Pope Francis says Atheists Can Be saved..

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

I see.....so God himself takes the punishment for our sins and we're going to tell him we don't like "his way"?

That only works for people who believe in The Trinity.

Many do not.

I find it hard to believe that God, anyone's God, would deny someone salvation because they didn't "believe right."

Good people are good people - doesn't matter if they are Trinity believers or not.

Buddists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims - they can all qualify as worthy of salvation, redemption, heaven, whatever you want to call it.

When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He replied: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:37

He didn't say, "Love me," He said, "Love God," and immediately after that He said, "Love your neigbor."

Virtually all religions have some variation on this, the "Golden Rule."

Seems that even Jesus thought it was the second most important rule to follow.

Far more important than who you're sleeping with or if you're taking steps to prevent pregnancy or have the ability to regurgitate canon law by way of cut and paste.

It probably also precludes calling people "ignorant."

 

[RI Patriots fan]

"The good that we do" is not because we should do good or do anything for our fellow man. It's to get the goodies.

That's what I meant.

But I accept that you've moved the goalposts to "redemption of all mankind."

Of course, that begs the question of why one does good at all, since you don't get much bigger than "redemption of all mankind." According to your formulation, doing good acts sort of like corrective lenses, and once we do enough meaningless good, we get close enough that we can get "redeemed" at the holy ticket booth or somesuch.

Then we get the goodies.

But this is where the argument becomes unimportant; if we're doing good things, the good things get done, and the ends become unimportant from an objective standpoint. Of course, that's assuming we both define "good" the same way, which is one "o" away from us defining "God" the same way... that is to say, a dubious proposition.

PFnV

Again, redemption is not "salvation". Although we are all redeemed, we are not all saved. We are justified through sanctifying grace and we are then made holy by actual grace. Our "good works" or "works of faith", that flow from this work of actual grace in our lives, are just as much a part of our salvation as sanctifying grace that we received to justify us before God.

Francis called those who don't believe in God to do good not to save them (as these works have no merit to justify) but to focus them on "good" which could be an opening to the author of good....God himself.

But as you said.....what is a truly "good" work? For Catholics it is a work that cooperates with God's grace working within us. But without this grace, the works themselves have no power to save us.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

That only works for people who believe in The Trinity.

Many do not.

I find it hard to believe that God, anyone's God, would deny someone salvation because they didn't "believe right."

Good people are good people - doesn't matter if they are Trinity believers or not.

Buddists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims - they can all qualify as worthy of salvation, redemption, heaven, whatever you want to call it.

When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He replied: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:37

He didn't say, "Love me," He said, "Love God," and immediately after that He said, "Love your neigbor."

Virtually all religions have some variation on this, the "Golden Rule."

Seems that even Jesus thought it was the second most important rule to follow.

Far more important than who you're sleeping with or if you're taking steps to prevent pregnancy or have the ability to regurgitate canon law by way of cut and paste.

It probably also precludes calling people "ignorant."

I think ultimately it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks that matters. It only matters what God wants and expects from us.

If God is, in fact, a Trinity and he calls us to accept and obey him as he is, then who are we to question him?

So the bottom line line is "revelation".....how has God revealed himself to us?
Through the prophets? Through Jesus? Through his church? By the power of his grace?
If the answers are yes to all of these things, then how can we say that God is "wrong"? If there is such a thing as grace and grace has the power to change us to be a follower of God and someone truly rejects this grace (and therefore rejects God) why would they warrant salvation?


You mentioned that Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment and he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."
So what does loving God mean? The Apostle John is quite clear on what that means:

"If you love me, you will obey my commandments" - John 14:15


"Loving God means keeping his commandments, and his commandments are not burdensome" - 1 John 5:3


1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,


God commands us to be holy like he is holy and to do good in his sight. So, "who we sleep with" and how we live our lives is very much a testament to how much we truly love God.

The person with grace lives a life pleasing to God and as the scripture says...doesnt see it as burdensome because those with grace have been changed. Their souls have been changed and now they reject the flesh and the world system because they are children of God and live for the Kingdom of God.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Vatican corrects Pope: Atheists are still going to hell


The Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning of “salvation,” on Thursday, May 23, after media reports circulated indicating that Pope Francis” promised heaven for everyone engaged in good works, including atheists.

