Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Why?

Its even sadder that you have to ask.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Its even sadder that you have to ask.

Why don't you just answer the question?

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you just answer the question?

Well it seems self evident to me that making peace with the victim of any crime you commit would be more important than apologising to a god. If you have genuinely made peace and, if appropriate, offered restitution then surely you have done all you can to make amends. It is such a self absorbed cop-out to leave victims suffering but try to look after what you consider your own eternal soul to save yourself from future suffering.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

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.

That doesn't answer my question: If you didn't believe god would send you to hell for doing bad things, would you do them?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Well it seems self evident to me that making peace with the victim of any crime you commit would be more important than apologising to a god. If you have genuinely made peace and, if appropriate, offered restitution then surely you have done all you can to make amends. It is such a self absorbed cop-out to leave victims suffering but try to look after what you consider your own eternal soul to save yourself from future suffering.

Keep in mind that we're talking about eternal damnation here. I'm also assuming the criminal is genuinely sorry for what he has done following the crime and that he has made restitution to the victim.

If the criminal doesn't reconcile himself with God, he merits hell.
If he does reconcile himself with God, God will remit the eternal part of the punishment due to mortal sin but the temporal part (Purgatory) remains.

What other way would you have it? One strike and you're out, straight to hell when you die?

1 Tim 2:4 "..., who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth"

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

If the criminal doesn't reconcile himself with God, he merits hell.

So some crimes warrant torture.
The only ones that warrant eternal, unceasing torture are the ones where the criminal doesn't believe in god.

Do you believe torture is acceptable?

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question: If you didn't believe god would send you to hell for doing bad things, would you do them?

It's not a straight-forward question. Are you assuming God does or doesn't exist?

If I believed God doesn't exist, then there would be no hell. I would like to think I would act according to my conscience in this case. But I might not.

If I believed God exists and doesn't send impenitent sinners to hell for murder etc, I'm not sure how that would change my view of God. It would raise a lot of question about God's version of justice.

My view is that God takes sin very seriously. He considers it serious enough to 1) send his son to die on a cross, and 2) All sin must be atoned for, i.e. God doesn't brush the offence under the carpet, so to speak.

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Keep in mind that we're talking about eternal damnation here. I'm also assuming the criminal is genuinely sorry for what he has done following the crime and that he has made restitution to the victim.

If the criminal doesn't reconcile himself with God, he merits hell.
If he does reconcile himself with God, God will remit the eternal part of the punishment due to mortal sin but the temporal part (Purgatory) remains.

What other way would you have it? One strike and you're out, straight to hell when you die?

1 Tim 2:4 "..., who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth"

I was going to try and respond, but honestly, your answer leaves me no wiser.

If the criminal doesn't reconcile himself with God, he merits hell.

Is this god's view or yours?

If he does reconcile himself with God, God will remit the eternal part of the punishment due to mortal sin but the temporal part (Purgatory) remains.

This seems to be a convoluted, and very confident, bit of rules lawyering. Is there any actual evidence for it, or have you just figured it out for yourself?

What other way would you have it? One strike and you're out, straight to hell when you die?

Not sure where you are getting this 'question' from, and since hell does not figure in my beliefs, or lack of them, it is not relevant.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

If I believed God doesn't exist, then there would be no hell. I would like to think I would act according to my conscience in this case. But I might not.

Why wouldn't you act according to your conscience? Didnt' you state that you weren't always a practising Christian? Did you act according to your conscience then?

Also, apologies if I missed your answer: is it fair that a rapist who repented to god goes to heaven, but that a person who lives a good life but doesn't believe in god goes to hell?

looksee

You can't go to hell if you don't believe in it.

jackboy

looksee wrote: »

You can't go to hell if you don't believe in it.

Also, you can't go to hell if you do believe in it.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Why wouldn't you act according to your conscience? Didnt' you state that you weren't always a practising Christian? Did you act according to your conscience then?

Are you joking me? Who hasn't acted against their conscience?

kylith wrote: »

Also, apologies if I missed your answer: is it fair that a rapist who repented to god goes to heaven, but that a person who lives a good life but doesn't believe in god goes to hell?

I think the basic problem here is our idea of good vs God's idea of good. I think there are two points to be made here:

1) As the bible says, there is no evil whatever in God. He is infinitely good, holy, virtuous etc.

2) We are flawed human beings according to the doctrine of original sin. The effects of original sin are:

- Death and Suffering

- The "death" of the soul under the privation of sanctifying grace. It is presence of sanctifying grace in the soul which allows us enter Heaven. Mortal sin has the same effect on the soul.

- Concupiscence i.e the tendency to sin.

