Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Under Catholic doctrine, the eternal part of punishment is remitted but time in purgatory us required to purify the soul. Of course the repentance has to genuine and heart-felt.

I thought the whole purgatory thing had been abandoned?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

I thought the whole purgatory thing had been abandoned?

No, it's dogma, will never change.

slavetothegrind

Rare venture for me in here but i have to ask...

Why bother debate with people who believe in God?

To what end?

They do, and always will. You don't and never will.

There will be no awakening ...it is just an exercise in trolling each other ...amusing as it is at times...

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

I thought the whole purgatory thing had been abandoned?

are you thinking of limbo?

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

I was thinking it might be Big Virgin Mary.
But yeah, it's all good.

it actually means bloody virgin mary - a non-alcoholic cocktail.

pauldla

kylith wrote: »

Whereas under Christianity the rapist just has to repent and they not only get off scot free, the actually get to go to heaven! No consequences there!

Indeed. It's quite possible that Hitler is in heaven, if he repented earnestly before his death. Many of his millions of victims, who rejected Christ, could well be in hell.

kelly1

pauldla wrote: »

Indeed. It's quite possible that Hitler is in heaven, if he repented earnestly before his death. Many of his millions of victims, who rejected Christ, could well be in hell.

It's not so easy guys. The bigger the sin, the greater the humility required to ask for forgiveness. And first you have to admit that you've sinned. Again not easy when the whole idea of sin has been undermined in general society.

The repentance needs to be genuine and heart-felt, as I said earlier. And then you have Purgatory to deal with (under Catholic doctrine).

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Belief in God makes no actual difference to free-will.

SNIP

But without that incentive, a lot less good would actually be done.

You can't say belief in god has no effect on free will but then say out that without belief in god (with the incentive of heaven etc.) people would do a lot less good. If I threaten to hurt someone for doing something, would their next action completely be from their own free will, or would it be influenced by my incentive?

An atheists on the other hand, behaves according to his conscience and social conventions. But lack of belief in God is mostly likely to suggest that there are no consequences to one's actions, unless the person is caught.

So under atheism, if a child rapist commits suicide, he gets off scott-free and the victim continues to suffer. No justice is not done.

Would you rape someone if you didn't believe in god?

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

it actually means bloody virgin mary - a non-alcoholic cocktail.

That's valid too.
Not great for traffic directions though. I'm thinking a really massive statue would be better for that. So I'm sticking with Big Virgin Mary.

Hotblack Desiato

slavetothegrind wrote: »

Rare venture for me in here but i have to ask...

Why bother debate with people who believe in God?

To what end?

They do, and always will. You don't and never will.

There will be no awakening ...it is just an exercise in trolling each other ...amusing as it is at times...

Why do theists come onto this forum to try to convince us of the existence of god?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not so easy guys. The bigger the sin, the greater the humility required to ask for forgiveness.

Great humility?
Not in the slightest. In catholic terms, all one has to do is tell the sin to an unknown priest behind a curtain in a dark box.

I can't imagine a simpler or less troublesome way to acquire "forgiveness".

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Great humility?
Not in the slightest. In catholic terms, all one has to do is tell the sin to an unknown priest behind a curtain in a dark box.

I can't imagine a simpler or less troublesome way to acquire "forgiveness".

And you think sincerity counts for nothing with God.

Atheist motto: concede nothing, never give an inch.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

And you think sincerity counts for nothing with God.

Sincerity? It's up to the religious to decide whether or not they're being sincere

I'm sure that plenty and probably most catholics are very sincere when they enter a dark box to explain their sins to an unknown man behind a curtain, as well as to any deities who happen to be listening in, for the purposes of having them forgiven.

It is, as I've said, far, far easier than to go through that, than to have to speak with a real, wronged person and begging forgiveness of them.

kelly1 wrote: »

Atheist motto: concede nothing, never give an inch.

Atheist motto - question everything, even if it makes people uncomfortable.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Sincerity? It's up to the religious to decide whether or not they're being sincere

A bit of nuance here. If a sinner pretends to be sincere but in his/her heart has no intention of repenting and changing his/her ways, the person will not be forgiven.

From the CCC:

1430 Jesus' call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, "sackcloth and ashes," fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.
[/quote]

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure that plenty and probably most catholics are very sincere when they enter a dark box to explain their sins to an unknown man behind a curtain, as well as to any deities who happen to be listening in, for the purposes of having them forgiven.

What do dark, unknown, curtain, deities have to do with anything? Are you just having a pop? A bit of sincerity would be nice.

robindch wrote: »

It is, as I've said, far, far easier than to go through that, than to have to speak with a real, wronged person and begging forgiveness of them.

True but reconciliation with God is the more important part.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

A bit of nuance here. If a sinner pretends to be sincere but in his/her heart has no intention of repenting and changing his/her ways, the person will not be forgiven.

Doesn't change the fact that a child rapist gets to go to heaven because they're very, very sorry, does it?

Whereas if that raped child grows up to not be a Christian they go to hell.

Is that fair?

True but reconciliation with God is the more important part.

Yes, I'm sure that someone who was raped would be just fine with the fact that their rapist was not punished while alive, but that they made up with a god. I'm sure that brings them lots of comfort.

Sincerely though; that attitude that getting in good with a god is more important than making restitution to the actual extant, provable, living person whose life has been totally destroyed is absolutely sickening.

pauldla

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not so easy guys. The bigger the sin, the greater the humility required to ask for forgiveness. And first you have to admit that you've sinned. Again not easy when the whole idea of sin has been undermined in general society.

The repentance needs to be genuine and heart-felt, as I said earlier. And then you have Purgatory to deal with (under Catholic doctrine).

Hitler in his final moments may well have reverted to the Catholicism of his youth and repented earnestly and wholeheartedly of his many sins. Even in the absence of a priest, that may still have been enough to get him into purgatory.

Whereas the unknown (presumably Jewish) person that is said to have written on the walls of Auschwitz 'If there is a God he will have to beg my forgiveness' may well be in hell.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

. . . . Whereas the unknown (presumably Jewish) person that is said to have written on the walls of Auschwitz 'If there is a God he will have to beg my forgiveness' may well be in hell.

Nothing in Catholic teaching would suggest that he is.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nothing in Catholic teaching would suggest that he is.

Sins against hope and faith, no?

Peregrinus

No. Anger with/disagreement with God, for which there is a long and respectable tradition going back to at least Abraham.

Samaris

If there was a loving God, I would hope he would have the understanding that if his Church on earth had become corrupt and self-serving to the point where it drove people away from him, he would place his rage on the Church that betrayed him rather than those who could not follow evil done in the name of good and who held truer to "love thy neighbour" than those that claim to represent him who mouth the words and betray their meaning.

looksee

How could a Jew/non believer be in a Catholic hell?

robindch

looksee wrote: »

How could a Jew/non believer be in a Catholic hell?

If the catholic truth-claims happen to be generally true, then - so far as I can establish - everybody except catholics in general will be going to hell.

Since catholics, however, have widely varying views on what the truth happens to be, I'm inclined to believe that most posters here will be joined in perdition by the majority of catholics - the ones who just didn't believe the right things.

I wonder what it would be like to run an A+A board in hell? Surely the place would be filled with people unimpressed with the vision of a loving god incorrectly sold by the few catholics who don't get to spend eternity roasting their toes in the lakes of burning sulphur.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Sincerely though; that attitude that getting in good with a god is more important than making restitution to the actual extant, provable, living person whose life has been totally destroyed is absolutely sickening.

Apologizing to the victim is obviously a good thing and should be done but it has no obvious eternal consequences. On the other hand, apologizing to God and asking for forgiveness is the difference between an eternity in hell and an eternity in heaven. That's why it's more important to to be reconciled with God.

Would you wish hell on anyone?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Apologizing to the victim is obviously a good thing and should be done but it has no obvious eternal consequences. On the other hand, apologizing to God and asking for forgiveness is the difference between an eternity in hell and an eternity in heaven. That's why it's more important to to be reconciled with God.

Would you wish hell on anyone?

I daresay ISIS suicide bombers would have a similar rationale.

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Apologizing to the victim is obviously a good thing and should be done but it has no obvious eternal consequences. On the other hand, apologizing to God and asking for forgiveness is the difference between an eternity in hell and an eternity in heaven. That's why it's more important to to be reconciled with God.

Would you wish hell on anyone?

That is a truly sad outlook to live with.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

... is the difference between an eternity in hell...

So which crimes warrant torture in your opinion?
And what about apologising to God justifies that torture continuing forever?

oldrnwisr

Apologies for not getting back to this question sooner kelly1.

kelly1 wrote: »

But of the two scenarios, one being that God is plainly visible and two, God is hidden, which one is most likely to diminish free-will?

Well on the evidence of the Bible, neither. As I've already said, there are plenty of examples of people who communicate with God personally and still manage to disobey him (Adam & Eve, Cain, Aaron, Noah).

Secondly, God himself deliberately compromises the freewill of Pharoah in Exodus 9:12.

Finally, the idea of God hiding himself to protect free will is directly contradicted in several places in the Bible. Jacob sees and even wrestles with God in Genesis 32 as does Abraham in Genesis 12, the elders of Israel in Exodus 24, Moses in Exodus 33 and Isaiah in Isaiah 6.

kelly1 wrote: »

There is also the merit argument. It's a Catholic doctrine that all good deeds are rewarded in Heaven. So good deeds done freely deserve more merit than those done less freely. This result in a greater good for those who are faithful.

This just highlights the contradictory nature of the Bible. Was Paul wrong when he said:

" nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
Galatians 2:16

or this:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
Romans 3:28

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Apologizing to the victim is obviously a good thing and should be done but it has no obvious eternal consequences. On the other hand, apologizing to God and asking for forgiveness is the difference between an eternity in hell and an eternity in heaven. That's why it's more important to to be reconciled with God.

Would you wish hell on anyone?

You seemed to miss the last time I asked, so I'll ask again, but in more general terms:
If you didn't believe god would send you to hell for doing bad things, would you do them?

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Apologizing to the victim is obviously a good thing and should be done but it has no obvious eternal consequences. On the other hand, apologizing to God and asking for forgiveness is the difference between an eternity in hell and an eternity in heaven. That's why it's more important to to be reconciled with God.

Would you wish hell on anyone?

Would I wish hell on a person who rapes children.... that's a tough one, I must admit.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

That is a truly sad outlook to live with.

Why?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well on the evidence of the Bible, neither. As I've already said, there are plenty of examples of people who communicate with God personally and still manage to disobey him (Adam & Eve, Cain, Aaron, Noah).

ok, so some people are particularly stubborn and blinded by selfish desires. It's a product of original sin. I think my point still stands.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, God himself deliberately compromises the freewill of Pharoah in Exodus 9:12.

Fair enough, but I don't know God's motive for doing so.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, the idea of God hiding himself to protect free will is directly contradicted in several places in the Bible. Jacob sees and even wrestles with God in Genesis 32 as does Abraham in Genesis 12, the elders of Israel in Exodus 24, Moses in Exodus 33 and Isaiah in Isaiah 6.

Bit of a non-point I would say. If God didn't reveal knowledge about himself to chosen prophets, we would be still floundering around in the dark trying to make sense of a chaotic world. In pagan times, people believed the gods were capricious and they lived in fear not knowing what the gods would do next. They made sacrifices etc in the hope of appeasing the gods.

The God of the Israelites, on the other hand, was much more predicable and fair. He communicated with his people and made covenants with them. Unfortunately, the Israelites kept breaking their side of the bargain, while God kept his.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

This just highlights the contradictory nature of the Bible. Was Paul wrong when he said:

" nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
Galatians 2:16

or this:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
Romans 3:28

No, Paul was talking about salvation here, not reward. He was saying that our guilt for sin is erased through faith in Jesus and that the good works we perform do not remit the guilt of sin. Merit/reward is another matter.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you didn't believe god would send you to hell for doing bad things, would you do them?

We all have an in-built conscience and can choose to ignore or follow what it prompt us to do. So it's still a matter of choice. The threat of hell is of course a big deterrent, just as jails are a deterrent against crime.

kylith wrote: »

Would I wish hell on a person who rapes children.... that's a tough one, I must admit.

Genuine question, are you being sarcastic here? Rapists deserve punishment but it's not for me to say who deserves hell. It's important to consider the environment in which the rapist grew up.
[Edit: I'm assuming your statement was genuine, forgive my question please]

We all start with a blank sheet and some of us are unfortunate enough to grow up with abusive parents and relatives. Evil breeds evil.