When is an atheist a Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustLamb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First can I thank you, tp, for the irenic tone and reasoned nature of your post.

I should say first that the assertion that Jesus lived and was crucified are historical facts; only a tiny number of atheists would be brave enough to batter their heads against those historical facts. The question is whether Jesus was God, and what it would mean to say that He was.

In the past existence of these forums it was against the rules to put the case for atheism, and I am happy to assume the same applies here – it is easy enough to find places where that case is argued.

But I would like to say this:

Many people more admirable than me, more intelligent, more learned, have believed that Jesus was and is God. Many people more admirable than me, more intelligent, more learned, have come to the opposite opinion.

What conclusion do I draw from that? Well, that it is possible for an intelligent person of goodwill to come to either opinion. And if that is so, how can it be true that those who come honestly and with goodwill to one of those two opinions are doing just fine, whereas those who come honestly and with goodwill to the other are thereby committing a sin – a top rank mortal sin, moreover, a sin such that it will certainly afford me an express route to Hell, as one of the posters here suggested?
 
Last edited:
Not every theory is declared Truth. This theory is based on uncertainty. We still are not certain what happens to unBaptized infants. But there is valid hope that they can receive God’s mercy. Prayer has effect in this case.
 
So the parents who lost children that were unbaptised and were tormented over 800 years were at fault for believing a theory?

Did the Church say 'OK, this is only a theory but if your child dies it could go to limbo. We’re not sure."?

No. It conveyed it as truth as it did with the righteousness of slavery until it was politically disadvantageous.

I would love to see a Catechism that marks each paragraph with Truth or Theory.
 
rcwitness said:
Mark 16

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Click to expand...
And that has certainly happened… by men.
 
Yes, everyone is responsible, in part, for what they believe and why they believe it.

Those who promoted it as truth will have to answer to God.

What you should do, is provide a source of official Catholic Teaching that this was promoted as more than theory, please.
 
In Ireland separate burial grounds for dead unbaptised children were created from the 17th century.

link.springer.com

Children’s Burial Grounds in Ireland (Cilliní) and Parental Emotions Toward Infant Death - International Journal of Historical Archaeology

Cilliní—or children’s burial grounds—were the designated resting places for unbaptized infants and other members of Irish society who were considered unsuitable by the Roman Catholic Church for burial in consecrated ground. The sites appear to have proliferated from the seventeenth century...
link.springer.com link.springer.com
 
Yes, it was a serious concern. I believe it is based more on fear than knowledge.

It does show that the Church can’t just declare something true, even if she would like to.
 
When I see a Pope acting like Der Fuhrer, I’ll rethink my position. You must have missed the part of my post where I said Popes in my lifetime have been good and admirable men. Also, the RC “that’s what we do” comment was primarily because there are other Catholics on this site who, either because they are members of groups not in communion with Rome or they have some disagreement with the current Pope, do not so defer.

Your remark shows disrespect for both me and the current and recent Popes as well as a general lack of understanding of Catholicism today. It’s about on the level of Protestants who were afraid that JFK would be controlled by Rome.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s about on the level of Protestants who were afraid that JFK would be controlled by Rome.
Click to expand...
And JFK ended up being murdered by one of his own, General Earle (Bus) Wheeler, his chief of staff of the army. JFK knew his time was up and wrote his assassin into his Dallas speech.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But we are going off topic…
 
Last edited:
I don’t think either of those words is a sensible description of Jesus (and I am surprised someone as honest and intelligent as CS Lewis proposed such a sleight-of-hand trick as his Trilemma)…
 
Last edited:
I’m not familiar with C.S. Lewis’ comment.

I am curious how you describe Jesus’ Teachings and professions if you don’t claim Him to be delusional or bearing false witness.
 
Lewis proposed that it was impossible to dispute Christ’s claims to divinity and at the same time regard Him as a great moral teacher, because He was either “lord, lunatic or liar”. You see the similarity to the terms of your question. How would I describe Him? With care! I’ll come back to you when I’m free.
 
Oh, yes, I agree with Lewis.

But remember, merely calling Him Lord does not make Him truly one’s Lord.
 
Last edited:
OK. Well, first, I am no theologian and no scholar of the Bible, so bear with me.

First I would say that our understanding of Jesus must always be qualified by the extent of the historical accuracy of the New Testament narratives. Scholars work continuously, of course, to try to identify from the Gospel accounts the actual teachings and professions Jesus might reliably be thought to have made.

That said, my own opinion (which is not worth much) is that Jesus was one of those first century Palestinian prophets who believed that the Apocalypse was at hand, and who warned their people that they needed to put themselves on the right footing with God if they wanted to survive the Judgement which would come within the next few years/decades. He clearly believed that He had an insight into God’s plan, and perhaps that He would return to play a special rôle in the Kingdom which would be instituted on earth. That special insight and that future rôle would of course lend Him some flavour of the divine, although I very much doubt that He called Himself God. His teachings seem on the whole admirable, but very much focussed on preparation for the imminent Apocalypse.

The fact that He was clearly mistaken about the timescale of the Apocalypse, and therefore presumably about His special knowledge of God’s plans, does not seem to me good reason to call Him delusional, and certainly not a liar. He was, it seems, mistaken. So are we all from time to time.
 
The Apocalypse has been going on for 2000 years.

From Matthew 24

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am (of) Christ; and shall deceive many.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
 
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer…

Making it clear would have been in breach of that…
JustLamb said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But we are going off topic…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top