• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"Hey, atheists! You can go to heaven too!" - The Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I don't even understand what an "internet atheist" as an insult means anymore. It's like.... If someone is not impressed or flattered that the pope says these things, they're an internet atheist, and the bad kind?

Because making fun of silly theological statements is only acceptable when it is directed towards people who are openly hateful. Otherwise it makes you a fat neckbeard living in the basement of your mom.

Nobody cares that the catholic church is still the catholic church and acts accordingly, with real-world consequences. As long as the pope looks like a gentle old uncle on TV, most people seem to be perfectly satisfied. Who cares about the churches official statements or current policies. Nobody cares to read them before joinig the media in their feel-good circle-jerk.
 
to me it's the sort of atheist that delights in just sitting on believers simply for believing.

people should be treated with respect unless they're just complete fucking assholes. it's much more productive to attack bad ideas and intellectual dishonesty. which is there is plenty of from both theists and atheists.

Well said.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
to me it's the sort of atheist that delights in just sitting on believers simply for believing.

people should be treated with respect unless they're just complete fucking assholes. it's much more productive to attack bad ideas and intellectual dishonesty. which is there is plenty of from both theists and atheists.

I think this a completely different outlook than mine. I come into discussions on the internet to be challenged. I'm seeing people in this thread challenging this thing as an empty and pointless gesture, in the face of ideologies that are causing real and permanent harm. Rather than engaging these challenges in any real way, I've seen like 7-8 neckbeard/rAtheism references.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I feel like this sort of vapid response is a blight, and one that seems to be getting worse here. If someone says something you don't like, engage them if it matters to you.
 

Euron

Member
Gonna go out on a limb here and say most conservatives are protestants who don't care. Only catholic president ever was Kennedy.
Many Catholics are single-issue voters at least where I'm from (Northeast). From what I've experienced, most of my family as well as many Catholics from my home town associate themselves with the Republican Party on the basis of being Pro-Life.

But if you look past abortion, a shitload of Catholics choose to be Democrats. Specifically because that's where many Catholic teachings line up more. Jesuits in particular are very progressive and against many of the core "values" that represent many modern conservatives.
 
Because making fun of silly theological statements is only acceptable when it is directed towards people who are openly hateful. Otherwise it makes you a fat neckbeard living in the basement of your mom.

Nobody cares that the catholic church is still the catholic church and acts accordingly, with real-world consequences. As long as the pope looks like a gentle old uncle on TV, most people seem to be perfectly satisfied. Who cares about the churches official statements or current policies. Nobody cares to read them before joinig the media in their feel-good circle-jerk.

He's a damn good PR guy if I ever saw one. Pedophiles being removed from where they harmed children and being placed somewhere else in the world to hurt more children instead of seeing any actual justice? Doesn't matter, the Pope said something semi-progressive.

The crazy thing is, it actually works. Or I guess it's not crazy, it's just depressingly obvious that it'll work.
 

Mentat

Banned
to me it's the sort of atheist that delights in just sitting on believers simply for believing.

people should be treated with respect unless they're just complete fucking assholes. it's much more productive to attack bad ideas and intellectual dishonesty. which is there is plenty of from both theists and atheists.

Attacking bad ideas and intellectual honesty is exactly what "internet atheists" do. Religious people don't "simply believe", they believe based on bad evidence, and then are offended when this gets pointed out. The more intellectually honest religious believers will then attempt to defend their beliefs; the less honest ones will quip about fedoras and post pictures of neckbeards.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
to me it's the sort of atheist that delights in just sitting on believers simply for believing.

If the thing they are believing is that people like me will deservedly suffer for eternity for not believing in an outrageous claim, then they frankly deserve the mockery. Interestingly, the post for which I received all these memes does little more than summarize exactly that outrageous claim, which I am supposed to accept to not deserve eternal suffering (of whatever theological flavor you might prefer it to be).

And the pope did actually confirm this stance in his statement. Despite the thread's title, atheists can only be "saved" if they "go to him with a sincere and contrite heart". In other words: you can be forgiven if you become a believer after having lived an ethical life with no faith.

Similarly, he is not judging gay people because the fact of being gay in itself is not sinful—just as the official catholic doctrine has stated for decades. Ask him if he is not going to judge people who have gay sex with each other and enjoy it, and you might very likely get a less comforting answer. But most people are simply uninformed and think that he actually said something novel.