In response to the media attention, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

Rosica also said that Francis had “no intention of provoking a theological debate on the nature of salvation,” during his homily on Wednesday.


Vatican corrects Pope: Atheists are still going to hell - National Humanist | Examiner.com


Again, the Progressive media gets it wrong. As I mentioned, Francis never said that atheists could be saved by their works but merely that they were redeemed by Christ's death. So the vatican isn't "correcting" the Pope but merely correctly an ignorant Progressive media who, yet again, got it wrong.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

And around Christmas, Atheists had big old ads on city buses that said "You better be good for goodness sake."

The mechanics of salvation and redemption for a Catholic sound fascinating, in much the same way that I really do feel there is fine craftsmanship in the mechanical clockwork advertised in the best-watch-in-the-world commercial.

Sadly, I check the time on my cell phone, which I believe is synched up with some atomic clock that's accurate to a tiny fraction of a second.

Similarly, I don't have much concern for the fine distinctions between salvation and redemption within Catholicism.

Within my own faith, the mechanics are much fuzzier... and I'm probably much fuzzier than my own faith's most lax branch.

I do, however, believe in doing the right thing. The difficulty folks like me have with convoluted doctrinal arguments is that they so often seem beside the point.

If you're gay and you want to marry your partner, and that's what both of you want, to me the good thing to do is the thing that causes my brothers happiness rather than misery. Just for example.

In terms of the tribal confederacy of thirty-odd centuries ago, it might not have been such a good idea to encourage two breeding-age males to leave the ranks of the "multipliers" -- from the point of view of a society trying to out-breed competing societies. In the modern world, this concern is, if anything, reversed. A drive for more children is certainly not the predictor of success it was when you waited 13 years then suited the kid up with everybody else to smash some neighboring walled city.

Similarly, when Paul wanted to do outreach to pagans, he came up with dreams about dietary laws and phrases about circumcising hearts. He did not want it to be difficult to become a Christian just because it was difficult to become a Jew. He recognized that for his purposes, an old law that he felt was inconsistent with the demands of the age could be abrogated.

Now, Paul's abrogation of dietary laws and laws on circumcision ran directly contrary to Jesus' proclamation that no jot or iota of the Law would be abrogated until the kingdom of Heaven had come. That's because in this regard, Jesus had a need to appeal to his primary audience, Jews whom he thought would follow him. While he was enough of a universalist to strongly imply that anybody could follow him, he was still preaching in the context of a messianic mission among Jews.

This is simple history, and I recount it not to rebuke you with biblical inconsistencies; for all Jews and Christians, there are plenty of such inconsistencies to contend with.

I mention it rather to illuminate the subject of biblical passages that no longer have any relevance. Clearly, our understanding of sexuality has progressed in the last 30+ centuries. I don't believe gays having sex should be put to death. Do you? Similarly, I don't run around with a pipckup truck full of rocks looking for Wiccan meetings or fortune-telling booths. Do you?

The truth of these things comes down to Hillel, although Jesus was smart enough to have coopted his phraseology: Love God with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all they might; and whatever is hateful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary.

Now, quoth the original, go and study.

If you go and study the complex mechanics of your own faith, that's fine... me, I'll study the whole breadth of the story, including the "meta" bits that give you context for what was written and decided in what time (and, when we have good clues, the reasons for the decisions.)

I'll say this much -- I have no idea whether what I do is "right," but at each junction I do my best on that count. The standard answer of the monotheistic religions is "your best isn't good enough." My answer to that is, it's all I can do, by definition.

The bait-and-switch -- "your best isn't good enough therefore accept this doctrinal answer to make up for it" -- doesn't work on me, and shouldn't work on grownups.

What's left, when the power-grab of the organized priesthood is gone?

That's what I'm looking for.

But hell, I don't hold myself up as a paragon. I just hope I get it right, one day at a time.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

By the way, Paul also has a problem with John -- I just saw your answer to the Mrs.

Maybe John should have said "If you love me, keep all my commandments, including the ones Paul explained away."

But where's the branding value in that?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

And around Christmas, Atheists had big old ads on city buses that said "You better be good for goodness sake."

The mechanics of salvation and redemption for a Catholic sound fascinating, in much the same way that I really do feel there is fine craftsmanship in the mechanical clockwork advertised in the best-watch-in-the-world commercial.

