any religious people coming to terms with new found atheism? (Page 5)

I don't think of it as a way of life, I think of it as something somebody has done all their life which is completely different.

There are many sins that people do their whole life for unknown reasons.  If somebody is physically abusive, or verbally abusive.  They are sinners, and it's not something they can just turn off.  You can't just turn a temper off.  Same thing with same sex attraction, if you have been this way your whole life (regardless of the nature/nurture argument) you can't just turn it off.  It doesn't work that way.  This in my opinion is where many churches fall on their faces.  You're gay, and if you don't stop being gay immediately you're not welcome here.  /facepalm

Unless it is endangering or harmful to someone else, I'd say there is very little benefit or justification to judging and intervening in someone else's life.

To take your example.  If that person does not have a child or someone dependent on them, there is no benefit to you or them to intervene until they decide and ask for help.  It's their life, their body, their choice.  Your (the royal you, not the specific you) judgement of them serves no purpose other than to tear them down further.  You will not help them until they decide they want help.  And once they do decide that, your judgement at that point doesn't do them any good either.

I totally get that argument, and it can be taken all across the spectrum with various behaviors.  In many cases I would probably agree with you, but in many others I would likely disagree. 

I would counter with my crack addict example as somebody behaving in a manner that makes them unable to function in society to the point that they're living on the dole permanently, or worse yet resorting to crime to support the lifestyle they've chosen to live.  They may only appear to be hurting themselves, but they're hurting a lot more people or highly likely to down the road.

I agree on basically all counts.  I would say the classification is where I would differ.  In the crack addicts case, it's the choice to steal that is wrong, not the drug itself.  the drug is a catalyst to poor decision making.  That crack does not necessarily have that result.  The gun does not kill the person, the choice to pull the trigger does.  Same with the car.  I don't know about every state, but in Texas it is only illegal to drive with a BAC over .08.  I would equate turning the key to pointing a gun straight in the air and pulling the trigger.  You're likely never to hit anyone, but it's happened plenty.

I classify the actions that occur directly after as harming others.  Not the crack or the drinking.

Lewis is saying that there are elements of the TRUTH in many religions.  You can look at other religions and often find many similarities and parallels.

I think atheists/agnostics often confuse the sins of man versus the existance of God. Just because someone prays to intercede on a football, goes to church and has an affair, belittles another religion, being a minister and abusing a kids, or even launching a war in the name of God ....  these things do not disprove the existance of God. They just prove that man is far from perfect. As Shakesphere said in the Merchant of Venice, "Even the devil can quote scripture for his purpose." So sometimes people reject God, but use it as a justification. Even Christ often talked about the hypocrites among the Pharisees (the high Priests). 

If you look at the lives of the Saints, you can see better examples of what Christianity stands for. I stand in awe of people like Father Damien of Molokai who spent years caring for and administering to the needs of lepers when they were rejected by society. He knew it would be an eventual death sentence but he did it anyway.

This. I find it funny... I used to hang out with all those "alternative" types... but alternative is no different than any other clique... they all dress, look, and speak the same. Being different got big enough to be the same.

Back when I used to like debating God away.. atheists are no different... as soon as we identify each other... you go through this litany of why you are right and all the believers are wrong... like reciting scripture... because all the points have been said before and memorized.

And don't even start to defend your faith... look at the likes of Bil Maher and company... you will be ridiculed as stupid, ignorant, war mongers that love to judge people???

And forget about "passionate".... "religious zeal" has nothing on atheist zeal. It's funny after a while... it's like peas in a pod.... no real difference between the two other than the side of the fence they want to stand on.

Dontracy, if you have any other recommended reading, I would be interested.

I am probably one of those cultural Catholics, as I grew up going to Catholic School, etc.  I'm sure there are more studied Catholics on this board.  I believe the Catholic Church does a great job of teaching the basics of scripture, especially after the Second Vatican Council, of which I was born and raised after.  The church is more inclusive now, from what I understand.  They also do a great job of teaching cultural ideals, as they relate to community, of which the church is one big community.

I don't believe the Catholic Church does a good job of teaching scripture, and does not do a great job of contemplative  teaching on those scriptures.  I have also noticed that they do not do a great job of educating on Catholic teachings.  Maybe that is done by design, so each person can find his own way to the church and in the community of the church.

Through all  my years, I have never been preached to, at or been fed "fire and brimstone" from the alter.  I have never been told that I"m going to hell if I do "X" or don't do "X".  I have always felt that I have my own journey within the community of the Catholic Church, just as every other person.  As a Maronite Catholic, it's very cultural for me, as the church provides a community and link to my heritage.

All that being said, sometimes the best Catholics are converts from other religions, of which my wife is one.

On another note, keeping in mind I'm not great with words.  During high school, I was on a group trip with a christian affiliated group (non-catholic).  On our trip, they separated us into smaller groups of 6-8 people to have a sort of bible study.  Our group leader  asked at one point, "when did you know you were saved?" and "What's your testimony?"  Me being Catholic, I was like..."that's interesting, I wonder what he means".  So, he went through a couple of people and they gave their "testimony".  He got to me, and I said, well, I was baptized as a baby, then confirmed, and I continue to live my life by being an example and community partner with my church and god (Christ).  He pushed even harder, well, when did you know you were saved, when did you accept Christ.  I said, well, I was baptized, then confirmed, which I guess is kind of like being saved through the Holy Spirit.  He said, no.....when did YOU know you were saved, when did you accept Christ, there has to be some point where you accepted him totally.  At this point, I was getting a bit annoyed.  I was thinking, why can't this guy understand that I'm coming from a different background, seriously.    So, I answered, I grew up with him.  I never felt as if I was ever away from him, never felt "not saved".  I guess that's the best description of a cultural catholic.  Now I understand more about  what that means, but at that time, I didn't know how to answer those questions, because they were so foreign to me.  We each have our own journey.

I had my times where I questioned my faith, the Catholic Church, etc., but I always come back to my roots and where I grew spiritually.  Although the Catholic Church may not be the best at some things, it's where I always felt comfortable, and it's where I felt at home with my community and family.  It's always been there with open arms and spiritual guidance, passing no judgment.  Maybe I have the benefit of a great local church.

As to the OP, we each have our own journey, and everyone's is different.  There is no right or wrong path to the church in my opinion, and that includes walks toward other religions, atheism, etc.

Recommended readings in what area?

Growing up, we never read the Bible in my family. Or so I thought. We had a Bible, but it was used to keep prayer cards of deceased family members. It's also where I got my first education in renaissance painting, by pouring over the color reproductions.

Looking back now though, I realize I was wrong.  I was thoroughly immersed in scripture on a sometimes daily basis.  The Mass if full of scripture, even beyond the three or four direct readings from the Bible depending on the day. Even the rosary is mostly scripture. 

What we didn't do is take a selection of scripture and then study that or have our teacher put their own interpretation on it.  We did though learn biblical history in school. Particularly the Old Testament history.

I agree with you that some of the "best" Catholics are converts.  They bring a zeal to the faith that and are passionate and thankful upon discovering things that we cradle Catholics take for granted.  They are among the main driving force of the new Catholic Evangelization in the US.

I join you in being puzzled by the emphasis on being "reborn". I was "reborn" when I was baptized. It took place by proxy which is consistent in my understanding with Jewish law.  That rebirth was sealed at my confirmation, which was an act of will of a youth beyond the age of reason saying yes to the Holy Spirit.  I became a child of Christ at my baptism, the same as any other baptized person.

What I would ask of someone who asked me when I accepted Jesus into my life as my personal savior, is, "when did you first receive the Eucharist, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus into your body as He commanded?"  The day I did that still is the happiest day of my life. One I will never forget.

+5

Growing up really only around Catholics in NJ, I never faced that line of questioning until I moved to the Bible Belt. It really hit the fact that I took a lot of teachings verbatim and never really understood why the Church believed what it did. I started to do some research into apologetics. One thing I was surprised at was that while Catholics get a bad rap for discounting or ignoring the Bible, many many of the teachings are routed in the bible.  The scripture and verse just isn't always pointed out.

Salvation per the Catholic Church is an ongoing process, versus a once and done thing in the Baptism world. On the matter, the Church points to one of Paul's later letters where even he said that he still needed to work towards salvation.

Something like this book may be a good starting point.

x2

There is an answer to the question of the meaning of suffering. The answer lies beyond meaninglessness or a manifestation of our own ego.

We are made in the image and likeness of God, Imago Dei.  At heart, it is our free will that brings us closest to this image.  We are free to love, as God loves.

Or not.

It is both our greatest gift and heaviest cross.

So many. Hopefully this will also address the OP.

I haven't read the book chris00nj recommended, but anything by Patrick Madrid or Tim Staples is good.  Also, anything by the biblical scholar / convert Scott Hahn. 

A number of books by Josef Ratzinger / Emeritus Pope Benedict including Introduction to Christianity, and Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration.

Thomas Merton's Seven Storey Mountain.

St. Therese of Lisieux The Story of a Soul.

George Weigel's Witness to Hope: The Biography of John Paul II.

Mike Aquilina's The Fathers of the Church.

Peter Kreeft's A Summa of the Summa: Thomas Aquinas

That's a start.

If I had to choose only one to read again, I'd read B16s Introduction to Christianity. In it, he goes through the Apsotles Creed step by step. He wrote it back in the late '60s. Even though it is a primer, it opened my eyes to the breadth and depth of Catholic theology that has developed down through the centuries, beyond what I could possible hope to study or understand in fully my lifetime.

I hear ya.  It sounds like human nature to me.  Like flies to the bug zapper, in general folks are attracted to the extremes...in this case, as you described, "the passion."  What gets ratings?  Beautiful people.  Hot s e double hockey sticks.  Draaaama!  Amaaazing stories!  Miraculous occurrences!  Consistent, level-headed rational thought doesn't consistently "ignite souls."  

Dramatic creation stories do ignite passion.  Passive acceptance, live and let live, tolerance don't light fires...but stark contrasts and proclamations "our belief is the right belief," now those ignite souls.  Unfortunately, that's the sad aspect of observing/analyzing religions in my opinion.

Is it very clear?  The last time I checked for the line about homosexuality being a sin I found the "abomination" reference in Leviticus.  The same exact passage lumped "eating shellfish" in with homosexuality.  It also instructed men to bring new wives who weren't chaste up to marriage, to bring them to the edge of town and stone them to death.

btw, when I bring this up to a fundamentalist christian friend of mine he tells me it doesn't really count because that's Old Testament.  It's frustrating talking with someone who will basically pick and choose what part of the Bible is infallible/literal and which is "allegorical."  Oh well.

Many point to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as the New Testament "mandate" against homosexuality.  I find humorous that the same people take Paul's statements just 8 chapters later (1 Corinthians 14:34), as "misunderstood".

As mentioned before I'm the furthest thing from a biblical scholar, but here's why I say the bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Obviously there are several references in the old testament that it's not permissible.  Heck, the root word of sodomy comes from Sodom and it's not meant to be a good thing.

As for the new testament:

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. - Romans 1:26-27

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men - 1 Corinthians 6:9

I'd say the bible is very consistent with it's position and 1 Corinthians 6:9 says it very directly.

Now as for 1 Corinthians 14:34 I don't think that has any relevance.  I could pick all kinds of things out of the bible that I don't understand, but I'd say the position on homosexuality is pretty clear.

No doubt, if I believed the Bible to be a book of truth, there's no doubt in my mind I would believe homosexuals to be sinners.  That said, there's clearly an anti-shellfish stance put forth by God as well.  It's just unfortunate in my opinion that homosexuals are labeled sinners while those who engage in pre-marital relations, sodomy, etc. (which I'd hazard to guess is well north of 95% of the adult population, if not 99.9%) seem to get a "pass" per se.  It seems quite unjust in my eyes considering homosexuality is not a choice, whereas the other "sins" are choices.

...and speaking of "sins," humans are animals.  Complex animals.  Many humans are raised in abusive and/or neglectful environments.  By the time these children become adults, I'm going to go out on a limb and say a much higher % of these kids commit violent and/or immoral acts.  Are they sent to hell as a result of their actions?  

Who says fornicators get a free pass? Mortal sin is mortal sin.  

A friend of mine calls it the notion that we have a "Universal right to orgasm; anytime, anywhere, with anyone, any way".

It's the heresy of our age.  As a culture, we worship at the altar of sex.

Unless you're raped, engaging in a sexual act is always a choice.

Regarding shellfish, think of it as God teaching his people to know him through food. Then fast forward to John 6. It will make more sense then.

I do agree that the vast majority of Christians do engage in pre-marital sex, but I will counter and say that it absolutely is a sin, every bit as much as homosexuality.  I don't think there's any debate about the bibles thoughts on adultery as being a sin, and in Matthew 5:28 Jesus says:  "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

There are also many versus about fornication being a sin.  Fornication is defined as any consenting sexual act outside of marriage.
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. - 1 Corinthians 6:18

It's exciting to hear all your views. Allow me to complicate it even more:

Assume that it is a self-evident proposition (e.g., 2+2=4), that "God" created everything. Otherwise, our understanding of cause & effect wouldn't make any sense. In other words, whatever "God" is, he/she/it MUST necessarily be the "first cause" or what St. Thomas Aquinas termed, "the first mover". So, if this is true, then it follows that we can NEVER understand God. Why? Consider that ALL our "wordly" experiences must, by absolute necessity, occur within the confinements of space & time. (Close your eyes & imagine some object. Now that make object disapear in your mind. Easily right? Now, bring the item back into your mind & make the space surrounding that object disapear. Impossible. Hence, space is necessary for us to experience. Same goes w/time.) Now then, our proposition that God created EVERYTHING, means that God also must have created space & time. What this means is that God is necessarily OUTSIDE of space & time & therefore, we can never experience him/her/it. 

The catholic will say, "well, you CAN experience him in your heart." That's fine, but that argument (if you can call it an argument), fails because it doesn't account for other peoples' hearts. I can build a house for my family & thus, be "outside" of all experiences in the house. But I can walk in & it won't be too difficult for my family to observe/experience my being. Why should the catholic god be any different.

These (& many other observations) are things that make me go hmmmmm. 

What if space is just God's wall paper?