People can read this all up in the churches catechism which codifies its official positions. And in this respect, the pope is a conservative catholic. As I wrote, most people do not care about these details and, hence, are perfectly happy with applauding headlines.
 
This is in the Bible long before the Pope was born, i forget the verse but the bible basically say, even those who don't serve God will be given a chance, God can read the hearts of man and he knows which atheist are good people, but your chance to inherit heaven won't come without test, those that fail will die..

PS:Not everyone who currently believes in God will go to heaven, while they believe their heart is black..
 

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
I shall not mock the media's response to this pope when he finally abandons the catholic church's atrocious positions on contraceptives, especially considering the damage they cause in places like central Africa, or does similar things on that scope. Until then, this "euphoria" with every non-confrontational vague statement this pope makes seems superficial and naive to me.

Conversely, voicing a vague position on catholic doctrine is pretty much irrelevant for the addressed audience. "Hey you guys who don't believe in that stuff anyway, you can get the goodies at the end of the tunnel too!". What other response than mild mockery is there to expect?

Because making fun of silly theological statements is only acceptable when it is directed towards people who are openly hateful. Otherwise it makes you a fat neckbeard living in the basement of your mom.

Nobody cares that the catholic church is still the catholic church and acts accordingly, with real-world consequences. As long as the pope looks like a gentle old uncle on TV, most people seem to be perfectly satisfied. Who cares about the churches official statements or current policies. Nobody cares to read them before joinig the media in their feel-good circle-jerk.

You're taking this WAY too seriously, just relax, you sound like such an elitist.
 

statham

Member
I'm 99% atheist, but I find myself praying just in case in certain situations, so If I'm wrong, its nice to know I still have a in. Eternal Hell would suck.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
to me it's the sort of atheist that delights in just sitting on believers simply for believing.

people should be treated with respect unless they're just complete fucking assholes. it's much more productive to attack bad ideas and intellectual dishonesty. which is there is plenty of from both theists and atheists.

That's reasonable but a retort could be "well can I avoid taxes for running an atheist business"

Religion, morally and ethically applied can be a wonderful and positive thing. But it's abused enough by politicians and scams to be a reasonable cause for concern. Not religion per se but how it's abused and warped. A couple of annoying atheists on a forum doesn't really come close to overpopulation, terrorism and genocide.
 

mantidor

Member
I'm 99% atheist, but I find myself praying just in case in certain situations, so If I'm wrong, its nice to know I still have a in. Eternal Hell would suck.

You don't even need to pray, just being a good person with a conscience is enough! that's all there is to it.

It's ok if people are atheists, I am an atheist, but some of the posts here just make me shake my head.
 
I'm 99% atheist, but I find myself praying just in case in certain situations, so If I'm wrong, its nice to know I still have a in. Eternal Hell would suck.

I don't think your plan would work. Maybe they'll give you a cookie or a lighter soft-core version of hell or something for trying though, so keep at it.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
You don't even need to pray, just being a good person with a conscience is enough! that's all there is to it.

You might want to read the pope's statement again. Because that it is not what he said.
 
My grandma is gonna be so goddamn happy. I can finally be allowed back at the kitchen table.

tumblr_m7ahglvihH1r9p706o1_r1_500.gif
 

Coreda

Member
Misleading title, the Pope isn't quoted as saying that. Just a diplomatic response.

I've never met a Christian/Catholic that thought anyone can go to heaven by following their conscience. Runs contrary to their core belief.
 

explodet

Member
I want to go to Atheist Heaven
It's just a subdivision of regular Heaven, but God shows up every once in a while to rub it in a little.

And of course Atheist Hell is just like regular Hell except Toby gets to visit and call everyone a right bunch of Charlies.
 
This isn't a new line of thought from the Catholic Church.

In Catholicism, the voice of God is your conscience. An atheist guided by their conscience is being guided by the voice of God.
 

hipbabboom

Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
It's not like being an atheist automatically makes you better at reading comprehension so I ain't even mad.
 

Mariolee

Member
I shall not mock the media's response to this pope when he finally abandons the catholic church's atrocious positions on contraceptives, especially considering the damage they cause in places like central Africa, or does similar things on that scope. Until then, this "euphoria" with every non-confrontational vague statement this pope makes seems superficial and naive to me.

