Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[emarc]

For various reasons and some of these are:

•      His vision of God is wrathful, vengeful and cruel

•      God is dead to him because of his personal loss and he was not there to prevent it

•      He is better off disbelieving in the existence of God

•      People he knows who believe in God do worse things than him

And the list could go on.
God bless!

 

[OneSheep]

For various reasons and some of these are:

•      His vision of God is wrathful, vengeful and cruel

•      God is dead to him because of his personal loss and he was not there to prevent it

•      He is better off disbelieving in the existence of God

•      People he knows who believe in God do worse things than him

And the list could go on.
God bless!

So, in all these cases, to me, the person does not know God in the first place that he may reject Him. He would be rejecting a false image, not God.

 

[OneSheep]

:twocents:

I don’t have a #4, and I think the other alternatives could be an answer, I do think its hard for people (even myself) to understand how being told that something is wrong needs to be experienced by some people to “open their eyes”.

Well, for me it is not so hard to understand. I am very slow-witted about some things. It takes a 2X4 across the temporal lobes sometimes…

The ten commandants : some we can commit, like stealing, and you can feel guilty for it and promise never to steal again, because you felt bad, so that is an experience…
But with say, murder, we don’t normally need to know what murdering someone or some creature would make us feel in order for us not to do it. We can see how precious life is.

Hmmm. Lots of soldiers get severe depression for ending the life of someone they had not an inkling of how precious their life was. It would be very, very hard to find a case of premeditated murder when the murderer appreciates the life of his victim.

No, nearly always in order for the crime to take place, the life of the other is seen as a negative value, a threat.

If the “man” is a church goer, says the words, but hasn’t grown in his own spiritual way, he maybe more likely to fall into adultry, because just following a missal doesn’t necesarily make a person more aware of God and fellow humans, the man would need to want to know God more fully, in a way that he wouldn’t need to experience the consequence of his action, he would be aware of it through his love of God.

The man being in relationship with God would make a huge difference, and we have seen little to no evidence of that so far. Like, did the man pray about his decision to commit adultery? Sounds ridiculous, does it not? However, if a person has built a pile of rationalizations and doubts shielding himself from guilt about the sin, then such prayer may be very fruitful. Pope Benedict and Pope Francis put a great deal of emphasis on relationship.

 

[simpleas]

Well, for me it is not so hard to understand. I am very slow-witted about some things. It takes a 2X4 across the temporal lobes sometimes…

Hmmm. Lots of soldiers get severe depression for ending the life of someone they had not an inkling of how precious their life was. It would be very, very hard to find a case of premeditated murder when the murderer appreciates the life of his victim.

No, nearly always in order for the crime to take place, the life of the other is seen as a negative value, a threat.

The man being in relationship with God would make a huge difference, and we have seen little to no evidence of that so far. Like, did the man pray about his decision to commit adultery? Sounds ridiculous, does it not? However, if a person has built a pile of rationalizations and doubts shielding himself from guilt about the sin, then such prayer may be very fruitful. Pope Benedict and Pope Francis put a great deal of emphasis on relationship.

So it’s back to our conscience then. I could part take in an act that may lead to addiction or hurt of another person, but my conscience reprimands me, most all the time. I see what could happen and decided not to act. But as I’m not perfect, I could parttake in something that would be considered as rejecting God, but my will overrides my conscience, and just because I am told I will be rejecting God I can not see that, so I would need to experience it for myself to know that it is the truth.
(sounds like I’m saying we need to sin inorder to know it is a sin) But how can we grow spiritually if we are trying to be righteous all the time.

The mans will overrides his conscience as I think has already been noted, and because of this. that is how we will say he knowingly and willingly rejected God. He has another person to consider, but he can’t be spiritually mature if his will overrides his conscience, so that he disregards his spouse and has an affair imo.

