Why is disbelief a sin?

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

I really appreciate your very nice tone of the conversation, even if we keep disagreeing.

I had to emphasise these two segments. In both you speak of a “gift” given out, which he did not “give” me. Therefore, why is it my fault that he never gave me the capability to step beyond the empirical evidence. If the “gift” is necessary for acceptance, I am not guilty since the “gift” was not extended to me.

In a way this reminds me of the claims of Uri Geller, who insists that one must have faith in his paranormal abilities, otherwise his “tricks” do not work.

The answer to your question is that the “gift” comes after acceptance, not before. The “gift” is not a pre-requisite of faith, faith leads to whatever gifts or insights God is pleased to bestow.

“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

When one hears the truth of the Gospel, one is tasked to believe or to reject it. One must place their faith in God that His word is true. When Christ walked the earth, what empirical evidence could have been given the common people that the earth was round rather than flat? But the shape of the earth is an irrefutable and easily accepted fact today. But how, to such people, could empirical evidence have been offered that would prove of a heavenly kingdom? Since such a thing is as far beyond our understanding today as a round earth was to the people of the first century, the only way to proceed is with faith; to trust, believe and have faith in the Lord’s teachings and promises.

If, when one receives the Gospel, one is willing to place their faith in its words, and their trust in God, then God allows the “hearer” to understand that he may live the commandments of God. This is what is meant by “…and hearing by the word of God.” The first use of the word “hearing” means to listen to what the Apostles preached. The second use of the word “hearing,” in the example above, means to understand and respond to its call. The word of God is, of course, Jesus who is the word of God incarnate.

Tie this in with the quote I offered you in the previous post. I will highlight a different part; the part that pertains here:

“Now when He was at Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, many believed in His name, seeing the signs that He was working.** But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, in that He knew all men, and because He had no need that anyone should bear witness concerning man, for He himself knew what was in man.”** John 2:23

Jesus knows what is in the hearts of all men. In the case above, their faith was superficial and their love was lacking, so He did not entrust Himself to them. These people believed only because they had seen evidence in the signs He was working. Yet, the passage makes it clear that acceptance or belief based on evidence alone is not acceptable to the Lord. This seems to be what you keep asking of Him, Hitetlen. (i.e. Show me the evidence and I will believe in Him.) But they had the evidence and they believed in it (the evidence) not in Him. Therefore, Jesus did not believe in them. (But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, in that He knew all men…)

But do not make the mistake of thinking that if you give faith a try, that suddenly all will become clear in an instant. For some, it can take much time and patience to grow in the faith to the point that one will receive the “gift” mentioned above, or any gift for that matter.

According to your public profile, Hitetlen, you will be 60 this July. This then becomes a matter of urgency. You may not have the luxury of time to expend on perpetual debate.

I hope time does not run out on you.

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

The answer to your question is that the “gift” comes after acceptance, not before. The “gift” is not a pre-requisite of faith, faith leads to whatever gifts or insights God is pleased to bestow.

So it is not a “free gift”? True generosity does not impose ultimata on the recipient, it just gives, especially something as insubstatial as the “ability to believe without evidence”.

Thal59:

According to your public profile, Hitetlen, you will be 60 this July. This then becomes a matter of urgency. You may not have the luxury of time to expend on perpetual debate.

Yes indeed, at least I hope so. Fortunately these conversations do not take up too much of my time, and they present my only chance of conversion - slim as it may be. So perhaps you agree that this is time well spent - maybe.

Thal59:

I hope time does not run out on you.

Not likely. If the proverbial substance really hits the fan and I finally see the “light” on my death bed, it would be soon enough. But that last minute conversion is not likely. If God throws me into hell for my disbelief, we can still conduct an infinitely long conversation about his unjust ways, and that will pass the time…

 

[clmowry]

Hitetlen:

If God throws me into hell for my disbelief, we can still conduct an infinitely long conversation about his unjust ways, and that will pass the time…

Unfortunately I believe if you or I find ourselves in Hell it will be with the full knowledge that we put ourselves there, which would make the discussion decidedly less interesting.

