Certainly not as official policy. But I’ve heard stories. I’m certainly not implying Catholics are different from anyone else in this regard, though.
I’m still curious about the state of Catholic missionary work. Have they given up? Have they matured beyond the point of considering anyone not Christian a heathen savage? The Church seems to have more respect for other views than a lot of Protestant denominations, as far as I can tell.
The Church is heavy into missionary work, but I don’t think they approach it quite the same way (although they have always thought they were altruistic…they only converted the heathens for their own good, you know! 
)
These days, it is more about the Corporal Works of Mercy…we are all called to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc. There are priests, brothers, and nuns in probably every country of the world doing this work, as well as setting up schools & hospitals & that kind of thing. I don’t think much of it centers on trying to convert people anymore, although they certainly have their Bibles & rosarys available for anyone who wants to learn!
Voyager, I meant to answer the first part of your post, as well. It is true that official policy is one thing, but what kind of familial pressure you get is something else entirely!
Kunilou, a couple of questions:
Do you believe that God literally created the earth and heavens in six days, and rested on the seventh?
Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth literally, physically came back to life on the third day after he was killed?
And if you believe one and not the other, how did you decide which to believe and which to disbelieve?
I ask question #3 because both of the assertions seem equally unlikely to me, and I’m interested to know how a believer sorts through them.
So because there is independent truth that the events of the Iliad happened the exact way Homer depicted then, that there is NOTHING in any part of the story that we should pay attention to?
Shakespeare wrote several “historical” plays about the kings of England. Very little of what he wrote can be independently verified. Should we mock Shakespeare?
Too bad. There are a lot of good messages in there about greed, vanity, jealousy, bigotry, compassion, charity, forgiveness and hope – among other things.
We don’t need to go through a checklist of what someone accepts as literally true, and what one accepts as a good story that makes a point.
But let me ask this. Science can not “prove” that God exists. Nor can it “prove” that God does not exist (nor do I expect it to, since proving a negative is not logical.) So if one does not believe in God, shouldn’t the logical position be agnosticism – “I don’t see anything that convince me to accept it” rather than atheism – “There’s no proof, therefore it’s all false.”
Atheism seems to me to be a “belief” in the negative. And judging by some people, it seems to be as unshakable as faith.
Heh. I figured out that my grandfather was actually an atheist when I realized that he didn’t object to his Jewish daughter marrying a Catholic in the late '30s. His son-in-law was a Dodgers fan, which was far more important to him.
Christians believe a lot of damned stuff.
Anyone who tells you that anyone is going to Hell speaks beyond his own authority, or station. Perhaps there are souls that are lost to the Lord. I would certainly not put it that way, but I cannot deny that someone might stand firmly against salvation, and the love of the Lord even unto their own destruction. It is not my office to judge even hypothetical souls. All judgment is given unto the Lord Jesus, and his words say, “I condemn no one.”
Legalists delight in the chance to threaten others with eternal damnation. They create their own hell within their hearts. It is venal, and mortal, and even that level of despite for the Love of God might not be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is the only sin for which there is no forgiveness, for no forgiveness will be asked.
But don’t even listen to the crap of anyone who thinks Christianity is about who is going to Hell. Christianity is about the unbelievable miracle that God loves you. Not some generic you, but you, the individual, yourself. He made you, and he wants you with him for eternity, and has done a lot to make that happen. You are not important, you are not special, you are not better than some other person. Never the less, you are precious to him.
Tris
Are you an agnostic about fairies ? The Flying Spaghetti Monster ? The default logical belief is disbelief; it’s only for religion that people usually make an exception.
I didn’t post a checklist. I posted two clearly worded questions, and they were not at all a random selection. I chose those two because, in my experience, the vast majority of Christians believe #1 to be figurative or poetic, while they believe #2 to be literal, physical truth. I’m curious whether you fall into this category, and if so, how you decided the one was True and the other was just literary language.
I’d appreciate an answer, and will happily address your counter-question once you provide one.
Not really. “God exists” is an extraordinary claim. “I see no proof that god exists” is not. The two do not balance and average out to agnosticism.
Perhaps. But only in the mind of the most extreme (militant?) atheist. The vast majority of atheist would not deny god’s existence when presented with proof.
