The Honest Atheist?

[seanD]

I wouldn't call those conspiracy theories as much as I would call them history. I understand what you mean then.



I'm a Catholic, we don't really have a concept of 'born again', except by baptism. You enter into the Church when you are baptized. This doesn't kill the old man, you are still you. All the habits and vices you've accrued throughout your whole life are still there, all the inclinations are there. But what has changed is that you're now a member of the Church, and you've entered into the mystery of reconciliation with God.

I'd consider the first two passages to apply to all men, including Christians. The latter seems to be more specific about the gentiles who were judged and had their hearts darkened.

I'm not saying that grace is ineffectual. I believe if a person works with it, you can grow as a Christian. But as a Catholic, I believe it takes your own participation as well. God might be holding out a hand, but if the person doesn't take it, then he doesn't benefit. However, all of this is also available to people outside of the Church, but atheists can't grow in the theological virtues.

RCC doesn't believe in the Christian concept of "born again" as described by Jesus and Paul, or am I misunderstanding you? I honestly didn't know that. Can you elaborate?

[Cow Poke]

The bible also says everyone has sinned. So can there be such thing as an honest anyone?

Abe.

[Cow Poke]

So do you believe that the honest atheist exists?

I think "honest" is too broad a category. Can an atheist do good things? Sure. Can an atheist honestly answer questions? Of course. Can a Christian be dishonest in answering questions? Of course.

[rogue06]

The bible also says everyone has sinned. So can there be such thing as an honest anyone?

Noah was a sinner yet God found him to be righteous.

[NorrinRadd]

RCC doesn't believe in the Christian concept of "born again" as described by Jesus and Paul, or am I misunderstanding you? I honestly didn't know that. Can you elaborate?

While we wait for the "official" answer, I'll butt in. We'll find out whether I'm right or wrong.

Catholics are in the portion of the Church that believes in both "paedo-baptism" -- baptism of infants -- and "baptismal regeneration" -- rebirth occurs at baptism. (However, I think "Confirmation" comes in there somewhere also.) I think Lutherans and possibly Anglicans/Episcopalians also hold this view. Evangelicals are generally more familiar with "credo-baptism" -- believers' baptism -- where baptism occurs *after* one has become a believer, i.e. been "born again."

FTR, "born again" was used only by John (quoting Jesus) and Peter, not Paul, though Paul did use the related term, "regeneration."

[seanD]

While we wait for the "official" answer, I'll butt in. We'll find out whether I'm right or wrong.

Catholics are in the portion of the Church that believes in both "paedo-baptism" -- baptism of infants -- and "baptismal regeneration" -- rebirth occurs at baptism. (However, I think "Confirmation" comes in there somewhere also.) I think Lutherans and possibly Anglicans/Episcopalians also hold this view. Evangelicals are generally more familiar with "credo-baptism" -- believers' baptism -- where baptism occurs *after* one has become a believer, i.e. been "born again."

FTR, "born again" was used only by John (quoting Jesus) and Peter, not Paul, though Paul did use the related term, "regeneration."

It all seems pretty clear to me. Jesus just briefly touched on it, but Paul went into great detail about it -- the duel natures and all that. I'm just wandering how the RCC interprets all that. If the RCC doesn't believe in the born again experience as Paul described, then that would explain a lot to me about their history, including its recent abhorrent history, at least of the establishment and its leadership.

[Leonhard]

It all seems pretty clear to me. Jesus just briefly touched on it, but Paul went into great detail about it -- the duel natures and all that. I'm just wandering how the RCC interprets all that. If the RCC doesn't believe in the born again experience as Paul described, then that would explain a lot to me about their history, including its recent abhorrent history, at least of the establishment and its leadership.

[seanD]

I know it seemed like it was antagonistic, but I didn't intend on it being that. I'm the kind of person that can be pretty blunt when I'm trying to make a point, even if it offends folks. Not sure if that's a short coming or not, but it's just my love for truth, no matter how ugly it might be. My point was that born again Christians (Christians filled with the HS) have a restraint against sin, unlike those who don't. That obviously doesn't mean those who don't can't do temporary good works. It also doesn't mean born again Christians can't sin (Paul makes this point obvious, and we know this from experience), but even though they can, the sin would be much worse without the HS as the restraint. My point about the RCC is that (and I know this might offend and I'm sorry) it supports my theory about folks with power who don't have that restraint. Folks without that divine restraint would be inclined to run pedophile rings (and even attempt to cover it up by the leadership afterwards). Though they can sin, I honestly don't think a spirit filled believer is capable of that even if they did have that power. So it's not really atheists in general, it's folks who don't have that spirit filled restraint that's the problem.

[seer]

Honest in the sense that they genuinely don't believe in God? Yes.

I don't think they're lying. I don't think it's plausible to believe that they know God exists, but act as if they don't. I do believe God can be known rationally by seeing the world, and even from mystical experiences. Their lack of knowledge about Him, isn't that they're lying, it is that they don't even knock on the door to find out.

So they honestly can reject their Creator? So why would God judge them for an honestly held belief?

[Leonhard]

And seer reels me in again.

So they honestly can reject their Creator? So why would God judge them for an honestly held belief?

They might not be sent to Hell for an honest belief, but for any other things they knowingly did against their conscience. We've all fallen, I don't believe anyone except young children can say they can't recall being evil. And the older you get the more aware of your own depravity you tend to become.

Though even then they might be held accountable for their lack of belief, if believing in God is a moral duty, and God has supplied them with all the means of knowing Him, natural or mysterious, if they were inclined to do so.

[Sparko]

So they honestly can reject their Creator? So why would God judge them for an honestly held belief?

God doesn't judge them for their unbelief. He judges them for their sins.

[seer]

God doesn't judge them for their unbelief. He judges them for their sins.

But isn't unbelief the greatest sin? The first commandment?

[Sparko]

But isn't unbelief the greatest sin? The first commandment?

Well if they don't believe they can't ask for the forgiveness of their sins, can they?

But at judgment they will be judged for their actions, not beliefs.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Well if they don't believe they can't ask for the forgiveness of their sins, can they?

But at judgment they will be judged for their actions, not beliefs.

Wouldn't unbelief be a mental action? It's seems in line with Jesus's saying if you have lust in your heart its the same as physical adulatory.

[Sparko]

Wouldn't unbelief be a mental action? It's seems in line with Jesus's saying if you have lust in your heart its the same as physical adulatory.