Conversely, voicing a vague position on catholic doctrine is pretty much irrelevant for the addressed audience. "Hey you guys who don't believe in that stuff anyway, you can get the goodies at the end of the tunnel too!". What other response than mild mockery is there to expect?

I don't think the Pope is really trying to earn credit or using this as some sort of marketing scheme to get atheists to go to the Catholic side. Is it too much to believe that this is honestly his opinion of it all and that the only reason he is voicing it is because he was directly asked?

Because making fun of silly theological statements is only acceptable when it is directed towards people who are openly hateful. Otherwise it makes you a fat neckbeard living in the basement of your mom.

Nobody cares that the catholic church is still the catholic church and acts accordingly, with real-world consequences. As long as the pope looks like a gentle old uncle on TV, most people seem to be perfectly satisfied. Who cares about the churches official statements or current policies. Nobody cares to read them before joinig the media in their feel-good circle-jerk.

I think the issue that many people have with posts such as the ones that are begin criticized in this thread is that the posts are critical without any sort of intellectual humility. People that make these posts put up strawmen and knock them down proudly forgoing any sort of respect for the thousands of years of theological and philosophical study that have been accrued. For example, let's look at your original post:

I am hesitant to applaud people for becoming a bit less batshit crazy than before. I'd like to think that non-insanity should be the default state of people, not something that is an accomplishment.

It's not really humanity's most impressive achievement to realize that it is a bad idea to tell people that they are going to suffer for eternity, simply for not believing on insufficient evidence that a volcano god sacrificed himself to himself, so that this blood sacrifice would override a cosmic rule he himself set up, which condemns everyone on earth to eternal suffering, just because an alleged ancient ancestor of all humans dared to acquire capabilities for ethical reasoning, unless you symbolically accept that blood sacrifice and eat the literal body of that god every Sunday morning.

The way you summarized the basic tenets of Christianity at least through the lens of Catholicism is as ridiculous as fundamentalist Christians who say atheism is basically "everything came from nothing lol". I am not a Catholic so I cannot personally dissect and reply to your argument for the ridiculousness of Christianity as I have for other arguments in other threads (although admittedly not as well as an actual theologian could) but in essence the lack of respect is what people are responding negatively to. Am I saying you can't respond like this? Of course not, it's your basic human right, but it's also within our rights to criticize you for being ruthless without substance.
 
You're taking this WAY too seriously, just relax, you sound like such an elitist.

Elitist? Taking it too seriously? The Catholic Church only becomes more progressive when people either force them to be or when their believer base starts being more progressive due to changes within societies brought on by people who want to see the changes. Apparently, the people who start the changes tend to be what you'd consider "elitists" who "take it too seriously".

I'm not saying ElTorro is gonna change anything, but it's the mindset of "being tired of the Catholic Church getting away with atrocities" that gets people to change things. Right now, too many people are looking the other way because the Pope seems like a nice guy. Nobody's going to hold the pedophiles responsible (and that shit's gonna keep continuing because there's NO CONSEQUENCES for doing it) and the anti-contraceptive BS in Central Africa is going to keep continuing if people don't start taking those issues seriously.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I think the issue that many people have with posts such as the ones that are begin criticized in this thread is that the posts are critical without any sort of intellectual humility. People that make these posts put up strawmen and knock them down proudly forgoing any sort of respect for the thousands of years of theological and philosophical study that have been accrued. For example, let's look at your original post:

The way you summarized the basic tenets of Christianity at least through the lens of Catholicism is as ridiculous as fundamentalist Christians who say atheism is basically "everything came from nothing lol". I am not a Catholic so I cannot personally dissect and reply to your argument for the ridiculousness of Christianity as I have for other arguments in other threads (although admittedly not as well as an actual theologian could) but in essence the lack of respect is what people are responding negatively to. Am I saying you can't respond like this? Of course not, it's your basic human right, but it's also within our rights to criticize you for being ruthless without substance.

So you say that you are not a catholic and don't feel like you can adequately dissect my post, yet you claim that I lack intellectual humility, lack substance, and built a straw man about the catholic concepts of salvation? Sorry, this is a bit silly.

I have read quite a lot of literature written by theologians, including catholic theologians, as well as the catholic catechism. I've read a lot of scholarly interpretations of the concepts of sin and salvation. And I can assure you, the only unnecessary jab in my post was the mention of a "volcano god", because that is a purely historical fact about the origins of JHWH, and not catholic doctrine. Everything else is accurate.