My point is that none of us is as good as we think we are. There is no comparison between God's actual goodness and our perceived goodness. In fact believe that all goodness comes from God in the form of grace.

The bottom line is that someone without God's sanctifying grace in their souls could never enter Heaven. Oil and water don't mix.

The question of who has this grace in their souls is a very different question.

looksee wrote: »

You can't go to hell if you don't believe in it.

One's belief in hell has no bearing on it's actual existence. I don't understand your logic.

jackboy wrote: »

Also, you can't go to hell if you do believe in it.

Why not? You just have to reject God and his offer of salvation.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

I think the basic problem here is our idea of good vs God's idea of good. I think there are two points to be made here:

1) As the bible says, there is no evil whatever in God. He is infinitely good, holy, virtuous etc.

2) We are flawed human beings according to the doctrine of original sin. The effects of original sin are:

- Death and Suffering

- The "death" of the soul under the privation of sanctifying grace. It is presence of sanctifying grace in the soul which allows us enter Heaven. Mortal sin has the same effect on the soul.

- Concupiscence i.e the tendency to sin.

My point is that none of us is as good as we think we are. There is no comparison between God's actual goodness and our perceived goodness. In fact believe that all goodness comes from God in the form of grace.

The bottom line is that someone without God's sanctifying grace in their souls could never enter Heaven. Oil and water don't mix.

The question of who has this grace in their souls is a very different question.

That's not what I asked. Do you think it's fair that a rapist can go to heaven but a person whose only crime is not being a Christian cannot?

recedite

God is very forgiving of rapists ever since that incident with the 13 year old virgin Mary. Nobody told Him it could be called statutory rape if she was under the age of consent.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

That's not what I asked. Do you think it's fair that a rapist can go to heaven but a person whose only crime is not being a Christian cannot?

Sorry, misread your question.

My *emotional* answer to this question is that nobody merits eternal punishment except maybe those who devote their lives to fighting God and doing all they can spread evil in the world. I think the majority of people who sin know that what they do is wrong and they *want* to be better people.

The rational answer to this is that nobody this side if heaven is in a position to know just how offensive sin is to God. If God sent his son into the world to die such a horrific death, it's pretty clear that sin requires the ultimate sacrifice. If there were another, "less messy" way, I'm sure God would have done that.

My guess is that someone without sanctifying grace in their souls and standing in the presence of God would be a bit like standing naked inches from the surface of the sun.

Should God make himself less holy or perfect just so we can remain in his presence in a state of sin?

Sanctify grace is God's divinity within us and it is only because of this that we can "withstand" the holiness of Heaven. A bit like a diver can only survive under water equipped with scuba gear.

The darkness of our souls with not able to withstand the light of heaven without God's grace.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptised will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.

kelly1

khpmlj7y9adu2w wrote: »

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptised will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.

I could be wrong but I would say it's not quite so black and white.

Would God condemn a person who lives according to their conscience but has never heard the Gospel or Jesus?

My own speculation on this is that Jesus as High Priest could baptize someone in this position.

From the CCC:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Pherekydes

khpmlj7y9adu2w wrote: »

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptised will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.

A load of baloney, Oweny.

jackboy

khpmlj7y9adu2w wrote: »

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptised will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.

When Mark made that remark, large populations around the world never heard of Jesus or the Christian god. Yet they must be condemned. Do you really believe such obvious nonsense.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, misread your question.

My *emotional* answer to this question is that nobody merits eternal punishment except maybe those who devote their lives to fighting God and doing all they can spread evil in the world. I think the majority of people who sin know that what they do is wrong and they *want* to be better people.

The rational answer to this is that nobody this side if heaven is in a position to know just how offensive sin is to God. If God sent his son into the world to die such a horrific death, it's pretty clear that sin requires the ultimate sacrifice. If there were another, "less messy" way, I'm sure God would have done that.

My guess is that someone without sanctifying grace in their souls and standing in the presence of God would be a bit like standing naked inches from the surface of the sun.

Should God make himself less holy or perfect just so we can remain in his presence in a state of sin?

Sanctify grace is God's divinity within us and it is only because of this that we can "withstand" the holiness of Heaven. A bit like a diver can only survive under water equipped with scuba gear.

The darkness of our souls with not able to withstand the light of heaven without God's grace.

Maybe you could give a yes or no answer. It's really not a difficult question. It has nothing to do with gods making themselves less holy. In fact, I really don't see what that has to do with it.

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, misread your question.

My *emotional* answer to this question is that nobody merits eternal punishment except maybe those who devote their lives to fighting God and doing all they can spread evil in the world. I think the majority of people who sin know that what they do is wrong and they *want* to be better people.

The rational answer to this is that nobody this side if heaven is in a position to know just how offensive sin is to God. If God sent his son into the world to die such a horrific death, it's pretty clear that sin requires the ultimate sacrifice. If there were another, "less messy" way, I'm sure God would have done that.

My guess is that someone without sanctifying grace in their souls and standing in the presence of God would be a bit like standing naked inches from the surface of the sun.

Should God make himself less holy or perfect just so we can remain in his presence in a state of sin?

Sanctify grace is God's divinity within us and it is only because of this that we can "withstand" the holiness of Heaven. A bit like a diver can only survive under water equipped with scuba gear.

The darkness of our souls with not able to withstand the light of heaven without God's grace.

The more I read of that kind of stuff the more I am convinced that atheism is the only rational way of thinking.

The rational answer to this is that nobody this side if heaven is in a position to know just how offensive sin is to God. If God sent his son into the world to die such a horrific death, it's pretty clear that sin requires the ultimate sacrifice. If there were another, "less messy" way, I'm sure God would have done that.

God made the rules, then chooses to be 'offended' to the extent of demanding an 'ultimate sacrifice'? It was entirely his choice whether there was another 'less messy' way - he chose the extent of his offendedness and decided what sacrifice he needed to un-offend himself. You couldn't make it up...oh wait...

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

He considers it serious enough to 1) send his son to die on a cross

Meh. If he's god then he can always make another one. And if the son is god too, then what harm a few hours stuck on a cross when you can ressurect yourself and spend eternity at the top table in paradise.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Maybe you could give a yes or no answer. It's really not a difficult question. It has nothing to do with gods making themselves less holy. In fact, I really don't see what that has to do with it.

I can't give you a straight yes or no answer because I can't see the whole picture from God's pov. I answered as best I could. Sorry that's not enough for you.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

God made the rules, then chooses to be 'offended' to the extent of demanding an 'ultimate sacrifice'? It was entirely his choice whether there was another 'less messy' way - he chose the extent of his offendedness and decided what sacrifice he needed to un-offend himself. You couldn't make it up...oh wait...

Are you claiming to know the mind of God now? Do you claim full knowledge of God's nature? Do you actually know the extent of God's holiness and aversion to sin?

Any chance you could take these questions seriously?

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't give you a straight yes or no answer because I can't see the whole picture from God's pov. I answered as best I could. Sorry that's not enough for you.

No-one is looking for god's point of view, the question was directed at you for your opinion.

And no, its not good enough for us, if you choose to come into an Atheism forum you are going to get questions that cannot be answered with platitudes and pious posturings.

kelly1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Meh. If he's god then he can always make another one. And if the son is god too, then what harm a few hours stuck on a cross when you can ressurect yourself and spend eternity at the top table in paradise.

Did you feel any qualms about posting this?? This is highly offensive to Christians!

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you claiming to know the mind of God now? Do you claim full knowledge of God's nature? Do you actually know the extent of God's holiness and aversion to sin?

Any chance you could take these questions seriously?

How can I know the mind of something/one I do not accept exists? No is the answer to all your questions, of course I don't, that's why I am trying to unravel your arguments.

What makes you think I am not taking the questions seriously?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

No-one is looking for god's point of view, the question was directed at you for your opinion.

I already gave my opinion. Obviously you missed it.

And no, its not good enough for us, if you choose to come into an Atheism forum you are going to get questions that cannot be answered with platitudes and pious posturings.

Take a look at my answer and tell me which part you don't agree with. Nebulous statements aren't much good.

GritBiscuit

kelly1 wrote: »

Any chance you could take these questions seriously?

How seriously would you take questions regarding someone's ernest claims about the tooth fairy? Santa? Bigfoot perhaps?

When you view your questions through a prism where gods don't exist rather than insisting a forum dedicated to atheists and agnostics see the world through your prism of theistic belief, you might understand better why you aren't getting the answers you are looking (angling?) for.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

How can I know the mind of something/one I do not accept exists? No is the answer to all your questions, of course I don't, that's why I am trying to unravel your arguments.

Hang on, you can't have it both ways.

First you wrote "God made the rules, then chooses to be 'offended' to the extent of demanding an 'ultimate sacrifice'? It was entirely his choice whether there was another 'less messy' way - he chose the extent of his offendedness and decided what sacrifice he needed to un-offend himself."

Then you wrote: "How can I know the mind of something/one I do not accept exists?"

Do you see the problem here?

looksee wrote: »

What makes you think I am not taking the questions seriously?

The above! Were you not assuming, for the sake of argument, that God exists, with the first statement?