Admitting You're a Sinner

[The Valkyrie]

..."The fool says in his heart, there is no God"...

And the rest of the verse?

"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Now this is god with the capitalised 'G' the Christian God. So now then according to you, all atheist, Buddhists, Muslims, Animists et,al are corrupt, abominable wastrels? 

Here's another fine verse from Psalms:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

The bible. If this is the moral code you live by you should be shot on sight.

I thought the quote was, "A fool says in his heart there is no god, while a wise man declares it aloud."?

Or, possibly, it was me who said that.

But take it from me, no one says anything with their heart.

[Banned]

The discussion isn't about atheism, except when it comes to beliefs in regards to the definition of sin.
Someone just reinforced the idea that atheists don't have a belief in God at all, and that they are irreligious, but here they are flocking about in a forum in the section called "Religion- Christianity - admitting You're a Sinner."
You would think that if Atheists are so purged of spirituality that they'd rather be talking about what really interests them.

By being interested in this topic, they are once again proving the Bible to be correct - that they have spiritual needs, but prefer to fight against them.

Now why would anyone sane fight against something which did not exist?

[Catholic_Lady]

Even if that were true it doesn't necessarily mean they choose not to believe.

I rather take people at their word and appreciate when they do the same for me. If someone tells me they don't believe God exists, I take it at face value. No reason for me to assume I can read their mind and tell them what they really think.

[The Grand Nudger]

 If a person genuinely seeks truth and goes wherever it leads them, you can't really blame them. That's how I see it anyway.

Perhaps we can't, but the god of cathol can.  Catechism strikes again. I especially like the sidebar I bolded....

 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM

[Banned]

Even if that were true it doesn't necessarily mean they choose not to believe.

I rather take people at their word and appreciate when they do the same for me. If someone tells me they don't believe God exists, I take it at face value. No reason for me to assume I can read their mind and tell them what they really think.

Well they don't choose to believe or not believe, they just try to avoid the conclusion of the matter, which can only fall to the side of truth. And we all do it with some issues that may confront us.

[Amarok]

Someone just reinforced the idea that atheists don't have a belief in God at all, 

Because that's what an atheist is . Whether it's Gnostic or Agnostic or Negative or Positive . That is what an atheist is.

and that they are irreligious, 

Most of the atheist here are . 

but here they are flocking about in a forum in the section called "Religion- Christianity - admitting You're a Sinner."
You would think that if Atheists are so purged of spirituality that they'd rather be talking about what really interests them.

Accept this is something that interests me . And a great many others by the number of posters . One does not have to be religious to find a religious subjects interesting.

By being interested in this topic, they are once again proving the Bible to be correct - that they have spiritual needs, but prefer to fight against them.

Nope we prove were interested in a religious topic . One does not need to be religious to be interested in a religious topic . That's some poor reasoning .Nor does it prove your collection of fables true. 

Now why would anyone sane fight against something which did not exist?

It don't think it exists as far as the evidence shows . And the only notion of religion i fight is the flawed idea's of it's adherents.Once again flawed reasoning .

---

, they just try to avoid the conclusion of the matter, 

Quite the opposite i'm afraid 

which can only fall to the side of truth.

A "Truth "in name only . In substance there is much to be desired . 

 

And we all do it with some issues that may confront us.

Yes i'm sure when it comes to the matter of your book and your religion . The avoidance is strong .

[vulcanlogician]

It seems what some people here fail to grasp (or perhaps they do understand and are being purposely obtuse, that would be my guess), is that it is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism to take either a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis and Original Sin. So long as you accept the underlying message.

The funny thing is, Khem seems to have a soft spot for the allegorical interpretation, yet all he seems to do when you bring something like this up is shove the Catechism in your face. I like the allegorical interpretation.There is a nugget of truth in it: once an organism becomes morally aware, it also becomes morally responsible. If one accepts this proposition (as I do, tentatively and with caveats) then the story of Adam and Eve becomes a meaningful allegory. We were once animalistic organisms who had no moral awareness. Once we became morally aware-- evolved a capacity for reason-- we (metaphorically) ate from the tree of knowledge and had bestowed upon us all the curses of knowledge of good and evil. At that point, we became morally responsible, which really is a curse if you think about it. We sometimes have to struggle against our instincts now that we are morally aware. That's a pain in the ass.

I remember when I was first having doubts about Catholicism (and Christianity in general). I had been a wavering atheist for a few years but began to consider remaining Catholic while holding an allegorical interpretation of things. I didn't want to discuss my atheistic inclinations with our priest because I liked him a lot, and I don't think I could have beared any admonishment from his direction. 

