Hey there

[GabrielYakub]

I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced that He exists, not because 'the belief seems like rubbish' and not because 'I never saw the need to believe in God or because the church is made up of 'fallen human beings' which I can't reconcile with a perfect God'. These two labels that are presented to pigeon-hole all atheists is very clearly inaccurate.

[Μιχαὴλ Ἕνρη]

I was going to qualify it. Anyway, OK.

[returnorthodoxy]

Hey Gabe,

Do you mind clarifying what you mean by "I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced He exists." It seems to me that there is no content within this saying. I am having my own doubts but even such a statement seems void of meaning to me. It seems like saying I do not believe in God because I no longer believe in God. The lack of belief in God is not caused by the the lack of being convinced that God exists, but rather IS the lack of being convinced that God exists. That still leaves out the reason that you are not convinced.

Are you not convinced maybe because as Hawking put it, "science make God of no use." Or maybe it seems like rubish? I am not trying to pigeon-hole atheism, I am just asking for the reason that you are not convinced.

Everyone has a reason for believing. If you are not convinced of something, you are convinced of something else (unless you believe that the universe is essentially meaningless and that there is nothing to be convinced of). I am supposing that you were raised in a faithful community. What ideology has drawn you away from the belief system of those around you?

I do not feel that to say "I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced that He exists" is a valid point. It is like a believer saying "I believe in God because I am convinced that He exists."

I'm just trying to understand, not trying to pigeon-hole or anything of that sort. I am also quite unlearned, so I may have fallen into a misunderstanding in what I said, but that is the way I think.

ReturnOrthodoxy

[Remnkemi]

Would I or any other person be justified in accusing you for having an ulterior motive just because we have a hard time seeing why you wold attend a mosque or a synagogue even though you claim that you would like to learn more about other people's religion as a Copt?

There is a big difference between going to a mosque or synagogue to learn about another religion and going to a mosque or synagogue routinely and calling yourself Coptic. There is nothing wrong with reaching out to other religions. At some point, attendance in no longer based on curiosity but on other motives. Maybe these are not evil motives (at first). But if you really apply the intellectualism you're claiming, along with the Spirit's guidance, you will realize that Islam or Judaism or any other religion is not the truth and it does not come from God. If you continue to attend the functions of these other religions, after this revelation, your actions will devulge your motives. Let me put this way. If you went to a homosexual bar to learn about their environment, would you continue going after you've satisfied your curiosity? And if you continue to go and claim yourself heterosexual, would I not be justified to say you have ulterior motives?

As St James said, "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.  But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not ... lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic."  I do not see how one can say going to a mosque or a synagogue repeatedly with no intention of converting is "conduct done in the meekness of wisdom." If it is not curiosity and not a desire to convert, then what good conduct could it be?

Furthermore, you are in no position to claim what type of people the church will accept and what it will not in regards to your assertion that "there is no tolerance to accept an atheist who refuses to change. Period."

It is not my authority at all. It is the Church's authority to bind and loose. The act of binding in itself means the unrepentant is bound to sin and judgment in eternal life. It also means the church has the authority and choice to accept or reject whomever she will accept.

And if you don't adhere to the Church's authority, there are plenty of verses that show unrepentant sinners will not partake of the banquet. Here are a few.
1. Isaiah 30:15 (NIV) This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it."
2. 2 Peter 2:21-22 (NIV) It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its own vomit," and "A sow that is washed goes back to wallowing in the mud."
3. Luke 9:62 (NEB) To him Jesus said, "No one who sets his hand to the plow and then keeps looking back is fit for the kingdom of God."
4. Acts 17:30 (NIV) In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
5. 2 Tim 2:19 (NIV) "The Lord knows those who are his," and "everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
6. Luke 10:10 (NIV) But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off  against you... “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

As you can see, the impenitent will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Since the Church is given the keys of the kingdom, the Church has the authority to refuse the unrepentant.

