Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Michael Goff, May 25, 2013.
That's a relief!
If this is the case, will the Catholic Church change it's stance on homosexuality? Everyone includes homosexuals too.
I know, right?
soon it'll be like... "YOU get to go to heaven, your YOU get to go to heaven... E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y GETS TO GO TO HEAVEN!!!!"
But seriously, while this statement is the definition of irony - the first thing atheists repeal is the existence of such fate, it's a good thing that the pope tries to bring the ideological walls a bit down. Perhaps this will help catholics accept that not everybody believes in their fantasies, and that it's still ok.
Yet, they have a long way to go if they want to be an active part of a better world: women's rights, same sex relationships, other religions... etc.
Cobert's rendition of this is spot on http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...may-23-2013/redemption-for-all?xrs=share_copy
When this party's over,
It will start again,
Nothing will be any different,
It will be exactly the same,
Heaven is a place,
A place where nothing,
Nothing ever happens
Ever give any real thought as to what the afterlife would be like? If every single day it's Christmas in Heaven, that would be copacetic, but what if it's just hanging around singing hosannas to him? Wouldn't that be boring for eternity?
I don't tend to think about the afterlife at all.
Well, wait now...
If Atheists can get into heaven now, you might want to consider...wait...
I'm so confused, now!
Nah, I just figure it this way. I do go things. If I turn out to be right and there's nothing afterward, I was a good person. If I was wrong, then I did good things and I'm going anyway.
Well, okay, I figure it that way -now-.
This is the most terrifying catholic threat ever.
I think the Pope's words were misunderstood. Seems like he meant that nobody is exempt from freedom to follow a path to heaven. You can be gay, white, black, asian, hispanic, woman, man, heterosexual, atheist, catholic, protestant, follow witchcraft or whatever. I think he was saying that Jesus died for every single person and no man can exclude another from the salvation for which he died. Whether they choose a path to heaven or not is their choice, but there is no exclusion otherwise. Or that's how I read his words to mean, anyway.
My response was simply interpretation of what I read, not an engagement into discussion of whether one believes or does not.
An interesting post.
I have a queation... what does "choosing the path to heaven" entail? If non-beievers can go to heaven, can that be accomplished by living a life guided by the Golden Rule, for example?
I'm not being facetious or trying to engage a discussion of belief or non-belief, but I am interested in the question of "choosing the path to heaven". How can an Atheist choose that path?
In that case, I'll continue my fornicating, swearing, and gambling while being the best human being I can be. What a relief.
I think he meant an Atheist can still go to heaven by choosing to accept god and believe and develop a relationship in this life. I highly doubt he meant a person still an Atheist at death will go to heaven. He probably was saying that someone can accept god at some point, even if they have lived as an Atheist, and still go to heaven. That was my take on it, anyhow. And he also said it in a way to imply that one does not have to be catholic to have that relationship and still go to heaven. Sounded to me like he acknowledged all believers have equal opportunity and that opportunity is equally available to current non-believers if they choose it.
I wonder how long this pope will last...
Seems to be acting against the interests of the Catholic church. Maybe they picked someone a bit too 'good'?
Except that explanation doesn't even make sense.
"If they accept God at some point in their lives" would mean it wasn't an Atheist that went to heaven. He wouldn't need to say "even born-again Christians" can go to heaven", and he didn't. He said that Atheists could go to heaven, as long as they were good people.
OK, I promised that I would not discuss belief or non-belief, as you requested.
There is logical contradiction in what you say. Your interpretation of the pope's words are that an Atheist must accept god at some point to get into heaven, at which point the individual is no longer an Atheist...ergo Atheists still can't get into heaven in your interpretation. But the pope said Atheists can get into heaven, not Atheists who accept god and, therefore are no longer Atheists.
If you look at how the media portrayed his words, he is not quoted as saying they can go to heaven. He said we can "meet there". I believe that was in the context of do good, whether catholic or protestant or other believer or non-believer, and we can meet at some point of peace (here on earth).
And from http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/pope-atheists-can-go-to-heaven/?cat_orig=faith
"We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist.’ But do good: We will meet one another there.”
I think the media is putting words into his mouth by assuming "there" equals heaven? I went back to several news reports and some assume he means heaven and others just quote him as saying "...meet one another there" and imply it.
Where else could "there" have been in the context of the sentence? 711? Or is he saying he won't be going to heaven?
Actually he never said atheists could go to heaven. The media did. He said we could all meet "there" and the context of the discussion was about doing good, not going to heaven.
Since I only have access to media reports which quote him, perhaps incorrectly. Do you have a link to the actual text of his statement? You seem to know what he said...I would like to know also.
They will need to build soon a bigger retirement home ? For former "CEO" ?
I think the new pope is a good change agent; he act quite different which can help to open some minds within the catholic church. And help to bring them to a next level; its time after some 1500 years.
The next level being what...the 14th or 15th Century? Or possibly a giant leap into the 16th Century?