So I talked it over with a young upstart who was finishing his last year of seminary. (Probably not the best idea, as he was a bit hot-headed and inexperienced as clergy.) Anyway, I wanted to take communion symbolically because I could not bring myself to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. He had already told me that my accepting evolution and the big bang held no conflict with the Catholic faith, but on the issue of transubstantiation he told me that 1) it was a sin for me to accept communion without first accepting transubstantiation and 2) because I didn't accept the doctrine, I was "not Catholic." In hindsight, I'm too much of a freethinker to have remained Catholic anyway, but this guy's remarks could have turned away genuine Catholics who have trouble accepting "spooky metaphysics." Inasmuch as this guy was wrong, so to is Khemikal wrong.

That's why people like Father Foster are such a breath of fresh air to me. He speaks against "the official Catholic doctrine" yet he is of the cloth. If Khemikal has a point CL, it's this: the Church has an official doctrine and many practicing Catholics reject it. But Khem doesn't have as strong a point as he thinks. I think he sounds more like the young upstart who told me that people who reject an official Church position aren't Catholic. 

Thomas Merton is an extraordinary Catholic thinker. He rejected a great many Catholic precepts and he was a trappist monk! How much more Catholic can you get? Khemikal doesn't seem to realize that just because the Papacy has an official interpretation on things that there can't be diversity among Catholics concerning the matters upon which the Church takes an official stand. 

I understand that you make an effort to follow the official doctrine, CL. So I'm not lumping you in with people who oppose it so much as pointing out that aligning perfectly with Vatican expectations is in no way a prerequisite for being Catholic. Khemikal's assertions rest upon this premise and are therefore false. I know I might get a tl;dr in reply, but the reason I said all this is because I didn't argue against Khemikal when he said these things in the first place (as I should have). This post is an attempt to set that right. 

Personally I adhere to the faith, except for that part about how I just told everyone I don;t adhere to a core and foundational doctrine of the catholic church..original sin. 

Please read the above response to CL's quote. You made the above statements to mock CL, but I make the case that your mockery is misplaced. You ought to commend CL's allegorical interpretation rather than insinuating she doesn't adhere to the Catholic faith. Give her a fucking break, man. I'll take a rational theist over an irrational atheist any day. I think you share this attitude with me.

[KevinM1]

Even if that were true it doesn't necessarily mean they choose not to believe.

I rather take people at their word and appreciate when they do the same for me. If someone tells me they don't believe God exists, I take it at face value. No reason for me to assume I can read their mind and tell them what they really think.

Well they don't choose to believe or not believe, they just try to avoid the conclusion of the matter, which can only fall to the side of truth. And we all do it with some issues that may confront us.

Who's avoiding any conclusion?

[The Grand Nudger]

The funny thing is, Khem seems to have a soft spot for the allegorical interpretation, yet all he seems to do when you bring something like this up is shove the Catechism in your face. I like the allegorical interpretation.There is a nugget of truth in it: once an organism becomes morally aware, it also becomes [i]morally responsible.[/i] If one accepts this proposition (as I do, tentatively and with caveats) then the story of Adam and Eve becomes a meaningful allegory. We were once animalistic organisms who had no moral awareness. Once we became morally aware-- evolved a capacity for reason-- we (metaphorically) ate from the tree of knowledge and had bestowed upon us all the curses of knowledge of good and evil. At that point, we became morally responsible, which really is a curse if you think about it. We sometimes have to struggle against our instincts now that we are morally aware. That's a pain in the ass.

OFC I do, the bible is a giant running allegory.  That doesn't change the fact that to utter it and call that utterence "the catholic position" is an impressive misrepresentation of catholicism and "the catholic position".

 If Khemikal has a point CL, it's this: the Church has an official doctrine and many practicing Catholics reject it. But Khem doesn't have as strong a point as he thinks. I think he sounds more like the young upstart who told me that people who reject an official Church position aren't Catholic. 

That is my only point.  

Thomas Merton is an extraordinary Catholic thinker. He rejected a great many Catholic precepts and he was a trappist monk! How much more Catholic can you get? Khemikal doesn't seem to realize that just because the Papacy has an official interpretation on things that there can't be diversity among Catholics concerning the matters upon which the Church takes an official stand. 

Whats this "cant be diversity" nonsense?  I know there -is- "diversity"...but that doesn't make that "diversity" any less heterodox.  It doesn't change "the catholic position"...and they don;t use the word "diversity" to refer to it...lol.  This is a big issue for the clergy at present. They're trying to find a way to remedy it..but I don't think they will. I think they've lost the flock forever.

Please read the above response to CL's quote. You made the above statements to mock CL, but I make the case that your mockery is misplaced. You ought to commend CL's allegorical interpretation rather than insinuating she doesn't adhere to the Catholic faith.

I have, often, lol...but it's ironic in that my commendaton is precisely -for- failing to adhere to RCC doctrine.

