- Status
T
TMC
Guest
I guess I am slow on the uptake. Humor me and give a simple yes or no answer to these three questions:
Must one be Catholic to be saved?
Must one believe that Jesus is God to be saved?
Must one believe in God to be saved?
I would answer no to all three. My reading of the Catechism and other Church teachings is also no to all three. What do you say?
T
TMC
Guest
OK, so we agree that the Church’s answer is no, no and no. Thanks.
T
TMC
Guest
I agree that my take was simple - and note that it is also accurate.
Thanks for the condescension, by the way!
C
Coolhandlukeboy
Guest
What has worked for me plenty of times in the past is to call them out on this in a charitable way. Richard Dawkins-esque arguments (since you mentioned him), are easily refuted. The idea that Christians believe in a Magician in the Sky is a ridiculously simplistic straw man fallacy on his part.
Second, science cannot disprove God. Only philosophy can do this. Science has as its end the physical universe… which God is not. Thus no science can disprove God. Furthermore, there is nothing within physics to suggest that anything within this universe causes itself to be. In fact, the very notion of the Big Bang gives credence to the First Cause/Unmoved Mover argument.
By showing an embrace of science, I share common ground with atheists. Of course, there are always a few who are as rigorously atheist as there are fundamentalist Christians. At a certain point, one must realize that no matter how the truth is presented, someone may not be open to truth.
I myself may have been a cradle Catholic, but I did my utmost to abandon my faith in college. I succeeded for about a year, but eventually had to open up to truth.
For these atheists (atheists influenced by Christianity, as you suggested), the approach that works the best is to meet them where they are. Primarily physics. There are so many philosophically inept physicists that it is so very easy to lay waste to the arguments of Dawkins, Hawking and Kraus. They may be decent physicists, but they make poor philosophers.
As you rightly said earlier, the theological approach will cause a shutdown. I think I understand your question here better, after reading back in the posts in this thread. Although admittedly you do have a number of posts about different discussions/topics.
Concerning whether grace is a good starting point, I find it is nearly impossible to determine this as some universal. Some atheists do appreciate theology. “Real” atheists appreciate philosophy more (in my experience). And most “anti-theists” respond well to the experience of the teacher. If they like you and see you passionate for your faith, it can make all the difference in the world.
I run a metaphysics class and I have some collegiate students who are not religious. Although they have many questions, they appreciate the depth of the subject. For those students, that is the only way I am able to address the need for grace (see my first post in response to you). They really got this part. Grace wasn’t an issue for them, since it follows from Thomistic metaphysics. The only real question is whether Thomistic metaphysics is true, but you can’t disprove it half-butted. It requires thought.
This is why I have respect for atheists like Terry Eagleton. They at least understand what it means to be an atheist. It is a belief system. Call a spade a spade. I appreciate the candor of this article: lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching.
Honestly, I’m ok with a rational atheist… as long as they are rational and understand their opponents. This at least demonstrates the desire to find truth. This is something that popular physicists and scientists - Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins - fail at miserably. I point this out to my Christian atheists. If they don’t see the problem, usually a few other atheists do and point it out. Otherwise, it’s refutation of these points again!
I would like to respond to the rest of your responses, but I still have so little time. I do feel that I misunderstood part of your question earlier and hope that I did not seem callous. At any rate, I feel your questions are genuine and deserve proper response. And I do so ever enjoy a challenge! Good night.
M
migueltojose
Guest
I think we and others here are very close to what we think… I think we think… I think…
I think the difference is that you seem to be treating it (or at least I’m interpreting it this way) that the situation is static.
We are all on a journey. Anyone who thinks they are an atheist or agnostic or a non-believer or hopeless or whatever can change. It happens all the time. God’s grace may fall on a beaten path for a long long time and then one day take root and reawaken. And we don’t know who where or when, so, to take a snapshot of “now” and make a “judgement” of where someone else is on the journey, while very tempting, is wrong. They may wake up tomorrow and see the light. Maybe it could be your thoughts and prayers that makes the difference – or at least gets an “assist”. It’s a fluid situation and highly likely that what would seem like a “mracle” can occur at anytime.
Perhaps Hitler is in heaven. Maybe while the bullet was travelling down the gun barrell at an extremely rapid speed, Hitler and God had a reconciliation. We don’t know. But we should hope so. There is a battle for souls and we want all we can get… for the sake of Jesus’ sorrowful passion. If he loves them, we love them.
I’ve read where supposedly one of Jesus’ biggest frustrations with us today is, that we don’t quite get “as we forgive those who trespass against us”… The upshot was that this is a major failing and puts us at risk…
For some the journey is straight and narrow for others the journey is long and winding… but for most of us it varies…
Jesus would die for each and every soul individually, one at a time, (everyday at 3 pm) just so they can have the chance… we shouldn’t give up on them (judge/label)… ever… what a joy it will be to see such pathetic ragged lowlife sinners like me in heaven some day… God willing…
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I am deeply grateful that you took the time and effort to read my earlier posts and reset our discussion. I’ll admit it, you are a better person than I. (I had grown frustrated and failed to focus on diagnosing why we were disagreeing.) (While I’m in the confession booth, I’ll also admit that I was being sloppy with the usage of “grace and mercy” sometimes using grace to stand for the later.)
I’ll also admit that you stated my point better than I. The core issue is that approaching atheists (and, again, I use that term very loosely to emcompass all the sorts of people who knowingly reject Christian theology and morality; some prefer the term “pagan”) is that leading with theology is not an effective strategy. Everything you wrote in the unquoted portion of your post and a previous post is entirely consistent with my experience. Obviously I was mistaken in my earlier accusation: you do undersatnd atheists.
I dearly love Pope Francis but he is really pissing me off. I fear that he is opining a bit too freely. (Save the brickbats, I know that’s a terrible thing to say.) My impression is that he is, in contrast to Pope Benedict who is (strange to use “is” for a former pope) a deep thinker, a pastorially-oriented cleric. His heart is in the right place as has amply demonstrated but he needs to have more of those conversations with atheists.
This is a critially important issue that has confronted the Church for a century or two: how to adapt to modernity. Vatican II was convened in large part to address this problem. I don’t think the Church has found a solution yet. The Church continues to shrink in the developed world (mainly Europe and North America though some would point to compensating progress in the undeveloped regions of Africa and Asia). It’s even losing to Protestantism in Latin America. This vexes me to no end.
I know that there are plenty of people in the Church who do understand atheists, who, like you, have dealt with them first-hand and even have some notches on their belt to show for it. But the Church has yet to assemble this knowledge into its mission. It’s still fumbling around.
People often look to history for solutions. Christ himself did not lead with theology, he led with miracles. Good luck with that. The early Church didn’t lead with theology, it led with modeling (charity, courage, and large families are among the examples cited by pagans for their admiration of the Christians). But, for the most part, modern atheists despise the Christian lifestyle and admire depravity.
I don’t have a solution yet, I’m still searching.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think you misunderstood me, but in a useful way.
There are three actors here: God (dispensing grace), the atheist (rejecting that grace), and the Church (both clergy and laity). God’s doing his part. The question is what should we be doing? I’m certainly not suggesting we should gawk and click our tongues in disapproval.
I’m trying to figure this out. But I’ve had enough experience to know that leading with theology, as Coolhandlukeboy so eloquently phrased it, is not going to work.
E
evener
Guest
Hey folks-
What happened to the question of our pope faulting the church’s alleged focus on gay marriage and abortion? To put the focus back on the statement, suppose president Obama made the statement? Should our church point out these evils for what they are, or join the secular world and lean towards “toleration,” or indifference?
What happened to the question of our pope faulting the church’s alleged focus on gay marriage and abortion? To put the focus back on the statement, suppose president Obama made the statement? Should our church point out these evils for what they are, or join the secular world and lean towards “toleration,” or indifference?
G
gracepoole
Guest
Or should we reject the false dilemma that’s summarized here, since it was never offered by Pope Francis?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
There are a few issues here that merit distinquishing:
- What did Pope Francis actually say vs. what did the press report vs. what are liberal Catholics hearing?
- Is the Church acually focused on, or “obsessed” with abortion and homosexual marriage or was that a straw man constructed for some other purpose?
- Insofar as some in the Church have, with whatever frequency, spoken out on these issues, have they been tossed under the bus in the quest for relevance in the modern world?
- Does the Church need to rethink it’s position on these issues in order to “modernize”?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
The Pope is not saying gays and abortion shouldn’t be among the Catholic focus. Only that there needs to be a greater balance and the poor should be a greater part of the focus and discussion than has been the case. And he is right to fault the lack of balance. I know I was led to leave the Catholic faith because of this imbalance, including what I have observed on Catholic internet forums. And when I see as well many today objecting to nearly any government role to aid the poor and the sick in addition to their private contributions, I’m reminded of this quote which I’ve seen attributed to former President Jimmy Carter: “If you don’t want your tax dollars to help the poor- then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values, because you don’t.”
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
Jimmy Carter is wrong, though. While we may argue about the proper role of the government, those who favor a greater role in private charity or locals/state instead of federal shouldn’t be judged as being non-Christian. We can differ on our approach to care for the poor.
O
Origen52
Guest
First world countries that can spend billions on wars should not require people to depend on charity for basic human needs.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
What? That is a non sequitur. It is incredibly naive to think that spending on defense will be converted to charitable giving. Also, as I stated, we can differ in our approach to how extensive the State’s involvement should be and what level (I.e. Federal, state, local) is best.
O
Origen52
Guest
Don’t want to get into a thread war, but
Definition of non sequitur:
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
I think my statement stands as a deducible. Proven by the fact you stated an argument against it.
You’re correct; Defence spending will never be diverted to social justice if people of goodwill don’t work for change.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
- Status