Sadly, I check the time on my cell phone, which I believe is synched up with some atomic clock that's accurate to a tiny fraction of a second.

Similarly, I don't have much concern for the fine distinctions between salvation and redemption within Catholicism.

Within my own faith, the mechanics are much fuzzier... and I'm probably much fuzzier than my own faith's most lax branch.

I do, however, believe in doing the right thing. The difficulty folks like me have with convoluted doctrinal arguments is that they so often seem beside the point.

If you're gay and you want to marry your partner, and that's what both of you want, to me the good thing to do is the thing that causes my brothers happiness rather than misery. Just for example.

In terms of the tribal confederacy of thirty-odd centuries ago, it might not have been such a good idea to encourage two breeding-age males to leave the ranks of the "multipliers" -- from the point of view of a society trying to out-breed competing societies. In the modern world, this concern is, if anything, reversed. A drive for more children is certainly not the predictor of success it was when you waited 13 years then suited the kid up with everybody else to smash some neighboring walled city.

Similarly, when Paul wanted to do outreach to pagans, he came up with dreams about dietary laws and phrases about circumcising hearts. He did not want it to be difficult to become a Christian just because it was difficult to become a Jew. He recognized that for his purposes, an old law that he felt was inconsistent with the demands of the age could be abrogated.

Now, Paul's abrogation of dietary laws and laws on circumcision ran directly contrary to Jesus' proclamation that no jot or iota of the Law would be abrogated until the kingdom of Heaven had come. That's because in this regard, Jesus had a need to appeal to his primary audience, Jews whom he thought would follow him. While he was enough of a universalist to strongly imply that anybody could follow him, he was still preaching in the context of a messianic mission among Jews.

This is simple history, and I recount it not to rebuke you with biblical inconsistencies; for all Jews and Christians, there are plenty of such inconsistencies to contend with.

I mention it rather to illuminate the subject of biblical passages that no longer have any relevance. Clearly, our understanding of sexuality has progressed in the last 30+ centuries. I don't believe gays having sex should be put to death. Do you? Similarly, I don't run around with a pipckup truck full of rocks looking for Wiccan meetings or fortune-telling booths. Do you?

The truth of these things comes down to Hillel, although Jesus was smart enough to have coopted his phraseology: Love God with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all they might; and whatever is hateful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary.

Now, quoth the original, go and study.

If you go and study the complex mechanics of your own faith, that's fine... me, I'll study the whole breadth of the story, including the "meta" bits that give you context for what was written and decided in what time (and, when we have good clues, the reasons for the decisions.)

I'll say this much -- I have no idea whether what I do is "right," but at each junction I do my best on that count. The standard answer of the monotheistic religions is "your best isn't good enough." My answer to that is, it's all I can do, by definition.

The bait-and-switch -- "your best isn't good enough therefore accept this doctrinal answer to make up for it" -- doesn't work on me, and shouldn't work on grownups.

What's left, when the power-grab of the organized priesthood is gone?

That's what I'm looking for.

But hell, I don't hold myself up as a paragon. I just hope I get it right, one day at a time.

The difference between redemption and salvation is the reason we even have this thread or should I say the misinterpretation of redemption by the Progressive media.

If it doesn't concern you, it seems odd that you would post in this thread. Oh well.


As to your Biblical "points", I have tried time and time again to relate to you how we as Catholics view and utilize the scriptures.

We are not evangelical christians. We do not take a scripture and simply take it literally. We see the scriptures as part of tradition....not the entirety of our tradition. As such, all of our scriptures must be seen in the light of the entirety of Catholic tradition.

The "bait and switch" as you call it isn't a trick. It's merely an invitation. Accept it....don't accept it. It's your choice. We as Catholics are under no delusions that we can change you. That's the job of grace.

 

[Lifer]

You forgot the eyeball roll

 

[RI Patriots fan]

By the way, Paul also has a problem with John -- I just saw your answer to the Mrs.

Maybe John should have said "If you love me, keep all my commandments, including the ones Paul explained away."

But where's the branding value in that?

Well, if you'e going to take Jesus' words literally without a proper exegesis might as well do the same with Paul and John too.....

 

[RI Patriots fan]

You forgot the eyeball roll

There you go

Just for you.

 

[Lifer]

The difference between redemption and salvation is the reason we even have this thread or should I say the misinterpretation of redemption by the Progressive media.

If it doesn't concern you, it seems odd that you would post in this thread. Oh well.


As to your Biblical "points", I have tried time and time again to relate to you how we as Catholics view and utilize the scriptures.

We are not evangelical christians. We do not take a scripture and simply take it literally. We see the scriptures as part of tradition....not the entirety of our tradition. As such, all of our scriptures must be seen in the light of the entirety of Catholic tradition.

The "bait and switch" as you call it isn't a trick. It's merely an invitation. Accept it....don't accept it. It's your choice. We as Catholics are under no delusions that we can change you. That's the job of grace.

I beg to differ. You are quite delusional.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The difference between redemption and salvation is the reason we even have this thread or should I say the misinterpretation of redemption by the Progressive media.

If it doesn't concern you, it seems odd that you would post in this thread. Oh well.

I think the thread is about Pope Francis saying Atheists can be saved. From your point of view, what's important is the doctrinal distinction between "redemption" and "salvation." From my point of view, what's important thus far about Francis is his return to the strongest values the Church has backed: concern for the poor, for your fellow man, things like that. That necessitates acceptance and he's showing acceptance in this quote. I view this as a good sign.

As to your Biblical "points", I have tried time and time again to relate to you how we as Catholics view and utilize the scriptures.

As our local Conan the Grammarian, I'll point out that it's almost never necessary to use "utilize." People use it two ways: either to puff up their prose, using three syllables where one ("use") will do, or, correctly -- although in 90% of cases those using it correctly could get by with "use" just fine, because the difference in words is made moot by context.

That difference is that "utilize" simply means to "use" something in a way other than was originally envisioned or intended. So, for example, the Apollo 13 astronauts utilized a plastic bag, some other stuff, and some duct-tape, to create an oxygen scrubber.

You can see here how they could "use" the items in question and the sentence would lose nothing.

Now -- are you puffing up the prose, or are you saying that Catholics utilize the scriptures... that is to say, use them for a purpose other than was previously envisioned?

I think, by the way, that that is the truth, not only for Catholics but for Protestants and for Jews and Muslims as well. I think that is the nature of scripture, no matter what fanatic adherents say. I don't blame you for it; I only find it wonderfully incongruous with your otherwise doctrinaire approach.

We are not evangelical christians. We do not take a scripture and simply take it literally. We see the scriptures as part of tradition....not the entirety of our tradition. As such, all of our scriptures must be seen in the light of the entirety of Catholic tradition.

Again, I should remind you that I'm thoroughly familiar with that approach, not only through my passing understanding of Catholicism, but from my understanding of Judaism as well.

I did not say that the church had not interpreted away the difference between the Judaizing character of much of Jesus' sayings material, and the anti-Judaizing character of what Paul says. Rather, I am certain it has. Since the mechanism is operative for Jesus himself, accounting for the times, the authors, and at last resort various notions of allegory and even celestial policy changes, that same mechanism can operate to bring the church to admit flaws far deeper than what one has for dinner and whether one demands ritual circumcision.

No Catholic scholar in 1513 would tell you that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" should be taken any way other than literally. I am sure there would be dull dogmatists running around explaining precisely how and why each facet of canon law should be applied when thinking about witches and heretics, but the auto da fe and trial by ordeal were, at the time, an eternally good and necessary thing that would always be thus.

I hope it doesn't take 500 more years, but I think the church will end up with similar accommodations with homosexuality, birth control, and abortions. They're not core doctrine.

The "bait and switch" as you call it isn't a trick. It's merely an invitation. Accept it....don't accept it. It's your choice. We as Catholics are under no delusions that we can change you. That's the job of grace.

I hope you understand I'm explaining to the faithful why we the "less faithful" see their faith as unnecessary in our own lives. I'm not telling you to lose your faith, and don't hope to change you. That's the job of your own reason

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInEaglesLand]

Here is what I've asked my wife, my in laws, friends and variest clergy in the christian faith and have got different answers.

What if a guy, let's just say he's a Muslim, he's in his 20's and has been a decent guy his whole life and is hit by a bus and dies. But, in his life he's never been exposed to Christianity because of his upbringing and his location. Does he not get in to heaven? Because of no fault of his own he is sentenced to damnation?

 

[Nikolai]

Within my own faith, the mechanics are much fuzzier...

Well, there's no real salvation doctrine in Judaism, or a real concept of a reward-based acceptance into heaven, and certainly no hell. Those are all pretty much "New Testament" constructs.

As for what happens when we die? Yeah, very fuzzy in Judaism...and if you're fuzzier than that, then you and I are probably on the same page :bricks:

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yeahhhh well the trouble with a sort of free-for-all "academe" with no pope and no central organization is that you have a plethora of views. That's probably why the history of religion is so important from my perspective -- often we have doctrines that can only be understood because it was included in Judaism in one era or another.

In Talmud, there's Gehinnom (where bad people go) and Olam ha ba (the World to Come, as in, the good one.) If you've been a real jackass you may need up to a year of purification in Gehinnom... but neither scripture nor Talmud goes into loving detail about "Heaven" and "Hell" (more of a very short-lived purgatory), as they do in Christianity and Islam.

But I think a lot of Jews caught Hell from Christians and Muslims in more than one sense. Certainly by the time of the Rambam's 13 articles of faith, you have belief that God will reward those who keep the commandments and punish those who transgress them, and I think a folk belief that the punishment will be after death (Whereas the punishments are all earthly the further back you go in scripture... do something bad, and you might die.) The torments of the Christian/Muslim hell probably got into the minds of lay people to fill the vacuum regarding what goes on in Gehinnom (maybe, maybe not.)

For me personally, I like very much the saying that one hour of penance and doing good in this world is worth all eternity in the world to come, and one hour of tranquility in the world to come is worth all the good works one can do in this world. I like it precisely because it's poetic, not logical -- it's just so contrary to logic to think you know these things that it's best to take poetic license and extol what you want to extol in both situations.

Summing up, our dogma's not agreed on any point about the afterlife, thank God, and I'm happily fuzzy on the topic too.

 

[Nikolai]

Yeah, I mean the punishment for committing sin is pretty clearly outlined in Deutoronomy 29-30. It's all terrestrial. I would even contend that a heaven-hell dichotomy isn't a valid interpretation of the Rambam's articles.

Christian/Muslim/Greek mythology/etc all have that bad place to which the wicked go to endure their afterlife. In a way, Judaism is a little like the red-headed stepchild for not having a definitive place of supernatural punishment.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Arrested development. They destroyed the Temple before we lit on the motivational control regime of threats and promises that last for all eternity.

Funny... God "chose" us to reveal all this other stuff but left out the details of the eternal skinner box.

::shrug:: maybe it was on a "need to know" basis.

 

[DarrylS]

Inteligent dialogue amongst jewish brethren is amazing to watch, and very confusing for us gentiles...

:kev::kev::kev::kev:

 

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

Inteligent dialogue amongst jewish brethren is amazing to watch, and very confusing for us gentiles...

:kev::kev::kev::kev:

LOL I am so with you on that one, Darryl.

I've listened to MrP and his friends and family talk about their childhoods and being brought up Jewish and compared them to that of my own and my Catholic friends....and I've come up with this to explain away the differences:

Jewish children are brought up to question - questions are regarded a mark of intelligence and they are given detailed answers. Precocious behaviour is encouraged from the cradle.....they are told, by their parents, their relatives, their teachers and their rabbis that they will grow up to do great things. Each and every accomplishment, no matter how large or how small, is met with hugs, kisses and more honeycakes and kugles.

Catholic children (at least Irish Catholic ghetto babies such as myself) have their questions answered in three ways - "Because I told you so," "go ask your father," and "Children are to be seen and not heard, shuttup already and go to your room." Precocious behaviour is regarded as sinful and is beaten out of you at an early age. If and when we "brag" about some accomplishment, no matter if it is major or minor, we are told, "Don't get too big for your britches," and are reminded that "pride goeth before a fall."

Viva la difference, I suppose.....but I'm pretty sure I'd have been a smarter adult if only I'd been a Jewish child.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I can certainly support the theory that a child encouraged to question will develop his/her intelligence in a more public way, and perhaps therefore reap some benefits from an ability to express their intelligence. Maybe you're right and questioning comes a little more natural... on the other hand, my dear Mrs. P, I'm not certain I'd like to know what sort of world-devouring intellect you would have developed in such an advantaged environment...

Quoth Nicholas Cage, "Peanut I love you but the way your mind works is God's own personal mystery."

In a good way.