# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Can You Be Good Without God?

## eduardo89

*Can You Be Good Without God?*




> Atheists and agnostics like to claim that religion or belief in God isn’t necessary for living a moral life. “I can be a good person without God,” they say. Some go a step further and try to build a case for why they can be even better people without God. For example, they might claim that whereas theists are concerned about obeying religious commands that will get them into a heavenly afterlife, unbelievers are able to apply all their energies to making this world a better place.
> 
> In a certain sense, it’s correct to say that one can be a good person without God. History demonstrates this. Classical Western culture, which did not have divine revelation or formal religion, held up natural virtue as the highest goal. Confucianism lays out a sophisticated moral code without a supreme being.
> 
> That said, I think a strong case could be made that it’s both easier and more logical to live a truly moral life as a religious believer than as an unbeliever.  If you ever find yourself challenged by an atheist with the “good person” argument, here are four reasons that might help your answer.
> 
> *1. God Grounds the Good*
> 
> What is the measure of morality? How do we know right from wrong—and thus what it means to be a “good person” rather than a “bad person”?
> ...

----------


## VIDEODROME

I guess i could just shop around for the religion that suits my "Personal Morality".  

Actually, what if I followed a faith with many Gods instead of just one?  I should be really grounded then.  Suppose I went for Voodoo?  I would have God, Mary, Jesus and all the Orisha deities of Yoruba.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

Well.. I am just about as anti-religion as it gets.. 
I treat others how they treat me, so I live by the inverse golden rule. 

If your a douchebag to me, you get it back 3 fold.
If your kind to me, then you get that back 3 fold.

To me this is being moral.

If someone is a douchebag to you, and you return that with respect, then your being a doormat, not moral.
TPTB love making people into doormats...

----------


## robert68

.
If “God” commands you to do evil, can you be good *with* “God”?

----------


## eduardo89

> If “God” commands you to do evil, can you be good *with* “God”?


God never commands anyone to do evil, that would defy His nature.

----------


## Dr.3D

No one can ever be good.



> *NRS Luke 18:19* Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

This is Roman Catholic garbage.  God never makes man good.  God never "perfects our nature".  

Man is never good, and the grace of God does not make his nature good.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No one can ever be good.


+rep

----------


## PierzStyx

This isn't an argument religious and non-religious people can have. Religious people ultimately say we aren't doing good on our own, its either God making us or inspiring goodness within us. Either way it comes from Him. How are non-religious people even supposed to argue that point?

----------


## Todd

Good or sinless?

----------


## pcosmar

Romans 3:9-12

And several places elsewhere through the book.

----------


## bubbleboy

Good?     according to WHO?  compared to WHAT?

----------


## phill4paul

Relative question. Good is a relative concept. I live my life by the "golden rule." God to me is a relative concept. I live my life believing that I am a part of something greater than just my "self."

  Edit: While believing there is something greater than "self" I am not saying I believe in a greater being. Just that everything is wrapped into something greater than the "self."

----------


## fr33

Which god? There have been many. Before them there were none. If you can't be good today without god, then we can blame all that is bad today on god.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Yes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Which god? There have been many. Before them there were none. If you can't be good today without god, then we can blame all that is bad today on god.


Depends on your perspective.  If you believe in evolutionary theory (or most any atheist worldview), man has always had religion.  Neanderthal man had developed religion before **** sapien sapien existed.

----------


## fr33

> If you believe in evolutionary theory (or most any atheist worldview), man has always had religion.  Neanderthal man had developed religion before **** sapien sapien existed.


Where is your documented proof of that?

----------


## phill4paul

> Depends on your perspective.  If you believe in evolutionary theory (or most any atheist worldview), man has always had religion.  Neanderthal man had developed religion before **** sapien sapien existed.


  Life is a mystery. Especially so with humans. Most animal and plant life focus on survival. Doesn't leave much time to contemplate. They just live. And die. As far as I know. But, they do so within the interaction of all and everything. And to me. All. Everything. Would be my definition of "God."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where is your documented proof of that?


Every anthropology textbook printed since neanderthal man's life was "discovered" by anthropologists and archeologists.  This is not a new or controvertial claim, d00d.  It's accepted by the scientific community as fact, unless you've discovered something new.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Life is a mystery. Especially so with humans. Most animal and plant life focus on survival. Doesn't leave much time to contemplate. They just live. And die. As far as I know. But, they do so within the interaction of all and everything. And to me. All. Everything. Would be my definition of "God."


Sounds like a rather Nihlist and depressing worldview to me, but to each his own.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> [B]To what do unbelievers appeal in this unhappy circumstance? All they have is themselveswhich is the problem in the first place. Yes, some extraordinary people are able to go quite far on natural virtue alone, but theyre an exception. The rest lie on analysts couches and crowd self-help seminars desperate for some natural key to improvement. Or they despair.


I dunno.  I've seen a few examples of fervent believers honestly praying to God to help them.  They're trying hard, but can't shake off negative desires.  I met a guy who said he's beein praying to God just before he bought more Cocaine.  Deep down, I think the guy is a nice person who really wants to shake off his past and participate in society with a legitimate job. I feel that what he really needs is some kind of guide to help him come to terms with the part of himself that wants this drug. 

Also, I feel weird sharing this, but I have a young cousin who keeps doing Heroin.  My extended family are believers and sincerely praying.  For a while, she came home and to rehab and they said God answered their prayers.  Then she went back to her dealer boyfriend, back to Heroin, and is now pregnant.  During this time, they went to a free Priest / Counselor who basically just yelled at her and called her a horrible sinner.  

I'm seeing many scenarios like this and it feels like I'm watching a slow train wreck and my relatives are waiting for God to stop it.  I have this horrific feeling they're not talking with any professional counselors or therapists.  I should emphasize that even a counselor can't guarantee a positive outcome, but at least it seems like a more active and involved approach instead of just praying while a young girl's life is getting closer to a horrible end all the time. 

Now to make this more personal, I have felt more 'grounded' by seeking Wisdom and listening to critical thinkers and people who are always asking questions.  In one example: watching some old video commentaries by a very smart guy like Richard Feynman.  He seems comfortable with doubt and enjoys peering into the mysterious ways our world works. 

More recently, I am interested the writings and TED talks from Sam Harris who does value spiritual experience and contemplation.  I agree with Sam that meditation practice is a great tool for human beings to calm their minds and momentarily take a step back from all their concerns and obligations.  

Oddly enough, while exploring my thoughts on religion, I also researched Buddhism and found some of it's core ideas really appealing in an almost psychological way. It seemed to think the Mind gets in to trouble and a more Mindful person could be equipped to avoid pitfalls like Desire and Attachment. This seemed more sensible to me than just Thou Shalt Not - Commandments. Buddhism also seemed to present and idea that humans can try to advance toward enlightenment, while so many Christian speakers seem to say humans are forever doomed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I dunno.  I've seen a few examples of fervent believers honestly praying to God to help them.  They're trying hard, but can't shake off negative desires.  I met a guy who said he's beein praying to God just before he bought more Cocaine.  Deep down, I think the guy is a nice person who really wants to shake off his past and participate in society with a legitimate job. I feel that what he really needs is some kind of guide to help him come to terms with the part of himself that wants this drug. 
> 
> Also, I feel weird sharing this, but I have a young cousin who keeps doing Heroin.  My extended family are believers and sincerely praying.  For a while, she came home and to rehab and they said God answered their prayers.  Then she went back to her dealer boyfriend, back to Heroin, and is now pregnant.  During this time, they went to a free Priest / Counselor who basically just yelled at her and called her a horrible sinner.  
> 
> I'm seeing many scenarios like this and it feels like I'm watching a slow train wreck and my relatives are waiting for God to stop it.  I have this horrific feeling they're not talking with any professional counselors or therapists.  I should emphasize that even a counselor can't guarantee a positive outcome, but at least it seems like a more active and involved approach instead of just praying while a young girl's life is getting closer to a horrible end all the time. 
> 
> Now to make this more personal, I have felt more 'grounded' by seeking Wisdom and listening to critical thinkers and people who are always asking questions.  In one example: watching some old video commentaries by a very smart guy like Richard Feynman.  He seems comfortable with doubt and enjoys peering into the mysterious ways our world works. 
> 
> More recently, I am interested the writings and TED talks from Sam Harris who does value spiritual experience and contemplation.  I agree with Sam that meditation practice is a great tool for human beings to calm their minds and momentarily take a step back from all their concerns and obligations.  
> ...


Yes, this is an unfortunate development in Christian thought.  It's not Gospel teaching.  It seems to stem primarily from the errors of Augustine and Calvin.

----------


## phill4paul

> Sounds like a rather Nihlist and depressing worldview to me, but to each his own.


 How so? I'm not a _nihilist_. Far from it. wut?




> Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.


  ^^^ Not me.

----------


## VIDEODROME

From browsing through Buddhism, I also came across this concept.  I'm just posting a few excerpts here. 

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quote...-a-whole-world

The Dalai Lama:  Secular Ethics

For a considerable portion of humanity today, it is possible and indeed likely that one's neighbor, one's colleague, or one's employer will have a different mother tongue, eat different food, and follow a different religion than oneself. It is a matter of great urgency, therefore, that we find ways to cooperate with one another in a spirit of mutual acceptance and respect.

In such a world, I feel, it is vital for us to find genuinely sustainable and universal approach to ethics, inner values, and personal integrity-an approach that can transcend religious, cultural, and racial differences and appeal to people at a sustainable, universal approach is what I call the project of secular ethics.

As I see it, spirituality has two dimensions. The first dimension, that of basic spiritual well-being-by which I mean inner mental and emotional strength and balance-does not depend on religion but comes from our innate human nature as beings with a natural disposition toward compassion, kindness, and caring for others. The second dimension is what may be considered religion-based spirituality, which is acquired from our upbringing and culture and is tied to particular beliefs and practices. The difference between the two is something like the difference between water and tea.

On this understanding, ethics consists less of rules to be obeyed than of principles for inner self-regulation to promote those aspects of our nature which we recognize as conducive to our own well-being and that of others.

It is by moving beyond narrow self-interest that we find meaning, purpose, and satisfaction in life.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Yes, this is an unfortunate development in Christian thought.  It's not Gospel teaching.  It seems to stem primarily from the errors of Augustine and Calvin.


I even feel this way in a Catholic Mass honestly.  The emphasis on humans being "forever stained by sin". Y'know typical Catholic Guilt $#@!.

----------


## fr33

> Every anthropology textbook printed since neanderthal man's life was "discovered" by anthropologists and archeologists.  This is not a new or controvertial claim, d00d.  It's accepted by the scientific community as fact, unless you've discovered something new.


There are so many civilizations that existed, built tools and disappeared without any religious artifacts to back your claim up... There are more fossils and artifacts of prehistoric humans without religion that prove my point than there are to prove that Moses wandered through the desert or that Noah and his ark ever existed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There are so many civilizations that existed, built tools and disappeared without any religious artifacts to back your claim up... There are more fossils and artifacts of* prehistoric humans* without religion that prove my point than there are to prove that Moses wandered through the desert or that Noah and his ark ever existed.


Prehistoric humans aren't **** sapien.  They're just various types of ****** (erectus, etc).  You just proved my point, thanks.

----------


## fr33

> Prehistoric humans aren't **** sapien.  They're just various types of ****** (erectus, etc).  You just proved my point, thanks.


Heh, so according to you there was this magical time in history that prehistoric humans became **** sapiens and in that exact moment they became religious. I have to admit that it makes more sense than the creationist protestants attempt. But there are **** sapien fossils found in areas without religious artifacts being attributed to them. If you believe in prehistoric humans than surely you understand that at some point humans had no religion and no government.

----------


## phill4paul

Hey HB I sent you a rep asking why you would think I'm a nihilist. Please respond.

----------


## eduardo89

> Good or sinless?


We have all sinned except for God Incarnate Our Blessed Lord by His Divine nature and His Blessed Mother by a singular act of grace bestowed on Her by Her Divine Son in Her mother’s womb.

----------


## eduardo89

> Good?     according to WHO?  compared to WHAT?


Very good question and this is what it comes down to. You cannot judge good or evil without an objective definition of good. That is why moral relativism fails.

----------


## eduardo89

> This isn't an argument religious and non-religious people can have. Religious people ultimately say we aren't doing good on our own, its either God making us or inspiring goodness within us. Either way it comes from Him. How are non-religious people even supposed to argue that point?


I agree with you.

The Second Council of Orange stated that "as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) and that "man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that "without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him" (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God's grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We have all sinned except for God Incarnate Our Blessed Lord by His Divine nature and His Blessed Mother by a singular act of grace bestowed on Her by Her Divine Son in Her mothers womb.


Where in the Bible does it say Mary never sinned?

Chapter and verse please.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where in the Bible does it say Mary never sinned?
> 
> Chapter and verse please.


Romans 3:23.

Oh wait, that says all have sinned, it doesn't make any exceptions for Mary.  My bad

----------


## erowe1

Can you be good without God?

No.

----------


## eduardo89

> Romans 3:23.
> 
> Oh wait, that says all have sinned, it doesn't make any exceptions for Mary.  My bad


Doesn't make any exception for Jesus either. He was fully human, so therefore Romans 3:23 says He must have sinned, right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Doesn't make any exception for Jesus either. He was fully human, so therefore Romans 3:23 says He must have sinned, right?


I've encountered this argument before, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  Jesus is also God and therefore an obvious exception, not to mention that the Bible specifically names him as an exception.  That isn't the case for Mary.

----------


## eduardo89

> I've encountered this argument before, and to me it doesn't really make sense.  Jesus is also God and therefore an obvious exception, not to mention that the Bible specifically names him as an exception.  That isn't the case for Mary.


Luke 1:29

St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

Also, take the time to consider this:



> It is important for us to recall that New Covenant fulfillments are always more glorious and more perfect than their Old Testament types, which are "but a shadow of the good things to come" in the New Covenant (Heb. 10:1). With this in mind, let us consider the revelation of Mary as the "New Eve." After the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, God promised the advent of another "woman" in Genesis 3:15, or a "New Eve" who would oppose Lucifer, and whose "seed" would crush his head. This "woman" and "her seed" would reverse the curse, so to speak, that the original "man" and "woman" had brought upon humanity through their disobedience.
> 
> It is most significant here to note "Adam" and "Eve" are revealed simply as "the man" and "the woman" before the woman’s name was changed to "Eve" (Hebrew, "mother of the living") after the fall (see Gen. 2:21ff). When we then look at the New Covenant, Jesus is explicitly referred to as the "last Adam," or the "New Adam" in 1 Cor. 15:45. And Jesus himself indicates that Mary is the prophetic "woman" or "New Eve" of Genesis 3:15 when he refers to his mother as "woman" in John 2:4 and 19:26. Moreover, St. John refers to Mary as "woman" eight times in Revelation 12. As the first Eve brought death to all of her children through disobedience and heeding the words of the ancient serpent, the devil, the "New Eve" of Revelation 12 brings life and salvation to all of her children through her obedience. The same "serpent" who deceived the original woman of Genesis is revealed, in Revelation 12, to fail in his attempt to overcome this new woman. The New Eve overcomes the serpent and as a result, "The serpent is angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God, and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 12:17).
> 
> *If Mary is the New Eve and New Testament fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Testament antecedents, it would be unthinkable for Mary to be conceived in sin. If she were, she would be inferior to Eve who was created in a perfect state, free from all sin.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Doesn't make any exception for Jesus either. He was fully human, so therefore Romans 3:23 says He must have sinned, right?


I'm still waiting for my chapter and verse Eduardo.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Luke 1:29
> 
> St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
> 
> Also, take the time to consider this:


Being "full of grace" does not mean being absolutely sinless.  Job was called "blameless", does that mean he was absolutely sinless?  Of course not.  As for the comparison to Eve, that's just philosophy.

----------


## eduardo89

> Being "full of grace" does not mean being absolutely sinless.


Then what does being full of God's grace mean? Are you saying God's grace can co-exist in the soul with sin?

----------


## erowe1

> Then what does being full of God's grace mean? Are you saying God's grace can co-exist in the soul with sin?


Yes. People who are still sinners can be recipients of God's grace. The same verb is used in Ephesians 1:6.



> 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given [literally "graced"] us in the One he loves.


The perfect participle in Luke 1:28 only means that Mary had received some grace (i.e. favor or gift) from God, and that the results of that giving of grace were ongoing. The word "full" is not there. In the context, it seems to me that the particular grace she had received was his choosing of her to be the mother of Jesus.

