Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
extra ecclesiam nulla salus
And you should read what the Church means by that. The catechism also has a section about non catholics. Here it is.
“This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)”
It is quite telling that "the catechism" is longer than the New Testament. The Catholics have created their own religion.
The New Testament is clear that those who do not accept Jesus as their savior will burn in hell.
Of course, the real issue should focus on how it is immoral for anybody to be sent to hell, nevermind for something meaningless such as not following the right god.
It actually makes sense that the catechism is longer. Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura. And with good reason. The Catholic church predates the canon of the Bible.
Catholics do believe that not everything is written down in the Bible, the rest, Jesus has given authority to his church to decide on those matters.
So can you tell us if some people can't be saved, and if Hitler falls in that category, and if so why?
If Hitler can be saved, and Jewish people not be saved then it's clearly not a sensible question, but you seem reticent on the salient points.
The RCC actually stops short of saying that any one person is certainly in hell. This because of what we believe about God’s merciful nature.
For example, a theif who steals food for his starving family out of necessity may be shown mercy by God. A Hindu girl who has never heard of Christ, for example, but nonetheless follows her conscience and does good for her neighbors will also have the chance to enjoy heaven.
This concept is actually found in Romans 2:14-15. Paul is talking about Gentiles who have never heard the Gospel. The RCC actually calls this “invincible ignorance” which actually has a big scope. This would actually include people who have heard about Christ but do not know much about it.
What does however condemn someone to hell, would require that the person in question has full control of their actions (ruling out hypothetical mind control situations), full knowledge (meaning they’re fully aware that what they’re doing is wrong) in a grave matter.
These conditions I can find in Hitler but can’t find them for Anne Frank.
@ JoC
I really do not know where you get your loving cherry picking meaning of those verses from JoC. Paul is talking about the Jewish concept of Law...and the excuse the gentiles offered to be excused. Paul said nothing in these verses to contradict Romans 2:12 When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God's written law. And the Jews, who do have God's law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it.
Almost immediately the writer seeks to justify that argument by referring to Jewish Law...so you were guilty of taking things out of context JoC tsk tsk....
Romans 2:14-16, English Standard Version (ESV)
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
I suggest you read some commentaries which make the distinction clear about what 'Paul' was writing about, Paul was writing about aspects of the (jewish) Law It certainly is not as forgiving and loving as you describe.
Which is very clear indeed. This is a christian site...you may pick upsome decent hints from it. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/2-14.htm
Actually, all I was really saying was that everyone (regardless if they’re gentile or jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or Atheist) have the “work of the law written on their hearts”. The verse then proceeds to talk about conscience, which Catholics believe everyone has and should follow. That’s all I’m really saying.
The RCC takes this to mean that God will judge them by what is in their hearts.
You haven't answered my question. It's very simple...
1. Can you tell us if some people can't be saved, and
2. Did Hitler fall in that category, and if so why?
Please avoid irrelevant and overly verbose analogies.
If Hitler can be saved, and Jewish people not be saved then it's clear your question was not a sensible question.
You know Anne Frank was Jewish and Hitler Catholic right?
Didn't Jesus repeatedly claim no one could be saved but through belief in him? You know Jews don't believe that don't you?
So we have a belief system where it is conceivable Anne Frank could be in hell and Hitler in heaven. Just how much tap dancing are you going to do here?
I know those things. Though it could be argued that Hitler, although baptised Catholic, no longer believed in the faith.
Again, it is not in the teachings of the church that non-Christians are automatically not saved.
There are even verses in the Bible that support this view as well. John 15:22.
The chhurh teaches that if you die in separation from God, you will go to hell. This happens when one commits a mortal sin. This mortal sin happens when one has full knowledge, full control in a grave matter. All of these, I personally believe were present with Hitler.
In Anne Frank’s case, there is no such evidence as to point that she willingly rejected God. So no, I do not believe she’d be in hell.
"un, 06/17/2018 - 02:31
JoC "That is f**cked up. Curious though, where are these Biblical rules that say anne frank might go to Hell and Hitler, heaven?"
" John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Geddit?
This is very simple. Are you saying Jews can be saved and go to heaven even though they die not believing in Jesus? If the answer is no then Anne Frank **COULD be in hell. The second one is also very simple, could Hitler have repented with an act of genuine contrition and been saved, YES or NO? If yes then Hitler could conceivably be in heaven.
Hence your question is pretty silly.
John 14:6 doesn’t say that that we need to believe he can save us for him to save us. It’s like this, is it possible for me to save someone else’s life without them knowing that they were saved by me? Without even knowing me? It’s quite obvious that the answer is yes.
Ex. I can save them when they were unconscious. There might have been a certain disaster that I prevented, etc.
This is the type of mechanism by which Jesus saves non-believers even when they don’t know him. So to answer your question about if Jews can be saved, they can! As long as they follow the law that is written on their hearts (conscience).
About Hitler, could he have done an act of genuine contrition? That in fact, is a possibility though it is highly doubtful. During his reign, he would’ve had all the chances to change his ways yet he deliberately chose not to. Could it have happened? Maybe. But I’d wager there’s only a 0.00000001% chance that could’ve happened.
"About Hitler, could he have done an act of genuine contrition? That in fact, is a possibility"
Then christianity is a religion where it is possible that Anne Frank is in hell, and Hitler is in heaven.
QED...No belief could claim to be moral if it could allow of even that possibility. Ipso facto christianity is not moral.
I have to draw a small distinction here. You do realize you're asking me to make a certain pronouncement if someone is in hell or could be in heaven when the church itself has never made any pronouncement that any specific person is in hell. The church does teach that there are people in hell as there are people who knowingly and willfully reject him.
The distinction I have to draw, however, is that that decision as to who goes to hell or heaven does not lie with the church or any individual person in the church. It belongs to God alone. So while the church says that say, suicide is wrong, it doesn't pronounce any person who has committed suicide to be definitely in hell as the church does not know what was in the person's heart. He could've been in depression which could have impaired his free will in the matter, and so forth.
"You do realize you're asking me to make a certain pronouncement if someone is in hell or could be in heaven"
No I'm not, I have at every stage only inquired as to the possibility. In line with the original post where it stated they could never have any part of any religion where Hitler could be in heaven and Anne Frank in hell. Note the words **could be in that sentence. The possibility alone is enough to demonstrate a deeply immoral if not evil system.
"The distinction I have to draw, however, is that that decision as to who goes to hell or heaven does not lie with the church or any individual person in the church. It belongs to God alone."
I suggest as a Catholic you tell the Pope, it's nothing but unicorn husbandry to me. Luckily for you secular governments won't allow the RCC to burn you at the stake, or that you be 'put to the question' by the inquisition anymore.
"So while the church says that say, suicide is wrong, it doesn't pronounce any person who has committed suicide to be definitely in hell as the church does not know what was in the person's heart."
I believe the pronouncement by the church was specifically about the act, though I am not entirely au fait with the latest minutia of it's superstitious proclamations. However the idea anyone could be tortured forever is itself demonstrably immoral. A deity with morals that are evil and barbaric just confirms the original posters sentiment. The fact these final destinations are presupposed on adherence to incoherent doctrine and dogma is another example of barbaric immorality, and not a perfectly merciful deity.
"He could've been in depression which could have impaired his free will in the matter, and so forth."
Your religion's compassion is underwhelming. See previous statements about morality as they apply.
@Sheldon
By golly, good man, I do love your method of shredding. It's almost like a work of art. *grin*
I think I see where we don't meet. While you think my view of hell is as a punishment (as it is one of the most simple ways to view hell), the Catholic view of hell is actually more nuanced. Here's the section in the Catechism:
Paragraph 1033
"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell.""
It actually views hell as something people freely choose by rejecting God. It's not so much a punishment as it is a deliberate choice to separate one's self from God. Now, is there suffering in hell? Yes. But it's not something brought about for the sole purpose of punishment. It's more of the effect of your free choice of separating yourself from God.
joc...hey man...no offence my brother...
i just got something to say when it comes to what you belief man....
how can a god give something like "freewill" and also foresee the future??and yet judge his creation and sends them to hell?
alright......
pretend you're god and of course you already know what will happen or what will that person choose or what is the outcome of his or her choice. correct?
so where does your merciful or just power come in??....do you get my point?
like an old pal said "~epicurus"
is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?then his not omnipotent
is he able but not willing? then he's malevolent
is he able and willing? then where did evil came from anyway?
is he neither able nor willing?
then why call him Fucking god?
(epicurus got it 2300 years ago. why can't we today?)
once again bruh no offense..
this is just a question that religious and theologians really can't accept. and just toss their delusional reasoning, and creating their own christianity or what other theist call and believe them selves are. they can't accept that their god is an illusion.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLakJ_Z_CGk
i just love this matt dillahunty & tracie harris video.
peace out joc...filipino rocks..!!!
I used to think along the same lines. Knowing the outcome ahead of time and allowing free will do not actually contradict. On the surface, it may seem that way but look at the structure of the argument closely. I can give a counter example, though a more limited one. I teach Pre-calculus in Senior High. Everyday, I tell them to read the book in advance in preparation for the next day's lesson. But I know for a fact that certain students will not do this. Does my foreknowledge of them not doing this act impair in any way their free will to read or not read in advance?
Continuing on, if I decide the next day to give them a test about said topic in the book, knowing full well, they will fail said test, does that make me cruel? Or is it better for them since they learn from their mistakes?
"is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?then his not omnipotent
is he able but not willing? then he's malevolent
is he able and willing? then where did evil came from anyway?
is he neither able nor willing?
then why call him Fucking god?"
I like this argument actually. However, it does assume one premise whose truth value can be argued and from what I gather, it has not been answered yet. This entire argument actually assumes that:
"God has no good reasons for allowing evil to happen."
There may be good reason to allow evil things to happen.
Again, allowing evil to happen and causing it to happen are two vastly different things. For example, a parent can allow their child to get hurt while playing with other kids. It's actually quite inevitable that the child will get hurt (physically or emotionally). But the option of not allowing the child to play with other kids just to prevent him from getting hurt would be a greater evil than just allowing him to do so.
Another example would be car accidents. That's an evil, a physical one. One way to prevent car accidents completely would be to ban cars altogether. But the alternative of not having cars at all vs allowing car accidents to happen is highly impractical.
It's actually the Catholic response that God may allow evil and He only does so when he's able to bring about greater goods from it.
@ JoC
"It's actually the Catholic response that God may allow evil and He only does so when he's able to bring about greater goods from it."
Which is the sentence that proves you live in some sort of lala land where logic and truth become fluttering pink fairies with no real meaning.
Actually, we do this all the time. It's just not spoken in those very direct terms. Here are a couple of examples where humans allow bad things to happen knowingly to but only because greater goods demand it.
- A lot of messed up things can come from democracy. We can choose tyrants, or people unfit to be leaders of the country and in fact has happened a lot. But we allow those possibilities because democracy is seen as a much greater good than any possible tyrant.
- Car accidents can be completely avoided if all cars are banned. In fact, all vehicular accidents can be avoided if we ban all vehicles (trains, bikes, etc.) But the greater good of allowing people transportation is so much of a greater good than some accidents.
@ JoC
"Actually, we do this all the time". We (as in humans) are not omniscient, eternal, all knowing beings. We make errors, we are cruel, we are kind, we stumble over our own standards...we are not gods....oh wait... then neither is that cruel capricious, vindictive foreskin loving fantasy in the bible or the koran according to your stance....
" A lot of messed up things can come from democracy. We can choose tyrants, or people unfit to be leaders of the country and in fact has happened a lot. But we allow those possibilities because democracy is seen as a much greater good than any possible tyrant."
Where to start with this nonsense? Firstly democracy doesn't produce tyrants quite the opposite, it is an erosion of democracy that empowers tyrants and the power that corrupts them even more. We don't allow bad things to happen because there are benefits, we either didn't see they'd be so bad or are bad people who don't care. To compare this with the idea that an omniscient omnipotent deity is supposedly perfectly merciful but has created a universe in which he allows ubiquitous suffering is absurd.
"Car accidents can be completely avoided if all cars are banned."
Ironic analogy given the bible claims your deity created a world so far from his plan he drowned everyone and everything barring a small boat load of survivors. This also implies an omnipotent deity can't avoid accidents like endemic child rape in it's church, or predation say? Of course your analogy suggest an omniscient deity can't see them coming? This kind of approach to thiodicy is idiotically irrational.
" I know for a fact that certain students will not do this. Does my foreknowledge of them not doing this act impair in any way their free will to read or not read in advance?"
When you can demonstrate proper evidence for your predictive powers using double blind clinical trials we'll have a conundrum that needs further examination. As it stands all you've done is point to a trend, that hardly counts as omniscience Joc, dear oh dear.
""God has no good reasons for allowing evil to happen.""
That'd be the theistic claim that it's a perfectly merciful deity.
"Again, allowing evil to happen and causing it to happen are two vastly different things."
No they're not, they are different but not remotely vastly different. You're also making an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, as you are claiming a reason exists but have no evidence for the claim beyond wanting to rationalise your belief.
Again with the parent analogy, What if it was a parent with limitless knowledge and power, and that parent knew their child was going be raped, and then even though they could stop it easily, yet stood by and let it happen to preserve the free will of the paedophile rapist? You can spin this to appear like a purposeful omission but that's idiotic when defending a being that is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and of course omnibenevolent, so has limitless choice and mercy. The fact is it doesn't add up, as Epicurus pointed out long before Jesus is supposed to have existed.
"Another example would be car accidents. That's an evil, a physical one. One way to prevent car accidents completely would be to ban cars altogether. But the alternative of not having cars at all vs allowing car accidents to happen is highly impractical."
Sigh, would it be evil to let someone get obviously drunk, then go to their car and get in and drive away if you could easily prevent them from doing so? Come on Joc this is woeful stuff again. You're creating a false dichotomy fallacy as there are more than the two choices you have offered, and this would be quite obviously true of a deity with limitless choice.
"It's actually the Catholic response that God may allow evil and He only does so when he's able to bring about greater goods from it."
Please explain the good that he's producing from endemic child rape in the catholic church? Please demonstrate objective evidence to support your claim rather than just asserting it as you have done here, otherwise it meaningless - Hitchens's razor applies. Again this is just another desperately biased rationalisation, it's hard for me to accept you can't see how hopelessly biased your claims are? Especially as like all apologists you ignore all evidence and objections, and just roll on to the next raft of claims, then circle back to them later again and again?
Take your parent analogies as these are quite common in apologetics, in what way is an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent deity comparable to a fallible evolved mammalian parent? It's an absurd comparison, and yet they and you keep repeating them even after the absurdity has been highlighted repeatedly.
In the case of the pedophile rapist and the drunk driver, here's what I have to say. The fact the God gave man free will means that he gave up the power to control our own free will. Does it make sense for God then to force any of us to choose to do good and still have us retain our free will? It does not.
"Please explain the good that he's producing from endemic child rape in the catholic church?"
I actually need not do this as if I did, we'd go on and on and on about every single bad thing that goes on in life. The best I can give you is a counter example, which I've already mentioned. Free will. But I'm thinking you're asking about the victims in this case, I've answered this in another post in this same thread. The idea being that any bad thing that happens in this life can be overcome and the Christian faith actually includes that death can also be overcome. So really, whatever finite sufferings we have now may feel and bad and many of them are really horrible but everything in the end can be overcome.
"There may be good reason to allow evil things to happen"
there is the answer....good reason..
thank you so much for bringing that up...you really are a true christian...
happy 4th of july to everyone...oh and to you Joc..
Hahahahha. Thanks. But yeah happy 4th of July to the Americans. To us, Happy Thursday? hahahha
@JoC: Again, allowing evil to happen and causing it to happen are two vastly different things.
In some countries, "allowing evil to happen" is actually a crime. The paparazzi who took pictures of Princess Diana after her car crash instead of trying to help were investigated for the crime of "non-assistance à personne en danger" (failing to provide assistance to a person in danger).
And then there's that famous line attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
When compared with these examples of human and social morality, your religious morality starts to look very shabby indeed.
I'd agree with you to some degree. I've given some counter examples earlier. Like we've actually allowed tyrannical leaders to be elected in democracies but we don't do away with democracy because we value it.
Say, however, we're faced with a moral evil. Say someone is being killed. I'd agree with you that if we knew about this happening ahead of time and did nothing, we would be culpable for that. We can't allow these things to happen because we cannot possibly bring about anything good for anyone in this case.
God, however, is able to bring about something good in that case even if he allows it to happen. He can actually bring the victim to heaven and enjoy an eternity of happiness. I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the suffering the victim would've endured would be nothing compared to an eternity of happiness.
Take note: I'm not saying we should thank murderers for getting people to heaven or anything of that sort.
@JOC: I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the suffering the victim would've endured would be nothing compared to an eternity of happiness.
I'm sure that concept helped the torturers of the inquisition to sleep peacefully after a busy day with the thumbscrews and firewood.
It's far better for everyone to assume that this is the only life, and to do everything we can to make life as good as possible for as many people as possible in the here and now.
Pages