[qoute] My experience completely contradicts your statement. In addition I think its baseless claims like these, on a public forum that push away and discourage people from even attempting to come back to their own community. [/quote]
Someone who is looking to "come back to their own community" is by definition repentant or on the process of repentance. And the Church will not refuse them as I said before. But one who insists on continuing their sin and tries to convince the clergy or the people that they have the right to do so is ignorant of the scriptures and patristic writings.

[Remnkemi]

If you are not convinced of something, you are convinced of something else (unless you believe that the universe is essentially meaningless and that there is nothing to be convinced of).

Excellent point RO.  It reinforces my concept of ulterior motives.

[GabrielYakub]

Hey RO,

           thank you for the question. Sure, my statement was void of the actual reasons as to why I am not convinced, so I'll share a couple of them with you. When I use to attend church and pray regularly I had moments where I would 'feel' something that i would, at the time, describe as the presence of God. Overtime I began to question how I knew that it was God. I found no good reason except for I 'felt' it was God, and people told me it was. This feeling or 'presence' was essentially at the root of my belief, it no longer satisfied me enough as a reason to believe that God existed. Anecdotal evidence from my parents, the speaker at the pulpit and the bible didn't satisfy me either, I had developed a standard of evidence which my religion could no longer meet.

So as you can see there was no ideology that lead me away, nor was I convinced of something else (in the sense of adopting another belief).

~Gabe

[returnorthodoxy]

Hey Gabe,

Thanks for the response. However, I still have much reserve. You tell me that you had a standard of evidence which my religion could not meet. However, (and forgive me for saying this) I do not think you have given this religion a chance. Religion is not in your parents (lets not kid our selves, a lot of parents are very odd when it comes to religion), nor does it come from the pulpit (although at times, a priest can be of great service.) The great thing about being orthodox is that we have a wealth of fathers that we can go back to, and see what they said about faith, and religion. You may have embodied God within the church, but as Mike had previously put it, you should realized that the church was made of fallen human beings.

What I am saying is (although I do not know you) based on your description of where you went to find your answers (parents, Sunday school teacher, or priest), you have leave a lot out.

Reading would help you get a lot of these answers you seek. I have read, and fallen in love with Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. A friend of mine who is doing a PhD. in Theology has recommended that I read The Confessions of Augustine. There are answers. Just because my 4th grade science teacher couldn't explain the theory of relativity, doesn't mean that a university professor also couldn't.

Being Orthodox (and thereby the stress which orthodoxy places on the fathers) is not just because we like to be ancient. It is because those guys are geniuses and express on believable knowledge. We never go to the Bible alone for answers, because we can interpret it wrong. we interpret it in light of the sayings of the fathers. To say that the Bible did not satisfy your thirst for answers is an incomplete statement. It is like not understanding the theory of relativity and to learn it, you just go to the notes which Einstein wrote. if that were all you needed, why were universities erected? You need noted authorities to speak on such matters... The Orthodox Fathers!

What I am saying is that both you and I have much to learn and read. the idea of where faith comes in, is the gift of the Holy Spirit which gives us preparedness to understand what we read, and gives us the desire to learn.

Looking forward to a response from you, Gabe.

ReturnOrthodoxy

[Remnkemi]

So, by the same logic, St. Augustine had no right to enjoy hearing the words of God and its interpretation by St. Ambrose, when St. Augustine's aim during his attendance in the Milan cathedral was to ridicule and destroy the Church? By today's standards, St. Augustine was a militant heretic and atheist, and a very good speaker at that.

We haven't heard St. Ambrose rebuking St. Augustine that only the repentant can enjoy the "rights Christ gives to his Church." He let him stay to hear the words of God, and it was the Truth of God who changed him.

There are no absolutes here. I was speaking in general terms. I cannot unequivocally say St Augustine was an unrepentant sinner as much as you can't unequivocally say his intention was absolutely to destroy the Church. Who knows. He unknowingly may have already been in the process of repentance and St Ambrose was able to recognize that his attacks on the Church were only an expression of momentary weakness.

On the other hand, if we claim the unrepentant sinner is equal to the weak, struggling repentant sinner in the process of repentance, then there would be no need to repent. What benefit would repentance have if the unrepentant is given the same status?

In general terms, as long as one refuses to repent, they will not be treated equally with the repentant. This may mean forbiddenness from services or the Eucharist as punishment or complete excommunication. Once, the unrepentant seeks forgiveness, then the "punishment" is lifted.   

Additionally, if we assume all unrepentant sinner should never be banned from the Church because he will eventually repent, why did the Church excommunicate heretics? Was it not because the adjudicated these heretics will not return from their heresy (or sin) and their refusal for repentance was grounds for excommunication? Were they not given ample opportunity for repentance and refused? Is not the consequence of adherence to heresy or sin expulsion from the Church?

This principle of punishment for the unrepentant does not negate or diminish God's mercy and love for the unrepentant sinner. Maybe this is where the unrest and confusion lies.

[GabrielYakub]

Remenkemi,

                   I never said I was attending those places of worship, it was an analogy that I used to demonstrate your flawed reasoning.
Which still stands.

There is a difference between education and curiosity. I am educating myself. How long will that take? I don't know. But please don't judge me prematurely, its really unfair.

In my experience the Church or at least some Churches (as I haven't been to all of them) have tolerated an "unrepentant" homosexual and atheist. And even if I somehow was going against some ultimate authority, and the bible says that I will be punished in the after-life, that doesn't bother me, because I don't believe in one. But if people really wanted me out, then I'd stop attending because I don't exactly want to be in a place where I'm not wanted.

I came back to my community without being repentant, that should tell you that some people may just want to reconcile with their heritage, or that perhaps some people may just want to learn more about where they come from, not that they are necessarily repentant. 

[GabrielYakub]

Hi ReturnOrthodoxy,


                                 please remember that the response I gave you was a summery of about two or three years, so of course I tried to be as exhaustive as I could at the time.

I do have a lot to learn, and on some level I'm probably missing something (hence my patrology classes and group bible study  ) additionally I'm open to considering any evidence that people present, however I can't just take 'God exists' on faith, if faith is defined as ' strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof'.

At this point in time I make no claims to knowledge as to whether God exists or not, as some strong atheists do, at this time I don't know if God exists but so far after reassessing my position and considering the evidence and arguments that people have presented I am not convinced.

~Gabe

p.s  the Screw Tape Letters was a favorite back in the day as well as Lee Strobel's the Case for Christ. Yet to get my hands on mere Christianity.

[returnorthodoxy]

Hey Gabe,

I hope that God comes speedily to your aid! They way I see it, the first book you should have read is Mere Christianity. I love that book, and I feel that it may be able to give you the answers you are looking for.

I am happy to hear that you are still open to hearing things, and happier to hear that there is a purpose to your attending Theology courses and Bible study other than simply just being there. You seem to have a genuine desire to know, and I hope that one day, that need is satisfied.

Once more... MERE CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!! A great read.

Please pray for me

ReturnOrthodoxy

[imikhail]

I believe a question every athiest needs to answer is why do they think God does not exist?

This is a sort of reverse engineer their made up belief.

[GabrielYakub]

Hey ReturnOrthodoxy,


                                hahaha will definitely get my hands on that book, a few of my friends have offered to lend it to me so I'll be sure to get it off one of them as soon as I can.

You're about the second person whose asked me to pray for them,  I don't pray but if it means anything to you, you're in my thoughts.

~Gabe

[Biboboy]

So, by the same logic, St. Augustine had no right to enjoy hearing the words of God and its interpretation by St. Ambrose, when St. Augustine's aim during his attendance in the Milan cathedral was to ridicule and destroy the Church? By today's standards, St. Augustine was a militant heretic and atheist, and a very good speaker at that.

We haven't heard St. Ambrose rebuking St. Augustine that only the repentant can enjoy the "rights Christ gives to his Church." He let him stay to hear the words of God, and it was the Truth of God who changed him.

