Christianity is a crapshoot

[roger1440]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The strong evangelical movement still has its appeal to some but my point was it is becoming more marginalized by the increase in education and exposure. Did not even the current Pope say that even atheists can get to heaven?

Yes, he did. And the way he said they could do it is by getting baptized and joining the Church.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, he did. And the way he said they could do it is by getting baptized and joining the Church.

I believe you are misquoting him there. Such a statement would have garnered zero intrigue and discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe you are misquoting him there. Such a statement would have garnered zero intrigue and discussion.

People like to project their own viewpoints onto Pope Francis. He said that Christ's sacrifice was for all of humanity - not just Catholics, and even for atheists - and it got misconstrued... as many of his statements do. He's a lot less revolutionary than his press coverage would suggest.

From Catholic Online:

The Holy Father was not teaching anything new. In fact, this hope that all who do not yet know God are not only capable of doing good - but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good - is ancient.

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

 

[Glaurung]

I wouldn't think that anything with 99% of a given population would be considered novel. Care to explain?

No Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the global majority. What he means is that the majority of Christian divisions are among the various Protestant sects.

And what is the " relativity in doctrine" you're talking about?

The lack of apostolic authority and tradition. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have established doctrinal traditions that go back to antiquity. (The Ecumenical Counsels, the Chruch Fathers, Sacred Tradition, and so on) Of course, each Protestant sect may have its own internal orthodoxy, but it (at best) goes back to the sixteenth century. The key doctrines of classical Protestantism lack antiquity. (And is often in direct contradiction with it)

Ultimately, Protestantism taken to its logical end leaves the individual as the supreme doctrinal authority. Because at its core, it's a rejection of doctrinal authority.

 

[George-ananda]

People like to project their own viewpoints onto Pope Francis. He said that Christ's sacrifice was for all of humanity - not just Catholics, and even for atheists - and it got misconstrued... as many of his statements do. He's a lot less revolutionary than his press coverage would suggest.

From Catholic Online:

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

OK, but I was objecting to your statement that said they need to be baptized and join the Church to get to heaven. I don't see evidence for that in your statements or the linked article. Doing 'good' is what matters was the message for getting closer to God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, but I was objecting to your statement that said they need to be baptized and join the Church to get to heaven. I don't see evidence for that in your statements or the linked article. Doing 'good' is what matters was the message for getting closer to God.

This blog post does a better job of addressing that detail (by making reference to "the sacraments"):

http://www.xt3.com/library/view.php?id=15048

It also clarifies how when Francis tells (rhetorical) atheists to do good and that "we will meet each other there," in context of the remarks, "there" meant "the common ground of doing good" and not "Heaven", as was assumed in some reports.

 

[George-ananda]

This blog post does a better job of addressing that detail (by making reference to "the sacraments"):

http://www.xt3.com/library/view.php?id=15048

It also clarifies how when Francis tells (rhetorical) atheists to do good and that "we will meet each other there," in context of the remarks, "there" meant "the common ground of doing good" and not "Heaven", as was assumed in some reports.

Even that article confirms that atheist can get to heaven without being baptized and joining the Church. Naturally, the Pope thinks those things are an 'aid'.

 

[Glaurung]

Even that article confirms that atheist can get to heaven without being baptized and joining the Church. Naturally, the Pope thinks those things are an 'aid'.

Not an aid, but a necessity. Anyone who culpably rejects the Chruch cannot be saved, and that is doctrine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even that article confirms that atheist can get to heaven without being baptized and joining the Church. Naturally, the Pope thinks those things are an 'aid'.

Read the whole article. The door they leave open is the typical approach in Catholic doctrine, i.e. "God isn't bound by the sacraments, so we can't say for sure that people can't be saved outside of them... but still, we have faith that God instituted them for a reason, so we don't expect people to have much luck without them."

Also, the article gets into the criteria where the "sin" of atheism can be excused. Generally, the only atheists that the Catholic Church excuses are ones that have never heard of Christ or the Gospels... i.e. people who are unlikely to be having a conversation with the Pope, like the rhetorical atheists in his speech were.

 

[paarsurrey]

Babies can show aggression in several months of birth , without ever experience from parents.
Are lots of inherent unwelcome attribute in child 0-3 years.
Biting parents
Ignoring limits
Hating bath time
Not sharing
Throwing food
Hitting sibling
Not listening
Hitting themselves
All from babies ,toddlers who have never experienced aggression apart from thier own feelings
If all baby innocent would be never birth defect also .

Still babies are innocent and not sinful.
Is a sheep sinful?
Is a tiger sinful?
Is a wolf sinful?

No, these are natural traits they have and it has got nothing to do with sinfulness or innocence.
Regards

Natural Conditions by Regulation become Moral Qualities

"We have already stated that natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good-mannered. In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness. A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances. A human infant, as soon as it is born, seeks its mother’s breasts, and a chicken, as soon as it is hatched begins to pick up corn. In the same way the spawn of a leech behave like a leech, a baby serpent behaves like a serpent and a tiger cub behaves like a tiger. A human infant begins to exhibit human reactions as soon as it is born and those reactions become more and more remarkable as it begins to grow up."
"The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" Page- 27; by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
Regards​

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Natural Conditions by Regulation become Moral Qualities

"We have already stated that natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good-mannered. In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness. A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances. A human infant, as soon as it is born, seeks its mother’s breasts, and a chicken, as soon as it is hatched begins to pick up corn. In the same way the spawn of a leech behave like a leech, a baby serpent behaves like a serpent and a tiger cub behaves like a tiger. A human infant begins to exhibit human reactions as soon as it is born and those reactions become more and more remarkable as it begins to grow up."
"The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" Page- 27; by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
Regards​

Adam and Eve where created as adults I thought ?
So why must refer to undeveloped baby .
If was no sin , then we need no guidance from Allah/God ?
If was no sin , then is no need for prophet , as all is well ?
If was no sin , heaven and earth be one ?
Reality is sin , so where it come from , please do not blame on someone else ie Satan
You think Allah collaborate with Satan to decieve man ? or you think man sin by own free will ?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

If you lost faith you do not do justice to yourself to remain christian is all .

 

[roger1440]

If you lost faith you do not do justice to yourself to remain christian is all .

Explain

 

[Muffled]

Since Hell is a Christian concept how would it be possible a person not making a decision he is not going to Hell? That person wouldn't even believe in the very existence of Hell.

I believe one does not escape hell simply because one doesn't believe in it.

 

[Muffled]

Still babies are innocent and not sinful.
Is a sheep sinful?
Is a tiger sinful?
Is a wolf sinful?

No, these are natural traits they have and it has got nothing to do with sinfulness or innocence.
Regards

I believe sin is not accredited until the person is mature but I also believe the spirit that lives in the baby may be sinful from a previous life.

 

[Muffled]

But there is no way to know if there is a chance of winning. There are no odds.

I believe there are all kinds of odds. The odds of there being a hell are 50/50. There either is one or there isn't. I happen to believe that Jesus spoke of Hell which greatly increases the odds of there being one.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe sin is not accredited until the person is mature but I also believe the spirit that lives in the baby may be sinful from a previous life.

One is simply wrong. The spirit does not come from outside, it is created/flashed in the womb of the mother of a child not yet born:

"It is absolutely true that the soul is a fine light developed inside the body and which is nurtured in the womb. To begin with it is hidden and imperceptible and later it is made manifest. From the very beginning its essence is present in the sperm. It is related to the sperm in a mysterious manner by the design and command and will of God. It is a bright and illumined quality of the sperm. It cannot be said that it is a part of the sperm as matter is part of matter, nor can it be said that it comes from outside or falls upon the earth and gets mixed with the matter of the sperm. It is latent in the sperm as fire is latent in the flint. The Book of God does not mean that the soul descends from heaven as a separate entity or falls upon the earth from the atmosphere and then by chance gets mixed with the sperm and enters the womb with it. There is no basis for such a notion. The law of nature rejects it. We observe daily that thousands of germs infect impure and stale foods and are generated in unwashed wounds. Dirty linen secretes hundreds of lice and all sorts of worms are generated inside a person’s stomach. It cannot be said that all these come from outside or can be observed as descending from heaven. The truth is that the soul is developed in the body and this also proves that it is created and is not self-existent."
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
- See more at: http://www.reviewofreligions.org/2825/the-philosophy-of-the-teachings-of-islam-—-part-2/#sthash.ay42Y8o0.dpuf
​

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe sin is not accredited until the person is mature but I also believe the spirit that lives in the baby may be sinful from a previous life.

Did Jesus mention a previous life of a spirit of a baby? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Muffled said: ↑
I believe sin is not accredited until the person is mature but I also believe the spirit that lives in the baby may be sinful from a previous life.

Did Jesus mention a previous life of a spirit of a baby? Please
Regards

Nobody from Christianity did respond, this means Inter alia our friend is wrong that a baby is sinful from the previous life. This idea is not supported by Jesus. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards