• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

WOW! Pope says virtuous atheists are better than hypocritical Christians

ataraxia said:
So does anyone know when this idea that faith alone was enough began developing in Christianity?
Click to expand...

The idea that salvation is a matter of faith alone goes back to the first century and the very beginnings of Christianity. We find evidence for such a view within Paul's writings and the gospel of John. However, no one seems to have interpreted it in the way many do today, meaning that you can do whatever you want because you will go to heaven anyway, until recently.

Even today, you don't find such views being taught at any seminary or promoted by any theologians of note. The staunchest Calvinist would tell you that the fact someone's life doesn't show evidence of sanctification is proof that their faith is not genuine and thus they are unsaved. It's only people sitting in the pews who seem to believe in this "fire insurance" type of salvation. It's one of those popular religious beliefs, like the idea that those who die become angels, that seems to pervade society despite the fact that no Christian sect of note actually teaches this.

If I had to guess as to where this comes from, I would guess that it is an accident of the language evangelicals use. Evangelicals began using terms like: "being saved", "being born again", and most recently, "accepting Jesus into your heart" to denote conversion experiences and professions of faith. This language inextricably tied the concept of salvation to a specific event in a specific moment in time. Thus if you view salvation as something you did at a VBS when you were 10, then you can talk of yourself as being saved whether or not your life shows any evidence of actual salvation.
 
CrabCake said:
The idea that salvation is a matter of faith alone goes back to the first century and the very beginnings of Christianity. We find evidence for such a view within Paul's writings and the gospel of John. However, no one seems to have interpreted it in the way many do today, meaning that you can do whatever you want because you will go to heaven anyway, until recently.

Even today, you don't find such views being taught at any seminary or promoted by any theologians of note. The staunchest Calvinist would tell you that the fact someone's life doesn't show evidence of sanctification is proof that their faith is not genuine and thus they are unsaved. It's only people sitting in the pews who seem to believe in this "fire insurance" type of salvation. It's one of those popular religious beliefs, like the idea that those who die become angels, that seems to pervade society despite the fact that no Christian sect of note actually teaches this.

If I had to guess as to where this comes from, I would guess that it is an accident of the language evangelicals use. Evangelicals began using terms like: "being saved", "being born again", and most recently, "accepting Jesus into your heart" to denote conversion experiences and professions of faith. This language inextricably tied the concept of salvation to a specific event in a specific moment in time. Thus if you view salvation as something you did at a VBS when you were 10, then you can talk of yourself as being saved whether or not your life shows any evidence of actual salvation.
Click to expand...

But obviously it has happened. The figment of "Crusader who goes on no matter what" invades all personas.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
But obviously it has happened. The figment of "Crusader who goes on no matter what" invades all personas.
Click to expand...

What has happened?

I don't understand your post.
 
From what I have been told, not having faith is the only sin that cannot be forgiven and if you have the holy spirit within you then there would be outward signs of that, in other words works and dealings would make it obvious that there is something residing in the person.

In the former, I would ask then why apologetics and in the latter I would ask then why do I experience similar levels of empathy, compassion, avarice and mendacity in people regardless of religion? And I have experienced that.
 
William Rea said:
From what I have been told, not having faith is the only sin that cannot be forgiven and if you have the holy spirit within you then there would be outward signs of that, in other words works and dealings would make it obvious that there is something residing in the person.

In the former, I would ask then why apologetics and in the latter I would ask then why do I experience similar levels of empathy, compassion, avarice and mendacity in people regardless of religion? And I have experienced that.
Click to expand...

As sin is strictly a religious concept, only the religious are or can be sinners.
 
William Rea said:
From what I have been told, not having faith is the only sin that cannot be forgiven and if you have the holy spirit within you then there would be outward signs of that, in other words works and dealings would make it obvious that there is something residing in the person.
Click to expand...

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I thought the only unforgiveable sin was mocking the Holy Spirit. I'm sure someone will come along shortly to clarify. ;)
 
ataraxia said:
"If you're a Christian who exploits people, leads a double life or manages a "dirty" business, perhaps it's better not to call yourself a believer, Pope Francis suggested in a homily on Thursday in Rome.

"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another."

...The Vatican later issued a note clarifying that the Pope was simply saying that God's grace is free to all, even atheists and urging Christians and non-believers to work together. "
Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com
______________________
Holy Moly! This pope is really shining a spotlight on some VERY controversial issues. He is like Donald Trump: He says things which then has the rest of the Catholic Church scrambling to clean up for him. Good for him!
Click to expand...
Well virtue and atheism tend to be ideological opponents rather than things which can co-exist without cognitive dissonance, as the only logically consistent practice of atheism is rape, murder, and torture of children a la the Marquis de Sade and Jeffery Dahmer, living like a feral and vicious animal with no more 'morals' than a rabid dog in hunt of prey; hence why a Muslim will always have more respect from me than an atheist, as at least the former can logically justify having morals to begin with, while the latter can't.
 
Ovid said:
Well virtue and atheism tend to be ideological opponents rather than things which can co-exist without cognitive dissonance, as the only logically consistent practice of atheism is rape, murder, and torture of children a la the Marquis de Sade and Jeffery Dahmer, living like a feral and vicious animal with no more 'morals' than a rabid dog in hunt of prey; hence why a Muslim will always have more respect from me than an atheist, as at least the former can logically justify having morals to begin with, while the latter can't.
Click to expand...

This is course describes the entire history of the RCC. History and fact again negate your argument.
 
Realitywins said:
This is course describes the entire history of the RCC. History and fact again negate your argument.
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic Church was an atheist and secular organization primarily, effectively just a government rather than a religion - the Crusades and Inquistion having of course been atheistic atrocities committed in the name of atheistic pleasures, greed, vice, political power, and lust. Every murder and rapist is an atheist at heart, no matter what creed he professes, as murder and rape are the very practice of atheism.
 
Ovid said:
The Roman Catholic Church was an atheist and secular organization primarily, effectively just a government rather than a religion - the Crusades and Inquistion having of course been atheistic atrocities committed in the name of atheistic pleasures, greed, vice, political power, and lust. Every murder and rapist is an atheist at heart, no matter what creed he professes, as murder and rape are the very practice of atheism.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Ovid said:
The Roman Catholic Church was an atheist and secular organization primarily, effectively just a government rather than a religion - the Crusades and Inquistion having of course been atheistic atrocities committed in the name of atheistic pleasures, greed, vice, political power, and lust. Every murder and rapist is an atheist at heart, no matter what creed he professes, as murder and rape are the very practice of atheism.
Click to expand...

I dont think they were athiests at heart. But athiests in nature. Someone whispered sweet nothings into their ears, wound them up, then pointed them at innocent people. And they felt they had a permit to kill for glory.
 
Ovid said:
The Roman Catholic Church was an atheist and secular organization primarily, effectively just a government rather than a religion - the Crusades and Inquistion having of course been atheistic atrocities committed in the name of atheistic pleasures, greed, vice, political power, and lust. Every murder and rapist is an atheist at heart, no matter what creed he professes, as murder and rape are the very practice of atheism.
Click to expand...

All animals have a sense of morality: many dogs have been known to put their own life in danger to attack a bear that was threatening their owner. Meerkats also put their own lives in danger by raising a loud alarm to alert the rest of their group about an approaching predator, Worker ants work very selflessly for their colony. Elephants will often put their own life in danger to protect a member of their own herd from a potential predator. It turns out that in humans too, our sense of morality is something very innate, hardwired into most of us through eons of evolution. Species which know nothing of cooperation, self-sacrifice, friendship and loyalty, etc... don't do as well in terms of survival and remaining functional as those who do. This has been a subject of intense interdisciplinary study recently:
https://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology...r=8-1&keywords=sociobiology+the+new+synthesis

Studies using fMRI imaging have even shown the anatomic brain centers responsible for such feelings of "morality". They have done this by looking at people who pathologically lack morality: psychopaths. Neuroscientists often do this. For example, one way they have been able to narrow down the brain centers responsible for reading is by looking at people who just pathologically can't read: people who have had strokes in very specific parts of their brain, or dyslexics, etc... So they did this with people lacking morality. It turns out that the parts of the brain which light up when you see someone else's suffering, at least in most normal people, are isolated to the limbic system, the part of the brain responsible for certain visceral emotions- fear, anger, disgust, etc... in this case, specifically the parts of the brain we associate with feelings of revulsion and disgust. When normal people are shown pictures of people in pain or suffering, these brain centers light up like Christmas trees. They are clearly disturbed. When psychopaths are studied while looking at those same pics, these centers are in blackout. There is no feeling. Ominously, if anything lights up, it's the pleasure centers. They actually enjoy watching others' suffering. It can be amusing.

Interestingly, religious instruction and reading holy scriptures of any kind to these folks has not been found to be very therapeutic.

It's not about religion. Religion is just taking the most current opinions, norms, and culture of a society and projecting to their deities. It's a mirror of the individuals and their society. But it is no guide. As cultures and opinions change, so do what they tell us those same passages mean. It's a middleman we don't need.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I dont think they were athiests at heart. But athiests in nature. Someone whispered sweet nothings into their ears, wound them up, then pointed them at innocent people. And they felt they had a permit to kill for glory.
Click to expand...

So how is that different that religious people who have sweet nothings whispered in their ears, wound up, and pointed at innocent people?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
It is said that this is the world's last pope, and many argued that the last pope could be the anti-Christ (or some say he aids the anti-Christ) which fueled the debate as to whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ.

One thing is clear, the Pope & Trump aren't buddies.
 
ataraxia said:
"If you're a Christian who exploits people, leads a double life or manages a "dirty" business, perhaps it's better not to call yourself a believer, Pope Francis suggested in a homily on Thursday in Rome.

"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another."

...The Vatican later issued a note clarifying that the Pope was simply saying that God's grace is free to all, even atheists and urging Christians and non-believers to work together. "
Pope: It's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian - CNN.com
______________________
Holy Moly! This pope is really shining a spotlight on some VERY controversial issues. He is like Donald Trump: He says things which then has the rest of the Catholic Church scrambling to clean up for him. Good for him!
Click to expand...



funny; this coming from the young boy rapist cult ................... not gonna Believe ................
 
FreeThink said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
It is said that this is the world's last pope, and many argued that the last pope could be the anti-Christ (or some say he aids the anti-Christ) which fueled the debate as to whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ.

One thing is clear, the Pope & Trump aren't buddies.
Click to expand...

Does this crap never stop.

Nostradamus predicted DONALD TRUMP as being President of the US | Ancient Code
While millions of people around the world were shocked and surprised by Trump’s victory over popular candidate Hillary Clinton, those who study the work of Nostradamus believe the prophesier predicted the billionaire’s victory in the sixteenth century.
Click to expand...
 
barrycarter said:
This position isn't really new. The Roman Catholic Church has always said that anyone can redeem themselves at any point in their life. Presumably, if you go to Confession or accept the Church at the end of your life, you can still go to "heaven".
Click to expand...

I believe that when all is said and done.....God is a big picture guy. He may give you points for seeing the light....but don't expect a complete pass on a life of evil and deceit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom