22 36-40
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love Thy Neighbour is a law from which all previous laws hang. Failure to keep that law is a sin. Not loving ones neighbour is as bad as not loving thy god… Question is: ‘thy god’ is whose god? Even if one were to love Lord Molech the second law would still apply.

Love thy neighbour is specific

‘Atheists are sinners. Atheists are condemned. Atheists are spiritually devoid.’ according to posts here.
‘Homosexuals are objectively disordered’, according to the Catechism. ‘Homosexuals are morally evil’ according to Benedict XV1.
That does not smack of love to me. In fact it sounds positively hateful. It is not nice. And if you perceive Love to be ‘not nice’ clearly you have missed its point.
 
Last edited:
Why are you addressing your post to me?
I was answering another poster, and whatever your point is, it doesn’t seem relevant to my response.
 
1)"“Sin is the failure to keep a law”" is not an adequate definition of sin.
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
Click to expand...
  1. Love of God and love of neighbor are not separable, these are united in the one love, in God, who is our ultimate end. To say one is “as bad as” the other misstates the matter slightly. We are one with Christ in his mystical body and so the good of one is the good of all.
 
Last edited:
jcm2017 said:
  1. Love of God and love of neighbor are not separable, these are united in the one love, in God, who is our ultimate end. To say one is “as bad as” the other misstates the matter slightly. We are one with Christ in his mystical body and so the good of one is the good of all.
Click to expand...
There are levels of wrong choices and behavior. Jesus told Pilate, that those who handed Him over to him have greater guilt than his own.

Some sins are worse than others.

James does Teach us that if we break one law, we violate the whole law. This might be what you are trying to say?
 
Boler said:
that’s a very ugly understanding of Catholicism. It exudes disdain. God is not mad at you, friend. Imperfect contrition is still contrition. Even fear of hell implies the acknowledgement of the evil one has done which further implies a contrite heart. That God responds to the contrite heart is the very beautiful lure of Christianity: God’s mercy and forgiveness. Yet you’re impugning it as an ugly thing, it almost looks like jealousy. God wants to forgive you too.
Click to expand...
You completely misread my intentions.

Contrary to the claims by Fulton Sheen that people do not dislike the Catholic church, but merely misunderstand it I understand it all too well. In fact, I’ve found in my academic career the more I come to learn about it the more fell I find its influence across time to have been.

I don’t hate your God any more than I hate Allah, Shiva, Kanton, Horus or Mithra; that is I have no emotional stance regarding what I consider to be fictional characters. What I do however have an emotional response to, one which I do my utmost to holdback is a dislike of what some religious groups have done and continue to do. By all means I consider groups like the Quakers to be delusional eccentrics, but their theology aside in practice they have been mostly harmless and have improved our societies in many ways. Other sects such as Islam have had an almost entirely negative impact, in fact I cannot think of a single positive innovation originating within their cultural sphere that could not have been exported from the prior regimes (arabic numerals, Byzantine preserved classical texts etc)

I understand you cannot see it from my perspective, but I can see how it would be impossible for you to see your God as anything but all loving and all good. I consider this literary personality to be neither, and consider many of the actions of his devotees to be anything but those two claimed aspects. Certainly, I don’t doubt the Church has brought calm of mind and food to the bellys of many destitute individuals, but it has also inflicted untold carnage, death, destruction and mayhem elsewhere which I personally think outweighs the good.

Why do I linger here then? I am an academic, and I make money by writing my thoughts and reports on what Traditionalist Catholic schismatic movements (SSPX, Sede’s etc) get up to. By virtue of my profession I am always open to be proven wrong and I am here constantly imbibing new information reshaping how I perceive aspects of the faith. For instance in Private messages I’ve been engaged in a rather long debate pertaining to the Church “saving” the classical heritage of the west. Not a position I hold, but one I am open to evidence regarding.

Thus far, particularly in regards to the more extreme posters on this forum such as ChunkMonk this perspective has not improved.
 
Last edited:
Golly. Arabic civilisation was not full of positive innovation? Blimey. I think you are wrong.
 
Positive innovations came from the east yes, these however did not depend on or necessitate the rise of Islam which itself has been profoundly negative since conception and continues to be.
 
Last edited:
?? You didn’t even respond to my point. You’re whole response is unusually preemptive which tells me you’ve already made up your mind rather than, “by virtue of my profession I am always open to be proven wrong and I am here constantly imbibing new information…”
Verdanty said:
I understand you cannot see it from my perspective, but I can see how it would be impossible for you to see your God as anything but all loving and all good.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to see your perspective and share mine. I corrected your false statement:
Verdanty said:
God accepts apologies for fear of hell rather than actual contrition…

Ergo, I can kill you for your wallet. Provided I apologize out of fear of hell rather than being sorry for having hurt you, that’s all okay.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true. And to be honest it sounds like something a teen would argue. Don’t you want to be a little more self-critical of your positions and try to understand the true Catholic perspective? Fear of hell (and what it implies) accompanied by the act seeking reconciliation is still contrition, just not perfect. If you’re going to be intellectually honest in your writings, then shouldn’t you either acknowledge these nuances or at least attempt to engage them?

Imperfect contrition is still contrition. Has every act of sorrow been 100% self-disinterested for you?
 
Last edited:
You also mention nothing of temporal punishment nor of the Church’s acknowledgement of the state’s roll in regulating society. You’ve over-simplified Catholic teaching.
 
I am not sure I fully understand the question? Are you saying that you have seen atheist act like Christians? Because we as humans can have similar behaviors and yes you can meet good atheist people. Not having beliefs doesn’t mean that you won’t have good traits. I learned that by living in different places, it made me realize the country I came from was not the only right way to live.
 
De_Maria said:
I’m not sure your point though. Are you saying that because Atheists can be kind hearted, there is no use for the Church?
Click to expand...
Did those here, the Native Americans that lived and died here before the invasion of the Europeans have use for the Church?
 
Given the ever increasing and unbecoming “Self Righteous” attitude I see coming from both the ranks of Catholics and Protestants, I see the Atheist whether self-professed or never been churched at all that live in these peaceful villages are actually closer to Christ in actions and deeds. I see them making it Heaven a lot faster than us. I don’t see them criticizing and condemning each other. I don’t see them passing judgment on each other. Our own baggage of Self-Righteous Superiority causes us to build up a lot of wood, hay, and stubble. If each house is finite and equal, then those items are displacing the gold, silver, and precious stones. Will the “Self Righteous” ones have anything left to save them in the end?
 
JoshuaIsLord said:
Did those here, the Native Americans that lived and died here before the invasion of the Europeans have use for the Church?
Click to expand...
Certainly. If the Church had been available to them, they could have made use of the Church.

But it wasn’t. So, what’s your point?
 
This is the reason people have updated Lewis’ trilemma to a quadrilemma.

Lord, Lunatic, Liar, or Legend?

I think most modern people would opt for Lord or Legend.

Most pre-moderns would have went for Lord or Lunatic.

Most Jews would opt for Liar or Lunatic.

Most Muslims would opt for Legend, with the caveat that he did exist, but his followers added legends onto his story.
 
Which atheists do you hang around?

I’ve never met one of these saintly atheists.

Most atheists I’ve met have stunk of self righteousness, they have been incredibly cruel, arrogant, prideful. Violent, lovers of vice. Liars.

Maybe I’ve just had bad luck with the godless folks I’ve had the displeasure of meeting.
 
An atheist is a Christian when he starts believing in Jesus and obeys andfollows Him and His teachings.
 
Well, perhaps you should meet me. I’m reasonably horrible, but perhaps marginally less unpleasant than those stinking, self-righteous, cruel, arrogant, prideful. violent, vicious, lying atheists you keep spending time with.
 
An atheist is a Christian when they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, at which point, they cease to be atheist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top