There are no absolutes here. I was speaking in general terms. I cannot unequivocally say St Augustine was an unrepentant sinner as much as you can't unequivocally say his intention was absolutely to destroy the Church. Who knows. He unknowingly may have already been in the process of repentance and St Ambrose was able to recognize that his attacks on the Church were only an expression of momentary weakness.

On the other hand, if we claim the unrepentant sinner is equal to the weak, struggling repentant sinner in the process of repentance, then there would be no need to repent. What benefit would repentance have if the unrepentant is given the same status?

In general terms, as long as one refuses to repent, they will not be treated equally with the repentant. This may mean forbiddenness from services or the Eucharist as punishment or complete excommunication. Once, the unrepentant seeks forgiveness, then the "punishment" is lifted.   

Additionally, if we assume all unrepentant sinner should never be banned from the Church because he will eventually repent, why did the Church excommunicate heretics? Was it not because the adjudicated these heretics will not return from their heresy (or sin) and their refusal for repentance was grounds for excommunication? Were they not given ample opportunity for repentance and refused? Is not the consequence of adherence to heresy or sin expulsion from the Church?

This principle of punishment for the unrepentant does not negate or diminish God's mercy and love for the unrepentant sinner. Maybe this is where the unrest and confusion lies.

I have never heard of this principle of punishment. What you're describing here sounds very much like the καθαροι of the Novationist and Donatist sects, and not Orthodox Christianity.

Excommunication of heretics has to do with their claim that what they believe in matters of doctrine are actually Orthodox Christianity. After huge discussions in multiple councils, where a person can defend his/her opinions, then it is judged whether a person has excommunicated himself from the Orthodox church or is still an Orthodox Christian. What a council does in saying "anathema" to a heretic is to admit what the person has done to him/herself in stubbornly affirming that their opinion is Orthodox dogma.

The Church doesn't go out witch hunting. It offers mercy, grace, and love to all, and when the Lord shakes the heart of a person who is sinning or is in error, then that person will repent. The Church cannot demand repentance - that demand is from God, not from the Church. The Church is the means - and the only means - by which repentance could be found.

As with St. Augustine, I'm afraid you're mistaken. We know a lot about him because of his book, the Confessions. He has a lot to say about his opinions on the Church before he converted, even of his impressions of St. Ambrose (see Book V:13-14). I would encourage you, and everyone else here, to read that book.

[✞TheGodChrist✞]

Thought this was relevant:

Question:

What would Your Grace's answer be, if asked by a hardcore skeptical atheist about your beliefs? Reasoning must be a completely rational and intellectual explanation without any reference to the Holy Bible or any other spiritual resources.

Answer:

    Mercy, compassion, peace, truth, sacrifice, love, justice, perseverance, hope, forgiveness, righteousness, and eternal life are all in the beautiful and divine hands of our Lord Jesus Christ only. The Almighty loving God, who is above all time, has appeared in the flesh to lessen our burdens and fulfill His promises. What other concept of a god can even compare? Atheism, with all its self-proclaimed intellect, pathetically attempts to replace the true God with a temporary deception of inferior knowledge and self-reliance. People admire celebrities who model charity, parents who sacrifice for their children, authorities who parade humility, officials who exhibit justice, dignitaries who design treaties for peace, and highlight every occasion that alludes to a better human race, but shun the answer of a perfect God Who has placed in the hearts of humans an intangible desire of change for the better. Jesus Christ is the only God Who is distinguished with every noble quality. Throughout time, what other figure has changed the world as did our Lord Jesus Christ? He purposely lived a simple life and chose unpretentious disciples to share the Good News. In His meekness, He has enriched us; while Atheism has inflated the mind but impoverished the soul. Note the altruistic actions of a child untainted by the corruption and cynicism of the vanities of the world. We are God's children, so blessed and grateful to have a God, Who is above all time and has appeared in the flesh to pay our debts and restore us back to Him.     

Please visit www.suscopts.org/resources/literature/search/?q=atheism. You will find four articles and one power point presentation on the subject.



This is from H.G. Bishop Youssef of the Southern USA.

Link:
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1679

✞✞✞