Chuck

 

[Stephen_Butler]

Hitetlen:

Many apologists keep repeating that atheists will reap the “rewards” they have sown, and the “reward” is eternal damnation.

I’m not an apologist, but I can tell you that the disposition of a soul is at the Lord’s sole discretion. CCC lays out athiesm in entries 2123 through 2126. Read it for yourself if it concerns you.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2123

Hitetlen:

I don’t “reject” God, I am simply unconvinced of his existence.

And here is the crux. I’ll tell you the truth. Then, as Christ taught us, perhaps you will hear, and perhaps you will not. We are obliged as believers to say it, but even as we say it we know many will not accept.

God cannot be concretely concluded with human reason. He can only be felt. Human reason can guide common sense to look at the world and tell you that a creator is likely. You can observe the lives of faithful Christians and see the value in the fruits they bear. A written history with eyewitness testimony declares the life and works of Jesus and the Lord. That’s evidence, but it’s old evidence, and you can no longer interview those people for yourself. Nope, human reason is not up to the task of turning faith into fact.

But therein lies the problem. If human reason cannot prove it, does that make it false? Your assumption is that your own capacity for reason is your only reliable marker. That’s a lot of blind faith in a human capability which history makes a fool of about once every fifty years. In 1485, Leonardo Da Vinci would have tried to convince you that man can fly. But neither he nor anyone on the planet could have proven it to you. Speculation, untested theories, observations, all of these things abounded, but nothing that we could call solid proof. Nevertheless, today’s helicopter is yesterday’s ornithopter …

So you could just wait for the God evidence, right? Wait until someone figures it out or disproves it altogether? You will perish first, and then it will be too late. Your fate will be in God’s hands.

Here is the truth. To find God you do precisely this. Understand that God is standing right in front of you. Ask him to lead you to the truth. Just open your mouth and talk. Close your eyes, walk through the Church doors, and leap. When you are caught, you will know God because you will feel him. But that cliff is dark, and the only word you have to go by is those who leapt before you.

Hitetlen:

Whether you believe in something or not is not subject your volitional control. No one can force oneself to believe in something.

History disagrees with you, strongly … You are an intellectual, and as such it is easy to fall into the trap of letting your reason be your God, treating it as the light and the truth, the only means by which you can learn anything. Human reason isn’t that good. Do you love your mother or your wife? Prove it. Reason is a tool, no more. Like all tools, use the tool where the tool is appropriate, and set it down when it is not. Reason is great for building your house. It’s terrible for loving your wife. It’s nearly useless for finding and loving your creator … Intellectuals have a fierce trap to escape, Christian or otherwise. Reason becomes your only tool for dealing with everything. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, but that doesn’t make it true.

Hitetlen:

I could go through the motions and join a church, go to mass, pray etc., but that would be a set of empty motions if I could not believe in the rituals, which I cannot. Even if I liked to believe them, it would be impossible for me.

Be careful with that word impossible. It almost never applies. Christians are at the bottom of this cliff. We are telling you that the water is great, so great you can’t understand it until you jump right in. We all hope you will jump, but we know the edge of that cliff is dark. It feels uncertain. It feels impossibly high. It feels ridiculous to pull on the Church doors and kneel in a pew for no reason at all.

But, if you do it anyway, you will rapidly come to understand. It’s an irony, faith, that the only way for those who rely on reason to “open their minds” is to close them and step boldly into the face of it.

Jump. You will never regret it.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

It is your choice, if you wish to throw away that small time, I will not try to prevent it. For me it is rather precious.

How perfectly “loving”!

It is not worth committing suicide: it is always too late.
Anyway, our time is short. Measured in historical terms and measured in our own vital terms, time is always short: so many things to be done, so many things that can never be done. That is why “the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages” recognized as a radical character of human condition immortality.
But we still have to focus on our major issue: the knowledge of God’s existence.
Many of the posters refer to Faith in connection with the knowledge of God. I have to insist on the knowledge of God by reason and before Faith.
As Aquinas says: (1, p. q 2, art. 2, ad. 1.)
“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.”
As it has abundantly been shown the main cause for this persistent denial of God’s existence lies on a severe damaged process of thinking.
Would be impossible to explain The Pietà to a blind because blind people lack the sense of sight. How could you comment Mozart’s Requiem with a deaf?
How could a person freely self blinded by pride and ignorance ever be capable of recognizing his Creator?

 

[Hitetlen]

clmowry:

Unfortunately I believe if you or I find ourselves in Hell it will be with the full knowledge that we put ourselves there, which would make the discussion decidedly less interesting.

Chuck

That is your belief, which I respect, but do not share.

 

[Hitetlen]

Stephen Butler:

You can observe the lives of faithful Christians and see the value in the fruits they bear.

I can also se the lives of atheists and they are no different from the lives of Christians. There is no statistical evidence that Christians have a better, happier life than atheists. Not less divorce, not less frustration, not less crime. not fewer accidents, not more happiness, not better health, no statistically significant difference. Never was. The belief system of the lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on our lives.
Stephen Butler:

A written history with eyewitness testimony declares the life and works of Jesus and the Lord. That’s evidence, but it’s old evidence, and you can no longer interview those people for yourself. Nope, human reason is not up to the task of turning faith into fact.

No quarrels with this.
Stephen Butler:

But therein lies the problem. If human reason cannot prove it, does that make it false?

No, it does not. Why would it? Human reason cannot prove that there are no invisible unicorns in a diamond house at the very center of Jupiter, but would you build your life around this assertion?
Stephen Butler:

Your assumption is that your own capacity for reason is your only reliable marker. That’s a lot of blind faith in a human capability which history makes a fool of about once every fifty years. In 1485, Leonardo Da Vinci would have tried to convince you that man can fly. But neither he nor anyone on the planet could have proven it to you. Speculation, untested theories, observations, all of these things abounded, but nothing that we could call solid proof. Nevertheless, today’s helicopter is yesterday’s ornithopter …

No blind faith is necessary. We all know that progress is sometimes painfully slow, sometimes there are even downturns, but on the long run, it was reason and reason only which made our lives incomparably better during the ages. God certainly never interfered, and never gave us penicillin (for example).
Stephen Butler:

So you could just wait for the God evidence, right? Wait until someone figures it out or disproves it altogether? You will perish first, and then it will be too late. Your fate will be in God’s hands.

That is no problem, as long as God is just. If he is not just we are up the creek - you and me, all of us.
Stephen Butler:

Here is the truth. To find God you do precisely this. Understand that God is standing right in front of you. Ask him to lead you to the truth. Just open your mouth and talk. Close your eyes, walk through the Church doors, and leap. When you are caught, you will know God because you will feel him. But that cliff is dark, and the only word you have to go by is those who leapt before you.

You maybe don’t know, but as a child, I was a believer, until I saw the futility of it.

But, as a general observatoin, I really appreciate the tone of your post. Thank you for your honest opinion.

 

[cynic]

Thal59:

Love is a two-way street. I like to put it this way. Reach out your hand upward to Him, and He will reach down to you. Grasp His hand and He will grasp yours. Hold tightly to Him and He will hold tightly to you. But, release your grasp and He will release His. Draw your hand away from Him and He will draw his away from you. Certainly as a man of logic, Hitetlen, you understand the precept that one only receives from something in accord to that which they put into it. You have put nothing into Him, He has given you nothing in return. Is this His fault? Is it logical that the greater should condescend to the lesser, rather than the lesser first aspiring to the greater?

so if you do enough psychologicla gymnastics and eventually convince yourself of Gods existence, then you’ll start seeing ‘signs’ of him everywhere. This argument can be torn apart…

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

No blind faith is necessary. We all know that progress is sometimes painfully slow, sometimes there are even downturns, but on the long run, it was reason and reason only which made our lives incomparably better during the ages. God certainly never interfered, and never gave us penicillin (for example).

This, Hitetlen, must be the dumbest thing you have said so far. Prior to the life of Christ, the order of the day was conquest, enslaving, and plundering. There is no evidence that the world would have changed on its own had Christ not lived. Yet, after He lived, taught, and instituted His church before His death, the painfully slow growth of progress can be seen historically. This is because no institution, government, or philosophy has done more for education and health care as the Catholic church has.

Wherever the church has gone to evangelize, it also emphazised education and health care of the common people. The entity of the “University,” for instance is a Catholic creation. Monasteries and nunneries were for many centuries, the only places the poorest of the poor could find personal medical care.

To put a long historical story in a nutshell, the ability of “reason” to cause mankind to progress has its roots in the church that Jesus - who is the truth incarnate - established. This constitutes the most sublime “interferrence” by God in the history of mankind. He did this by giving us the fullness of truth, Jesus, from which man finds it possible to “reason” himself out of swords and sandals.

Hitetlen:

That is no problem, as long as God is just. If he is not just we are up the creek - you and me, all of us.

This one you have got backwards. If a private in the Army insults a fellow private, no one takes notice. If the private commits the same insult upon his seargent, he is in trouble. Extrapolate the insult along the chain of command, from the seargent to the lieutenant, captain, major, colonel and general. In either case, the insult remains the same, but the grievousness of the insult and the disipline that results is commensurate with the dignity of the person offended.

Now apply this insult to God, whose dignity is perfect and eternal. Punishment therefore would require perfect and eternal discipline. In a word, Hell. This is why I say you have it backwards. If God is just, then we are up the proverbial creek. What we rely on is mercy.

I can also see the lives of atheists and they are no different from the lives of Christians. There is no statistical evidence that Christians have a better, happier life than atheists. Not less divorce, not less frustration, not less crime. not fewer accidents, not more happiness, not better health, no statistically significant difference. Never was. The belief system of the lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on our lives.

Now why did you make this statement, Hitetlen? This is the first time you made a statement regarding a subject you have no idea about. Please consider the link below:

adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

You will find that atheists are actually a bit more profitable than religious people where certain “temporal” comforts and gains are concerned. But you will also find out something of a riddle. Their rate of suicide is demonstrably higher.

If the atheist is trading “unprovable” eternal bliss for “evident” temporal bliss, why would he be more apt to end that temporal existence?

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

This, Hitetlen, must be the dumbest thing you have said so far. Prior to the life of Christ, the order of the day was conquest, enslaving, and plundering. There is no evidence that the world would have changed on its own had Christ not lived.

I don’t see a whole lot of changes. Admittedly there is a little progress, but not really spectacular.

Thal59:

To put a long historical story in a nutshell, the ability of “reason” to cause mankind to progress has its roots in the church that Jesus - who is the truth incarnate - established. This constitutes the most sublime “interferrence” by God in the history of mankind. He did this by giving us the fullness of truth, Jesus, from which man finds it possible to “reason” himself out of swords and sandals.

I am sorry, this is just a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”. In reality the Chrurch and Bible were notoriously anti-reason and anti science. When science developed and certain teachings could not be maintained any longer, the Church (very unwillingly) changed its teachings. Prime example is the evolution, which is now accepted. Mind you, I respect people (and institutions) who are willing to accept their errors, but with the Church it only happened, when there was no other way out.

Thal59:

This one you have got backwards. If a private in the Army insults a fellow private, no one takes notice. If the private commits the same insult upon his seargent, he is in trouble. Extrapolate the insult along the chain of command, from the seargent to the lieutenant, captain, major, colonel and general. In either case, the insult remains the same, but the grievousness of the insult and the disipline that results is commensurate with the dignity of the person offended.

Not in my eyes, and not in the eyes of Justitia, who is always depicted with a scale and blindfolded. Actually it is very revealing that you bring up the military as an example. The higher ranks can impose harsher sentences, because they are in power, not because there is any inherent dignity in a few pieces of cloth sewn onto the uniform.

Thal59:

Now apply this insult to God, whose dignity is perfect and eternal. Punishment therefore would require perfect and eternal discipline. In a word, Hell. This is why I say you have it backwards. If God is just, then we are up the proverbial creek. What we rely on is mercy.

