Why is disbelief a sin?

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Wait a second. If he “allowed” us to deviate from the “design specs” - beyond the “tolerance limit”, then there is something wrong with the “building process”. If we are allowed to go beyond the tolerance limits, then the ball is back again in his court.

Ah, but he did not allow that. Like I said, we are in two parts. The consideration of the soul is important here. The soul by itself works fine, and we cannot make it not work. Our bodies also work fine, though subject to other physical laws. Thus, for someone to make a free choice is not by itself wrong, and for a body to be blind is not by itself wrong.

By putting these two together, though, God has created a rational creature that can determine his own destiny and is subject to the consequences of his own choices.

Freely chosen actions are obviously done in the body and the consequences are felt in the body, though not dependent on the body.

This is clear from the fact that we can pinch ourselves and feel pain. We can choose to stop pinching ourselves to avoid that pain, or to continue pinching ourselves in spite of the pain. That pain is a consequence of our choice and does not determine our actions unless we want it to. If we choose to live so as to avoid bodily pain, then we will avoid pinching ourselves. But we may have other reasons to continue pinching ourselves, too.

God made it so that what we do would be freely chosen by us, and that we would also reap the consequences of our actions. He has made us gods of our world! We will have to live with our decisions.

We can know what God wants by the manner in which He has made physical nature. He wants people to eat to live. We do not have to eat, but the consequences are that we will die if we don’t.

Are you mad at God for requiring us to eat in order to stay alive? After all, it is “wrong” to not feed the body in the sense that one is “punished” with physical death. Someone can even be clueless about it and still die. It is a hard fact of life. Again, does this make you resentful to be obligated in this way?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

The “free will defense” simply does not work. Here is why:

I am sure you know very good people, those who never even dream about harming anyone else. Those who are helpful and caring. Some even might be atheists, for all you know. They don’t live their lives in such a manner, because they want rewards; and don’t behave as they do because they are afraid of punishment. In other words, they are simply exceptionally good people. They don’t have to “force” themselves to be good - against their hidden desire to act otherwise. It is just the way they are.

Do these people have free will?

Yes.

Hitetlen:

If you agree that these people do have free will, then the question is: “why can’t all people be like that?”.

Two reasons.

1. Because God made the soul to be independent of the desires of the body, thus allowing one to choose to do something contrary to the good of their own body. In other words, He is not forcing us to be bound to the natural instinct, as the animals are.
2. God made us for a higher purpose than this world, and thus gave us the ability to desire something greater than it. This also explains why He gave us the free will able to choose something besides what is good for our body - because there is a higher good, for our soul.

Now, some people look at what others were doing and decide they want something better, so they reject what that person is doing. (Perhaps that is what you are doing when you reject our notion of God in favor of something you think is better?)

I think you would agree that everyone desires to be happy. The founding documents of our country acknowledge the right of everyone to pursue “life, liberty, and happiness”. And it is just as clear that not everyone agrees what it is that will make them happy. But they are able to strive after something they choose themselves.

Unfortunately, some people are only happy when they own what belongs to another, and others are only happy when they think they have what everyone else wants. They are making a poor choice, as history attests.

You could perhaps say that God should have made them able to know everything. But what you are missing is that God made our nature to work properly, and it does, but He also made it for a purpose above what that nature can attain by itself. A baby bird can eat, but it can’t get the worm by itself - it relies on the mother bird for that. Though it can desire the food, it can’t obtain it by itself. Is that another scandal to you? That a baby is not sufficient unto itself?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

I know that the world would be “boring”, but what of it? If this world would be “boring” because of the abundance of good will and good behavior, then heaven would be “boring”, too.

Heaven is the fulfillment of that which our nature cannot attain by itself. People being naturally good in this world is the fulfillment of what our nature is already capable of. Earth is boring because doing something we can do is no different than having a job in many cases. Heaven will not be boring, because we will be forever tended to by God, Who is incomprehensible even there. He makes all things new.

Hitetlen:

Let me explain: even the most devout believers act as atheists most of the time. They live as if there was no God. When you step off the sidewalk, you look both left and right, you do not trust God to stop the cars, so you will not be run over. When you drive your car, you exercise caution, you do not close your eyes while driving and trust God that he will guide you. When you are hungry, you do not pick up a stone and bite into it hoping that it will turn into a piece of bread.

When we expect nature to continue acting as it always has, it can just as well be out of trust in God that He will keep things in existence. The same gravity that we attribute to God’s work is also the gravity that causes people to fall and get hurt. God created nature in order for us to have a world in which to willingly choose to love and honor Him.

Hitetlen:

Now, ostensibly this is because “testing” God is forbidden. Why is it forbidden? Because even the most devout believer knows, that God will not interfere and guide them.

It is true that testing God is forbidden. But nature itself is a miracle of creation from God. Acting within the confines of nature is to accept God’s law on a physical level.

It is not a matter of God “interfering”, though that is a common phrase to indicate a change in the normal operation of nature. It is a matter of God keeping and sustaining everything at every moment in existence.

Hitetlen:

In other words: you behave just like me, just like any other atheist, and rely on your experience, knowledge, logic and reason, all your life. Why? Is it because you know deep inside that what you believe in is - bogus?

No. It is because we both are part of nature.

I said before that the Church teaches that we do not need faith or grace in order to live naturally good lives or perform morally good actions. You do not need religion to be a generally good person according to nature.

However, we do need faith to reach beyond our nature, to receive grace and live in a manner that has value in a higher good - that higher good that we have been enabled to seek and find!

Deep down, I know that there is a God Who has so much more to give us, if only we desired it more than things of this world. For we have but one container, and we can fill it either with natural things or supernatural things. One opposes the other, because the supernatural is beyond this life and is not afraid of death, whereas the natural is limited by the considerations of bodily death and its own capacity. And one requires the exercise of faith, which is able to see beyond what the natural can see.

hurst

 

[hurst]

doomhammer:

Council of Quiersy: “Almighty God wills all men without exception, to be saved, even though not all are saved. The fact that some are saved is the gift of Him who saves: the fact that some are lost, is the merit of those who are lost.”

Agreed - “He who tries to save his own life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

doomhammer:

Keep in mind that our friend considers the teachings of the Church as nonsense.

One obstacle is understanding the term “saved”. Saved from what? From hell? From sin? From a big monster?

As far as Hitetlen is concerned, this whole “saved” business is a cat-in-the-hat scam whereby we are created in a situation needing to be saved from something we didn’t cause in the first place, and if we don’t do something (varying depending upon which religion you choose), we will suffer a terrible destruction in some so-called afterlife.

But the fact is, humanity has been shipwrecked by our first parents, and we are under the sea living in a small air bubble that is getting smaller all the time. We no longer enjoy the grace of living in the wide open spaces and fresh air from above. We need to be exerting our effort to be rescued from the sure fate that is approaching us. Some ignore this and are enjoying their pocket of air while they can while ignoring any effort to be rescued. Others have looked and found air hoses that have been dropped down for us, and are living by that. Still others have already been rescued and taken above. But it remains we need to be saved, and that we have to seek to get back to the top. But we have been here so long that there are children and grandchildren, etc. Air has been added by the generosity of those who have access to air hoses and other supplies dropped down from above.

In the end - we need to be saved from the insufficiency of our own nature. For this we need supernatural grace, for without it we will be lost in the ocean and devoured by the sharks who have decided to stay in the natural ocean and rule it with a fury.

But Hitetlen is like one who objects to having to make efforts to be saved by reasoning that there can’t possibly be happier place up above if it was possible for the ship to be wrecked in the first place. Therefore it is all a hoax.

Well regardless of whether or not it he thinks it is a hoax, such a conclusion is not different from knowingly choosing death. And it doesn’t matter that one doesn’t know how terrible that death might turn out to be - he has to accept whatever comes along with it. For he did not consider that it must be pretty serious for God Himself to have to come in person to warn us about how terrible it will be! And that God Himself, clothed with our nature, worked and suffered to prepare a road of escape from our death and graces of refreshment to aid us on our way back. So hoax or not, whoever chooses death has also chosen to reject such a gracious offer and is not left with anything good, for God has clearly given all good things from above to those who choose His life.