If he had a relationship with God he would have prayed about the temptation to commit adultry, I would guess…

 

[OneSheep]

If he had a relationship with God he would have prayed about the temptation to commit adultery, I would guess…

When Eve and Adam were deciding to eat of the fruit of the tree, where was God? Did God simply go away? No, God is always accessible through prayer. This adds another dimension of “knowing and willing”. Is the person aware of the omnipresence of Abba?

Was the man thinking of the presence of our Lord in his wife? Jesus said “whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.” Some people, I think, take this to mean that we have to be kind, gentle, and generous to the “least” (the poor, imprisoned, the hurting) but we can be mean to anyone who does not fit those categories!

This was not Jesus’ point, obviously. Whatsoever we do to anyone is done unto Jesus. Was the man thinking of this? No, not if he was a “reasoned Catholic” as he was depicted. None of this was in his mind when he chose to sin.

 

[OneSheep]

chefmomster2:

Our emotions are present, but no, they should never be the “major part” of a rational decision. We reason with our minds, not our “gut”. I would absolutely tell people not to let fear guide their choices. Fear may be based on many inaccuracies and lead to an erroneous judgment. Facts can actually remove this fear or greatly diminish it.

As much as we would like to think that we are unaffected by our “gut” or that we “should” never rely on our gut, research shows that the majority of the decisions we make are heavily influenced by our “gut”. This is quite clearly shown in experimentation cited by Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow. Fear affects our decisions, and to me fear is okay. Our gut, our emotions, our capacities are all gifts from God, and are a major aspect of conscience. Sure, gut reactions cause us some problems, get us in trouble sometimes. That fact, however, does not diminish that these capacities are gifts from our beneficent Abba.

Our “reasoned” mind, what Kahneman calls “system 2” is important, and informs the gut, “system 1”, but both of these are important. Often, there is little time for system 2 to be of much help.

Exactly where was he avoiding responsibility? That is a misreading of my statement. He is fully responsible for his action. Sin, pride, etc. are explanations for why man will sin. They are not excuses. He is fully culpable for his actions. He was not driven to the point of ignorance (blindness to the fact that adultery is a serious sin). So long as he still retains the ability to know this and to choose his action, he is K&W.

On a scale, yes. At the lowest end of “knowing”, is that a child for example has heard that he is not to steal, but has no idea what “stealing” is. At the higher (highest?) end, the child not only knows the definition, but he has experienced what it is like to have something stolen from him, he has experienced, and appreciates, the impact of theft on others, he has experienced his own conscience reaction and has maintained this, he is not blinded by desire, he gives infinite intrinsic value to the human and his wellbeing, he appreciates and is fully congnizant of God in all others, and, finally, he has all of this in the forefront of is mind whenever he makes a decision. Again, these are not excuses, this is an investigation into the levels of “knowing”.

The man was unable to respond to “what happened in that you decided to repent?” and “what changed your mind?” As it turned out, I tried to answer for him.

The mere presence of emotion, however strongly felt, does not in and of itself cause ignorance. He is only ignorant if he is unable to determine that he is about to commit a serious sin.

Let me give you a scenario. Fred has stolen something from Jim, and Jim find out that it was Fred. Jim is very angry at Fred. Jim is not considering, does not have in mind, that Fred is a wonderful creation of God. In fact, he is thinking that Fred is a jerk, a crook, and a host of other negatives. Is Jim ignorant? Is he temporarily blinded? Regardless the label, if Fred had not violated Jim in some way, then Jim would be able to maintain Fred’s value as a child of God. When Jim does some act of vengeance or punishment on Fred, he will not be seeing this as committing a sin, he will see it as an act of justice.

However, he was not “right” in his mind, and his conscience may have been malformed.
If his conscience tells him that adultery is seriously wrong, his conscience is not malformed. It is in full knowledge of the Church’s teaching.

There is much, much more to conscience formation that simply knowing “the Church says it is wrong”. Conscience formation involves the “law being written in our hearts”.

Are you saying that you know just as much about the harm done as a person who has actually experienced divorce?

No, but I believe that the experience of positive values is equally strong. I don’t have to experience the harm of divorce or adultery. I know the value of fidelity! I have experienced the Christian ideals of a loving and faithful marriage. I know enough to hold fidelity in a place of high esteem, such high esteem that I would never consider acting against it. It is the opposite side of the same coin and equally valid. It is certainly more desirable.

In addition, your insistence on personal experience of the negative consequences would naturally mean that each of us must personally experience murder, homosexuality, abortion, adultery, etc. to have “full knowledge” according to your personal requirements. This just isn’t reasonable. The law is given to us to guide our moral choices. We are intended to trust that the law of Christ is there to protect us from harm. We can and do gain knowledge (an informed conscience) when we accept the Law, when we experience the “good” that exists when the Law is followed, and when we observe the experience of others.

“Requirements”. I think when I use the word “requirement” I am trying to figure out how to make sure that there is a fair allocation of punishment. I am not addressing “requirements”, I am still addressing the “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” issue. It is not “required” that a person experience great sin to know that it is hurtful. However, a person who has more experience with a particular sin is more likely to know its harmful effects and is therefore less likely to commit the sin. So, does God “reward” these people who avoid a particular sin because they know very deeply why it is so bad? No, avoidance of sin is a reward in itself, and practice of sin has its own inherent consequence, such as what the man experienced when he encountered his crying wife (see my “alternatives” post).

 

[OneSheep]

My quote:

To me, there is a gradient of “knowing”. When a person knows enough about the harm of sin, he avoids sin.

chefmomster2:

This is not Church teaching. Knowledge of the consequences is simply not required. It may be helpful; it may be instructive. It is not required. Generally there are unintended consequences which we might never anticipate. When I Iearned as a child not to touch the stove, it was enough to know that it would hurt me. Period. I did not and could not imagine all of the possible outcomes or harm. It wasn’t necessary.

But you are making my point. If I simply tell the child “it is a serious wrong to touch the stove” the child has much less “knowing” than when she touches the stove. Which child of normal empathy is less likely to let a sibling touch a stove? One that knows the pain, or one that does not? Certainly the one that knows the pain will be more protective of her sibling. Which person is more likely to crucify Jesus? One that knows of Jesus’ love, or one who does not?

The Church does not comment on everything. Some matters are somewhat obvious. This is not against Church teaching.

If we want to talk about “requirement”, then we have the model of the crucifixion. The crowd did not know what they were doing, yet they saw “righteousness” in killing what they perceived as a guilty man. Jesus forgave them, He saw their blindness. If they did See, then it would have been a different story; people of normal empathy do not destroy what they see as infinitely Good. People of normal empathy do not knowingly and willingly reject God. They may be knowingly and willingly rejecting a false image.

The crowd had a false image of Jesus. They knowingly and willingly rejected a false image, to the extent of their own awareness. As humans, we knowingly and willingly reject right behavior to the extent of our awareness. When we are unaware, we are unknowing, and when we are unknowing, we are not “willingly” rejecting God, we are rejecting a false image.

God Bless. I hope you find time to respond.

 

[Amandil]

My quote:

But you are making my point. If I simply tell the child “it is a serious wrong to touch the stove” the child has much less “knowing” than when she touches the stove. Which child of normal empathy is less likely to let a sibling touch a stove? One that knows the pain, or one that does not? Certainly the one that knows the pain will be more protective of her sibling. Which person is more likely to crucify Jesus? One that knows of Jesus’ love, or one who does not?

The Church does not comment on everything. Some matters are somewhat obvious. This is not against Church teaching.

If we want to talk about “requirement”, then we have the model of the crucifixion. The crowd did not know what they were doing, yet they saw “righteousness” in killing what they perceived as a guilty man. Jesus forgave them, He saw their blindness. If they did See, then it would have been a different story; people of normal empathy do not destroy what they see as infinitely Good. People of normal empathy do not knowingly and willingly reject God. They may be knowingly and willingly rejecting a false image.

The crowd had a false image of Jesus. They knowingly and willingly rejected a false image, to the extent of their own awareness. As humans, we knowingly and willingly reject right behavior to the extent of our awareness. When we are unaware, we are unknowing, and when we are unknowing, we are not “willingly” rejecting God, we are rejecting a false image.

God Bless. I hope you find time to respond.

I’ve gone over this before with you. They had sufficient knowledge that the man, Jesus, was a man sent from God, and that they were putting an innocent man to death.

You don’t need to have complete knowledge of an act to have sufficient knowledge that the act is sinful and thus be guilty in the committing of said act.

One does not need to have “empathy” for a convenient store clerk to know that robbing the convenient store clerk at gunpoint is sinful, and that shooting him in order not to be identified is even more sinful.

When it comes to mortal sins and the evil perpetrated by them they are so utterly basic and self-evident that feelings such as “empathy” are utterly secondary if at all negligible to the act.

And last time I checked the Catechism, neither “empathy”, or any feelings or passions, were part of any of the criteria regarding the morality of human acts.

Those criteria are the object chosen, the intent, and the circumstances…

All three must be good for the act to be good.

 

[tonyrey]

This is going to read like vicious indictment of faith. But, it’s a true account and you asked.

You believe it is true.

I rejected God because there is no evidence for his existence* and…*

You believe there is no evidence.

• In my youth when I was a Catholic I was plagued with cognitive dissonance on certain topics. My Catholic school teachers and parents tried to help me with this but I didn’t find their answers satisfactory most of the time.
• When I spoke the Apostles Creed at Mass it felt like a creepy brainwashing ceremony.
• I caught myself thinking badly of other groups of people (gays, people who enjoy sex, Muslims), but couldn’t really explain why with any conviction.
• I learned more about the history of the bible, the politics of it, the contradictions, the translations.
• I felt disappointed by the idea that this life was merely a test for the afterlife.

The idea that this life is merely a test for the afterlife is absurd.

The story of the afterlife seemed strange and not appealing.

It seems very strange that you want yourself and everyone you love to cease to exist!

• It became clear that evolution is true, I had to ask what else in the Bible was false.

Evolution by chance is blatantly false.

During the Reagan administration the diverse protestant Christian groups sort of united and became a powerful political force aligned with the Republicans, which, based on their predilection for war and treatment of the poor, seemed like they were on the wrong side morally.

“protestant” gives the game away!

• I became a person who enjoys sex and realized that the whole virgin Mary myth was probably responsible for a culture-wide sex shaming atmosphere which oppresses men and women alike.

A false deduction…

• Some of my friends and relatives came out as gay and I realized that there was nothing morally wrong it; no victims, no suffering, only love.

Being gay is not morally wrong but sodomy is perverse and unnatural.

• I studied other religions, but their absurdity caused me to look again at Catholicism with the same skeptical eye and I realized they are all ridiculous.

A false generalisation. Your belief in human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the teaching of Jesus.

With each of these milestones and thousand smaller ones my frustration with faith grew, but I remained agnostic…with occasional flights of fancy into faith perhaps.

Then 9/11 happened, and I realized that it does matter what you believe.

I did a lot more reading on philosophy (including Aquinas), and realized that there are good reasons to be good even without God. And the nice thing is no more cognitive dissonance!

In a Godless universe goodness is an illusion.

I faced the terrifying void beyond the grave, and asked myself if I was okay with it. I realized more clearly than ever before how short and precious life is, and how important it is that I make the most of it. Rather than nihilism, on the other side of faith I found a wealth of energy for righting wrongs, learning more about science, improving myself as a moral person, and more empathy for the rest of humanity. I also found more strength in my convictions. When science is on your side, and you are capable of changing your mind it’s very empowering.

Science rejects the ability to change your mind because it is incompatible with the principle of causality.

Then the pedophile scandals within the Church came out, and re-enforced my suspicion that the vow of chastity, and promise that prayer works, probably attracts young men to the priesthood who are sexually deviant. I’m relieved that I never got diddled.

Only a very small percentage of priests are pedophiles.

And of course, all around the globe, every day people of one faith are killing people of other faiths for of a lot of reasons, but they feel justified in doing so because of faith.
I’ve since come to view faith based ideologies as destructive and immoral forces. I hope to live to see the day when the world is majority secular and all the faith-based conflicts between people are done.

Ironically, lots of atheists have persecuted and killed others because of faith in Marxism, Nazism and Fascism.

I do kind of miss confession though. That’s a nice tradition.

I wonder why…

I get along pretty well with my dad. He’s very loving and nurturing…and a very scholarly Catholic. We are a lot alike.

His love has a rational basis - unlike that of his son who believes we are animals who exist for no reason or purpose…

 

[Amandil]

Tony, when he refers to “liberty, equality, and fraternity” I’m almost certain that he’s basing those terms on John Locke and not Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus mean those terms in a much more fuller sense.

If anything the bloodletting of the French Revolution was a perfect demonstration of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” according to the atheistic view.

 

[Bradski]

Tony, when he refers to “liberty, equality, and fraternity” I’m almost certain that he’s basing those terms on John Locke and not Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus mean those terms in a much more fuller sense.

If anything the bloodletting of the French Revolution was a perfect demonstration of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” according to the atheistic view.

They are worthy concepts, whether you are quoting Locke, Jesus or Big Bird. It’s quite a trite argument to say that they carry more or less meaning depending on who said them. Surely it can’t be that difficult to accept that people hold them as valuable without necessarily having a belief in the divinity of Jesus?

It comes across as a schoolyard taunt:

‘I believe in liberty, equality and fraternity as well’.
‘Huh, what would you know about that. You’re just an atheist’.

 

[Amandil]

As per your usual m.o. you read into things whatever you please and just assume things which were never said.

Bradski:

They are worthy concepts, whether you are quoting Locke, Jesus or Big Bird. It’s quite a trite argument to say that they carry more or less meaning depending on who said them.

1. The words “liberty”, “equality”, & “fraternity” already have concrete meanings. When people, like Locke, take them and turn them into “concepts”(especially for political purposes), omore often than not the “concepts” wind being totally alien to the original meaning.

In terms of the French Revolution, “liberty”, “equality”, and “fraternity” means massive murdering, rioting, looting, mob rule, demagoguery, and a complete and utter breakdown of civil society.

2)I never said that they weren’t “worthy concepts”. This is you attacking one of your strawmen.

I said that between Locke and Jesus the terms obviously take on different connotations. The truth or falsehood of those connotations are evident in the fruit which they bear.

It’s no different than the connotations taken from those words from men like Feuerbach or Marx or Engels.

Bradski:

Surely it can’t be that difficult to accept that people hold them as valuable without necessarily having a belief in the divinity of Jesus?

Again, see Locke, Feuerbach, Marx, Engels as well as people like Lenin, Stalin, or even Margaret Sanger.

Bradski:

It comes across as a schoolyard taunt:

‘I believe in liberty, equality and fraternity as well’.
‘Huh, what would you know about that. You’re just an atheist’.

See above.

 

[Bradski]

The words “liberty”, “equality”, & “fraternity” already have concrete meanings. When people, like Locke, take them and turn them into “concepts”(especially for political purposes), omore often than not the “concepts” wind being totally alien to the original meaning.

Liberty: The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

Equality: All mankind… being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.

Fraternity: To love our neighbor as ourselves is such a truth for regulating human society, that by that alone one might determine all the cases in social morality.

Nice concepts, don’t you think? I’d say they reflect what Jesus might have said in so many words. Or even Big Bird. And again, you don’t have to believe in the divinity of Jesus to hold them dear (although Locke did).