So when finally push comes to shove, God exercises his power over us, and takes offense at something that is definitely not offensive in human-to-human interactions. You depict God as tyrant, who simply exercises his power, and hides behind his “dignity”. Observe, in Brasil husbands have the “right” to kill and mutilate their wives if they offend his “honor” and refuse to jump and fetch a can of beer, when ordered. Then if they hide from the law for 24 hours, they are home, scot-free.

If justice is not blind, it is not Justice, it is shameless tyranny.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Now why did you make this statement, Hitetlen? This is the first time you made a statement regarding a subject you have no idea about. Please consider the link below:


You will find that atheists are actually a bit more profitable than religious people where certain “temporal” comforts and gains are concerned. But you will also find out something of a riddle. Their rate of suicide is demonstrably higher.

If the atheist is trading “unprovable” eternal bliss for “evident” temporal bliss, why would he be more apt to end that temporal existence?

A probable cause is that religious people are expicitly forbidden to commit suicide. There is also a slight disrepancy in committing crimes, and the number os atheists is somewhat lower (percent-wise) than the number of religious people.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

I am sorry, this is just a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”. In reality the Chrurch and Bible were notoriously anti-reason and anti science. When science developed and certain teachings could not be maintained any longer, the Church (very unwillingly) changed its teachings. Prime example is the evolution, which is now accepted. Mind you, I respect people (and institutions) who are willing to accept their errors, but with the Church it only happened, when there was no other way out.

This is all nonsense. There have been very few conflicts between science and the church. Most conflicts occured when science brazenly professed a “scientific truth” when in reality it had insufficient proof. The scientific community was guilty, many times, of suppressing new discoveries from individuals if it was too radical a departure from the orthodox teachings, or was contrary to the traditions of the elderly scientific statesmen. (Consider the life and struggles of Louis Pasteur.)

Again, you put too much into science. Take a look at a previous thread regarding geocentrism. I have seen this subject discussed twice on this forum. It usually receives over a thousand views and 200-400 replies. But, if you take the time to read it, you will find that it never settles the issue. I participated in the first argument and the main proponent of the issue and I came to a mutual agreement that, in a nutshell, any scientific fact can be theoretically disproved. The end result; mankind still cannot prove if the earth is fixed and the universe revolves around it, or if the earth revolves around the sun, or any other fixed point in space.

Regarding the text in red, you may accept it, but I do not. I understand subtle changes within species over time, but science has in no way proven that sea-life evolved into gorillas who evolved into men. Again, you have no understanding of church history. The Catholic church historically promoted study focused on language skills, (reading, writing, composition, and foreign languages) mathematics, science, and classic philosophy such as Socrates and Aristotle, et al.

Hitetlen:

Not in my eyes, and not in the eyes of Justitia, who is always depicted with a scale and blindfolded. Actually it is very revealing that you bring up the military as an example. The higher ranks can impose harsher sentences, because they are in power, not because there is any inherent dignity in a few pieces of cloth sewn onto the uniform.

Hitetlen, you are losing credibility. If, as in the example of the private insulting the general, the general were to impose the discipline, then your reply would have some merit. But when the private comitted the infraction, he would be disciplined either by his commander, or by a court martial; not by the person he offended. But rather than argue over this, lets take a non-military example. If you were to shoot at a local business man and graze his arm with the bullet, you might be charges with attempted murder. If you shoot at the president, you would be charged with an assassination attempt which carries a much more severe penalty.

more…

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

So when finally push comes to shove, God exercises his power over us, and takes offense at something that is definitely not offensive in human-to-human interactions. You depict God as tyrant, who simply exercises his power, and hides behind his “dignity”. Observe, in Brasil husbands have the “right” to kill and mutilate their wives if they offend his “honor” and refuse to jump and fetch a can of beer, when ordered. Then if they hide from the law for 24 hours, they are home, scot-free.

I say this calmly to you and not in anger: The remarks you have made, highlighted in blue, are both ignorant and insulting. I have never depicted God as a tyrant, you have. And this is because you keep judging God according to your own personal standards. Regarding the text in red, please offer a link to an authorized site that will prove this claim.

Hitetlen:

A probable cause is that religious people are expicitly forbidden to commit suicide. There is also a slight disrepancy in committing crimes, and the number os atheists is somewhat lower (percent-wise) than the number of religious people.

Why would the people, who have a moral prohibition against suicide, be more apt to commit an immoral crime? The answer can be found in the size of the available sample for the study. Since there are fewer atheists, there is fewer crime. Atheists enjoy one of the lowest infant mortality rates, but this is due to the fact that the atheist population also has a disproportionatly lower rate of childbirth, per capita, compared to religious populations. But the most disproportionate result of the study is the higher rate of suicide among atheists. In other words, atheism, which tends to lead people away from eternal life, also tends to lead people away from temporal life.

Hitetlen, I do not wish to be offensive, and believe me, I have no personal ill feelings towards you, but I have to be blunt. The level of your replies is becoming increasingly unintelligent. You state obvious errors as commonly accepted facts. You have made blanket statements about subjects that you clearly have never investigated. You judge everything according to your standards, even when you have shown you have no, or little, knowledge of the subject.

Please remember, I was first attracted to debating you and answering your questions because of two things; your patience and demeanor in the face of occasional abuse, and because of a demonstrated use of logic and reason in your replies - whether I agreed with your conclusions or not. I can credit the former to you still, but not the latter. Perhaps to you, you may still feel that your replies are sound and warranted, but from my side of the computer screen, as arrogant as it might make me sound, I see a distinct reduction in the quality of your proposed evidence, analogies, and rebuttals.

At this point there is virtually nothing that can be gained by further debate, so I am politely going to “sign-off” on this thread. There isn’t anything more I can give you anyway that you have not already rejected.

You have based your arguments on your personal intelligence, rather than on faith. But, as the thread wore on, I have seen your intellect begin to fail you. Because of this, my faith not only remains, it has grown a bit stronger.

I truly regret the position you have taken in life where God is concerned. But it is your prerogative. I wish you all the luck in the world. You are going to need it.

Thal59

 

[hurst]

In a direct answer to the original question, I came across something from Thomas Aquinas that might be helpful.

Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Is. 53:1: “Who hath believed our report?” It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 15:22) “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin”; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as “referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.”

Summa Theologica
Whether unbelief is a sin?
catholicprimer.org/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A1THEP1

Thus, unbelief is not always a sin. However, unbelief prevents us from being delivered from sins.

Why? Because the sin of another who put you in danger of eternal death must be overcome by an act of faith on your part.

It is not your fault that someone else sinned and jumped into a pit. But then they had you as a child. You remain in the pit until you come out of it on your own accord, by faith. If someone came to save the innocent child, it will have to have faith and trust them in order to take hold of the rescue line and be pulled out and saved.

hurst

 

[doomhammer]

Thal59:

Hitetlen, you are losing credibility.

could you tell me when he had it?
“Whether you believe in something or not is not subject your volitional control.”
“I find the arguments for God unconvincing, illogical and unacceptable.”
“I have heard of alleged “evidence” for God’s existence many times, and it simply was not enough to take it seriously.”
“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.”
“the God of Christianity does not exist.”
“my intellect rejects the concept of God”
“I find the definition and description of the God of Christianity totally incoherent”
“I have heard all the arguments for God, and none of them are convincing.”
“As for quoting the Bible, it is useless. Without believing in God, the Bible is just a loosely connected set of ancient stories written by rather uneducated people.”
“God has neglected to notify me about this “grace” so I never received it. I did not “refuse” it, just never received it. Maybe he sent it with Snail-Mail, and it got lost in the traffic”
“The basic question is not: “who created the universe?”, rather it is: “does the universe require a creator?”.”
“Only later did I start to really think for myself (at least the discipline of philosophy) and realized how unacceptable the religious worldview is.”
“I am only interested in secular reasoning. Biblical quotes I don’t care about.”
“So do you assert that I should be able to force myself to believe in the absurdity called the “Christian God”?”
“If God would wish to punish me for my honest approach, so be it. He certainly would not get any admiration from me, if he did so.”
“Can you prove that Jesus was really resurrected? Of course not. These are simply parts of an ancient tale.”
“The longevity of the Church means nothing.”
“I will not even contemplate the idea of “omnipresent” because that is sheer nonsense.”
“Life has no intrinsic value, has no external purpose”
“I am happy with the Earthly pursuits and find joy in them.”
“the assertion that the atheist chooses eternal damnation and torment is ridiculous.”
“the lack of belief is more rewarding”
“because “belief” is NOT a volitional action. One cannot choose to believe in something.”
“If God wishes to pay a visit to me, he does not have to do anything even remotely like that. Just snap his imaginary fingers, and voila, it would happen. No big deal for him.”
“not more mythology… God is enough.”
“In reality the Chrurch and Bible were notoriously anti-reason and anti science”