This is serious business, and something worth spending hours of time and the sweat of labor to help others to understand so they may make a more informed choice.

hurst

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

Wait a second. If he “allowed” us to deviate from the “design specs” - beyond the “tolerance limit”, then there is something wrong with the “building process”. If we are allowed to go beyond the tolerance limits, then the ball is back again in his court.

There is nothing wrong with the building process, if you can understand the builder’s goals and motives. You design a program because you want it to work as intended. It is your slave. You cannot tolerate a program that may start operating in an unpredictable manner, even if such mannerisms are creative or fascinating. You do not love your program as if it were a child, nor do you wish it to grow as an individual entity with individual rights. If it does not work as planned, and to the efficiency you require, you will either “force” corections upon it, or you will erase it and start over.

Therefore, this analogy is completely inadequate. It bears no comparison to the creative work of God who created human beings that He loves. Beings that have hearts and souls and minds. He intended from the beginning that His creations have free will, that they grow and become unique. He intends His creations to be His children, not His slaves. He does not force correction upon us, nor does He erase us if we begin to fail. He offers love and guidance as long as we live. As part of the free will He gave us, we can accept His guidance, or we can reject it.

Hitetlen:

Let me explain: even the most devout believers act as atheists most of the time. They live as if there was no God.

Nonsense. Walking, talking, eating, are all simple behaviors that are a part of life regardless of what one’s religious, political, or social values are. The devout believer lives with God from moment to moment, therefore their motives for behaving the way they do are different from the atheist. It is only the outward physical appearance that seems identical; inwardly they are totally discernable from the atheists.

Thus, the devout walk to places that are more apt ot be beneficial to others, while the atheist walks where he pleases for himself. The devout talks kindly of God, with respect and gratitude while the atheist speaks contemptibly of Him. The devout gives thanks to God for the food he eats before consumming it, whereas the atheists simply eats without gratitude because he feels the food he has obtained is entirely of his own doing.

Hitetlen:

When you step off the sidewalk, you look both left and right, you do not trust God to stop the cars, so you will not be run over. When you drive your car, you exercise caution, you do not close your eyes while driving and trust God that he will guide you. When you are hungry, you do not pick up a stone and bite into it hoping that it will turn into a piece of bread.

The only way I can “trust” God in the situations you have enumerated, is if God had made it clear that He would stop those cars, drive my vehicle for me, or turn stones into bread whenever I please. God has never stated that we can be a stupid as possible and He will always protect us from the consequences. To infer that we act like atheists because we do not trust God to rescue us from gross stupidity is baseless.

Hitetlen:

…this is because “testing” God is forbidden. Why is it forbidden? Because even the most devout believer knows, that God will not interfere and guide them.

It is forbidden because the creature cannot enslave the creator. We cannot attempt to induce situations that will force God to conform to what we want His power to do for us; else it is no longer His power under His control, but our power to do with as we please. But we do not step in front of moving vehicles because God has already provided guidance in such cases by giving us common sense. If we do not use this common sense, then we have in effect rejected His guidance and deserve to be “run over.”

Hitetlen:

In other words: you behave just like me, just like any other atheist, and rely on your experience, knowledge, logic and reason, all your life. Why? Is it because you know deep inside that what you believe in is - bogus?

Not at all. I rely on experience, knowledge, logic and reason when applicable. But, I also rely on faith when those previous attributes fail. My faith is not exclusive of those other traits, it is a part of it. To infer that the believer is the same as the atheist because he will not injur himself because he has no faith that God will protect him from injury is pure nonsense.

Thal59

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Hell was created God (according to the Bible)… Allegedly God created this place for the angels who rebelled against him…And then he used this place to punish those humans who dare to use their God given intellect and want proper evidence for such a story…

”Most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a Hell. It is a place of great tortures. How awesomely large and extensive it is!
The first torture constitutes Hell is the loss of God.
The second is perpetual remorse of conscience.
The third is that one’s condition will never change.
The fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it, a terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire lit by God’s anger.
The fifth torture is a continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil both of others and their own.
The sixth torture is the constant company of Satan.
The seventh torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies, indescribable sufferings.
There are also the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned. No one can say there is no Hell.” Saint Faustina Kowalska (1905-1938).

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

If you use the word “objectivist” in the Randian fashion, you are mistaken. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you use as a detached observer, then I agree.

The latter.

Hitetlen:

One more remark: Lem does not stop at being critical of religion, he criticises everything. In his book: “The Cyberiad”, he gives an absolutely scathing criticism of “theoretical” science, too.

I don’t think so. From what I have read so far, he was not against science, but rather against shallow science fiction coming from the west that exhibited a sort of pop culture and commercialism.

If I recall correctly, he wrote that he wanted science fiction to incorporate theoretical science into the social-phycological understanding and use it as a sort of laboratory for testing ideas and getting them into the consciousness of more people.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

hurst:

…
What I see here reminds me of the flavor of your posts - upbeat, light-hearted, controversial criticism aimed towards those who take God seriously.

Could it be… ?

I wish you had finished the question, I would be very interested to know what you left out. I will not deny that Lem had an enormous influence on my development.

I filled it in with all the surrounding content. It was hard to come up with an accurate rendering, and so I left it unstated. But if I were to state it, perhaps the following would be close:

Could it be … that you are acting out the role of an objective observer, a critic, without thinking you yourself are subject to the same constraints your subjects are under? That you see us like the personoids in a controlled environment of fantasy while you remain in an exterior and objective scientific observational realm of truth? That you are so far removed from our experience that you are not worried about being affected by us, but only wish to gain intriguing knowledge by peeking in on our sayings and doings?

Hitetlen:

hurst:

Someone questioned your sanity. I question your humanity towards us.

Why would you do that?

Because it would mean that you were not treating us as fellow human beings.

Hitetlen:

And what do you mean by the word “us”? Humanity in general or believers in particular?

Us Catholics and believers in God on this forum.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

I certainly consider everyone around here as worthy human beings, even if we disagree on many things.

I am not really sure what you mean by “worthy human beings”.

For one thing, you hold that God, if He exists, made a mistake and/or is not all-powerful. That is how you can reconcile not being angry with Him. And it also justifies your confidence in not being condemned for not believing in any religion’s view of God. You reason that if God exists, then He has no reason to condemn you, or anyone for that matter.

The irony is that if God made a mistake in making us, then

1. how can we be worthy human beings? We would be botched creatures. And if we are botched, then how reliable could our reasoning be? How worthy could our comments be?
2. isn’t that a bigger reason for getting rid of us? Even we have production errors and throw them out as rejects. We wouldn’t want anyone to see our mistakes, but would throw it out and start over.

So if God made a mistake, then none of us are worthy, and we are all going to be pitched. (Or maybe were already were, and this world is the trash can?). If God made a mistake, then we would all be condemned anyway.

However, perhaps you think God is not all-powerful, and is unable to do away with His “mistake”? Being content you are right, do you comfort Him and tell Him everything is alright, that you understand how it happens even to the best of us?

But you are still left with the strange belief that imperfectly made creatures are “worthy human beings”. It just doesn’t make any sense. Worthy of what?

Well, maybe you consider them worthy of your observational experiment? Something of scientific interest? Worthy of your critique? Worthy of being used as leverage against any claims of God being perfect and all-powerful? If so, then it would make sense, because it would then match your belief that God, if there is one, made a mistake and has no power to fix it.

But you would not be showing any humanity towards us in doing so.

Are you, then, willing to trade the notion that God is perfect for the ability to say that you “were right” about Him making a mistake? What is gained?

Have you ever seen or heard of the TV series “Battlestar Galactica” from the 1980s? It is about humans who are traveling through space in a convoy of ships and who are menaced by alien robots who want to destroy all humans. As it turns out, there is a traitor who is seeking revenge against his fellow humans and goes to these aliens to offer his services as an informer, agent, and spy. He offers this in exchange for the preservation of his own life, and they agree to work with him. But when he is away, they laugh among themselves because once he helps them destroy the other humans, they will destroy him, too.