Give her a fucking break, man. I'll take a rational theist over an irrational atheist any day. I think you share this attitude with me.

It's the RCC busting her balls..and is it really too much to expect someone making authoritative claims on "the catholic position" and browbeating others about telling her what her beliefs -as a catholic- are supposed to be to...

a..know what that is..
and b
..properly relate it.

I hardly think so, and ofc the catechism states explicitly that "catholics" who misrepresent the catholic faith share culpability in the "sin" of atheism.

I'm a fucking anti-theist and even -I- give the church and it's beliefs that much respect. I at least learned what it was I didn;t believe in..whereas the faithful seem uninterested in what they profess to believe..and sometimes..downright hostile to it. I do share the latter with you, but I don;t see any relevance in it to our conversation on this matter.

[Catholic_Lady]

It seems what some people here fail to grasp (or perhaps they do understand and are being purposely obtuse, that would be my guess), is that it is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism to take either a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis and Original Sin. So long as you accept the underlying message.

The funny thing is, Khem seems to have a soft spot for the allegorical interpretation, yet all he seems to do when you bring something like this up is shove the Catechism in your face. I like the allegorical interpretation.There is a nugget of truth in it: once an organism becomes morally aware, it also becomes morally responsible. If one accepts this proposition (as I do, tentatively and with caveats) then the story of Adam and Eve becomes a meaningful allegory. We were once animalistic organisms who had no moral awareness. Once we became morally aware-- evolved a capacity for reason-- we (metaphorically) ate from the tree of knowledge and had bestowed upon us all the curses of knowledge of good and evil. At that point, we became morally responsible, which really is a curse if you think about it. We sometimes have to struggle against our instincts now that we are morally aware. That's a pain in the ass.

I remember when I was first having doubts about Catholicism (and Christianity in general). I had been a wavering atheist for a few years but began to consider remaining Catholic while holding an allegorical interpretation of things. I didn't want to discuss my atheistic inclinations with our priest because I liked him a lot, and I don't think I could have beared any admonishment from his direction. 

So I talked it over with a young upstart who was finishing his last year of seminary. (Probably not the best idea, as he was a bit hot-headed and inexperienced as clergy.) Anyway, I wanted to take communion symbolically because I could not bring myself to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. He had already told me that my accepting evolution and the big bang held no conflict with the Catholic faith, but on the issue of transubstantiation he told me that 1) it was a sin for me to accept communion without first accepting transubstantiation and 2) because I didn't accept the doctrine, I was "not Catholic." In hindsight, I'm too much of a freethinker to have remained Catholic anyway, but this guy's remarks could have turned away genuine Catholics who have trouble accepting "spooky metaphysics." Inasmuch as this guy was wrong, so to is Khemikal wrong.

That's why people like Father Foster are such a breath of fresh air to me. He speaks against "the official Catholic doctrine" yet he is of the cloth. If Khemikal has a point CL, it's this: the Church has an official doctrine and many practicing Catholics reject it. But Khem doesn't have as strong a point as he thinks. I think he sounds more like the young upstart who told me that people who reject an official Church position aren't Catholic. 

Thomas Merton is an extraordinary Catholic thinker. He rejected a great many Catholic precepts and he was a trappist monk! How much more Catholic can you get? Khemikal doesn't seem to realize that just because the Papacy has an official interpretation on things that there can't be diversity among Catholics concerning the matters upon which the Church takes an official stand. 

I understand that you make an effort to follow the official doctrine, CL. So I'm not lumping you in with people who oppose it so much as pointing out that aligning perfectly with Vatican expectations is in no way a prerequisite for being Catholic. Khemikal's assertions rest upon this premise and are therefore false. I know I might get a tl;dr in reply, but the reason I said all this is because I didn't argue against Khemikal when he said these things in the first place (as I should have). This post is an attempt to set that right. 

Personally I adhere to the faith, except for that part about how I just told everyone I don;t adhere to a core and foundational doctrine of the catholic church..original sin. 

Please read the above response to CL's quote. You made the above statements to mock CL, but I make the case that your mockery is misplaced. You ought to commend CL's allegorical interpretation rather than insinuating she doesn't adhere to the Catholic faith. Give her a fucking break, man. I'll take a rational theist over an irrational atheist any day. I think you share this attitude with me.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Vulcan. There's a reason why Khem is the only person I have permanently blocked.

The thing I wanted to clarify again is that it's not "rejecting Catholic dogma" to take an allegorical approach to Genesis/Original Sin. Doing so is acceptable so long as the underlying message stays the same. Thats what i was trying to explain. One can believe in evolution... so long as we believe God is still the creator. The underlying message of Original Sin is that humans have an inherent inclination to sin and are guaranteed to do so if given the chance. We must believe in those things to remain in line with Church teaching.