It seems to me that you are having a emotional response to a post that handles outrageous religious doctrine with the same level of mockery that is commonly accepted in the context of, let's say, Republican politics. I am offended when somebody tells me that I deserve eternal suffering unless I accept the doctrine that I have summarized. So should everybody else who hasn't been accustomed to Christian doctrine because he/she was brought up in that culture.
 

ShowDog

Member
This shit isn't that complicated. You die and God is like, "Yo are you gonna believe in me now or you still think I don't exist?" and as long as you like "aight God it's all good" you're in. If an atheist encountered God after death and still denied his ass, well, the Pope is saying there's still time to rethink that shit before you croak.
 

Mariolee

Member
So you say that you are not a catholic, yet you claim that I lack intellectual humility, lack substance, and built a straw man about the catholic concepts of salvation? Sorry, this is a bit silly.

I have read quite a lot of literature written by theologians, including catholic theologians, as well as the catholic catechism. I've read a lot of scholarly interpretations of the concepts of sin and salvation. And I can assure you, the only unnecessary jab in my post was the mention of a "volcano god", because that is a purely historical fact about the origins of JHWH, and not catholic doctrine. Everything else is accurate.

It seems to me that you are having a emotional response to a post that handles outrageous religious doctrine with the same level of mockery that is commonly accepted in the context of, let's say, Republican politics. I am offended when somebody tells me that I deserve eternal suffering unless I accept the doctrine that I have summarized. So should everybody else who hasn't been accustomed to Christian doctrine because he/she was brought up in that culture.

That's a fair enough criticism of my stance as I suppose I'm trying to argue for Catholicism through a protestant worldview which doesn't really work out too well I admit. I too shouldn't have stated that your argument lacked substance, so I apologize. However, as far as I can tell about myself, I'm not really having any real emotional response. I'm just trying to analyze why people are responding negatively to your posts.

There's not much I can do to continue with this discussion since I am not personally familiar with Catholicism but with the claim that you've stated the summary you had in your original post do you believe the average Catholic scholar agree (aside from the "volcano god" comment which you admit is not part of the Catholic doctrine) with everything you stated since it is based in your extensive studies? Maybe scholar might be too much, but if I even just posted this in the Catholic subreddit, would there be any substantial push back with any alternative reasonable interpretations of the same doctrine?

I'm interested in bringing up your summary with some of my more Catholic friends as well as some priests I know as I'd love to learn more about it.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
to me it's the sort of atheist that delights in just sitting on believers simply for believing.

people should be treated with respect unless they're just complete fucking assholes. it's much more productive to attack bad ideas and intellectual dishonesty. which is there is plenty of from both theists and atheists.
Believing something without thought or question is kinda dangerous.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I'm interested in bringing up your summary with some of my more Catholic friends as well as some priests I know as I'd love to learn more about it.

I accept the veiled challenge. In the following, I unpack my statement and reference the catholic catechism to give evidence that what I wrote actually represents catholic doctrine. I do not claim that the referenced passages are the best, since the concepts appear almost literally everywhere throughout the document, but the ones that I give work nonetheless.


"god sacrificed himself to himself"

This statement contains a reference to the concept of the trinity, which states that god is one god in "three persons", namely The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. So the sacrificed Jesus and the Father who received the sacrifice are the same person. No controversy here in using "himself to himself".

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.


"so that this blood sacrifice would override a cosmic rule he himself set up, which condemns everyone on earth to eternal suffering"

This statement contains the claim that The Son was sacrificed to The Father in order to override a cosmic rule which he himself set up. That rule is the mechanism of sin. Several parts of the catholic catechism document this, for instance:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM

It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,The sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

The pasion of The Son is basically the Christian modification of the Jewish ritual of Yom Kippur ("The goat for Azazel"), which works similarly. In the Christian version, Christ is the ultimate "lamb", because only this sacrifice is powerful enough for "universal redemption".

Also, the consequence of rejecting salvation is eternal suffering:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.


"just because an alleged ancient ancestor of all humans dared to acquire capabilities for ethical reasoning",

This is a reference to The Fall and the concept of Original Sin.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin", by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."


"unless you symbolically accept that blood sacrifice and eat the literal body of that god every Sunday morning."

