why? Do you think that any humans are incapable of evil?
Why? Because what you call sin is not necessarily evil. And yes all humans are capable of great evils.
Then we agree. And we probably also agree on what we mean by sin. I dont follow any strict fundamentalist definitions of sin (like certain non violent sexual activities, lustful thoughts etc), but acts that cause harm to people.
Times change, cultural norms change. What you find disrespectful another person finds no disrespect. You may not like it or agree with it, but that is how cultures change. I may feel uncomfortable ordering a latte’ at Starbuck’s from a person who has numerous tatoos, a ring in their nose, is dressed in clothes meant for a different gender, but I must respectfully order my coffee nonetheless and say a kind “thank you”. As they may a good person who volunteers at the first aid squad who may come to my aid if I am hurt.
Maybe they find you boring, don’t like you, and don’t want to hurt you’re feelings nonetheless.
We definitely don’t agree on what we mean by sin. I certainly believe that it is impossible for a new born baby to have sin of any kind or that a young child is capable of sinning. I through away sin a long time ago and relies more on my reasoning, the laws of my local, and the accepted morals and ethics of my location and times that I live in to determine what is a crime, what is immoral and what is unethical and what is unkind.
To be nice too you even though they find you boring. Many of my friends are boring, I invite them for coffee all the time. They like to talk usually about themselves. I listen but try to enjoy the stillness between sentences.
I agree that you should be a quiet as possible at all times and that includes your devices.
Ashley,
You might like “Life Driven Purpose - how an Atheist Finds Meaning” by Dan Barker. Dan Barker is a former evangelical minister and is copresident of FFRF. One of the biggest misconceptions about atheists is that without God they can have no moral, values, or meaning in their lives. In the book, Dan offers words of encourage, emancipation, and inspiration on how millions of atheists lead happy, loving, moral, and purpose-filled lives. I think you would enjoy it.
PAtrick,
I agree with you. Why do you think I dont?
Patrick, I appreciate the recommendation and will look into it. It would be interesting to see how he makes this argument. I’ve yet to hear an argument in favor of atheism that spoke to me or deeply resonated as truth with me, even after having read plenty of Dawkins et al, and I personally found life without faith to be very empty. It just wasn’t sufficient for me. But I’m always truly interested to hear someone else’s perspective and always make a point of asking atheists how they arrived at their beliefs. Oh, and perhaps I should have been more clear in my diction - when I say I “longed to join the ranks” of Dawkins et al, I meant I was striving to justify myself. And it felt empty. After I had an ecstatic experience of the presence of a loving God, I no longer “wanted” to be an atheist. That kind of beautiful experience is the point of no return, in my opinion.
Dawkins is a biologist and talks science. Barker is a former evangelical minister. He talks like a loving minister would. Very inspiring, very uplifting. It really does show you that you can fill that void. You can have great purpose in life - your family, your work, your children, anything. You can define it and do it without looking in an ancient text for guidance. You know what love is, you know what is right and wrong, you can live with purpose and meaning as you define it.
Ashley
I just wanted to acknowledge and confirm your beautiful post. I was raised an atheist, and was a follower of Richard Dawkins for years before he was famous. He was and remains a brilliant biological thinker. But I had the same questions you did, and although I thought it would be nice to be able to become a thiest, I just couldnt because of my upbringing, and my rigid adherence to rational materialism.
When God called to me, and when I could see that faith was possible for me, that although the sinner I was, I could access that loving relationship with Christ, that I was forgiven, and that the gift of faith and love were free and available, I was over joyed. I would never give that up, and the great beauty of it is that I can keep the joy of knowing Christ in my heart, without any negative consequence to my scientific world view. I understood that God so loved the world that he gave us the power to understand it. I think being a scientist is one of the best ways to worship the Lord.
I actually agree with Patrick that it is possible for an atheist to have a full and satisfying life. I did for decades. It can even be a life filled with joy. But once one feels the touch of the Spirit, one understands that there is nothing to compare, and no reason to reject that touch. Praise be to God for his mercy and love…
[quote=“Eddie, post:3, topic:2626”]@Patrick
the “accidents” are those of a cracker, but the “substance” is the body of Christ.
[/quote] Hi Eddie and Patrick
Patrick and I seem to have been exposed to the same ‘defective Catholic teaching’ when we were children. So why do we have a different outlook on the Catholic Faith now? Not all different, tho. Patrick was pleased with the Pope’s recent visit–especially because he asked US to pray for HIM–and so was I. However, it appears as though Patrick could never get over the early explanation given to him of Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. As I got firmly on track to becoming a scientist, I had trouble on that score too. So perhaps Patrick would think me a hypocrite, since now I am a Eucharistic minister, and can offer parishioners the host and say, without wincing, “the Body of Christ”. I was aware of the explanation (in Eddie’s quote) of the difference between “accidents” and "substance’, which could make good sense to a philosopher, but to me as a scientist it was unconvincing. I cannot find the words that would convey my feeling to another person, and it surely is different from that felt by most of the parishioners that line up to receive the host, but His Presence is real to me–not simply because an ordained priest said the correct words over it, but largely because of the simple Faith of those receiving it. I believe that is where the Consecration truly takes place. (Don’t let the Vatican know I said this.)
That’s not very scientific, is it? Not even very rational. My eldest daughter surprised me on my 80th birthday by becoming a Eucharistic minister and distributing communion at my side. Best birthday present ever!
Al Leo
We meet again. You seem to take a very different position from @ninksink. He says that God is evil. You have repeatedly told me that life is neither good nor bad, but individually we can determine what is right and wrong and give life purpose.
I do find a problem with this kind of thinking, because moral laws are universal, just like natural laws. Certainly I do not find Jihad right for Jihadists, just because they find this purpose to be life fulfilling.
It is interesting that you recommend Bro. Barker as a pastor to someone. You and Dawkins seem to assume that liberal Western point of view is the best moral standard, even though you refuse to give this morality a rational ethical basis. No one says morality is right because it is based on an ancient text, but because it is true and fulfilling. Have you found a morality that is totally unique to modern thought?
Why not, unless you are afraid it might point to the reality of a loving God?
Al,
Great post, thanks. Glad to talk to someone of my era. boy, we are getting old. The 1960’s seem ancient now as the world has changed dramatically.
What I remember is the insistence on “this IS the body of Christ”. As a seven year old, it was easy for me to believe that Jesus was in the church, on the wall in the form of the Crucifix. And kind of magically flowed into the host. That was easy and understandable and caused me not concern at all. But the instance on a transformation occurring by only the Priest. (remember in those days only a Priest could touch the host. I wasn’t allowed to touch it, it has to be placed on my tongue. And a alter boy (no girls allowed) had to hold a plate under my chin in case it fell. Do you remember the elaborate ritual you had to go through if a host accidentally fell on the floor! When I was an alter boy, you had better pay attention for sudden head movements. So this magical transformation by the priest is what I couldn’t buy into. I didn’t see any magic, I didn’t see any transformation. So I didn’t believe it - just like that. Skepticism. But it was okay, as I just kept it to myself and never really ever went beyond that. Went to communion thousands of times after that. In fact never did take it in hand and put it my mouth. Always stuck my tongue out.
Glad to here that you and your daughter gave out communion side by side. I bet you couldn’t imagine such a thing 50 years ago.
Maybe I’m treading on dangerous territory here, but I’m honestly not sure what “transubstantiation” is? I was taught that eating the bread and drinking the wine, is simply a symbolic remembrance of what Christ did for us on the cross. Not that anyone is “receiving” the Holy Spirit?
Perhaps because I’m not a Catholic I don’t quite understand…
-Tim