So, I trust that you treat the Bible the same as you treat the Iliad, the Merchant of Venice, the Gita, and the Lord of the Rings? Should we set up a church of Frodo?
That we consider the Bible to be fiction for the most part, and the parts that are history unreliable history, does not mean we find nothing of value in it.
AARGH! Please review the zillion threads where we have noted that this is not what atheism says. It has been a while since anyone posted this misconception, and I had thought we put a stake through the heart of the “atheists claim to know god doesn’t exist” fallacy.
And I apologize. I was in a hurry and attempted to brief. The result was a toss-off that, upon further review, is unnecessarily flip.
I admit that there are two problems with accepting anything in the Bible as literal truth. The first is that if I say the Bible is anything other than a collection of folktales passed from generation to generation until someone finally wrote them down – then it boils down to an argument over which parts are supposed to be true and which are only literary stories. Stories inspired by God, perhaps, but not factual.
The second problem is the corolary – if I accept that one thing is literally true, why should I believe that some other thing isn’t literally true?
To cut to the chase, yes, I believe Jesus of Nazareth died and was resurrected. We can try to explain it logically by saying “well, it wasn’t clinical death, but a coma,” or “well, it’s a metaphor. It means he physically died, but the message would not die.”
No, that’s not what I believe. I believe literally that Jesus of Nazareth died and was resurrected.
And I believe this because I believe there is a God, and at a crucial time God sent an emmisary to deliver a message to Jews (and anyone else who would listen.) I believe this emmisary was unique among all the other prophets because God’s message was not revealed to him at some point in his life, but rather that he was born with it already in him. That is the divine nature of Jesus, and the term used to describe it is “Son of God.”
As evidence of this duality of human and divine, I believe that Jesus actually died on the cross (because he was human) and was resurrected (because he was something more.)
Regarding the story of creation in Genesis, I believe the books of the Old Testament were inspired to illustrate the special relationship between God and the Jews. While they also constitute a rough (and sometimes imprecise) history of the Jewish people, I believe their intent was to show a bond between God and the Jews that, although often strained, was ultimately unbreakable.
There’s my answer. I don’t expect everyone who is a Christian to agree with it, and I don’t expect it to convert anyone to my way of thinking. But I hope, OneCentStamp that it gives you some sort of answers to your questions.
Can someone provide me with the working definitions of atheism vs. agnosticism?
Here’s an introduction to the subject.
No doubt others will disagree, since the definitions of atheism and agnosticism aren’t clear lines, but here’s mine;
Atheism - There is no evidence that gods exist. Should some evidence appear, then sure, we’ll consider it, but since there is none, we don’t think gods exist.
Or - gods cannot exist; it’s impossible, either because of the nature of the god or contradictions brought up by things about that god. There is no evidence that would make me believe because there can never be any evidence.
Agnosticism - There is evidence either way, or the evidence is unclear. We’re unable to say one way or the other whether a god exists or not. Should clear evidence come up on either side of the argument, we’ll consider it.
Or - it’s impossible to know one way or the other. We can never know for sure whether gods exist or not.
(If anyone cares, i’m mostly the latter form of agnosticism with a bit of atheism of both kinds when it comes to certain deities).
Excellent link.
In other words hell is not eternal torture. It is the absolute end of life.
Also I don’t really think Heaven is the main reward for accepting Jesus. It’s more of a side benefit. “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Jn. 17:3 The main reward for a Christian, as I see it, is knowing God (and Jesus). I would be a Christian even if there were no Heaven. Heaven just means that the joy of knowing God extends past this life.
Yeah, I have to say that with my husband, he was probably more concerned that my loyalty lies with the Cubs rather than the Sox, and that I went to Illinois instead of Ohio State or Michigan! Goodness knows, better to live with a heathen than a Wolverine!
So you think Jesus/god is not a torturer but just a murderer?
Are you really missing the point here or just pretending to? I think the Iliad was a pretty cool book, a bit verbose, but cool anyway. However I don’t think it the slightest bit reasonable to believe in the actual existence of the miracles and gods described therein. However, when you read the bible you do believe in the gods, and I imagine, also at least a few of the miracles. But you have no more reason, and I’d argue less reason, to believe in the gods of the bible than in the gods of the Iliad. Does this register at all with you? Have you read either book?
With capsule reviews like that, I wouldn’t accuse anyone of not reading anything, if I were you.