Personally, I hold those truths to be self evident.

 

[Amandil]

"Bradski:

I’d say they reflect what Jesus might have said in so many words.

Not even close.

Liberty: The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

Jesus:
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Paul from Romans 13:
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. **For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. **
[2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
[4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Bradski:

Equality: All mankind… being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.

And we all saw how well “equality” reigned during the French Revolution.

Just as we see how “equality” reigns when abortionists use the exact same arguments against unborn babies that Southern democrats here in the U.S. used to justify slavery during the Antebellum period before our Civil War.

Jesus:
"…[40] and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;
[41] and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
[42] Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.

Paul from Philippians:
[1] So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, [2] complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
[3] Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. [4] Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Matthew 23:
[11] He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;
[12] whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Bradski:

Fraternity: To love our neighbor as ourselves is such a truth for regulating human society, that by that alone one might determine all the cases in social morality.

The French Revolution(Locke), the Russian Revolution, Lenin, Stalin and the Holodomor, Nazi concentration and death camps, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward”, and lets not forget the advent of Planned Parenthood and it’s founder Margaret Sanger and her oh so gentle concern for her fellow man.

All of these are atheists who were influenced by other atheists and who obtained power and influence and exercised it to eradicate their “neighbors”.

Bradski:

Nice concepts, don’t you think?

Too bad they don’t follow in practice what they supposedly propose in theory, which says something about the philosophy itself.

Just as the utilitarianist Peter Singer, when it came to the point of euthanizing his cancer stricken mother, ignored his philosophy and chose to keep her alive.

Bradski:

Personally, I hold those truths to be self evident.

There’s something to be said of the mediocre: if that’s all you expect, you’ll never be disappointed.

 

[Bradski]

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. **For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. **

I think John agrees with you:

The majority having, as has been shewed, upon men’s first uniting into society, the whole power of the community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing; and then the form of the government is a perfect democracy…

The great end of men’s entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power…

And we all saw how well “equality” reigned during the French Revolution.

Pointing out what you don’t consider to be equality doesn’t really detract from Locke’s espousal of it as a worthy concept.

"…[40] and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Again, John gives you the thumbs up.

Every man has an immortal soul that is capable of eternal happiness or misery. Its happiness depends on his believing and doing the things that he needs to believe and do if he is to obtain God’s favour—*the things that are prescribed by God for that purpose.
*

Notwithstanding his belief that any quote you are likely to make from the bible is one that he himself would heartily endorse:

The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure.

I’m not sure why you’d argue against his belief that equality is a bad thing. And that freedom is not to be treasured. And that fraternity is something we should embrace. Didn’t Jesus teach us that, after all, we are all children of God and therefore brothers.

 

[Amandil]

I think John agrees with you:

The majority having, as has been shewed, upon men’s first uniting into society, the whole power of the community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing; and then the form of the government is a perfect democracy…

The great end of men’s entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power…

This runs directly contrary to the “concept” of “liberty” you provided:

Bradski:

Liberty: The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

So which is it?

Bradski:

Pointing out what you don’t consider to be equality doesn’t really detract from Locke’s espousal of it as a worthy concept.

“Equality” to a Christian is an entirely different “concept” than “equality” to a materialist, a socialist, a communist, a facist, a racist, or a feminist.

That was my entre point, “concepts” formed in the vacuum of particular subjective opinions more often than not take on a life of their own.

Bradski:

I’m not sure why you’d argue against his belief that equality is a bad thing.

Your typical m.o. strikes again.

Bradski:

And that freedom is not to be treasured.

Because “freedom” is another word which under different ideologies takes on an alternate connotation and rather becomes the “concept” and a political justification for “license”; IOW “the right to do whatever or live however I please.”

Bradski:

And that fraternity is something we should embrace. Didn’t Jesus teach us that, after all, we are all children of God and therefore brothers.

Except when “fraternity” refers only to those who think like you do, the “revolutionary class”, as opposed to those who resist or refuse, who then become “undesirables” or the “unfit”. Or the “bourgeoisie” as opposed to the “proletariat”.

FYI:Your dodging the issue has not gone unnoticed.

 

[Bradski]

This runs directly contrary to the “concept” of “liberty” you provided:

Why the scare quotes? What on earth disposes you to argue against what most people would consider to be worthy values? Are you constantly in fear of being caught out in some convoluted ‘gotcha’? There’s no underlying plot here. But you come across as a little paranoid. You seem unable to agree with anything that someone with a different viewpoint might say purely on the basis that they are the ones saying it.

For heaven’s sake, if someone quotes the Pope saying that we ought to live in a spirit of brotherhood, which is exactly what fraternity means, then you’d be rushing to the keyboard to sing his praises. If a fellow Catholic suggests that we should strive for equality in race, religious beliefs, gender, education, opportunity etc, then you’d be patting her on her back. If someone said that we should all be free from hate, hunger, fear, war, oppression, discrimination etc, then you’d be praising them for their Christian values.

But ye gods and little fishes, heaven forbid that a professed atheist should have the temerity to suggest that he also believes in these things. That fraternity and equality and freedom are good things. And to hell with him, the horse he rode in on and whoever he might quote as confirmation that these are generally held beliefs. Even someone like Locke, who could be considered one of the fathers of your own constitution.

Nope, these are only good things if we can find quotes in scripture. No-one else could possibly reach the same conclusions without it. Otherwise ‘freedom’ is a freedom to commit moral outrages. ‘Equality’ is another word for bloody revolution.

So which is it?

If you don’t know, it sounds like you haven’t read much of what he wrote. So hey, take a week out and go read the book. You may not agree with everything in it – I certainly don’t, but at least you’ll get an idea of where American liberalism came from.

And you might, just might, realise that there are ways of looking at the world, concepts of life, of liberty and freedom, that are found outside of religious texts. And that these ideas and concepts, although you may not completely agree with them, are written by people you should spend some time listening to. They may not even be Christian. But Locke was.

Not that should prejudice your views on what he wrote, of course…

 

[simpleas]

When Eve and Adam were deciding to eat of the fruit of the tree, where was God? Did God simply go away? No, God is always accessible through prayer. This adds another dimension of “knowing and willing”. Is the person aware of the omnipresence of Abba?

Was the man thinking of the presence of our Lord in his wife? Jesus said “whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.” Some people, I think, take this to mean that we have to be kind, gentle, and generous to the “least” (the poor, imprisoned, the hurting) but we can be mean to anyone who does not fit those categories!

This was not Jesus’ point, obviously. Whatsoever we do to anyone is done unto Jesus. Was the man thinking of this? No, not if he was a “reasoned Catholic” as he was depicted. None of this was in his mind when he chose to sin.

Isn’t that what I said? If the man had a relationship with God he would have prayed about the temptation, he would be aware of God in all, so drawing strength from God would have helped him to make a decision.

 

[tonyrey]

They are worthy concepts, whether you are quoting Locke, Jesus or Big Bird. It’s quite a trite argument to say that they carry more or less meaning depending on who said them. Surely it can’t be that difficult to accept that people hold them as valuable without necessarily having a belief in the divinity of Jesus?

It comes across as a schoolyard taunt:

‘I believe in liberty, equality and fraternity as well’.
‘Huh, what would you know about that. You’re just an atheist’.

Most people hold the principles of liberty, equality and - above all - fraternity as valuable but they don’t have a** rational **foundation in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe. They become human opinions that don’t correspond to reality.

 

[Bradski]

Most people hold the principles of liberty, equality and - above all - fraternity as valuable but they don’t have a** rational **foundation in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe. They become human opinions that don’t correspond to reality.

For God’s sake, Tony. You are the epitome of a broken record.

The principles are worthy if existence was only to last a day, let alone a lifetime.