 

[doomhammer]

Stephen Butler:

God cannot be concretely concluded with human reason. He can only be felt.
If human reason cannot prove it, does that make it false?

“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

 

[Magicsilence]

Hi Hitetlen

Seeing that you have lived my life three times over, I am guessing that anything i say or give an example of, youve probably already seen/experienced.

You know more arguments than me, are probably more intelligent, seem to have a massive bank of knowledge and excel in a language which is not your mother tongue.

I dont think anything we say will ever change your mind, and far from all Catholics being intellectuals who can argue for hours, (we’re not all super intelligent with powerful minds that can comprehend everything, sigh, well, im not ), let me try to relate to you on a personal level.

When i read your arguments, I feel what you are saying. I totally understand it. You are an intellectual being. Instead of arguing this and that though, why not assess your reason for being on the forums.

Why you are happy in life, and what are the reasons behind that happiness.

Im not here to argue this and that, I want you to be happy. Though you cannot conceive it, I feel a happiness, and want you to enter into it too. Though sadly, I dont think you will ever consider it, i can nevertheless try.

Disbelief is a sin, in as much as not believing in what you know to be true, by not doing what you should i.e having faith and going through the motions. Church etc…

Even Satan believes in God right? We’re talking about rejecting what you know to be true. If you have never heard of it, you are not rejecting it.

In CHrist.

Andre.

 

[Angainor]

Hitetlen:

Why is disbelief a sin?

disbelief is not a sin in and of itself. Faith is the path given to us to get out of sin.

 

[Hitetlen]

Magicsilence:

Hi Hitetlen

Seeing that you have lived my life three times over, I am guessing that anything i say or give an example of, youve probably already seen/experienced.

You know more arguments than me, are probably more intelligent, seem to have a massive bank of knowledge and excel in a language which is not your mother tongue.

I dont think anything we say will ever change your mind, and far from all Catholics being intellectuals who can argue for hours, (we’re not all super intelligent with powerful minds that can comprehend everything, sigh, well, im not ), let me try to relate to you on a personal level.

When i read your arguments, I feel what you are saying. I totally understand it. You are an intellectual being. Instead of arguing this and that though, why not assess your reason for being on the forums.

Why you are happy in life, and what are the reasons behind that happiness.

Im not here to argue this and that, I want you to be happy. Though you cannot conceive it, I feel a happiness, and want you to enter into it too. Though sadly, I dont think you will ever consider it, i can nevertheless try.

Disbelief is a sin, in as much as not believing in what you know to be true, by not doing what you should i.e having faith and going through the motions. Church etc…

Even Satan believes in God right? We’re talking about rejecting what you know to be true. If you have never heard of it, you are not rejecting it.

In CHrist.

Andre.

Very nice post, thank you! As for my presence on the forums, I enjoy the company of nice people (and most people on this board are VERY nice indeed, the few exceptions I simply disregard), and I enjoy stimulating conversations. I would be bored on a predominantly atheist board, with all the agreement among like-minded people.

I am glad that you are a happy person, and I can say that I am very happy, too. There are different ways to happiness, and since you and I do not disturb each other to pursue our goals, we can agree or disagree in a most cordial fashion.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

If you were to shoot at a local business man and graze his arm with the bullet, you might be charges with attempted murder. If you shoot at the president, you would be charged with an assassination attempt which carries a much more severe penalty.

Yes it does, and I consider that unjust. Just like having more serious penalty if someone is accused of a “hate-crime”, as if there would be something like a “love-crime”.