Do you truly believe or were you just raised that way?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Raised agnostic, realized I believed in God in my early teens. First had to decide between personal or impersonal god, then between the major monotheistic religions, finally ended up as a (very serious) Roman Catholic in my early twenties.
It was an interesting journey which has left me very secure in my faith. Christ did not die for the Jews, nor the Christians, nor even mankind as some huge faceless lump. He died for each person individually, for love of that person, as you yourself would push your child out of the path of a speeding car. Knowing this, I do not believe, nor does the Catholic church believe, that people are damned for things beyond their own control. What the church teaches is that the door of heaven was opened to us through Christ and all who enter enter through him, whether they know it or not. |
Anonymous
I'm the PP you quoted. I think that every person has a potential path to salvation, no matter their religion. I think that is the meaning of that wording in the catechism. Is Ghandi in heaven?...I feel really confident about that. There are a lot of rules in organized religions, most especially Catholocism. I think Catholics are bound by those rules...but God isn't. Anyone He wants in heaven gets there. That is overly simplistic, but I think it is true. |
Anonymous
|
We as Catholics are bound by rules that do not apply to non-Catholics. If you look at the gospels, Catholics are the elder brother to the prodigal, the laborers who worked all day for the same wages as the latecomers. We are the 99 in the pen when the shepherd goes looking for the 100th, the nine coins in the purse when the housewife sweeps for the tenth.
The rules we follow do not make us more worthy than anyone else in God's creation for salvation. We believe they make that salvation easier to obtain and maintain. As Catholics we have the opportunity to most fully live out Christ's will for us on Earth. The key word there is "opportunity". There are Baptists, Methodists, Hindus, Muslims, and even Atheists out there living a fuller Christian life than many Catholics because those Catholics do not avail themselves of the graces available to them. |
Anonymous
Wow, you could be me! Except I was raised by awesome, devout Catholic parents, but rejected my faith when I was in high school. I must compliment your description of Jesus' redemptive work. He made salvation for all His beloved children possible, even if they never heard His name. |
Anonymous
Which Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules? Why not live by whatever you can get away with? Whatever makes you happy, no matter how miserable it makes anyone else? Why not base life on greed, subjugation, degradation, cowardice, avarice? If there is no Absolute Authority ("God"), there are no standards or rules. We're all atoms colliding and falling apart. Sand being sifted in the solar wind. So no difference between Stalin and Ghandi: they both led personally fulfilling lives, and now they are gone. No justice. No peace. No hope. Just chaos and annihilation. |
Anonymous
If there's anyone curious as to why there are non-christians who occasionally post snarky responses here, look no further. |
Anonymous
Your arbitrary capitalization is certainly compelling. Of course, we could just as easily say the "Golden Rule" is the "Absolute Authority" and dispense with the rest. |
Anonymous
Not the PP, but I do think that in the same way that atheists can question Christians about the basis for their belief, it's not necessarily inappropriate for people of faith to ask atheists where they get the basis for their moral code. It's not that I don't believe atheists can be moral (or that people of faith can be hypocrites and immoral!), but it does seem like an atheist would have less qualms acting solely in the way that makes them feel good or supports their desires, regardless of whether it is "good" in a broader societal sense. |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
I, an agnostic or atheist depending on my mood when you ask, get my moral sense from the fact that groups of people interacting with each other will be happier overall if they treat each other well -- i.e., if they follow the non-cynic's golden rule. And anyone who says we should believe in God so we'll be moral is unconsciously presuming that we whom you are proselytizing accept the need for morality. And we do. We just don't see why we should need some improbable Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-Good creature to force us to do what we feel comes naturally to anyone who can think beyond immediate gratification. |
Anonymous
My goodness, wow. OK, so when you tell your kid not to hit his brother, do you say he should not hit his brother because God says so, or because it hurts his brother and people don't like to be hurt? Do you tell your children that they should be honest because Jesus is watching, or because it is kinder and fairer to other people that they be honest? It sounds like what you are saying here is that if God or Jesus is not watching, there is no reason to be good. Children (like myself) brought up without God are often taught the more direct reasons for living decently and honestly -- because it is better for everyone around us, and it is how we ourselves would like to be treated. Yes, THAT Golden Rule. |
Anonymous
If you need a text or deity to have morals, then your morals must be incredibly flimsy. The selfish fear of punishment in an afterlife is the only thing compelling you to do good? That's really very sad. I do not believe in any gods or religions, but am somehow able to have pretty stellar ethics, not because I'm looking for a selfish reward when I die - but because I really, sincerely care about others. Because my mere humanity is sufficient. Because our friends, community, family, and even total strangers are worth it, and i want to at least try to make this world a better place. |
Anonymous
|
I find the discussion about morality outside of religion to be an interesting topic. I am a religious person (a Christian).
I agree with some of the things said on both sides of this. I understand athiests and agnostics can be very ethical, morally good people. I presume they are guided by their concsience and by the "rules" of society (rather than by a religious code). But I wonder if such people are content to be their own judge of morality. If that is the case, isn't it difficult to distinguish between the individual morals of one person as opposed to another. What if those two people have completely different positions on a particular moral issue. Isn't one objectively "right", leading one to lable the other's position as "immoral"? If not, then moral relativism is in play and their is no overall norms of societal morality. Also, what if one lives in a society that is fundamentally immoral? Nazi Germany was such a society. If a German were to subordinate his morals to those of that particular society, then he would be an immoral person. So it does not necessarily follow that a society can always provide the moral guidelines. Can any agnostic or athiest here explain to me how they deal with the problem of having an objective standard for morality? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely interested in a civil discussion. |
Anonymous
| I was raised an atheist and unfortunately, I still believe in atheism. I wish I did not b/c it's very depressing. But I can't shake it and can't convince myself if anything else. |
Anonymous
|
That depression is the conflict between your soul and your mind. Maybe God is trying to tell you something??
There is tons of literature making the case for "reason based faith". You don't have to throw out science to believe in God. I will say a prayer for you. |
Anonymous
And yet, there are respectful ways of raising these questions, and disrespectful ways. PP clearly took the former route. Of course, if an agnostic/atheist met her "like for like" she'd immediately retreat into "persecuted Christian" mode. |