This references that salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ as mediator between god and humanity.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Also, the catholic church stresses that their sacraments are necessary for salvation.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P33.HTM

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. the Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

In the sacrament of the Eucharist catholics are receiving the literal body of Christ, following the doctrine of transsubstantiation.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
 

Flo_Evans

Member
I'm actually starting to think this pope is Jesus. Not in the literal sense that he is the son of God returned to earth, but in the sense that he is reforming and bringing more people into the church by preaching common fucking sense. Laying down moral guidelines for the 21st century and being an alright dude.
 
Believing something without thought or question is kinda dangerous.

Well, you have to preface this with the idea that beliefs inform actions (which I believe they do). A lot of people think beliefs are just things that they have that are completely harmless, but they often aren't in certain circumstances and they often lead to bad actions or a lack of action.

I'm actually starting to think this pope is Jesus. Not in the literal sense that he is the son of God returned to earth, but in the sense that he is reforming and bringing more people into the church by preaching common fucking sense. Laying down moral guidelines for the 21st century and being an alright dude.

The problem is, the church as a whole isn't the Pope and they're doing things that go against common sense which is the entire problem that's been discussed in the thread. It's part of the reason why I don't like the Pope. He's a great PR guy and he's getting people who've either left the church to come back or who've never been Catholics to convert because of what he's saying, but he's not doing anything to make the church any better. He's drawing in people with hopes of change without actually changing things.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”

I love how predictable this is. Every time the Pope says something cool and progressive, a Catholic authority or a spokesperson for the Vatican has to re-confirm for the world he's still a conservative. That says a lot about the ridiculousness of much of the faith to think such kind and giving sentiments are somehow anti-Catholic to the point that it must be reiterated the Pope is "conservative."

Hell, they even trot out the "he is seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world" thing a few times already before.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
By the way, I find it interesting that believers repeatedly take it as an insult when you do nothing to little more than summarize their own positions objectively.
 
I'm not a Christian, but archetypally/mythologically the role of Christ is basically that of "the redeemer", and that seems like it's basically the heart of Christian views and doctrine. Christianity seems to present the view that people have an infinite capacity for redemption, so the idea that non-Christians can be saved as well really doesn't seem very out there to me.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I'm not a Christian, but archetypally/mythologically the role of Christ is basically that of "the redeemer", and consequently Christianity seems to present the view that people have an infinite capacity for redemption, so the idea that non-Christians can be saved too really doesn't seem very out there to me.

Yes. Many people confuse redemption with salvation. According to doctrine, Christ' sacrifice provided universal redemption. But in order to receive salvation, one has to "accept" his sacrifice. Otherwise you're going straight to hell. And interestingly, the one sin that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So I am utterly fucked.
 
I'm gonna play devil's advocate (lol) and say, it is for people who genuinely want to worship a god they believe in?
Well that sounds stupid!

People like community, and if you're working towards something, having people striving towards the same thing can be good.

It's why there are secular, humanist communities that look a lot like churches.
 
Yes. Many people confuse redemption with salvation. According to doctrine, Christ' sacrifice provided universal redemption. But in order to receive salvation, one has to "accept" his sacrifice. Otherwise you're going straight to hell.

Yeah, I think that's pretty straight forward if you're not being too literal, which unfortunately I think is kind of the problem with Christianity a lot of the time. Since we have these books ("The Word of God"), people seem to become very legalistic, that is focusing on the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. What if accepting Christ's sacrifice is just recognizing a need for redemption, or does it have to come clothed in robes and going by the name of Jesus? The latter seems too much like some kind of arbitrary magic recipe or spell, isn't it the sincerity of intent or the full-hearted recognition that we need 'saving' (through Christ, or just the possibility of goodness) that should matter?
 

antonz

Member
I love how predictable this is. Every time the Pope says something cool and progressive, a Catholic authority or a spokesperson for the Vatican has to re-confirm for the world he's still a conservative. That says a lot about the ridiculousness of much of the faith to think such kind and giving sentiments are somehow anti-Catholic to the point that it must be reiterated the Pope is "conservative."

Hell, they even trot out the "he is seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world" thing a few times already before.


The Media has loved to try and paint Francis as some Revolutionary trying to shake the church to its foundation. Morons take the media at face value. Francis follows almost step for step the ideology of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Francis has the charisma like John Paul II. Benedict was a Book nerd Theologian who lacked Charisma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom