Pope Francis offers hope to faithless, says atheists can go to heaven

Oregonian ^ | 12/26/2015 | Douglas Perry

[Springfield Reformer]

APL, Hi. As an attorney surely you recognize the faulty premise at work here.  It would not matter if all Christians disagreed about X.  X is true because it is true on it's own.  Christians, agreeing with it is a good thing, but not necessary for it to be true. This is codified in Paul's statement, "Let God be true, but every man a liar."

So "X proves that one is Christian" is true, as long as one understands that X is divine truth, not merely the consensus of those called Christians.  What you appear to be doing is assuming the conclusion in the premise, which as you must understand is a fallacy called begging the question.  You may not agree that X exists, but it is not correct to say that Christians believe in X because all other named Christians believe in X. That is an implied denial of the premise that X may have its own independent existence, as stated above, and so misses the point of what Christians are saying.

Conversely, because X is divine truth, those who claim to be believers in divine truth really must believe in X.  If they do not, they are not believers. More specifically, if being a Christian requires a belief in X, and one does not believe X, then one is not a Christian, even if one claims to be.  Again, as others here have already stated, it comes down to acceptance or rejection of the premise of an objective divine truth. Once that premise, or at least the possibility of it, is accepted, the unsustainable tautology becomes a plausible triad, i.e., if God exists, and He is the Christian God, then He is the arbiter of X, and people who conform to X are Christians, and those who do not are not.

What is even more interesting is whether there is any evidence of a divine X that mortals may discover. For example, at Nuremberg, the defense of "just following orders" was unsuccessful.  Why? According to the positive law of Germany, it should have succeeded, should it not?   If you argue it was merely the imposed will of the international community to find them guilty regardless of positive law in their favor, then you must also conclude that the punishment determined at Nuremberg was nothing more than collective brute force.  In which case, it is no different morally than what the Germans did.  Because that is ultimately the only argument resting behind positive law: Power. Period.  

Are you willing to say that this is your view of Nuremberg? That it was nothing more than a power struggle and the Germans lost?  Or do you feel that it was just to hold them accountable for what they had done?  That somehow there was a wrongness to what they did that could successfully appeal to the deepest roots of human nature as a moral evil, thus transcending positive law?  If so, then you concede that positive law is at best an attempt to represent some aspect of that universal truth, and so is subject to improvement, i.e., bad laws may be rejected for their badness, even if they are technically valid laws.  If not, you have no escape from the Nietzschean prison of pure power, might makes right, and the only law is whatever the strongman says it is.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

What? This is not even a complete sentence:

You are correct: at about midnight there was a valid problem (sorry, some things were erased and editing was not done due to a tired brain, and not proof reading), which finally provides an excuse for you not to answer.

Let's do this again. The point is that while you disallow the need for a supreme authority, and attack Christians (based upon your own unsubstantiated idea of them) as being all a bunch of people with differing ideas made up in their own head, the fact is those who have a supreme source (they actually hold to) define what is right by such and testify to strong unity, whether it be Scripture or the organization of L. Ron Hubbard.

Thus as expressed before, in such a case the issue would then be the warrant for the respective standard, yet at least they have one.

But your recourse to fallacious portrayal of Christians as defined by you, and misconstruing my argument as being that consensus is what determines what is right based on them making thing up in their head, is at best a poor substitute for dealing with the lack of any supreme standard for either the law-abiding American atheist or his atheistic counterpart.

[Elsie]

It’s gotten me through 50 years of life so far, and I haven’t seen the need for more.

I hope it's enough for an eternity of death; too.

[Cvengr]

An atheist; by definition; has no god.

No god; therefore; no sin.

Hence by 1John 1:8, they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them.

For God gave His Son not for us only, but for the entire world, so that whoever has faith(believes) in Him might have everlasting life.

He is the God of all things. All things that could be created, were created through Him.

While an atheist might not believe in God, they still have substituted many other gods before Him. In no other they substitute themselves in arrogance to what He has provided.

The beauty in God’s Plan is that we are all condemned before we are saved. In this fashion, arrogance is precluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.

[metmom]

Excellent as usual......

[ealgeone]

Would a merciful atheist receive mercy? Are they allowed into heaven because they were good?

[lupie]

the definition of an atheist is merely "one who does not believe in God."

