Pope: You Don't Have To Believe In God To Get To Heaven

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Atheism in asia is of a different variety than in the Western world where the atheistic tradition arose in antithesis to religion. Atheists in the West tend to be hostile towards religious belief. I think you can push against a concept even if you do not believe the notion exists concretely in the world, but only in the minds of mice and men. It seems as if atheism is a virulent vomiting out of the mind the notion of the evangelical-fundamentalist deity. In an abstract sense, atheism is merely the non-belief in a supernatural deity, but its concrete manifestations take on much more differentiation.

 

It was not my intent to castigate atheism. In my humble opinion, atheistic philosophy has offered an indispensable critique of religion and allowed my own faith to become more genuine. The two intellectuals who influenced me the most — Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud — were staunch atheists. I actually assent to their critiques of religion and establish my faith through their negations. I love the old atheists. It is merely the new atheists who I think are boorish, uneducated, ill cultured and totally useless for society.  

 

I'm ignorant about the difference between atheism in Asia and atheism in the west. Could you please elaborate?

Why do you dislike new atheists? Which new atheists do you dislike?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Disbelieving in God is actively pushing away from God. Check out the words of the Apostle in Romans chapter 1. The Catholic Church alludes to it in chapter 1 as well.

 

If someone calls himself/herself an atheist but is upset with some of the details of religion, they're not an atheist. We all agree. :saint2:

 

 

edit: lol, apparently the forum automatically translates Roman Catholic Catechism to "The Catholic Church".

 

I'm confused as to how that would be actively pushing away. Could you please explain?

[Apteka]

It seems quite simple, to me: you can't fault someone who lacks the gift of faith. Since it is God alone who grants it, one cannot condemn those he hasn't granted it to.

 

Faith is grace acted upon. God grants this grace to all souls, yet God also demands an act of free will, one must choose God. The state we are in is in our control, and the afterlife is merely a continuation of the state we die in. In the end everyone gets what they have prepared for themselves.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Faith is grace acted upon. God grants this grace to all souls, yet God also demands an act of free will, one must choose God. The state we are in is in our control, and the afterlife is merely a continuation of the state we die in. In the end everyone gets what they have prepared for themselves.

Native Americans.

[John Ryan]

I'm ignorant about the difference between atheism in Asia and atheism in the west. Could you please elaborate?

Why do you dislike new atheists? Which new atheists do you dislike?

 

Atheism in the Eastern world is less antagonistic towards religion (except perhaps the Communist variety) because Eastern religions are not commensurable to Western faiths. There is no monotheism, so there is no mentality of non-believers who will burn in hell due to their lack of faith. Hell is generally thought of part of a wider cycle of life and rebirth. Eastern religion is indistinguishable from philosophy in many respects and thus, its practitioners tend to be less exclusivist. In a certain sense, Daoists and Buddhists are commonly atheists. The Dao is not particularly supernatural in the same sense as the God of the western world in post-Christ era. Asian Atheists do not feel the need to establish themselves in contradistinction to the religious for these reasons. Sorry, I am not explaining myself eloquently. My mind is sluggish today. 

 

And, Terry Eagleton summed up my thoughts  about new atheism much better than I ever could in his review of The God Delusion in his "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching". New atheists are childish with their idiotic concepts such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their comparisons of faith to belief in the Loch Ness Monster. New Atheists attack the lowest common denominator of religious belief and then pronounce themselves the victor. As someone who studies philosophy, I had to keep face-palming myself of how utterly stupid Richard Dawkins seemed compared to John Lennox in their debate. Dawkins barely seemed to be able to comprehend Lennox's philosophic points. 

 

I cannot remember if Eagleton mentions this, but I also think that new atheism leads to a cultural nihilism. New atheism has a strong tendency to create science as the new god and minimize humankind in the process. Dawkins balks at the idea that human existence is meaningful in the cosmos, and Daniel Dennett has spearheaded the philosophical denial of consciousness. Unlike the old atheism of Marx, new atheism is the denial of the human. Metaphysical naturalists can call themselves secular humanists all they want, but I still believe their philosophy tends towards anti-humanism. 

Edited September 20, 2013 by John Ryan

[Apotheoun]

I like how Westerners know a lot about Eastern religions, but know nothing (or practically nothing) about Eastern Christianity.

[Selah]

I like how Westerners know a lot about Eastern religions, but know nothing (or practically nothing) about Eastern Christianity.

 

I've heard a number of people denounce Eastern religions entirely, without any inkling that they also denounced Christianity (which is an Eastern religion) :p

[Apotheoun]

I've heard a number of people denounce Eastern religions entirely, without any inkling that they also denounced Christianity (which is an Eastern religion) :P

+1 if I had any to give.

[Ice_nine]

I like how Westerners think they know a lot about Eastern religions, but know nothing (or practically nothing) about Eastern Christianity.

 

minor correction.

[Apteka]

Native Americans.

 

You've only left me with one phrase here, but I take it you mean to suggest that Native Americans, or others outside of the feasible reach of Catholicism, would be automatically damned. The actual position of Catholic theology is that even these souls have the possibility of being saved, and the reason being that God can test them in a way unique to their experience, and grant them the gift of Faith as he sees fit.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You've only left me with one phrase here, but I take it you mean to suggest that Native Americans, or others outside of the feasible reach of Catholicism, would be automatically damned. The actual position of Catholic theology is that even these souls have the possibility of being saved, and the reason being that God can test them in a way unique to their experience, and grant them the gift of Faith as he sees fit.

Why do they only get a free pass?

[Apteka]

Why do they only get a free pass?

 

Invincible ignorance only means there is no culpability for lacking explicit faith, it does not mean a person get's automatically into heaven. Many of the invincibly ignorant will still fall short due to personal sins they have committed.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Invincible ignorance only means there is no culpability for lacking explicit faith, it does not mean a person get's automatically into heaven. Many of the invincibly ignorant will still fall short due to personal sins they have committed.

Only people who have never heard the gospel are invincibly ignorant?

[Apteka]

Only people who have never heard the gospel are invincibly ignorant?

 

Good question, traditionally that is the way it was understood, but God is the judge of that

[Apotheoun]

You've only left me with one phrase here, but I take it you mean to suggest that Native Americans, or others outside of the feasible reach of Catholicism, would be automatically damned. The actual position of Catholic theology is that even these souls have the possibility of being saved, and the reason being that God can test them in a way unique to their experience, and grant them the gift of Faith as he sees fit.

That is a common idea found in both East and West. The Church has always taught that God has bound Himself to the Holy Mysteries, and so we can be certain that they convey His grace, but God Himself is not bound by the sacramental Mysteries, and so - in ways known only to Him - He can supply the graces and helps necessary for a man to achieve eternal beatitude.

 

As the Eastern Orthodox like to say: "We can know where the Church is, but since the Holy Spirit blows where He wills, we cannot be sure where it is not."