Christians didn't come up with the idea of Mary being sinless until the 4th century.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes. People who are still sinners can be recipients of God's grace. The same verb is used in Ephesians 1:6.


Sanctifying grace cannot coexist with mortal sin in the soul. Mortal sins are deadly sins because they kill off this sanctifying grace. Mortal sins can’t coexist with the sanctifying grace, because by their nature such sins are saying "No" to God, while sanctifying grace would be saying "Yes."

----------


## erowe1

> Sanctifying grace cannot coexist with mortal sin in the soul. Mortal sins are deadly sins because they kill off this sanctifying grace. Mortal sins can’t coexist with the sanctifying grace, because by their nature such sins are saying "No" to God, while sanctifying grace would be saying "Yes."


Why restrict this to mortal sins? Is your position regarding Mary only that she was without mortal sins? Or is it that she was without any sins?

----------


## eduardo89

> Why restrict this to mortal sins? Is your position regarding Mary only that she was without mortal sins? Or is it that she was without any sins?


I restricted that that explanation to mortal sins because the Bible teaches us that not all sins are deadly. There is a difference between deadly (mortal) sins and sins which do not lead to death (venial sins). 




> If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God[a] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.


Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, and therefore did not commit venial or mortal sins.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sanctifying grace cannot coexist with mortal sin in the soul. Mortal sins are deadly sins because they kill off this sanctifying grace. Mortal sins cant coexist with the sanctifying grace, because by their nature such sins are saying "No" to God, while sanctifying grace would be saying "Yes."


Where in the Bible is "mortal" and "venial" sins ever mentioned?

Chapter and verse please.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then what does being full of God's grace mean? Are you saying God's grace can co-exist in the soul with sin?


It does... in every Christian.




> Where in the Bible is "mortal" and "venial" sins ever mentioned?
> 
> Chapter and verse please.


He did quote 1 John 5:16-17, but there's a whole lot of Catholic doctrine that he's reading into that text which, incidentally, reminds me of our other conversation and OTC reading an entire doctrine into two verses.

To me, in the light of other scripture, it would make sense that 1 John is referring to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## erowe1

> I restricted that that explanation to mortal sins because the Bible teaches us that not all sins are deadly. There is a difference between deadly (mortal) sins and sins which do not lead to death (venial sins). 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, and therefore did not commit venial or mortal sins.


But the point of the discussion was what you said about Mary. If your position is that she had no sins at all, then your point about mortal sins is moot. Using your argument, at most, the use of the word "graced" in Luke 1:28 would indicate that she was not at that moment guilty of any mortal sins. It would indicate nothing about venial sins, original sin, or even mortal sins if they were ones that she had repented of prior to her being graced.

And even that much is only the most you could argue. I don't even concede that much, since "graced" in Luke 1:28 doesn't appear to be talking about her salvation, but about God's gift of making her the mother of Jesus. It is in that particular way that she was graced to which the angel refers when he calls her that.

Incidentally, I am certain that Luke intends his readers to recall this when they read Luke 11:27-28:



> 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
> 
> 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”


As great as the gift of being Jesus' mother was, it was not as great as the gift of salvation that even the most ordinary humble believer in Jesus receives.

----------


## eduardo89

> It does... in every Christian.


And that is a one fundamental problem with Protestantism. Our sins are not forgiven and our souls are not cleansed in your theology, our sins are merely covered over. In your theology God and sin co-exist in the same place, including in Heaven if you do not believe our souls are cleansed of sin by God's grace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And that is a one fundamental problem with Protestantism. Our sins are not forgiven and our souls are not cleansed in your theology, our sins are merely covered over. In your theology God and sin co-exist in the same place, including in Heaven if you do not believe our souls are cleansed of sin by God's grace.


Our sins are absolutely forgiven.  Sin does not exist in heaven.  Sanctification is a life long process, and when we die we will finally be completely cleansed of sin.  You are right that there will be no sin in heaven.  

But, on earth, we have the Holy Spirit despite the fact that we still sin.  So on earth, yes, God resides with sinners.  Why?  Because of Christ.  Christ's death paid the price for those sins.  Its not just "covering over".  Christ's righteousness was transferred to our account because of what Christ did on the cross.

You don't understand Protestantism, and you certainly don't understand the gospel.  Repent and believe the gospel.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> And that is a one fundamental problem with Protestantism. Our sins are not forgiven and our souls are not cleansed in your theology, our sins are merely covered over. In your theology God and sin co-exist in the same place, including in Heaven if you do not believe our souls are cleansed of sin by God's grace.


At what point are sins forgiven and cleansed in your theology?  Perhaps during Mass, or Confession?  And then at what point is a soul dirtied again, after missing Mass, or not fasting during Lent?

----------


## eduardo89

> Our sins are absolutely forgiven.  Sin does not exist in heaven.  Sanctification is a life long process, and when we die we will finally be completely cleansed of sin.  You are right that there will be no sin in heaven.


So you're saying that when we die we pass through a cleansing of our souls before we can enter Heaven? Are you saying you believe in purgatory!? 




> But, on earth, we have the Holy Spirit despite the fact that we still sin.  So on earth, yes, God resides with sinners.  Why?  Because of Christ.  Christ's death paid the price for those sins.  Its not just "covering over".  Christ's righteousness was transferred to our account because of what Christ did on the cross.


I'm going to save this post in a note so I can address the issues with this later.




> You don't understand Protestantism, and you certainly don't understand the gospel.


You're right, I don't understand how someone can believe in a theology so full of holes and contradictions.




