Skip to comments.Keira Knightley Regrets Being Atheist (Not Really)
Posted on 05/06/2012 11:01:31 AM PDT by InHisService
Actor Keira Knightley, a self-confessed atheist, says she is desperate to be Catholic because she would just get to ask for forgiveness. It sounds much better than having to live with guilt. Its absolutely extraordinary. If only I wasnt an atheist, I could get away with anything,
(Excerpt) Read more at skeptical-science.com ...
She does not understand at what price her forgivenss was purchased.
God has told us there is a Satan, and has told us that he is the "god" of this present age.
Man doesn't have the power to engineer the evil that exists in this world. Unsaved, unredeemed man is simply a willing tool of the real thing.
It's still true in Catholicism and Protestantism that a mass murderer can go to heaven while his tortured victims burn in hell. Kind of puts a different spin on all that "we need God to establish standards of right and wrong" talk.
I certainly respect your belief, GN. I think you and I have crossed swords before, always amicably, I also think and hope. Thus I won’t belabor the point but to say that as a Noachide, I’ve long felt Satan more a symbol - at least in Torah - of the evil in Man than as the “adversary” which I feel would tend to undermine monotheism. The “serpent” that tested Adam and Eve in The Garden seems more logical to me as God, even Himself “learning” the earliest human resolve of good and evil.
Insofar as God “telling” us of this, recall that in Isaiah 45:7 He also says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things”.
The mind of Man is capable of some awfully heinous things, none of which existed before him, at least in the universe we thus far know, given the possibility of some other intelligent beings out there, but which I feel would face the same essential problems.
But enough of my shtick...at least for now.
God’s grace be with You and Yours, always.
Actually a mass murderer *might* go to Heaven, while his victims *might* go to Hell. Religion is always careful to include a disclaimer that anticipated results may vary from actual results.
It boils down to “who is in charge of things.”
The singularly most effective way to get God’s attentions, and not in a good way, is a recurring theme in the Bible, which is for men to play God, to say that they are in charge.
Even the ancient Hebrews were aware of this philosophical necessity, and to a very developed and nuanced degree, even by modern standards. Secular philosophy was incredibly handicapped by this until Descartes, who parodied “I AM THAT I AM”, to create the axiom that man can define reality as well.
But as secular philosophy needs this concept to function, religion does not, and just accepts that one way or another, God is in charge, not man. So it is not up to us to decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, nor is it up to us to call Heaven hypocritical for not doing what seems to us to be the right thing.
Heaven may decide to forgive Hitler, or Jesus might be as depicted in Michael Wigglesworth’s Day of Doom, sending almost everyone to Hell, and in batches.
Forgiveness; I don't think it means what she thinks it means. Catholics believe that God will forgive us, but only if we truly repent of our sins, and try NOT to repeat that sin. It's not just something you're supposed to take for granted.
It sounds like she's searching, and it would be great if she would be open to the Catholic Church, but not for the 'easy forgiveness' she thinks it might offer her.
unlike the born-agains, NO Catholic was ever taught that you could do as you like and just go to confession. Instead they are taught that, unless there is SINCERE contrition for ones sins, confession is not effective. Unlike the born agains, Catholics do not believe that because Christ died for our sins, He removed all obligation from us to repent and reform.
"Thus, a simple word Hebrew word search is inadequate to help us arrive at the proper meaning of ra in Isaiah 45:7. Fortunately, two tried and true principles are available to us that remove any and all doubt about what Isaiah meant, not in accordance with our pet theories or interpretations of what he meant, but pursuant to an objective standard that would compel any and all rational observers to arrive at the same conclusion."
"The first is context. Isaiah begins chapter 45 with these words: This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him For the sake of my servant Jacob, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. Its evident, then, that the evil God is creating in verse seven is better understood as calamity or disaster. Its a description of the judgment of God on his people achieved through Cyrus."
"This should be enough to convince both skeptic and believer alike that what Isaiah means in verse 7 is best understood by us as calamity or disaster. For the stubborn, however, theres further, undeniable proof that God does not create evil according to Isaiah 45:7. In addition to context, it is important to recognize literary features of a text when they are present. Failure to do so leads to error in interpretation. Applicable to Isaiah 45:7 is a particular Hebrew construction known as parallelism."
"There are several types of parallelism employed by Old Testament authors: synonymous, antithetical, synthetical, stairstep, and emblematic. Isaiah 45:7 is as clear an example of antithetical parallelism as can be found in the OT; without recognizing this fact, it is easy to make the basic error of claiming Isaiah states that God creates evil. Antithetical parallelism describes a relationship between opposites or contrasts. For instance, consider Proverbs 10:16, or any of several other proverbs in chapter 10: The labour of the righteous tendeth to life; the fruit of the wicked to sin."
"This is precisely what occurs in Isaiah 45:7: I make peace, and create evil. What is the opposite of peace? Calamity, turmoil, disaster, warsimilar to what might be delivered by Cyrusbut certainly not evil proper. Hence, the verse is properly translated in modern language as I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. Note the antithetical structure: light/darkness, prosperity/disaster."
"To claim, then, that God creates evil on the basis of Isaiah 45:7 is simply the result of improper Biblical handling, and the equivocation that results from conflation of modern English with 400 year-old KJV English. Despite rumors to the contrary, Biblical interpretation is really not all that nebulous in the overwhelming majorty of cases."
So as we see when we put the verse in context, and with the proper translation of the Hebrew word ra that is used in this passage, God does not create evil. God gives certain of His created beings (angels, men) free will, and makes them aware of the consequences of choosing to rebel against Him, but He does not create the condition that man finds himself in when he chooses to rebel against God.
The serpent that tested Adam and Eve in The Garden seems more logical to me as God, even Himself learning the earliest human resolve of good and evil.
We know from Job 37:16, Psalm 147:5, Isaiah 46:9-10, and 1 John 3:19-20 that God is omniscient and can learn nothing. God knew before He began to create everything that man would choose the darkness over Him. Nothing is a surprise to God; He is all-knowing and nothing is a shock to Him and nothing happens outside His omniscient wisdom. Therefore, He did not "learn" about human resolve, He foreknew what would happen millennia before it did happen.
And we know that God put a curse on Satan for what he had done:
So the LORD God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." (Genesis 3:14)
Did God put a curse on Himself?
God bless you, onedoug.
What is there for an atheist to be guilty about? If there is no God there is no objective right or wrong - everything is permissible. If there is no wrong then how can they feel guilt? Perhaps she should consider that the guilt she feels, the conscience which cries out, is God's word written on her heart. Perhaps it's time to listen to that voice.
I don’t know any like that, but I tend not to get into arguments about Catholics not being real Christians with other Catholics :D
If I meet one though, I’ll be sure to update my “anecdotal evidence” list. I’m not being sarcastic, I really don’t like Christians who behave that way, regardless of denomination, because it’s blatantly against the Bible. When any Christian behaves like that, it gives us all a bad name.
She doesn't know what she's asking for. That forgiveness seems to come with an unexpected gift ... the grace of conversion. It's not about "getting away with anything" ... it's about being washed clean of "anything", turning away from it, and turning toward God.
Yes indeed, Keira ... please keep looking at the Church. It's far better than you think it is.
Very challenging, GN.
While I’m first to admit that I don’t speak Hebrew, I yet have several versions of Torah and Tanach, and a couple of Hebrew dictionaries whereby I’m convinced that “evil” is a satisfying translation.
What you note from Genesis 3:14 has admittedly been pretty knotty for me, and I contemplated it seriously in this morning’s walk.
This is God who “repents” or “regrets” that He had made Man, “...and it grieved Him in His heart”...and “...it repenteth Me that I have made them”(GEN VI,6-7).
God regrets? Yes, I think so, if He made the world with a “slack in the system” (Gerald Schroeder) that allows the differentiation twixt good and evil.
So did the serpent speak? Yes, but only as God could give him the means. Thus in that sense it may well have also been figurative. As one too with an interest in science, I’d wonder that the serpent would incur such divine loathing when objectively there is yet much benefit to reptiles within the overall eco-system. Much more so it would seem than various viruses and bacteria. But then God was making the example from the earliest place in human history, and to so jump ahead of it would likely have caused grave historical damage.
As a side, though related issue, it seems likely that The Bible even mentions dinosaurs by using the same word - tinshemet - for a bird (LEV XI,19) and a reptile (XI,30), which seems significant given ongoing research into taxonomic class linkages.
But, ‘gotta go.
an invisible man in the sky is much more believable than her 89lb fighting female character in Arthur being able to take on multiple 250lb+ guys at the same time and win
...I’m really getting annoyed with this trend in filmmaking, which seems to have an obligatory scene with some woman easily defeating a larger man in hand to hand...it’s a ridiculous theme that is overworked to the bone...and speaking of bones, she’s got plenty on display, and I hear Cleopatra wants her makeup kit back...
I dunno. Most liberals aren’t very pretty.
Afraid her sins are unforgivable. I'll never understand why atheists cling to that totem...
Sounds like a trip to the Confessional might be just the ticket. Certainly she's guilty of bad judgment -- Rupert would **** a coke machine in a hotel lobby...
Someone actually saw that movie. I would have guessed Laz...
You are actually right about that. And the "interview" is such a long and rambling conversation about next to nothing. Singling out one quote from the end and making a fuss about it doesn't do anyone any credit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.