> There is manifestly contained in this commandment AN IMPLICIT DENIAL OF ALL ATHEISM. The command, "Thou shalt have none other gods before Me," rests on the assumption that there is one true and living God. The law therefore forbids atheism as being a denial of God. (https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/barrett/the_first_commandm...)
Who exactly is the source you cite for the claim atheism is breaking the commandment and therefore sinful? He does not seem to be a Catholic, let alone someone with authority to define the church's teachings. Can you link to a similar statement in the Catechism, a church Council, or at least a papal encyclical?
"One protestant preacher said" is not proof of what the Catholic Church believes.
That's a far stretch. How is "keep the sabbath holy" a "general principle" in any way? How is "thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
You can tell that it is from context as the laws just after that mandates a LOT of killing. For being "a witch" for example (which I assume is another mistranslation).
Yes the ten commandments are very much what defines sins.
> "One protestant preacher said" is not proof of what the Catholic Church believes.
Yes. From the Catholic Catechism: https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/secti...
> 2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.
its not obvious to me. I cannot see how an honestly held belief can be a sin. Is it evil to be an atheist because you believe there is no God? Clearly not, so how can you say its a sin?
When I honestly think I'm entitled to the money in the bank, does that mean I won't be judged?
If there are people that are atheists, because they have never heard of anyone telling them about god, then no that is not a sin. I doubt that applies to most people. Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god.
That's not choice though. I can't become a believer in god anymore than I can sprout wings. I can't just start believing something false. No one can make a decision to believe something on will alone. That's not how brains work.
Plain disagree.
True, you can not come to believe in god on your own. Neither can god make you believe on his own. You can still pray for it.
Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist.
> No one can make a decision to believe
Yes, you can't. You can make the decision to search however.
This is what it's like to be a strong atheist.
> Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist.
She did become a turturer of the most vulnerable people though. So... yea, I guess that's another type of argument against faith.
You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist).
You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice.
> She did become a turturer
What?
Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true?
You either missed the point entirely or are trying to obfuscate the issue. The cause of reason has no bearing at all. Reason and understanding are real things. Actually knowing something means you can't choose to believe the opposite. I can't choose to believe something I know is false. I can't choose to believe the sky is pink, or that rocks are soft, etc. That's nonsense.
> Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe...
She was a horrible horrible person.
The cause of reason is what we call God. What you think that is, is very disputed, like I wrote in my previous comment.
When you think your God exists in the same way that the sky has a color, then I can assure you, that God doesn't exist. Atheists often take pride in rejecting "Gods" that a Christian also rejects and thinks they don't exist.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe...
That article presents multiple positions of that subject, I would probably side more with Leys there. Richness and poverty are not a goal in itself, but all means to an end. The poorest of the poor can have a richer life than a very rich. Mother Teresa was not a medical doctor and never claimed to be. She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies.
The church doesn't think salvation means to be rich. Actually quite the opposite.
She was prolonging suffering in others because she thought suffering was beautiful. But when she got sick herself she immediately and at great expense stopped her own suffering.
Like to be saved, most Christians say, one must believe a litany of things about the historical figure of Christ. But that is just a history exam! It seems highly implausible that the God most people think of when they think of the Christian God would assign torture and torment based purely on a failure to come to a certain historical conclusion.
It is NOT the teaching of the Catholic church for a start:
https://uscatholic.org/articles/202212/what-does-the-church-...
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun...
Nor do they believe hell to be a place of torture, but a state of separation from God. Read CS Lewis's Great Divorce if you are interested in a better metaphor than flames and torture.
> but it means that God labors tirelessly to bring all people — Christian or not — to salvation in Christ.
That is a hilarious quote. Only believers can say that with a straight face and not see the absolute madness it implies. How could "God labor[] tirelessly" to help everyone into salvation? That's on its face absolute garbage. Is God so incredibly weak that he could only show the path to salvation to 12 dudes 2000 years ago? If so, why should we worship that god, which seems like a pitiful figure compared to many nobel prize winners. I certainly would think we owe more worship to Normal Borlaug than a god that can't get his message across because he could only intervene in a credible way once in front of 12 people, and then never again.
That is the reason why Christianity is news-worthy. People wouldn't run around the world to tell you that God is that detached monarch who likes to govern humans. That's a concept a lot of cultures already had.
That doesn't mean God is "weak". It means applying human concepts to God just doesn't make sense. He will always be greater and above them.
> not see the absolute madness it implies
They absolutely agree with you there. That's why "they" flip out. That's what "they" find so important to tell you: absolute madness being true.
Except the book of Job. Where God explicitly tortures a person just to see if he can still be faithful to God. Kills his wife and kids! And when he is faithful, he gets what? His wife and kids back? No of course not, because those are property, he gets a NEW wife and NEW kids. Hahah, oops, all is forgiven right? No biggie.
> That doesn't mean God is "weak". It means applying human concepts to God just doesn't make sense. He will always be greater and above them.
God isn't even trying to show himself to exist. And for all the people of the world that are not convinced by incoherent babbling we shall all be condemned to suffer for eternity? That is neither logical, just, or even sane.
> Kills his wife and kids!
According to the book of Job, the suffering isn't done by God, but by the Devil.
> he gets a NEW wife and NEW kids.
His wife and kids are dead. Resurrecting people for the pleasure of another person, that's like puppets serving a master, it wouldn't be respectful and consequential.
> God isn't even trying to show himself to exist.
In my opinion he does. That's what the bible is; a collection of examples where God tries to show himself to exist. And he still does, every decade, every year, maybe even every day?
While its true that various pieces of Catholic "stuff" admit the possibility of salvation _without_ explicit belief in Christ, the vibes are still very much "if you know about Jesus/The Gospel then you probably need to believe in him to be saved, with some possible exceptions."
And a "state of separation" from God is expected to be a state of torture. Like maybe the idea of demons literally poking you in the eyeballs with hot pokers is out of fashion, but its clear Hell is still understood to be a deeply unpleasant place.
Different branches of Christianity are very different; you can’t assume that Catholics believe something just because most Protestants do.
Why does "statements" being stated in the past, preclude being about morality.
> But that is just a history exam!
Stating facts you don't believe won't get you anywhere. Believing is where much an active thing.
Historically, religions (when there in position of power of course) have not been especially kind with atheists..
- CCC 2125
Interestingly, I believe this means, from the Church's perspective, that the mere fact of my posting this makes this sin more imputable to those who read it! Sorry about that.
If you are arguing that intrinsically good things (reading, thinking, speaking) can be turned to bad purpose, then so can almost anything. If done with honest intent I cannot see how reading, thinking of speaking atheism is sinful.
Is there anything in the the Catechism that says otherwise.