What’s clear is that you are desperately trying to wiggle out of the consequences of your ignorant dismissal of the facts by means of pitiful semantic quibbling.
It’s obvious from what rat avatar posted that he meant that Dahmer was saved, according to Christian soteriological doctrine, in the Church of Christ. What he was literally saved by, of course, according to Christian soteriological doctrine, was the grace of God operating through the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus.
Neither do I. But that’s not salvation, just so you know.
Different thread and argument, I’m sure.
Good thing that’s not doctrine then. I realize that there exists some form of this within Christian thought, but that’s not my perspective. And I suspect the doctrine might be more nuanced that you’re giving it credit. Though maybe not.
Absolutely
That’s not what he wrote. One can certainly be saved in the CoC, or SBC or RCC.
Assuming all of that, yes, we are.
It’s not obvious to me. How could I know that Rat would know the difference? I’ve experienced lots and lots of people who have very little knowledge of Christian doctrine. so it’s my fault that Rat used the wrong word and I misunderstood his intention?
You actually don’t know how I view it.
That said, the Catholic Church expects (requires) a sinner to confess his or her sins, and receive absolution. A condition of absolution may be some kind of expiation of sin. A penance is imposed on the penitant, which may be trivial or may be quite burdensome, depending on the nature of the sin.
But you’re certainly right that something like murder can never be entirely “fixed.” I’m not sure that that means there’s something wrong, or repulsive, about teaching that forgiveness, and salvation, are possible. After all, even for atheists, or antitheists, forgiveness is possible, right? And it doesn’t have to be transactional. The wrong doesn’t have to be perfectly righted. Especially if it can’t be righted.
And, actually, to a Christian, it’s not semantic quibbling. The difference between what Rat wrote and the real doctrine is profound and staggeringly significant. In fact, it is so important that the particular and specific topic is the subject of several sermons every year. It is the overriding principle of protestantism. It is a really big deal. I can’t help that. It just is.
Piffle. What rat avatar meant was perfectly obvious from the various specific statements he made about “the christian concept of vicarious redemption”. It’s not as though the one little preposition “by” instead of “in” was really all you had to go on when interpreting his meaning.
If you say so.
And I am not claiming believers are not smart.
But to reject religion takes a lot of reading, the social cost are high.
True to all of this. (except, maybe, the last one)
And given how deftly Mr. Rat is able to discuss Real Presence in the other thread, one wonders how he could make such an error. Yep, I’m sure it was a typo, but how was I to no?
IMHO, one of the greatest gifts we are given is free will. You can be part of a church or not. You can pray or not. You can believe or not. It’s your choice.
My own beliefs are my own, and unless someone REALLY wants to know about them, I don’t force my beliefs on anyone.
Free will, my friend… 
It’s not all that hard to figure out that you believe in God if you refer to free will as a gift. Just saying. 
I was making a very clever and poignant comment to the poster who made the joke about pentecost. (at least I think it’s poignant and clever 
It’s my understanding (and I’m not a Christian), but asking for forgivness is only part of the process. You must also live the life of a good Christian afterwards.
You can’t beat your wife today, ask God/Jesus for forgiveness, beat your wife tomorrow, ask God/Jesus for forgiveness, and keep repeating the cycle. Even God would start to see a pattern developing.
I’ve told my Christian friends in cases like these “God may have forgiven him, but I sure can’t.”.
It might have been. Where was it? I was talking to the Loony guy.
Yes, you can, in theory at least. So long as your contrition is genuine, and you are “slipping back” to your bad behavior through error rather than by design (and God would know, if not the priest), you can be forgiven each and every time. You are not given a numerical limit on how many times you may re-commit the same sin.
I would whole-heartedly and completely disagree with this assessment. Salvation comes from a intellectual, spiritual, and emotional assent that Jesus Christ is God.
The degree of one’s contriteness is irrelevant.
Actually, it probably wasn’t. But my mistake. Sorry.
The objection that many of those who are not christian have is that the forgiveness is given by someone who was not wronged.
I have already stated that was my issue several times.
The concept that a person is able to absolve the sin from their mind, to feel they had done their penance by what some people view as an imaginary actor while doing nothing to write the wrong with those they hurt is the issue.
Catholics do actually require much more work than many other forms, that is why I said “some” Christians.
If you named a goat Azazel and cast your sins onto it and sent it out into the desert I would have the same objection.
In my world view, when I do something that causes another to suffer the only thing that should clear it from your mind is by apologizing and asking forgiveness from those you hurt.
I do not claim mine is the only world view, nor do I have any special access to the truth that you do not have.
The post I responded to made the claim that because an atheist didn’t think god existed that they had no right to be offended by anything the a religious person does in church because it was not real. (anything being loose here, I am sure the poster objects to bad physical acts by church members)
I was sharing my world view in an attempt to say yes, there were reasons we could object.
That is the quote I was responding to.
There’s a thread on here about how atheists are the most despised minority. There’s also the old Gallup poll on a well qualified atheist president.