This is so true! There was a true Cambrian explosion of holy men and mystics in the first century in the eastern Roman Empire. Christianity was the one that out-competed them all. The best brain worm. The two thousand year meme.
Comment on Religion
Blum0108@lemmy.world 5 weeks agoSo religions stall from prior religions, it’s all about who makes up the best story. The best religious memes survive and spread.
vzq@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 5 weeks ago
An all-loving god sentencing sinners to eternal damnation is bad writing. Plus it ethically justifies ANY atrocity if the atrocity is done in service of converting ONE sinner. One person going to hell is worse than a million holocausts. A Christian who believes in hell can justify doing anything to “save souls”. Conversion therapy, witch burnings, crusades… If it keeps one person out of hell, it was worth it. That’s not a good mindset.
Blum0108@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It’s about conversion, control, and propagation of religious ideas. It isn’t about making the nicest fairytale.
WammKD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
As a Catholic, it’s slightly grating for most criticisms regarding Christianity to just be reactions to the most obnoxious Protestants.
(for reference,
Not to say that Catholicism doesn’t have things it can be criticized for (Lord knows) but I know the type of Christians your taking about and it’s just so far and beyond removed from our actual theology)
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 weeks ago
I mean, the first thing I think of when I think “Christians” is “paedophile priests like Cardinal Pell” whom the Pope himself protected.
But yeah, after that one thing, most of the criticisms I have of Christianity fall more heavily on Protestants than Catholics. It’s just…that one thing is pretty damn fucking huge.
I must admit, I find this genuinely fascinating. I had thought it was pretty standard Christian doctrine that belief in Christ is a prerequisite for getting in to heaven. Is that not the case? And, assuming it isn’t official doctrine, do you think most Catholics are aware of the official doctrine, or would they believe, as I did, that belief in Christ is necessary?
WammKD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
…yeah; that’s exactly – if anything – the one criticism I had in mind, when I wrote that. Definitely no protest from me, on that one. While there is much I’d hoped for with Francis’s papacy, his inaction and stonewalling on this will likely end up being the largest blight on his job.
Yep; absolutely.
Heh, I think most do.
So it is (I think the reasoning here is that, if God is the source of all Goodness and morality, rejecting belief in him necessitates rejecting God and, thus, belief in Him) but, like I mentioned, it’s Catholic dogma that, in order for anything to warrant Hell, it just be willfully chosen. We don’t believe that God just punishes people because he can; that’d contradict a loving God (which we purport He is) and, also, collapse any point of morality. To quote Pope Pius IX (in 1863), “God[…]in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”
The second Vatican Council, based on the history of teachings such as these, said (in 1964), “For they who[…]seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.”
Basically, you know how atheists always whip out against Evangelicals, “Well, what is someone was born somewhere where they didn’t know about Christianity? Would they go to Hell?” And we were like, “That’s a really valid point; a loving God wouldn’t do that. There’s gotta be another answer, there.”
So one of the phrases the Vatican II council used when discussing this topic was “invincible ignorance”. What constitutes an invincible ignorance such that you’re off the hook? Ehh…the Church doesn’t say, yet (I think the thing a lot of people don’t realize is how…definitional the Church is; people read something that was promulgated and read the possible interpretations of that statement into it but, really, what the Church is trying to do is take a lot of the Unknown and try to precisely define it so we can understand it, over time; which means we can say, “This is true,” even if we don’t understand, yet, examples of the thing).
So there are a lot of Catholics out there who will be quick to remind you, “Ah! Invincible ignorance; it’s not a everything-goes card. Were you really so ignorant that you can be without blame?” If you want to get into Catholic tea and drama, the statements promulgated in Vatican II aren’t dogma so it’s always possible they may get reversed, in the future; there’s a contingency out there who believes the whole council was bunk and beliefs like this are exactly why. Don’t get it twisted, all the nonbelievers will burn.
I find…both positions repulsive. But they are out there. And, while the later group hates all the doctrinal development over the last century and is, like, a hair-breadth away from schism, they are (at this point in time) technically valid positions based on what’s been said by the Church, so far.
For me, someone seeing the absolute abysmal and shameful way the hierarchy has handled the pedophilia crisis and thinking, “I…don’t think that’s where God is,” could easily count as invincible ignorance. How could anyone of reasonable conscience not?
I think the atheist who genuinely can’t believe that there is a God out there or find enough evidence but (to use the old cliche) is just focusing on doing his best to be a good person could count as invincible ignorance.
Maybe I just can’t believe in a God that would send the many friends and family I think are amazing people to Hell over something they genuinely can’t find convincing but, well, I don’t; and I know there are many Christians (including Catholics) who would find this about me to be weak reasoned and borderline vile but clearly I’m not the only Catholic who does.
So – to more directly answer your question – I can’t say if there’s many but they definitely are out there. I wouldn’t be surprised, if we include the less consistently practicing Catholics (the many only-show-up-to-Mass-for-holidays-but-pray-often), that there are many Catholics who would prefer to take my interpretation. Most people don’t like to enforce suffering, I believe.
But it’s undeniable that, at least at this point in time (though there’s a long history so I don’t think that’s getting reversed), – for Catholicism – being aware of something is a part of the equation for it to be sinful; quotes from the current Catechism: www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/se…
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 4 weeks ago
Is emitting carbon a mortal sin? Helping end all life on earth seems like some major grade heresy to drag, and a sixth commandment violation. If you know climate change is real and caused by humans, is driving a car a mortal sin?
WammKD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
I mean, they’re good questions. I don’t know if knowing the answer is simple, though.
I would say that I’d think any conception of a Just or Good god would take into account one’s level of power in a system, though.
A CEO who has access to the data and the power to do something? I expect you could make the argument yes.
I think the average person who has to use a car because it’s the only way to get to the job which feeds their family is probably not committing a mortal sin.
And I think it’s fair to consider cases where a person may be aware of the data (and able to transfer away from a car by making changes in their life) but not fully register how they contribute to it to be cases where we might argue that they aren’t fully aware that they’re doing wrong or harm.