> Repent and believe the gospel.


Done and done.

----------


## erowe1

> And that is a one fundamental problem with Protestantism. Our sins are not forgiven and our souls are not cleansed in your theology, our sins are merely covered over.


That's not true. Our sins are forgiven and our souls are cleansed. But the two things are separate from one another. The forgiveness comes first as a once-for-all act, and then the process of cleansing follows after that.




> In your theology God and sin co-exist in the same place, including in Heaven if you do not believe our souls are cleansed of sin by God's grace.


That's not true at all.

I've seen you complain to people for accusing Roman Catholics of believing something you claim not to believe. Well this is a pretty egregious case of you doing that. I can't imagine where you got this idea.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And that is a one fundamental problem with Protestantism. Our sins are not forgiven and our souls are not cleansed in your theology, our sins are merely covered over. In your theology God and sin co-exist in the same place, including in Heaven if you do not believe our souls are cleansed of sin by God's grace.


The problem with Roman Catholicism is that our works, even our grace inspired works, are still tainted with sin and therefore cannot save.   God demands a perfect righteousness to be in His presence, that is why the only works acceptable to God for justification are Christ's works alone.

The only way to respect God's holy law is to believe in imputed righteousness.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you're saying that when we die we pass through a cleansing of our souls before we can enter Heaven? Are you saying you believe in purgatory!?


Purgatory is not needed because Christ's work was enough on the cross.  Our sins are immediately removed when we die.  




> Done and done.


Do you now believe in imputed righteousness?

Are you still a Roman Catholic?

----------


## eduardo89

> I've seen you complain to people for accusing Roman Catholics of believing something you claim not to believe. Well this is a pretty egregious case of you doing that. I can't imagine where you got this idea.


I got that idea by the way he phrased his post. He cleared that up, though. I wasn't trying to misrepresent his views, which is why I didn't say "you believe this..." I made the statement a hypothetical, saying that if he believes what I thought he had typed then....

----------


## eduardo89

> Purgatory is not needed because Christ's work was enough on the cross.  Our sins are immediately removed when we die.


How does purgatory deny that Christ's work on the Cross was enough to save us?




> Do you now believe in imputed righteousness?


No, I read the Bible.




> Are you still a Roman Catholic?


Of course! You should be too, I'd send you an evite if I had your email. We meet every Sunday, feel free to join us

----------


## VIDEODROME

I can imagine that if I was still Catholic, I might go along with this "Objective Morality" idea.  I'm sure the priests would gladly explain it to me.  

So what if that leads to Morality as interpreted by man?  

I mean I could do a 180 and get into church life.  I might have serious ideas about morality.  Then I'd just preach my ideas as being the objective morality.  I might even sincerly convince myself of this while speaking to people with a strong conviction about my moral views.  

Yet, another person might challenge me.  Why would they do that if we're both striving to follow the transcendent morality? We would both probably feel we're right, yet we're arguing.

----------


## eduardo89

> At what point are sins forgiven and cleansed in your theology?  Perhaps during Mass, or Confession?  And then at what point is a soul dirtied again, after missing Mass, or not fasting during Lent?


Our sins are forgiven and our souls are cleaned through Baptism. However, due to our fallen nature we continue to sin throughout our lives. That is why Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course! You should be too, I'd send you an evite if I had your email. We meet every Sunday, feel free to join us


I've already encouraged him to attend liturgy, so I doubt he'll bother to go to mass.

----------


## eduardo89

> I've already encouraged him to attend liturgy, so I doubt he'll bother to go to mass.


Mas and Liturgy are the same things, just different names for it. Within Catholicism the Latin Rite uses the term Mass while the Eastern Rites use the term Liturgy.

Whatever one wants to call it, I encourage FF to attend at least one Latin Rite Mass and one Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy. It'll bring him to his knees.

----------


## juleswin

Hehe, best way to answer that question can be revealed by answering this question. Will hold down and rape your 12 yr old daughter if God asks you to? If the answer is NO, then you can be good without God. If the answer is yes, then you're either an incestuous pedophile or a sheep.

----------


## erowe1

> I can imagine that if I was still Catholic, I might go along with this "Objective Morality" idea.  I'm sure the priests would gladly explain it to me.


I bet that if we looked into what you really think about morality, especially at the deep level of the concepts of morality that you just take for granted without considering it, we'd find that you already do go along with the idea of objective morality.

----------


## erowe1

> Hehe, best way to answer that question can be revealed by answering this question. Will hold down and rape your 12 yr old daughter if God asks you to? If the answer is NO, then you can be good without God. If the answer is yes, then you're either an incestuous pedophile or a sheep.


How would answering no mean that you could be good without God. Since your question was based on the premise of God's existence and involvement in the situation, then to be good in that situation would mean to be good with God, not without God.

Also, note that your premise assumes that God himself is not good. But that premise is false, so it really says nothing about goodness in this real world where God is good. It would only help to answer the question of whether or not we could be good without God if God were not good.

----------


## juleswin

> How would answering no mean that you could be good without God. Since the question was based on the premise of God's existence and involvement in the situation, then to be good in that situation would mean to be good with God, not without God.
> 
> Also, note that the premise assumes that God himself is not good. But that premise is false, so it really says nothing about goodness in this real world where God is good. It would only help to answer the question of whether or not we could be good without God if it were the case that God were not good.



I just read the first paragraph of the OP, so maybe the surprised response you gave to my post is a result of me missing some of the details laid out for the topic. So, I will read it all and then come back with a reply.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Our sins are forgiven and our souls are cleaned through Baptism. However, due to our fallen nature we continue to sin throughout our lives. That is why Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance.


Yes, I once believed this, too, to the core of my being.

I hesitate to call this theology, however, this is what I now believe.

From Oswald Chambers, "My Utmost For His Highest":

"The love of God means Calvary, and nothing less; the love of God is spelt on the Cross and nowhere else.  

The only gound on which God can forgive me is through the Cross of my Lord. "


The words of a man in a confessional mean nothing in light of these words.  It would be blasphemy for me to believe that this man offers me what only Jesus Christ can give.

----------


## oyarde

> I even feel this way in a Catholic Mass honestly.  The emphasis on humans being "forever stained by sin". Y'know typical Catholic Guilt $#@!.


I am a Lutheran ,  I only feel guilty about some sins , not all.LOL

----------


## erowe1

> I just read the first paragraph of the OP, so maybe the surprised response you gave to my post is a result of me missing some of the details laid out for the topic. So, I will read it all and then come back with a reply.


It wasn't a surprised response. And it didn't depend on any background in the thread, just your own comment.

ETA: In case this was confusing in my post, I just edited it and changed "the question" to "your question" to make it clear that I meant it was your question that premised the existence of God.

----------


## oyarde

Can some people be good without God ? I imagine there are moral people who have little faith. What does this mean ? I dunno , but I am not ruining my second cup of coffee contemplating this. You all have a great day !

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How does purgatory deny that Christ's work on the Cross was enough to save us?


Because in Romans 8 Paul says since God is the one who justifies, no one can now bring any charge against God's elect. 

There are no more charges against God's elect.   God has canceled every debt for His elect.




> *Colossians 2:13-14 NIV
> 
> When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.*

----------


## juleswin

> It wasn't a surprised response. And it didn't depend on any background in the thread, just your own comment.
> 
> ETA: In case this was confusing in my post, I just edited it and changed "the question" to "your question" to make it clear that I meant it was your question that premised the existence of God.


I see what you're saying and I can see why you're having problem with my question. It based by scenario on good like no raping being widely accepted by all gods and society and evil and person in question believing in a good God. Now if the person can overwrite a command to commit and evil act which to said God is evil, then on the basis one can expect that person to be good even without dictates from God.

The OP is not well thought out, the writer posses a question and the answers in by 2nd paragraph using historical examples. The question should have been "would man be good more of the time without God?" not can man be good without God? because the easy answer is a resounding yes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Whatever one wants to call it, I encourage FF to attend at least one Latin Rite Mass and one Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy. It'll bring him to his knees.


Why?

----------


## erowe1

> I see what you're saying and I can see why you're having problem with my question. It based by scenario on good like no raping being widely accepted by all gods and society and evil and person in question believing in a good God. Now if the person can overwrite a command to commit and evil act which to said God is evil, then on the basis one can expect that person to be good even without dictates from God.
> 
> The OP is not well thought out, the writer posses a question and the answers in by 2nd paragraph using historical examples. The question should have been "would man be good more of the time without God?" not can man be good without God? because the easy answer is a resounding yes.


Being good without dictates from God isn't the same thing as being good without God. Even if man can be good without dictates from God, the question would remain, of whether man could be good without God (which is the question in the thread title). And the answer to that question is a resounding no.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why?


I've always wanted to go to a Mass despite the fact that I already know I'll hate it.  Primarily to avoid comments like the one you quote above.  I'll do so if I ever get the opportunity (Minus the "falling to my knees" part of course).  I've been to a high episcopal service before and I think few, if any, of the people there were actually saved, but I'm still sort of glad I went once just so I'm not ignorant of what goes on, shallow though it was.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How does purgatory deny that Christ's work on the Cross was enough to save us?


Because it claims that Christ's work on the cross was enough to cleanse us, we need to go through effort on our own to be cleansed.  This is damnable and evil.



> No, I read the Bible.


  I don't believe you.


> Of course! You should be too, I'd send you an evite if I had your email. We meet every Sunday, feel free to join us


Do you even live on Long Island?

----------


## eduardo89

> Because it claims that Christ's work on the cross was enough to cleanse us, we need to go through effort on our own to be cleansed.  This is damnable and evil.


What part of purgatory does not depend on Christ's work not the cross? All those in purgatory are already saved, but their souls must be cleansed of those sins which do not cause death (you know, the sins that 1 John 5:16-17 talks about) before they can enter Heaven, because nothing impure can enter Heaven. 

What part of purgatory depends on our own effort?




> I don't believe you.


That doesn't bother me much.




> Do you even live on Long Island?


No, but there certainly are Catholic Church on Long Island as there are in every single country on earth and the great thing is we are all in full, perfect communion with each other

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've always wanted to go to a Mass despite the fact that I already know I'll hate it.  Primarily to avoid comments like the one you quote above.  I'll do so if I ever get the opportunity (Minus the "falling to my knees" part of course).  I've been to a high episcopal service before and I think few, if any, of the people there were actually saved, but I'm still sort of glad I went once just so I'm not ignorant of what goes on, shallow though it was.


Don't do it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What part of purgatory does not depend on Christ's work not the cross? All those in purgatory are already saved, but their souls must be cleansed of those sins which do not cause death (you know, the sins that 1 John 5:16-17 talks about) before they can enter Heaven, because nothing impure can enter Heaven. 
> 
> What part of purgatory depends on our own effort?
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't bother me much.
> 
> 
> ...



There is NO WHERE in the Bible that even remotely mentions purgatory.  This was the dream of Papists so they could sell indulgences to build new cathedrals.  Its the biggest sham in history.  Its hard to believe that fools are so gullible to believe this garbage.

----------


## eduardo89

> I've always wanted to go to a Mass despite the fact that I already know I'll hate it.  Primarily to avoid comments like the one you quote above.  I'll do so if I ever get the opportunity (Minus the "falling to my knees" part of course).  I've been to a high episcopal service before and I think few, if any, of the people there were actually saved, but I'm still sort of glad I went once just so I'm not ignorant of what goes on, shallow though it was.


I really hope you do one day go and experience the Mass. If you do ever attend, go to a traditional Latin Mass (Tridentine Mass). It's celebrated at the following places on Long Island:

*CUTCHOGUE*
Sacred Heart Church 
Location: 27700 Main Road – Cutcogue, NY 11935
Mass Time: Sun 3 pm
Phone number:  (631) 734-6722
Priest: Msgr Alfred Soave

*DIX HILLS*
St Matthew Church
Location: 35 North Service Road – Dix Hills, NY 11746
Mass Time: Sun 9 am
Phone number:  (631) 499-8520
Web site: http://www.smrcc.org

*FARMINGVILLE* (Don't really recommend this one, the SSPX is still in schism with the Church, although their Mass is valid)
St. Michael the Archangel Church 
Location: 900 Horseblock Rd., Long Island – Farmingville, NY 11738
Mass Time: Sun 9 am
Phone number:  (631) 736-6515
Priest: SSPX - Fr Adam Portugal

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Mas and Liturgy are the same things, just different names for it. Within Catholicism the Latin Rite uses the term Mass while the Eastern Rites use the term Liturgy.
> 
> Whatever one wants to call it, I encourage FF to attend at least one Latin Rite Mass and one Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy. It'll bring him to his knees.


I agree.  I was just distinguishing between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.  FF has called the Eastern Church and everything associated with it just about every derogatory thing you can think of, which is why I said he probably won't go to mass.  Like Sola, he seems more interested in pissing matches and insulting people than actually having a rational discussion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Mas and Liturgy are the same things, just different names for it. Within Catholicism the Latin Rite uses the term Mass while the Eastern Rites use the term Liturgy.
> 
> Whatever one wants to call it, I encourage FF to attend at least one Latin Rite Mass and one Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy. *It'll bring him to his knees*.


qft.

----------


## eduardo89

> I agree.  I was just distinguishing between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


Yes, there is that distinction in name between the Western and Eastern Rites, but remember that the Roman Catholic Church has Eastern Rite Churches within it 




> FF has called the Eastern Church and everything associated with it just about every derogatory thing you can think of, which is why I said he probably won't go to mass.  Like Sola, he seems more interested in pissing matches and insulting people than actually having a rational discussion.


Yes, it is quite sad. But I chalk it up to his youth, immaturity, and zeal he currently has. 

I honestly hope he does attend a Mass/Liturgy. It truly is a humbling experience.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't do it.


Why, you think if I went to one to see what it was like I'd actually start believing Catholic doctrine?  Come on.  I'd be just as curious to see how an Islamic service runs, though I'd never, ever become a Muslim or seriously consider Islamic doctrine.

----------


## Schifference

In order to believe in God one must have faith. In order to believe a person is good because they know God means that you would have to have faith that their good deeds are from knowing God. If a non-believer does something good there is no need for faith you simply recognize their good and call it a day.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why, you think if I went to one to see what it was like I'd actually start believing Catholic doctrine?  Come on.  I'd be just as curious to see how an Islamic service runs, though I'd never, ever become a Muslim or seriously consider Islamic doctrine.


I don't know.  Why would you want to be present at a blasphemous ceremony like the mass?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Church is still boring

----------


## eduardo89

> Church is still boring


Hardly. It is perhaps the most powerful experience you will ever witness this side of eternity. How can one say that being in the presence of God is boring?!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hardly. It is perhaps the most powerful experience you will ever witness this side of eternity. How can one say that being in the presence of God is boring?!


This^^   However, if he's talking about churches like the non-denominational and Baptist varieties I attended as a child, I can see why he would be bored.  Those churches don't purposefully engage the senses to inspire worship, and their sermons tend to be snoozefests.  I remember bringing books with me to services to occupy me while the minister was prattling on seemingly endlessly.

----------


## eduardo89

> This^^   However, if he's talking about churches like the non-denominational and Baptist varieties I attended as a child, I can see why he would be bored.  Those churches don't purposefully engage the senses to inspire worship, and their sermons tend to be snoozefests.  I remember bringing books with me to services to occupy me while the minister was prattling on seemingly endlessly.


That's because they discard the Sacraments, and therefore, discard the necessity of the Church.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I dunno.  Church seems so repetitive.  I mean I can appreciate a good sermon or Homily.  

I am really not into the Hymns or Choir singing though.  Just not my thing I guess.  

Also, something about the Priest speaking with the Congregation auto-response makes me feel like I'm surrounded by people running on auto-pilot.  It's repeating the same phrases and rituals every week.  It's makes me want to bring a coffee and play with my smartphone in the pew and tune out.  


I do feel spiritual under other circumstances.  If I see an HD image from Hubble of other galaxies it just blows me away.  Or listening to particularly moving symphony music that I like.  I'm even very fond of certain Synth pieces.  So maybe I just have a different taste in music.  Or maybe they song compositions used in church are kind of blah.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Wake me up when it's over.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This^^   However, if he's talking about churches like the non-denominational and Baptist varieties I attended as a child, I can see why he would be bored.  Those churches don't purposefully engage the senses to inspire worship, and their sermons tend to be snoozefests.  I remember bringing books with me to services to occupy me while the minister was prattling on seemingly endlessly.


So you need to be emotionally manipulated in order to worship? You think worship only happens when you're singing?   Don't you know that worship happens when you're interacting with the gospel being preached?  (Most likely you've never heard the gospel preached)

----------


## eduardo89

> Wake me up when it's over.


Nothing happens at Protestant services.

However, come to a Catholic or Orthodox Church and Jesus will fully present!

Look how not one person is asleep:

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  Why would you want to be present at a blasphemous ceremony like the mass?


As much as I tend to agree with you, I'd feel more comfortable calling it "blasphemous" after actually seeing what happens there rather than before.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Been there.  I was raised Catholic.  I was even an altar boy back in the day.  I did try to make myself be engaged with it all, but over time found it unsatisfying in to many ways with the the Mass itself and the teachings.  

Also, I always felt a lot of "Catholic Guilt" hung in the air and that just turned me off.

----------


## eduardo89

> Been there.  I was raised Catholic.  I was even an altar boy back in the day.  I did try to make myself be engaged with it all, but over time found it unsatisfying in to many ways with the the Mass itself and the teachings.


I'm guessing you were raised and went to Mass post-1969. The Novus Ordo Mass really does not appeal to me, and I think it is one of the biggest reasons for the drop in Church membership in the last 40 years.




> Also, I always felt a lot of "Catholic Guilt" hung in the air and that just turned me off.


I've never understood that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's because they discard the Sacraments, and therefore, discard the necessity of the Church.


Да, это прав!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, there is that distinction in name between the Western and Eastern Rites, but remember that the Roman Catholic Church has Eastern Rite Churches within it 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is quite sad. But I chalk it up to his youth, immaturity, and zeal he currently has. 
> *
> I honestly hope he does attend a Mass/Liturgy. It truly is a humbling experience*.


+1  Prior to my first liturgy, I had never done a prostration (kneeling prayer) while the priest chanted and choir sang.  That alone is a humbling experience.  The full liturgy is simply beyond words.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Been there.  I was raised Catholic.  I was even an altar boy back in the day.  I did try to make myself be engaged with it all, but over time found it unsatisfying in to many ways with the the Mass itself and the teachings.  
> 
> Also, I always felt a lot of "Catholic Guilt" hung in the air and that just turned me off.


It's because there is no gospel in Roman Catholicism.   There is no good news.  A man can attend the mass thousands of times in his life and NEVER be assured that he has peace with God.  Catholic guilt is very real.

The Biblical gospel gives men a basis of assurance and peace before God.  There is true shalom, true peace, with the Biblical gospel.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nothing happens at Protestant services.
> 
> However, come to a Catholic or Orthodox Church and Jesus will fully present!
> 
> Look how not one person is asleep:


Reminds me of liturgy:
  People are just as awake and attentive in parishes with pews/seats.

----------


## VIDEODROME

The last few times I went to Catholic church, mostly just to be nice because my Mom is still into Catholicism big time, there was a lot more emphasis on some kind of "Mea Culpa" thing.  

Okay so the priest was guiding everyone on a kind of re-introduction of this Translation.  In particular, when this section "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault" comes up.  The priest suggested everyone kind of tap their chest everytime they say "My fault.".  

This did not seem like a positive experience.  It would be like a weekly affirmation declaring to the world "Yeah, I know I suck. I know I screwed and I will screw up again".  It seemed to me like really dwelling on the idea that humans are just all horrible.  I mean what are we trying to do here?  Are we trying to be better people?  It seems like if you say that every week, it's like saying maybe you tried, but we know you failed because you're a failed creation that can't help but sin.  

What can I say?  I just find this kind of thing to be a turn off.  I mean yeah, I can see acknowledging that humans have flaws, but I can also see acknowledging we have strengths to and we can do good in the world.  Maybe discuss how we can improve ourselves and society?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The last few times I went to Catholic church, mostly just to be nice because my Mom is still into Catholicism big time, there was a lot more emphasis on some kind of "Mea Culpa" thing.  
> 
> Okay so the priest was guiding everyone on a kind of re-introduction of this Translation.  In particular, when this section "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault" comes up.  The priest suggested everyone kind of tap their chest everytime they say "My fault.".  
> 
> This did not seem like a positive experience.  It would be like a weekly affirmation declaring to the world "Yeah, I know I suck. I know I screwed and I will screw up again".  It seemed to me like really dwelling on the idea that humans are just all horrible.  I mean what are we trying to do here?  Are we trying to be better people?  It seems like if you say that every week, it's like saying maybe you tried, but we know you failed because you're a failed creation that can't help but sin.  
> 
> What can I say?  I just find this kind of thing to be a turn off.  I mean yeah, I can see acknowledging that humans have flaws, but I can also see acknowledging we have strengths to and we can do good in the world.  Maybe discuss how we can improve ourselves and society?


I can only discuss this from the Byzantine Rite perspective, but- our regcognition of sins and failings is therapeutic as well as pleasing to God.  People go to therapists to deal with their guilt complexes when their priests will help them free of charge!

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I can only discuss this from the Byzantine Rite perspective, but- our regcognition of sins and failings is therapeutic as well as pleasing to God.  People go to therapists to deal with their guilt complexes when their priests will help them free of charge!


Well, it seemed to me like the kind of mass you go to if you want to develop a guilt complex, not so much deal with one or overcome it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, it seemed to me like the kind of mass you go to if you want to develop a guilt complex, not so much deal with one or overcome it.


I'll take your word for it.  I've never been to a Mass.

----------


## Muwahid

To me rejecting God but being good, is like rejecting truth, but being truthful...

----------