Don’t you think you exhibit similar traits? Have you agreed with an unseen intelligence concerning a judgment on God and His deluded creatures, yet are oblivious to the fact that you yourself are a creature also subject to deception? Of course, if “God” is wrong, then this unseen intelligence can more easily claim to be right and deserving of your cooperation. It is then basically trying to replace other “despicable” notions of God with its own idea, which is clearly superior. You may not realize the level of communication you have with this sublime intelligence, which is not your own (or do you think it is?), and which has an aversion to “God”.

Do you think that life would not be fair if God were perfect and we weren’t, that since we are not perfect then God shouldn’t be, either? Such a notion would be based on prideful envy, where one couldn’t stand the thought that someone else was better than oneself. Of course, another way of saying that is, it would not be fair if you had to suffer imperfection and punishment if others, including your Maker, didn’t have to suffer with you.

Guess what? That is the gripe of the intelligences that have been condemned to hell. Their existence is as real as the gripe, and notice that we are able to be poisoned by it. Try extracting yourself from this poison. Notice that you can’t do it unless you are willing to praise your Maker and rise up by offering yourself to His service as One who is better than you and deserving of your best offering… Even thinking about this is possibly causing you thoughts of aversion, repulsion, and indignation. In other words, a rebellious “Non serviam”.

Yes, such are the traits of the evil spirit we fight in the high places of the mind. The silly-looking praise offered to God by peasants and “deluded” blue-collar workers is actually the victory cry of those who are overcoming and have overcome the prideful and envious superintelligences who seek “fairness” by trying to drag everyone else down with them to their kingdom of darkness in the deep pit of hell.

hurst

 

[doomhammer]

Note"Non serviam" (“I will not serve”) is attributed to Satan in his rebellion against God, which is the very opposite of what it means to worship God and love our neighbor.

“your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods” (Genesis 3, 5), thus, “non serviam”.
What is the main concept behind atheism (the kind of atheism Hitetlen profess)?
Only one: “non serviam”.
What is the first task of atheism? Only one: to destroy “reality”.
This is why atheism and relativism go together, side by side.
Reality: God is creator and man is creature.
Non serviam: God does not exist; man is an electro-chemical function; creation has no purpose.
Reality: Natural law.
Non serviam: Morals are contingent; uncertainty determines what human life is (abortion rights); uncertainty sets sex (right to “invent” ourselves as man, woman, gay, transsexual, whatever).
Reality: It is what it is.
Non serviam: subjectivism; all knowledge is abolished: there are all “opinions”. Historical facts are abolished: there are all “legends”.
Hatred of God means hatred of reality. Satanist saying “non serviam” means “man is creator”.
Could anything be more blasphemous?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I don’t believe in the concept of “soul” either. My consciousness (mind) is just the electro-chemical working of my brain, which will cease to function at my death. …I asked, and I was told that … I will be sent to hell, and I deserve it.

The free will of saying “no” creates one’s own hell.

 

[Chelalu]

Dear Hitetlen
**

• I read the first few responses to your post and was shaking my head at the points made and tone adopted. I felt, they just don’t get it. They don’t understand what it is to not be able to believe, and they don’t understand, even though they should, that faith is a gift, not something they gave to themselves or convinced themselves of.*

**I of course don’t know the particulars of your situation, but I offer some of mine. For 25 years I was an atheist – that would be from the age of 19 on, and for the last, oh, perhaps 10 years, I wished I could believe. I would keep checking it out, testing the evidence, trying out the logic, in hopes that this outlandish notion that there was a being who cared for us and expected something of us could actually be true. and during those occasions in that 10 year period, that exercise would be exhausted in about half an hour of thought. The conclusion: Nah!! I mean, Really! It’s just too far fetched! *
**Here’s the thing, I never did reason myself into faith. Instead (I learned) faith is, indeed, a gift from God, a gift He finally restored to me. That was a moment, five years ago. My life and outlook has been better ever since (just cutting to the chase) and my faith is strong and logical. It’s an amazing thing. It is the most incredible thing to me that I can believe. I tell my story to other believers sometimes, and I can tell that they just don’t get what a hugely incredible thing this is that I believe. I’m amazed by it everyday. And grateful.