That statement pulls the rug out from under an argument that an atheist does not believe that God exists. What it does do is to affirm that an atheist outright rejects the God and Lord of the universe. They know the Truth, but defiantly reject it. By making that statement, you agree God exists.

If you say you don't put any trust in what the purple giraffe in the room says, you must first have an inner understanding of one. If I ask if you trust the pink hundanty, you would have idea what one is.

You have just proved the truth of scripture, whether you acknowledge it or not. The truth of God has been made known to you - not just by us, but by all of His creation. You just work hard (really hard) at suppressing it.

[kinsman redeemer]

"...shattering a widely-held assumption ..."

Assuming the wrong thing sends you to hell for eternity.

...no matter how sincere you are.

[Elsie]

...no matter how sincere you are.

---

 

Deconstructing Linus: Portrait of a True Believing Pumpkinist as a Young Man

What does the Great Pumpkin offer Linus? Why does Linus spend every Halloween in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear? Is it about the toys?

"Each year on Halloween night, the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch that he thinks is the most sincere and flies through the air with his pack of toys for all the good little children in the world."

No. This is about sincerity, a subjective standard by any definition.

I wonder if Linus blames himself every year for not picking the most sincere pumpkin patch for his vigil?

I wonder if other Great Pumpkinists castigate Linus by asserting if he were more in tune with the Spirit of the Great Pumpkin, if he were more prayerful, if he read the Holy Writ of the Great Pumpkin with a greater sincerity, that he could indeed rise to the challenge and, via the Spirit, be lead to choose the most sincere pumpkin patch?

I wonder how many years Linus will feel guilty for this failure and blame himself for receiving no answer no matter how sincere he believes himself to be?

I wonder if Linus ever gets frustrated because there is no objective way to measure sincerity? And if he realizes there is no objective standard for such a thing, I wonder if it ever creeps into his mind that his annual mission is nothing more than mindless busywork?

I wonder, does Linus ever has doubts?

For the time being, however, Linus will put aside his doubts and, perhaps as a means of proving his sincerity, begins to proselyte among his friends for converts. Most shrug him off. But Sally, who has a crush on him, believes Linus and agrees to spend Halloween in Linus’ Pumpkin Patch.

Linus then explains that by using positive language and positive thinking, they may be able to attract the Great Pumpkin to their Patch. He also cautions Sally that negative language and negative thinking will cause the Great Pumpkin to pass them by.

There is no room for doubt when one is a Great Pumpkinist. One should never say if the Great Pumpkin comes but always when the Great Pumpkin comes. "One little slip like that, can cause the Great Pumpkin to pass you by!" It’s hard to imagine a benevolent icon such as the Great Pumpkin punishing TBPs (True Believing Pumkinists) for such a minor infraction, but there you have it.

Sally: The Birth of an Ex-Pumpkinist

Because Sally loves her “sweet baboo” Linus, she sets aside her own Halloween plans of trick-or-treating and a Halloween party in order to spend the evening in the Pumpkin Patch. She converts to Great Pumpkinism because she loves Linus. She respects his opinion. And she wants to make him happy and be supportive. And besides, if it’s really true, WOW! Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

But in the end, the only Being that shows up in the Pumpkin Patch is Snoopy. Linus, believing Snoopy to be the Great Pumpkin, swoons into an ecstatic faint, happy in the knowledge that he has finally deciphered the Great Pumpkin’s standard for sincerity. But, alas, it is a misplaced hope, and when Linus regains consciousness, there is not only no Great Pumpkin there to reward him, there is one upset little girl.

"I was robbed! I spent the whole night waiting for the Great Pumpkin when I could have been out for tricks or treats! Halloween is over and I missed it! You blockhead! You kept me up all night waiting for the Great Pumpkin and all that came was a beagle!"

"I didn't get a chance to go out for tricks or treats! And it was all your fault! I'll sue! What a fool I was. And I could have had candy apples and gum! And cookies and money and all sorts of things! But no, I had to listen to you! You blockhead. What a fool I was. Trick or treats come only once a year. And I missed it by sitting in a pumpkin patch with a blockhead. You owe me restitution!"

Luckily for Sally, she only missed one Halloween. And though she is demanding restitution, because her participation was voluntary, she will never receive said restitution. She’ll simply have to accept the experience as one of life’s absurdities and move on.

However, one can hope that this experience has made Sally a more skeptical person, so that the next time she is presented with such fantastic claims, she’ll perhaps be inclined to do her research before committing any time, money or emotion.

After all, fantastic claims should be supported by fantastic evidence, right?

The question now becomes, has this experience made Linus a skeptic? After yet again not having his Pumpkin Patch recognized as sincere and after having endangered his friendship with Sally, will he continue to believe?

In spite of a complete and utter lack of evidence pointing to the existence of the Great Pumpkin, and a complete and utter lack of the Great Pumpkin’s Promise ever having been fulfilled, Linus is a True Believing Pumpkinist to the core. To even admit the possibility that he may be wrong would be to negate all those years of hard work and sincere belief. Linus simply cannot turn his back on his belief.

So if Linus doesn't become an ex-Pumpkinist, what is his strategy? Well, he’s going to keep on trying, isn't he?

"What do you mean, 'stupid'? Just wait until next year. I'll find a pumpkin patch, and I'll sit in that pumpkin patch and it'll be a sincere pumpkin patch, and the Great Pumpkin will come! Just you wait and see! I'll sit in that pumpkin patch, and I'll see the Great Pumpkin. Just wait until next year!"

[A_perfect_lady]

Does saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” prove the existence of Santa Claus?” I’m sorry, your remarks don’t make any sense.

[A_perfect_lady]

The point is that while you disallow the need for a supreme authority... the fact is those who have a supreme source ... define what is right by such and testify to strong unity...

(I'm just taking out the asides to get to the basic sentence, not to try and change your meaning.) Okay, that is more clear to me.

But of course, my response must be: So? Muslims manifest strong unity. Scientologists manifest strong unity. Black Liberation Theologists manifest strong unity. Amway salesmen... It doesn't prove anything and I don't know why you bring it up.

Because if you are using it prove that there must be some element of truth, then we have to extend that logic to Muslims, Scientologists, etc.

And it becomes even more useless if you dismiss any member of that group that does NOT support certain elements of the doctrine with "then they are not true members" (which you did back in the #250s when we were talking about fornication.) That whole line of reasoning is just utterly useless, unless your only point was that atheists do NOT manifest strong unity, which I agree with. Was that your point?

[A_perfect_lady]

This is codified in Paul's statement, "Let God be true, but every man a liar."

And since Paul is a man, and every man a liar, if he says God is true, then God must not be true.

[lupie]

OF course it doesn’t prove his existence by saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus”. But it proves that I have a good understanding and concept and thus a belief of him. It also proves that I reject that concept and belief because I must first have that understanding before I reject it. I can’t reject a concept or faith in someone if I don’t have any knowledge of it or them.

I am more sorry than you realize that you don’t understand. My remarks weren’t meant to be that deep.

[A_perfect_lady]

I can't reject a concept or faith in someone if I don't have any knowledge of it or them.

Not sure what that proves, other than that humans can conceptualize fictional characters if we are given a description and a list of attributes. There's an amusing made-for-tv movie from back in the 1980s called "The Scarlett O'Hara Wars" about the making of the movie Gone With The Wind. People got very passionate about which actress best personified "the real Scarlett" (the one in the book.) Does that mean Scarlett was real? No, it means they read the book. So... yeah, not sure what your point is.

[A_perfect_lady]

Oh wait... I think I see. You are mixing up "conceptualize" with "believe." You think if you can imagine and comprehend a fictional character, that you must believe in it.

Yeah... no. That's "conceptualize." You can understand the description, you can imagine it.

[Springfield Reformer]

Lol! If you had a witness on the stand and they offered a response like that, would you consider that evasive? I would. I think I could get most judges to agree. When you are ready to discuss this with seriousness, please let me know. :)

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

Does saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” prove the existence of Santa Claus?”

Does saying “I don’t believe in GOD” prove the non-existence of GOD?”

[Elsie]

Some folks plead the fifth on FR by silence.

[boatbums]

Well stated. Either there IS such a thing as absolute objective truth or EVERYTHING is relative and truth does not exist. I don’t think even the most hardened atheist will deny absolute truth does exist. The question then becomes can this truth be knowable?

[MHGinTN]

“even the most hardened atheist will deny absolute truth does exist” ... um, it takes a level of honesty and intellect I don’t believe is present with this one. we are witness to a needy ego playing self delusion games.