Pope Francis says atheists can go to heaven

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

The mere fact that the elected head of an organisation can seemingly "changed the rules" that were seemingly written by God must seem a touch fishy even to Catholics? I thought only God could judge and make decisions but apparently the pope is almighty now as well?

Sent from my SM-J110F using Tapatalk
 
Atheists still have requirements to get into heaven

Oh I know. But the Pope was also still making the error I noted even while allowing for your possible salvation when the time comes whether you wish it or not.
 
The mere fact that the elected head of an organisation can seemingly "changed the rules" that were seemingly written by God must seem a touch fishy even to Catholics? I thought only God could judge and make decisions but apparently the pope is almighty now as well?

Sent from my SM-J110F using Tapatalk

Yeah, a Pope one day, Caesar the next, and now Christ himself.
 
No I didn't. I suggested the Pope (indirectly) implied all terrorists are necessarily going against their conscience.

The "They seem pretty sincere to me" bit seemed like judgment on your part.
 
Oh I know. But the Pope was also still making the error I noted even while allowing for your possible salvation when the time comes whether you wish it or not.


The Pope is (when he's able) adjusting Catholicism to conform to the evolving secular moral standard because it makes sense to him and he's not a moron.
 
The "They seem pretty sincere to me" bit seemed like judgment on your part.

I was saying someone willing to die for a cause doesn't seem to be having a crisis of conscience.

Sure some of them may be, but it would be naïve to say all of them necessarily are (as the Pope implied).
 
Don't you mean "barrowed"? Or can you link us to where this code is written?

How is saying atheists can still get into heaven borrowing anything from Catholic/Christian morals? The Pope is obviously pulling that one straight out of his secularly sensible ass.
 
I was saying someone willing to die for a cause doesn't seem to be having a crisis of conscience.

Sure some of them may be, but it would be naïve to say all of them necessarily are (as the Pope implied).

It is you that is suggesting the terrorists are acting on their conscience. The pope is denouncing the violence ISIS has brought and the suffering of the people who weren't able to flee.

The Pope said:
In Francis' Christmas Day prayer on Friday he indirectly denounced the Islamic State, decrying both the "brutal acts of terrorism" that struck Paris this year and the "monstrous evil" endured by the people of Syria and Libya.
 
Statements like this always seem so bizarre to me. Me being a billionaire is more interesting than the alternative, but I don't really have the choice to genuinely believe that I am one. I can only think that I am one through self-delusion.

The statement "chosen to believe in reincarnation because it's more interesting" similarly equates to willful self-delusion.
or positive projection..string theory, the belief that anything is possible..what's delusional about that?..you choose billionaire as your projection. Good luck. I don't sell my beliefs or look for groups to support them. I think Nihilism is more self delusional than Taoism. Having money is a tangible..countable thing..believing that we are not confined to the physical form we inhabit forever is interesting if you compare it to emptiness, nothingness. It's a choice but if it seems bizarre to you, that's understandable.
 
I think the Catholic church is rebuilding..they've taken some serious hits and this is sort of like legalization of marijuana...it's a popular and lucrative stance.
 
How is saying atheists can still get into heaven borrowing anything from Catholic/Christian morals? The Pope is obviously pulling that one straight out of his secularly sensible ass.

I didn't ask anything about this. You used the term evolving secular moral values. How is it you and the Pope are on the same wave length in this? Where are these values written so
you both know what the evolving code is? Or is this secular code simply borrowed?
 
I didn't ask anything about this.

It's the subject of the thread.

Atheists getting into heaven is not Biblical and not a traditional tenet of Christianity or Catholicism, so the alternative is that it's coming from a sense of what is right/just that has nothing to do with those things.
 
It's the subject of the thread.

Atheists getting into heaven is not Biblical and not a traditional tenet of Christianity or Catholicism, so the alternative is that it's coming from a sense of what is right/just that has nothing to do with those things.

Right. And these evolving secular moral values are written where?
 
I think you are correct. Just asking Crow, how he made the wavelength connection with the Pope. Or is it written some where.

Pope is playing a losing hand. He's trying to make lemonade out of lemons.

How about those mixed metaphors?
 
I think Nihilism is more self delusional than Taoism.

Why? Because it's less interesting?

believing that we are not confined to the physical form we inhabit forever is interesting if you compare it to emptiness, nothingness. It's a choice but if it seems bizarre to you, that's understandable.

I'm just saying genuine belief it not a choice. It is compelled by evidence. If you think there is evidence for what you believe good for you, but saying you choose to believe something because it's the interesting alternative seems like it is by definition fooling yourself.
 
Next he'll say something crazy like there isn't a whites only heaven and a 2nd heaven for everyone else.
But there is white heaven. All the statues in Catholic churches are Norwegian blue eyed holy men.
 
It is you that is suggesting the terrorists are acting on their conscience.

I'm guessing there's typically some sort of personal moral justification involved in the process of killing for a cause, yes.

The pope is denouncing the violence ISIS has brought and the suffering of the people who weren't able to flee.

Yes he's making 2 contradictory points.
 
Why? Because it's less interesting?



I'm just saying genuine belief it not a choice. It is compelled by evidence. If you think there is evidence for what you believe good for you, but saying you choose to believe something because it's the interesting alternative seems like it is by definition fooling yourself.
no it's not...if you consider something possible, it doesn't mean you're fooling yourself..as to reincarnation I have experienced things that sparked my curiousity but choice and interest is a personal thing. You seem to need to question the puzzle that I find interesting....I question immaculate conception and eternal damnation so I know what that's like but I firmly believe you decide what to put your faith behind and when something demonstrable changes that perspective, I'll adapt. I have no dogma when it comes to how I view our lives resolve. I think my take on life is as genuine as the argument against it and it IS a choice
 
I was just saying I think calling yourself an agnostic is avoiding the real question, I didn't intend any offense. But if you don't want to discuss it any more that's fine.
I haven't looked at it like that before. I can totally understand how you could think that the choice of an agnostic not to place faith in one side (atheism) or the other (theism) is an avoidance of the 'question'. I ask that you try to look at it in a different way. If humanity had to take a test and was asked "Is there a god/s" in a sense - Theism would be Yes, Atheism would be no, and Agnostic would be Other (Please explain). It's not that we are avoiding the question, we are in fact answering the question with the answer being that not enough evidence is given for us to commit to the yes, or the no. I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't mean an agnostic walks through life with their eyes shut. I am constantly weighing 'evidence' for the existence of a god. I'm honestly just not sure its possible for us to gain that knowledge in this existence. Science has made amazing advancements in the way we understand how things work and why they are here, but deep down my gut tells me that you could spend billions of years trying to disprove a god with science to no avail.
 
I haven't looked at it like that before. I can totally understand how you could think that the choice of an agnostic not to place faith in one side (atheism) or the other (theism) is an avoidance of the 'question'. I ask that you try to look at it in a different way. If humanity had to take a test and was asked "Is there a god/s" in a sense - Theism would be Yes, Atheism would be no, and Agnostic would be Other (Please explain). It's not that we are avoiding the question, we are in fact answering the question with the answer being that not enough evidence is given for to make a decision one way or the other. I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't mean an agnostic walks through life with their eyes shut regarding the question. I am constantly weighing "evidence" for the existence of a god. I'm honestly just not sure its possible for us to gain that knowledge in this existence. Science has tried and made amazing advancements in the way we understand how things work and why they are here, but deep down my gut tells me that you could spend billions of years trying to disprove a god with science to no avail.
well said
 
I haven't looked at it like that before. I can totally understand how you could think that the choice of an agnostic not to place faith in one side (atheism) or the other (theism) is an avoidance of the 'question'. I ask that you try to look at it in a different way. If humanity had to take a test and was asked "Is there a god/s" in a sense - Theism would be Yes, Atheism would be no, and Agnostic would be Other (Please explain). It's not that we are avoiding the question, we are in fact answering the question with the answer being that not enough evidence is given for to make a decision one way or the other. I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't mean an agnostic walks through life with their eyes shut regarding the question. I am constantly weighing "evidence" for the existence of a god. I'm honestly just not sure its possible for us to gain that knowledge in this existence. Science has tried and made amazing advancements in the way we understand how things work and why they are here, but deep down my gut tells me that you could spend billions of years trying to disprove a god with science to no avail.

I agree with what I bolded. We just look at the rest differently, and that's fine. I do not claim to know that there is no god, and if I was presented compelling evidence for a god, I would then believe in god. But just like you don't think science will disprove a god, I don't think a god will ever be proven. I consider myself an atheist because, in my opinion, not believing in a god is the logical default position.
 
I'm guessing there's typically some sort of personal moral justification involved in the process of killing for a cause, yes.



Yes he's making 2 contradictory points.

He didn't condemn their religion or moral grounds or anything else along those lines. I don't see the contradiction. You seem to be making it out to be Christianity/Catholicism moral justification vs. Islam moral justification.

If he condemned North Korea for human rights violations, it would be him denouncing North Korea - in the same manner he denounced ISIS.

As for moral justification, it seems to be about justice for the terrorists more than it is about religion. The religious aspect is to put a bur under the West's saddle, so to speak. Another metaphor. Or it is a capitulation among the masses to the few who are strong enough to put up a resistance.
 
If you choose to believe something possible is actual you are by definition fooling yourself.
You assume it's not actual so that it props up your stance on the subject..in essence you may be fooling yourself by not exploring the possibiltiy...sort of like being taught the world is flat until someone says..hey...maybe it's not but nobody has circumnavigated the globe to prove it. In the case of reincarnation there are thousands of cases you can study that prop up the possiblity but you can choose to not show interest and write them off as foolish pursuits.
 
You assume it's not actual

I didn't say that, and all the specifics you are referencing are irrelevant.

I'm just making the point that you are effectively stating that your beliefs about reality are based in nothing but wishful thinking. The fact that something is more interesting to you is not evidence that it is true.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top