The Pope and "Redemption" for Atheists

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

so even if the mass murder on his last breath accepted Jesus he would be let into the pearly gates with open arms right? Hmm... sounds fishy to me. The only honor of being told to accept a man who was just that, a man, and to claim him as your messiah and believe in an all-mighty being who is supposedly the one controlling everything, to me is a bunch of shtucko. If all it takes for the sheeple to behave the way they should is an almighty god who will send them to the fiery pits of hell (and by the way it is him that sends you don't let your priests and pastors lie) then so be it. I'm sorry I've grown up without god in my life but I still act as a sensible and caring human being.

Kinda throws a wrench in the bible doesn't it? when people aren't following christ but still act the way you should.

He must not only accept, he must be truly repentant, truly remorseful, truly willing to make up for it. Even then, there will still be a price for it. God is in full control, yes, and he does allow people to be sent to hell. He does not, however, damn you to hell. And no it doesn't throw a wrench into the bible. You don't need to follow the bible to be a decent human being. It wasn't an individual who damned man to hell, it was all of us. We brung hell into ourselves long ago, and Jesus payed the ultimate price to ensure our chance at Heaven. You can be a good guy and not a Christian, but by not accepting, by not believing in that ultimate sacrifice, you will go to hell because it was mankind as a whole that was damned.

 

[utael]

So I'm paying for the sins of my fathers? seems reasonable to me, Specially newborns who have done nothing in this world. Yep they are going to hell because they haven't seen the light of Jesus. Sorry when you take a step back and look at Christianity as whole its just a large cult. I have no issues helping those who are less fortunate but to do it in the name of someone else is just plain stupid. Cults do the same thing. "here drink this wine, its the blood of Christ, oh eat this bread to its his body." Sorry that's very cultist. What gets me the most is the bible spouting preachers who pick and choose the scripture. Sorry according to your own religion you can't do that.

I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you won't convince me otherwise either. Many more christ educated people than you have tried and failed.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

It defeats the entire purpose of Christianity. Jesus is the only way into heaven, because he became the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. You don't accept that he made that sacrifice for us, no amount of good deeds is going to open the pearly gates. I don't see eye to eye with most of the catholic church very often, and I think this is, while examined basically as good, is bad for the church because they are trying to please everyone. They may be putting some people, like you all whom I regard with the utmost respect, at ease, but they are going to pi** off people who were originally their home team. By denying the most fundamental aspect of Chrisitanity, they show themselves to be very hypocritical, and makes me question exactly how strong their faith is.

Just my two cents.

Pope Francis' stance in favor of good works vs the primacy of faith isn't new at all. It's been a cornerstone of the Jesuit philosophy since they were created, and an integral part of Catholicism. This has constituted a fundamental difference between Catholicism (which has historically argued in favor of the necessity of 'good works') and Protestantism (which argues that 'justification is by faith alone') since the Reformation.

Protestants will quote Paul: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works" (Eph 2:8-9).

Catholics will quote James: "14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14-17)

As an atheist born into a solidly Catholic family, I have familiarity with the doctrines, but haven't followed the Church closely. It's my understanding that the Church has been moving toward greater and greater ecumenicalism. However, I do not believe that Catholics (much less Jesuits) have abandoned the fundamental emphasis on good works. If someone more active and educated in Catholic doctrine wants to educate me, I'd be happy to be corrected.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

So I'm paying for the sins of my fathers? seems reasonable to me, Specially newborns who have done nothing in this world. Yep they are going to hell because they haven't seen the light of Jesus. Sorry when you take a step back and look at Christianity as whole its just a large cult. I have no issues helping those who are less fortunate but to do it in the name of someone else is just plain stupid. Cults do the same thing. "here drink this wine, its the blood of Christ, oh eat this bread to its his body." Sorry that's very cultist. What gets me the most is the bible spouting preachers who pick and choose the scripture. Sorry according to your own religion you can't do that.

I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you won't convince me otherwise either. Many more christ educated people than you have tried and failed.

A baby is born pure and innocent. They will not be judged the same as a man. Priests pick and choose scriptures (the good ones) to send a message that truly helps people. Ever heard of a false prophet? You're looking at all of the evil and none of the good. Religion doesn't poison everything, everything poisons religion. And yes, you will pay for the sins of mankind if you do not accept Jesus's sacrifice. You don't have to like it, just know that you will.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Pope Francis' stance in favor of good works vs the primacy of faith isn't new at all. It's been a cornerstone of the Jesuit philosophy since they were created, and an integral part of Catholicism. This has constituted a fundamental difference between Catholicism (which has historically argued in favor of the necessity of 'good works') and Protestantism (which argues that 'justification is by faith alone') since the Reformation.

Protestants will quote Paul: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works" (Eph 2:8-9).

Catholics will quote James: "14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14-17)

As an atheist born into a solidly Catholic family, I have familiarity with the doctrines, but haven't followed the Church closely. It's my understanding that the Church has been moving toward greater and greater ecumenicalism. However, I do not believe that Catholics (much less Jesuits) have abandoned the fundamental emphasis on good works. If someone more active and educated in Catholic doctrine wants to educate me, I'd be happy to be corrected.

Pope Francis' stance in favor of good works vs the primacy of faith isn't new at all. It's been a cornerstone of the Jesuit philosophy since they were created, and an integral part of Catholicism. This has constituted a fundamental difference between Catholicism (which has historically argued in favor of the necessity of 'good works') and Protestantism (which argues that 'justification is by faith alone') since the Reformation.

Protestants will quote Paul: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works" (Eph 2:8-9).

Catholics will quote James: "14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14-17)

As an atheist born into a solidly Catholic family, I have familiarity with the doctrines, but haven't followed the Church closely. It's my understanding that the Church has been moving toward greater and greater ecumenicalism. However, I do not believe that Catholics (much less Jesuits) have abandoned the fundamental emphasis on good works. If someone more active and educated in Catholic doctrine wants to educate me, I'd be happy to be corrected.

Quite sure you have me one upped as to the going ons of the Catholic Church.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

What Francis is sayings isn't entirely new. Paul VI didn't go quite as far so directly but he still believed that atheists' moral strivings were a manifestation of God's will, not that they were incapable of any sort of morality without faith, as so many Protestants seem to teach.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...uments/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_en.html

As I noted above, the Jesuits' strong emphasis upon good works, particularly helping the poor, has been a hallmark of their order for several hundred years. Again, not new.

While I'm unhappy to see a pope still beholden to conservative doctrine on a number of very important social issues (homosexuality as sin, denial of ordination of women or use of birth control), Francis' unapologetic denunciation of the awful effects of unfettered capitalism on the lives of the poor is much needed, and I applaud it wholeheartedly.

 

[utael]

A baby is born pure and innocent. They will not be judged the same as a man.

snip...

Not according to the catholic church which requires baptism in order to be saved. Sorry not going to argue that one with you, I've had too many conversations with priests about it.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

snip...

Not according to the catholic church which requires baptism in order to be saved. Sorry not going to argue that one with you, I've had too many conversations with priests about it.

Oh, yeah. There is that.

I thought, though, that Protestants believed in the doctrine of original sin as well.

 

[Medea]

My view on it is this:

The Bible isn't supposed to be open for interpretation. You either have to believe in everything the Bible says, or you're calling God a liar. Religious leaders are desperate to attract more followers (especially younger folks) in modern civilized society, because let's face it, a lot of stuff in the Bible is just insane and has no place in a civilized world. Therefore, they are breaking their own rules, and faltering in their own faith, in order to progress as society has. Otherwise, they will fall behind and eventually be forgotten.

According to the Bible, these religious leaders are false prophets. There are no exceptions in Christianity. The only way to achieve salvation is through Christ. Not even the "infallible" Pope can make such exceptions.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

My view on it is this:

The Bible isn't supposed to be open for interpretation. You either have to believe in everything the Bible says, or you're calling God a liar. Religious leaders are desperate to attract more followers (especially younger folks) in modern civilized society, because let's face it, a lot of stuff in the Bible is just insane and has no place in a civilized world. Therefore, they are breaking their own rules, and faltering in their own faith, in order to progress as society has. Otherwise, they will fall behind and eventually be forgotten.

According to the Bible, these religious leaders are false prophets. There are no exceptions in Christianity. The only way to achieve salvation is through Christ. Not even the "infallible" Pope can make such exceptions.

Or, you can look at the Bible the way you might look at the US Constitution, as a living document that is open to interpretation, depending on the times, the culture, and technological developments.

There is certainly a very long tradition of rabbinic interpretation of ancient texts. Since Yahweh is a Hebrew god, I don't see why this tradition must be abandoned in favor of an extremely strict interpretation of every letter of texts associated with his worship.

 

[Janus3003]

And yes, you will pay for the sins of mankind if you do not accept Jesus's sacrifice.

Wait, the sins of mankind? I've never heard that before. I've read that you pay for your own sins, but not all of humanity's.

And personally, I'm cool with the Pope's statements on this (even if you could argue he's breaking his religion's doctrine). But I'm also a believer that God's pretty much going to bend over backwards as much as He can to get us into Heaven, in this life and the next (not to mention my belief that judgment will be based on how we lived in accordance with what we actually knew of Him).

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

snip...

Not according to the catholic church which requires baptism in order to be saved. Sorry not going to argue that one with you, I've had too many conversations with priests about it.

Maybe in catholicism, but Baptism is a way to make the fact that you were saved public.

My view on it is this:

The Bible isn't supposed to be open for interpretation. You either have to believe in everything the Bible says, or you're calling God a liar. Religious leaders are desperate to attract more followers (especially younger folks) in modern civilized society, because let's face it, a lot of stuff in the Bible is just insane and has no place in a civilized world. Therefore, they are breaking their own rules, and faltering in their own faith, in order to progress as society has. Otherwise, they will fall behind and eventually be forgotten.

According to the Bible, these religious leaders are false prophets. There are no exceptions in Christianity. The only way to achieve salvation is through Christ. Not even the "infallible" Pope can make such exceptions.

I respect your views. No one has to do anything, they just have to pay for the consequences of their actions. And of course Religious leaders want to attract more followers of their religion. What religion wouldn't? In Christianities case, they believe they are saving them from the fiery pits of hell. No where near a lot of things in the bible are insane. That is pure opinion and a matter of your prespective. To say it has no place in a civilized world is just false, because without a higher standard to be held to, there would be nothing to keep people from commiting heinous crimes. No fear of the afterlife. Not everyone is breaking their own rules. Just that the people that do attract the most attention.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Wait, the sins of mankind? I've never heard that before. I've read that you pay for your own sins, but not all of humanity's.

And personally, I'm cool with the Pope's statements on this (even if you could argue he's breaking his religion's doctrine). But I'm also a believer that God's pretty much going to bend over backwards as much as He can to get us into Heaven, in this life and the next (not to mention my belief that judgment will be based on how we lived in accordance with what we actually knew of Him).

Look, Jesus had to come down and die for OUR sins because at the time the majority (if not all) of mankind was... well going to go to hell. Why do you think a person must accept his sacrifice to make it to heaven, despite all of their deeds?

 

[Janus3003]

My point is the whole "you pay for mankind's sins" thing. I've never seen anyone put it that way (especially since Christ already paid that price and there's no reason or way for you to do that yourself), and I was curious why you believe that.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Wait, the sins of mankind? I've never heard that before. I've read that you pay for your own sins, but not all of humanity's.

And personally, I'm cool with the Pope's statements on this (even if you could argue he's breaking his religion's doctrine). But I'm also a believer that God's pretty much going to bend over backwards as much as He can to get us into Heaven, in this life and the next (not to mention my belief that judgment will be based on how we lived in accordance with what we actually knew of Him).

My understanding. You pay for your own sins. However, if you are unbaptized, Christ's sanctifying grace is not available to you. So --> Hell. If you are baptized, you still suffer under the effects of concupiscence -- your innately sinful nature -- but you can benefit from salvation through Christ even so.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

My point is the whole "you pay for mankind's sins" thing. I've never seen anyone put it that way (especially since Christ already paid that price and there's no reason or way for you to do that yourself), and I was curious why you believe that.

My words may have been hastily chosen, but at that point in time humanity was on the fast track to hell. Jesus becomes the ultimate pure sacrifice, and accepting that sacrifice "saves" is from hell. He takes our sins upon himself and forgives us.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

My understanding. You pay for your own sins. However, if you are unbaptized, Christ's sanctifying grace is not available to you. So --> Hell. If you are baptized, you still suffer under the effects of concupiscence -- your innately sinful nature -- but you can benefit from salvation through Christ even so.

I agree with you on most of it, but I'm not Catholic. Being Babtized is a public display of the fact that you have asked Jesus into your heart and been saved. Muddle and befuddle! Yes we do pay for our own sins! If we don't accept Jesus as savior our sins will remain unforgiven and we go to hell. I made a poor choice of words, but mankind was, mostly, at the time, going to hell. Jesus saved us. We don't accept it, we go to hell. I made a poor choice of words because I'm not exactly a seasoned debater, and kinda got... muddled and befuddled in my thought processes. We cool?

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

I agree with you on most of it, but I'm not Catholic. Being Babtized is a public display of the fact that you have asked Jesus into your heart and been saved. Muddle and befuddle! Yes we do pay for our own sins! If we don't accept Jesus as savior our sins will remain unforgiven and we go to hell. I made a poor choice of words, but mankind was, mostly, at the time, going to hell. Jesus saved us. We don't accept it, we go to hell. I made a poor choice of words because I'm not exactly a seasoned debater, and kinda got... muddled and befuddled in my thought processes. We cool?

I'm not disagreeing with you, actually. Your terminology wasn't standard, but I think I got what you were saying.

As for the necessity of baptism....

"Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

"Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283)."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism

And here, the question is addressed, and offers perhaps the most succinct explanation:

"Now what happens to infants who die unbaptized? The answer to this question has not been revealed by God; however, we can be confident in God's justice and mercy that they are not condemned to hell. The "Limbo of Children" is theological speculation and has not been defined as doctrine by the Church.

"It must be rightfully understood that we are saved by grace - a free gift from God due to Christ's death on the cross (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8). We are not merely saved by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior (Matt 7:21-23). Our faith in Christ, our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, our good works and our repentance of personal sins are the fruits of actual grace - God working through us but respecting our free will (Phil 2:12-13; John 15:5; 2 Cor 6:1). Through baptism we are born again by receiving sanctifying grace which makes us right with God (1 Cor 6:11). Whether we are baptized as adults or our parents baptized us as infants, salvation is still a free gift - an inheritance (1Cor 6:9-10)."

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/sacraments/baptism-infants-and-salvation/

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

I'm not disagreeing with you, actually. Your terminology wasn't standard, but I think I got what you were saying.

As for the necessity of baptism....

"Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

"Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283)."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism

And here, the question is addressed, and offers perhaps the most succinct explanation:

"Now what happens to infants who die unbaptized? The answer to this question has not been revealed by God; however, we can be confident in God's justice and mercy that they are not condemned to hell. The "Limbo of Children" is theological speculation and has not been defined as doctrine by the Church.

"It must be rightfully understood that we are saved by grace - a free gift from God due to Christ's death on the cross (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8). We are not merely saved by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior (Matt 7:21-23). Our faith in Christ, our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, our good works and our repentance of personal sins are the fruits of actual grace - God working through us but respecting our free will (Phil 2:12-13; John 15:5; 2 Cor 6:1). Through baptism we are born again by receiving sanctifying grace which makes us right with God (1 Cor 6:11). Whether we are baptized as adults or our parents baptized us as infants, salvation is still a free gift - an inheritance (1Cor 6:9-10)."

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/sacraments/baptism-infants-and-salvation/

I don't know of the difference in our views is the difference in our denomination, or of I'm just misinformed. I always dislike classifying Christians as seperate denominations though. What I've already said remains to be what I stand by. I don't think I need to repeat it. However, I will be double checking and researching my outlook more. This was an awesome debate, and I learned a lot from it. For that I thank all of you, but regretfully (idk if some of you feel the same way, might be breathing a sigh of relief) I cannot debate forever. Be satisfied that your opinions and points of view did not fall on deaf ears, and I will look into everything that I can.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

I don't know of the difference in our views is the difference in our denomination, or of I'm just misinformed. I always dislike classifying Christians as seperate denominations though. What I've already said remains to be what I stand by. I don't think I need to repeat it. However, I will be double checking and researching my outlook more. This was an awesome debate, and I learned a lot from it. For that I thank all of you, but regretfully (idk if some of you feel the same way, might be breathing a sigh of relief) I cannot debate forever. Be satisfied that your opinions and points of view did not fall on deaf ears, and I will look into everything that I can.

I'm an atheist, Gid. So I haven't offered my personal opinion on matters of 'salvation' at all, just my opinions on what I believe my parents' church taught as doctrine. And I'm certainly not suggesting that you're wrong or incorrect or misinformed about anything. I could be wrong about everything I believe. I could be a brain in a vat. But that's another debate.