V
valentino
Guest
How is a Cathiolic more free than an athiest?
- Status
S
smichhertz
Guest
Hey valentino! Great question!
The more good you do, the more free you are. The more evil you do, the less free you are.
Theoretically, you could have a BAD catholic and a GOOD athiest. So it doesn’t necessarily follow that a Catholic is more free than an athiest.
HOWEVER the Catholic Church has a better understanding of the truth and the nature of good and evil since she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church are more free than those who do not.
C
CountrySteve
Guest
you hit it right on the nail
C
Contra_Mundum_1
Guest
How do we define freedom?
I often hear atheists say that they don’t like the constraints that religion puts on people and that they want to do what they like and live how they want. However, that is not reality. Society puts all sorts of constraints on people and we are never truly free to do what we like. Faith doesn’t have much to do with this.That is my answer to an atheist.
I believe we Catholic are more free because we have more than just pop culture and politics of the day to give meaning to our lives. We are free of the shallowness of the time.
I often hear atheists say that they don’t like the constraints that religion puts on people and that they want to do what they like and live how they want. However, that is not reality. Society puts all sorts of constraints on people and we are never truly free to do what we like. Faith doesn’t have much to do with this.That is my answer to an atheist.
I believe we Catholic are more free because we have more than just pop culture and politics of the day to give meaning to our lives. We are free of the shallowness of the time.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
A Catholic would be free to view any truth in someones philosophy/religion as a step toward God.
An atheist does not have the freedom to believe in an absolute truth.
An atheist does not have the freedom to believe in an absolute truth.
V
vsedriver
Guest
the Truth will set you free!
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
This question cannot be answered if we only give reference to the atheist idea of freedom. According to the modernist notion of liberty, atheists are most definitely “freer”, because they have no inhibitions whatever. Their morality is only their pleasure, and nothing higher. It is a moot question, because both “sides” would say they have a more intelligent understanding of freedom. We cannot reconcile the two, as detached as they are from one another.
The atheist “freedom” is license to do what you want; the Catholic freedom is a spiritual liberty to be open to Christ. Since Catholics don’t believe you can just do what you want (nor should you), and atheists believe Christ strangles liberty, there’s no connection.
The atheist “freedom” is license to do what you want; the Catholic freedom is a spiritual liberty to be open to Christ. Since Catholics don’t believe you can just do what you want (nor should you), and atheists believe Christ strangles liberty, there’s no connection.
G
Garyjohn2
Guest
Those categories are too broad to generalize, I think. Freedom is an excersize of the will. When we cave in to our appetites, we are in fact slaves, not free. When we resist our base urges, because we want to, for a greater good, this is actually real freedom.
Take fasting for lent. An atheist might say he is more free because he can eat whenever he wants. But in fact he is just giving in to his urges. A catholic would fast, resisting his base urges to eat, and therefore using his will more freely, being more free…not giving in to urges and desires to direct his/her course (or eating habits).
However, someone can be catholic and constantly give in to urges and appetites. Someone can be atheist and constantly excersize free will to conquer them.
Take fasting for lent. An atheist might say he is more free because he can eat whenever he wants. But in fact he is just giving in to his urges. A catholic would fast, resisting his base urges to eat, and therefore using his will more freely, being more free…not giving in to urges and desires to direct his/her course (or eating habits).
However, someone can be catholic and constantly give in to urges and appetites. Someone can be atheist and constantly excersize free will to conquer them.
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
While I agree with this poster’s take, I think it’s important to explain what we Catholics mean by “freedom.” It’s not just the freedom to indulge every animal or bodily impulse, but the freedom to do right, even in the face of those impulses. Admittedly, that doesn’t sound like freedom at first.
But think about a drug addict who indulges every bodily craving for drugs. He might imagine he’s free, but that’s only because he’s never tried to stop. If he did, he’d realize at once he’s made himself a slave to his own desires - in this case, a slave to drugs. That dependency isn’t always just physical: there are also ways of becoming psychologically dependent, whether it be drugs or something else.
Frequently, we see this with sex. People want the “freedom” to follow their bodily lusts, but look at anyone who has constant, anonymous sex, and tell me how happy they are. Look at the rates of drug addiction and suicide among both rock stars and the “stars” of pornography, and you can see pretty solid objective evidence that lust is just another bodily passion which will enslave us if we constantly cater to it.
Philosophically, what the drug and sex addicts are actually experiencing isn’t freedom, it’s “license.” Catholicism, nearly alone among all religions and philosophies, has a well-articulated view of the two, and why one is good and the other bad.
J
jmjconder
Guest
**Read CCC 1730 -1748 and other reliable Catholic authors (Blessed Pope John Paul II, Church documents) on the subject…there is no question as to who is free.
Freedom is not the right to do it “my way” it is the decision to act in the way one ought to…which is rooted in living the Christian life which embraces a virtue centered life.
Here the question then becomes; what ought I do to become the person I was created to be, that is, one that reflects the Image of our Creator?
Bless your question that seeks the truth…it will set you free (John 8:32)!**
P
puzzleannie
Guest
a Catholic has access to the means given by Christ himself to free us from sin, which is the only true slavery
also a CAtholic has full free scope for the intellect because his search, goal and motivation is always Truth.
the atheist has set boundaries on the scope of his intellect and philosophy by declaring that Truth cannot be known
J
JackVk
Guest
I like what Sarah Hinlicky, a female Lutheran pastor, said about it:
“So-called sexual ‘freedom’ is really proclaiming oneself to be available for free, and therefore without value. To ‘choose’ such freedom is tantamount to saying that you are worth nothing.”
I find myself much more free than I was when I did not practice my faith. Like what many other posters have said, “freedom” in the Christian sense is not permission to do whatever you want. Freedom means to not have to keep up with the Joneses on every single passing fad. When I decided to practice my Catholic faith and truly start living for Jesus, I became myself. I don’t have to go with the flow anymore.
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
Atheists have restricted themselves to the smaller, carnal world and have no future beyond their physical lifespan of 70-80 years.
Christians have eternity ahead of them…atheists have nothing.
The bright side for atheists…most of them will give up atheism and become admirable Christians.
V
vikingwarlord77
Guest
there is no absolute truth. and IF there is it is not yet known to the human race. oh and no jesus is not absolute truth he is simple a truth like it is true grass is green. if he was absolute truth everyone would recognize his as the absolute truth and since athiests do not recognize this therefore he is not absolut truth. freedom is a state of mind and action.
N
Nate13
Guest
@vikingwarlord77
So if I can find someone that says the world is not round but is instead flat, then the world being round is not an absolute truth?
So if I can find someone that says the world is not round but is instead flat, then the world being round is not an absolute truth?
V
valentino
Guest
I suppose that if you to meet Jesus like Pilate did and Jesus said "i am the Truth.Everyone who hears My voice knows the Truth"You’d say prove it to me.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The human ego is the worst slavemaster a person can possibly have.
I recall something A.Solzhenitsyn said. I’ll have to paraphrase it and give the context. He talked about what was probably the worst part of the Gulag; the gold mines of the Kolyma, where the temperature regularly fell below -40 and prisoners were driven out into it, dressed in sacks, to dig flecks of gold out of the iron-hard frozen earth with crowbars and given 10 oz of watery, adulterated bread to eat, along with an utterly repulsive and non-nutritious “soup” made entirely of pine needles to ward off scurvy.
Anyway, (and paraphrasing) he concluded his description of it by saying: One cannot be truly free until it is a matter of indifference to him whether he is, or is not, in the Kolyma.
And he actually knew of people who accomplished that. They were purged clean of their egoism and, to Solzhenitsyn, could then think as clearly and purely as if a bright light suddenly turned on in their heads.
Jesus said His yoke is sweet, His burden light. By that, He did not mean a faithful person could not find things hard, even hard in following His commandments. By it, to my understanding, He meant that abandoning oneself to God’s will, one is freed of the heavy burden of one’s own ego.
I, myself am a sinner, and have all the faults of the egoism with which we are all afflicted. But I have noticed in life that those I have known who are the most abandoned to God’s Providence; to His will, have a measure of freedom that others, less abandoned to it, do not have. They have, most certainly, a degree of freedom from care that most of us do not have.
I recall something A.Solzhenitsyn said. I’ll have to paraphrase it and give the context. He talked about what was probably the worst part of the Gulag; the gold mines of the Kolyma, where the temperature regularly fell below -40 and prisoners were driven out into it, dressed in sacks, to dig flecks of gold out of the iron-hard frozen earth with crowbars and given 10 oz of watery, adulterated bread to eat, along with an utterly repulsive and non-nutritious “soup” made entirely of pine needles to ward off scurvy.
Anyway, (and paraphrasing) he concluded his description of it by saying: One cannot be truly free until it is a matter of indifference to him whether he is, or is not, in the Kolyma.
And he actually knew of people who accomplished that. They were purged clean of their egoism and, to Solzhenitsyn, could then think as clearly and purely as if a bright light suddenly turned on in their heads.
Jesus said His yoke is sweet, His burden light. By that, He did not mean a faithful person could not find things hard, even hard in following His commandments. By it, to my understanding, He meant that abandoning oneself to God’s will, one is freed of the heavy burden of one’s own ego.
I, myself am a sinner, and have all the faults of the egoism with which we are all afflicted. But I have noticed in life that those I have known who are the most abandoned to God’s Providence; to His will, have a measure of freedom that others, less abandoned to it, do not have. They have, most certainly, a degree of freedom from care that most of us do not have.
T
tafan
Guest
All good answers, I will give a slightly different spin towards the same result.
GloriousOrder:
No doubt, freedom is misunderstood in our modern world. And those answers about understanding the true meaning of freedom are the best as far as being good for us Catholics. But convincing to others, not really. So I would disagree with GloriousOrder, not in her ultimate conclusion, but just in the point she made in these two sentences. The athesits is not freer given the atheist idea of freedom (or the modern, common idea) because they have less inhibitions. Not at all.
There is absolutely no choice of moral behavior a atheist can make that we cannot make. No one can argue this. An atheist can commit abortion, we can commit abortion; an atheist can kill, we can kill. So at the most basic level, our freedom is at least equal. However, we have more information then the athesit. We know that pornagraphy is wrong, he may not know this.
Now, part of freedom is understanding results of any action, good or bad. One is more free when one can better understand the results. The blind man in an unknown room is not as free to walk across the room filled with furniture as I am. We are both capable of doing so, but the results for me will be to successfully make it to the other side. The same result can be obtained by the blind man, but only with brusied shins, and after a fall or two. Who is more free to decide, me or the blind man?
So since we know the results of our moral choinces, and the atheist does not. We are certainly more free, even when we ignore our “inhibitions”. In no way, from any perspective, can a athest be considered more free than us.
Not meaning to pick on GloriousOrder and her excellant post, I could have picked from several to make my point, but her’s is the most directly associated with my view.
No doubt, freedom is misunderstood in our modern world. And those answers about understanding the true meaning of freedom are the best as far as being good for us Catholics. But convincing to others, not really. So I would disagree with GloriousOrder, not in her ultimate conclusion, but just in the point she made in these two sentences. The athesits is not freer given the atheist idea of freedom (or the modern, common idea) because they have less inhibitions. Not at all.
There is absolutely no choice of moral behavior a atheist can make that we cannot make. No one can argue this. An atheist can commit abortion, we can commit abortion; an atheist can kill, we can kill. So at the most basic level, our freedom is at least equal. However, we have more information then the athesit. We know that pornagraphy is wrong, he may not know this.
Now, part of freedom is understanding results of any action, good or bad. One is more free when one can better understand the results. The blind man in an unknown room is not as free to walk across the room filled with furniture as I am. We are both capable of doing so, but the results for me will be to successfully make it to the other side. The same result can be obtained by the blind man, but only with brusied shins, and after a fall or two. Who is more free to decide, me or the blind man?
So since we know the results of our moral choinces, and the atheist does not. We are certainly more free, even when we ignore our “inhibitions”. In no way, from any perspective, can a athest be considered more free than us.
J
JoArtist
Guest
No such thing as total freedom our actions are always at least partially dictated by God, society, philosophy, ect… it really is just about who’s rules you are following (or trying to follow). I would much rather follow the rules of a loving God than a messed up societies… but that is just me.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Those who mention slavery to sin are exactly right.
For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. (Romans 7:18-19)
Paul speaks of slavery to sin in Romans 6 through 8.
My experience was slavery to sin. Before I came to God, I was a slave to sin. I couldn’t help myself. I throught I was free to engage in any sexual sin I wanted but the truth was that I couldn’t stop myself. But God freed me from slavery to that sin.
Before, I had no choice. Now, I choose. Sex no longer controls me and tells me what to do and when to do it. I choose when to pick it up and when to put it down, when to take it out and use it and when to store it away, and I choose to do so according to God’s law. I am in control of my sexual behavior, and I (rather God) defines it, not me. It obeys me, I no longer have to obey it. There is great freedom in that.
I would challenge the atheist to show me his self-control and I will show him mine, and see who has more freedom. There may be many who have great self control, but my guess is that many more do not.
-Tim-
For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. (Romans 7:18-19)
Paul speaks of slavery to sin in Romans 6 through 8.
My experience was slavery to sin. Before I came to God, I was a slave to sin. I couldn’t help myself. I throught I was free to engage in any sexual sin I wanted but the truth was that I couldn’t stop myself. But God freed me from slavery to that sin.
Before, I had no choice. Now, I choose. Sex no longer controls me and tells me what to do and when to do it. I choose when to pick it up and when to put it down, when to take it out and use it and when to store it away, and I choose to do so according to God’s law. I am in control of my sexual behavior, and I (rather God) defines it, not me. It obeys me, I no longer have to obey it. There is great freedom in that.
I would challenge the atheist to show me his self-control and I will show him mine, and see who has more freedom. There may be many who have great self control, but my guess is that many more do not.
-Tim-
- Status