*My best to you, and I hope you don’t mind if I wish for you that God gives you the gift too – The real McCoy, not a counterfeit.

 

[doomhammer]

Dear Hitetlen
**

• I read the first few responses to your post and was shaking my head at the points made and tone adopted. I felt, they just don’t get it. They don’t understand what it is to not be able to believe, and they don’t understand, even though they should, that faith is a gift, not something they gave to themselves or convinced themselves of.*

Have you read the whole thread? Just to repeat my quotes:
“If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”
Council Vatican 1869-1870
“I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated.”
Sacrorum Antistitum, St. Pius X, September 1, 1910
“The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.” Aquinas (1, p. q 2, art. 2, ad. 1.)
Romans 1, 18-25: “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
And just for a quick look of Hitetlen’s thought: Post # 292

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

even the most devout believers act as atheists most of the time. They live as if there was no God. When you step off the sidewalk, you look both left and right, you do not trust God to stop the cars, so you will not be run over. When you drive your car, you exercise caution, you do not close your eyes while driving and trust God that he will guide you. When you are hungry, you do not pick up a stone and bite into it hoping that it will turn into a piece of bread.
Why? Is it because you know deep inside that what you believe in is - bogus?

What is the difference between an atheist and a catholic?
According to Hitetlen there is no difference. What else do we need to recognize the definitive and extreme shallowness of atheism? What does he say? “They live as if there was no God.” Considering the overwhelming lack of testimony of many Christians, this statement could be true. Leon Bloy says that “Any Christian who is not a hero is a pig”. But Hitetlen speaks about “devout believers” and as a “devout” atheist he stresses “material”, “visible” behaviors. Behaviors common to all human beings! Is it that a believer does not care of himself and an atheist does? Do believers eat and atheists don’t? So what?
Matt 5, 45-48: “for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”. And:
Matt 7,11: “If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”
So, where is the difference between an atheist and a believer?
I’d say that the main difference is absolute fundamental and invisible (what really matters: Matt 6, 5-6: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”
The life of a devout believer is an eternal “te deum laudamus” (“We praise you O God”).
The life of a devout atheist is an eternal punishment (“non serviam”).
It is not enough difference?

 

[GEORICH2]

I Wonder If Anyone Could Convince You That A `brick’ Just Happened. Chances Are You Never Seen A Brick
Being Made But Would Reject The Notion Immediately
That It Just Happened (faith). On The Other Hand You Would Accept The Notion That Something As Complicated As A Human Being Could Just Happen.

 

[doomhammer]

March 26, 2006: SUNDAY READINGS - 4th Sunday of Lent GOSPEL: John 3:14-21. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.”

 

[GEORICH2]

Try Reading John 9: 1-41

 

[doomhammer]

GEORICH2:

Try Reading John 9: 1-41

“He said, “I do believe, Lord,” and he worshiped him.”
just what atheists do not do.

 

[Rogo]

Hitetlen:

I do not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, but for a very different reason. To have the attributes: “pink” and “invisible” contain a logical contradiction, therefore such a being cannot exist.

I agree. And good thing too. We’re having enough trouble with the visible ones.

 

[scm]

The subject line of the thread is: “why is disbelief a sin?”

My answer to that is that is that I believe that there is one very important verse in the Gospels pertaining to belief, that is John 3:16, paraphrased: “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, whomsoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life”.

So to not believe means that you miss out on everlasting life.
Why is this a sin? Because to “sin” means to “miss the mark”

If everlasting life is your target, by not believing you have missed the target.

I have read a few of the posts in this thread and it seems that the thread is really about, “does God Exist”.

As an athiest who believes that God does not exist, that you do not have a soul and when you die, your brain just shuts off and there is nothing left, Why does any of this matter to you?

You said in an early post that you have no choice in not believing, and implied that rational thought leads you to disbelief. Did you know that belief does not have to come from logic? That belief can come from your heart and not your brain. That to fully live is to live by both your heart and your brain at the same time?