Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed

[mmhmm]

May 24, 2013 15:34:53 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

I think I've found my problem and it is the "new topics" button.

In the olden days, I posted on P&M and YM.  Then the Board got all chopped up. 

I *just* saw that this thread was in Religious Discussion - I seriously thought this was a YMOT or Current Events thread.  I challenge Virgil because he has a penchant for posting about his beliefs without regards to the beliefs of others while wearing a badge that says "moderator" on a Board that has rules about religious posts.  In those places, I will continue to challenge his wording.  But I don't know the rules here... I don't even know how I got here... you all do your thing.

Mea culpa.

You're fine here, sarah.  That's what this particular area is for - the discussion of religions and religious beliefs.  While personal nastiness isn't going to be tolerated here, any more than it's going to be tolerated on any of the other forums, this is the only forum in which the discussion of this issue is encouraged.  

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

May 24, 2013 6:12:57 GMT -5 Shooby said:

May 23, 2013 21:04:33 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Ahhhh .... the age-old debate of unlimited atonement v. limited atonement. Did Jesus die for everyone, or just the Elect? Was the ransom (redemption) just for some, or for all? In Catholicism, redemption is collective. Christ died for the world. Salvation is individual, and requires grace through faith. (Though many Protestants consider redemption and salvation to be the same, though.)

Christ did die for the whole world.  But according to the Bible there is a caveat that requires the individual to BELIEVE in Him.  I think that is pretty clear. 

I don't argue that belief is required, I am merely pointing out that to millions of Calvinist Christians, Christ didn't die for the whole world ... He died for "the elect."

[mmhmm]

Just reading and discussing, molly, I find different Christian denominations to have differing views on a lot of things.  This is just one of them.  While all are believers in Christ, not all follow Him in the same way, and not all of them seem to interpret the Bible in the same way.  For the most part, I think folks are willing to accept these differences and accent their similarities, instead.  There are always exceptions, but that's what I've seen amongst my Christian friends.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 24, 2013 15:28:36 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If what you're trying to say is "you cannot influence my beliefs", which is clearly true, then say that. If you're trying to say "you cannot posit with absolute certainty that my beliefs are false", that is also clearly true (given I can't even posit that gravity exists with absolute certainty), and so say that. "You cannot dictate my truth" is a meaningless statement.

I'll buy that, Virgil.  I'll reword to your liking just as soon as you stop proclaiming "THE TRUTH" to be what you believe.

All I've (ever) stated is that my beliefs are based on scripture, that they are well-founded and defensible, and that my foremost spiritual goal is to discern the truth and live by it.

If you reject the Bible as an authoritative source on spiritual matters, then I'm quite aware that you won't agree with me. Furthermore, it goes without saying that my comments are subject to my imperfect understanding of scripture and should be subject to reasonable scrutiny. That's the nature of any ideological exchange.

As @justaposter helpfully points out, I have no interest in couching every statement in caveats and equivocal language. Accept that spirituality is a topic I take very seriously, and I'm as confident about any statement I make here as I am that I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning. That is to say: I cannot assert it to be absolutely true, but if I possessed any significant doubt I would live my life very differently. Moreover, anyone reading this is perfectly capable of taking what I say and seeing whether it reconciles with scripture.

Personally, if somebody can "rip into my religion" in an informed, defensible way (which presumes they know what I believe in the first place), rip away.

Thanks, but no, thanks.  I'm not interested in ripping into anyone's religious beliefs.  They're personal and individual.  They're not for me to decide.

Which is a lot of words to say, "What the Archbishop said made me feel good." (first paragraph) and "You are wrong, Virgil. I am not." (second paragraph).

Point one (first paragraph), correct.  Point two (second paragraph), incorrect.  Nowhere in my second paragraph did I say "You are wrong, Virgil.  I am not."  I stated how I see the Bible.  I did NOT tell you how to see the Bible; nor, did I indicate you're wrong to see it as you do.  I have as much right to my opinion as you have to yours. 

Can we both be right? If your statement about the Bible is correct, can my views also be correct? Is there any other logical conclusion I can draw?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that be cannot both be correct?

If you do acknowledge this, and you state "This is what I believe," do you have conviction in your beliefs? Do you not believe them to be the truth? If not, what value do they have? Is your system of values no better than Mr. Bernard Madoff's? If it is, why?

Your argument is self-contradictory. You say that I'm "dictating [your] truth" or infringing on your right to an opinion by asserting a statement as moral fact. In saying this, were you lying? Does your statement apply only to you and nobody else, or are you in fact making a statement on objective truth? When you spoke out against pedophilia in the NAMBLA thread, were you saying "Pedophilia isn't right for me, but it might be right for Joe Schmoe." or were you not in fact engaging in a moral judgment?

You can hide behind the semantics of language all you like, the simple fact is that if "your" truth has no applicability beyond you, it's worthless to everybody besides you, it isn't by definition the truth, and there's no point in even expressing it.

And you might agree with me that you and others in this thread have gladly jumped at the opportunity to personalize the man's comments.

Would that "others" include you, by chance, Virgil?

Sure. But the only assessment I've given of his comments are that they're vague and that your interpretation is illogical when you consider the implications.

Comments inline.

[mmhmm]

I'll express whatever I like, Virgil.  You, in turn, can express whatever you like.  If we disagree, we disagree.  I'll not call you "liar".  I'll not say your feelings have no meaning.  I'll simply say they don't, in this case, apply to me.  With that, I'll leave it.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 24, 2013 18:21:36 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'll express whatever I like, Virgil.  You, in turn, can express whatever you like.  If we disagree, we disagree.  I'll not call you "liar".  I'll not say your feelings have no meaning.  I'll simply say they don't, in this case, apply to me.  With that, I'll leave it.

I agree with your first three statements. I appreciate the fourth.

I don't know what you mean by "feelings [having] no meaning" since we're obviously mindful of each other's feelings, even as a matter of friendship and courtesy. If you're referring to "meaning in defining truth", then let me be the first to say that my feelings have no meaning in defining truth. My feelings about gravity have no bearing on the nature of gravity, either. My feelings--or views, rather--can correspond to the truth to some degree, and they are meaningful to the extent that this correspondence exists.

As for my feelings not applying to you, once again assuming you mean my views on objective truth don't apply to you (despite how truthful they may or may not be?), I fail to see how their complete and unconditional lack of applicability wouldn't make them worthless.

But we've never seen eye to eye on issues of morality, and I agree we should enter the weekend on a high note.

So here's a comical ASCII picture of a rocket launcher pointing at a snow leopard cub (hopefully worth at least a smile), and I will also bid you good weekend.


|======\_uu_    /\o\ /o/\
| RPG       \   \  ___  /   - *hissssssss* Die, humannnn.
|======/'''''     ._|_.
                 


[mmhmm]

But we've never seen eye to eye on issues of morality, and I agree we should enter the weekend on a high note.

Au contraire, Virgil Showlion .  We usually see eye to eye on issues of morality.  There are a few exceptions; however, for the most part we agree.  We simply reach our conclusions from different perspectives. 



LOL!  You have a good weekend, as well, Virgil.

[Artemis Windsong]

I have come to listen very closely to those who say they are atheists.  I have heard way too many say Thank G-d when a loved one is brought out of a bad or serious situation.

Or have asked what is that quality you possess that is so calming?  My simple answer is it's in the Holy Bible.

I have heard them speaking to G-d and saying but I don't believe in you.  I can hear the answer - who do you think you are talking to if you don't believe Me?

-------------
Thanks, snowbird.

[mmhmm]

To an atheist, Artemis, the phrase "Thank God" is just a figure of speech.  It doesn't mean the same thing to them it means to you.  It's just common usage, as far as their concerned.  Other than something like that, I don't know I've ever heard an atheist "talk to God".

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

True Atheists (who don't believe in any higher power) don't talk to God. As mmhmm stated, "Thank God" has become more of a catch-phrase among so many people where in the past they used to say say "Thank Goodness".

[mmhmm]

I don't usually use the phrase, but my mother does.   We're both atheists and I know darned well when my mother says "Oh, my God!" she's not talking to any deity.  She hasn't even given a thought to a deity because she doesn't believe in a deity.  She might as well be saying "Oh, my oatmeal!"  It's just a figure of speech in common usage.

[egginbonce]

Ive heard people say 'thank f*ck'...............................explain that then!

[Deleted]

They're doing it right?