Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics

[RTFirefly]

@Alan_Smithee

Well, it can certainly be annoying and upsetting to be told that you’re going to hell all the time, even if you don’t believe it. But I meant intellectually unsatisfying, at least inasmuch as one is trying to make sense of religious doctrine. Czarcasm seemed unsatisfied that Catholics could tell him what the Church says about dishonest atheists and what it says about irrational or ignorant atheists, but seemingly refused to say what the Church thought about him, an atheist who was neither dishonest nor irrational nor ignorant. I was being sympathetic, but I can see how it would be very frustrating until you realize that those are the only categories of atheists the church believes in, and not exactly a pleasing revelation when you do.

An honest denomination would simply admit it doesn’t have all the answers: none of its hierarchy or its theologians has personally breached the veil of death and returned to tell us how God sorts us all out.

In this area, at least, the RCC doesn’t come across too badly: it says it can come to some conclusions about salvation in some situations involving nonbelievers, but it at least tacitly admits it hasn’t covered the waterfront.

That’s a hell of a lot better, IMHO, than the churches that assert that unless you pray the Sinner’s Prayer or some close variant, you’d better enjoy the air conditioning while you’ve got it.

[tomndebb]

@monavis

Since he came to or for the lost sheep of Israel the meaning can be the same, I would like a quote that states that Jesus said he came to save the whole world.

Here is the direct quote Matthew 15 verse 24; But he answered and said I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of Israel. the other verses seem to verify this!

And as I already noted, “to” (or “unto”), has a different meaning than “for.” You can choose to think that different prepositions mean the same thing, but you need to provide a reason to do so. Your personal preference does not count.
There was a long tradition in Jewish theology, going back at least to Trito-Isaiah, that the world would be saved through the Jewish people. One sent to them, if effective, would be sent for the world.

You have also chosen to ignore the entire rest of the passage to which you appeal in which Jesus, having made his brusque assertion of the people to whom he was sent, goes on to aid the woman who is not Jewish.

Now if you are desperate to see a passage in which Jesus notes that he came to save the whole world, try John 3:16 - 17.

[Alan_Smithee]

@Bricker

In my view, it’s perfectly possible to be an honest and rational atheist. Atheism is in fact the correct default position – extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. An atheist who has not experienced such extraordinary proof remains, rationally, an atheist.

But surely you think he’s ignorant. Not in a pejorative sense, but in the sense that he doesn’t know something that you believe you and other theists do know.

@Czarcasm

This. If the church accepts that I am an atheist, but that there are only dishonest and/or irrational and/or ignorant atheists, then it is saying that I must be dishonest and/or irrational and/or ignorant. It is one thing to say that they don’t know what the rules are for my kind of atheist, but it quite another to say that what I claim I am doesn’t exist and therefor I am lying.

Like I said, I’m sympathetic, but what else could they think? If I’m right about anything, then the people who disagree with me must be one of those three things. And if I’m wrong about anything (as I surely am) then I must also be one of those three things. It’s just that we usually don’t demand of one another that we express which category they think we belong in, but that’s essentially what you were doing by asking whether Catholics think you’re going to heaven or hell.

[monavis]

@tomndebb

And as I already noted, “to” (or “unto”), has a different meaning than “for.” You can choose to think that different prepositions mean the same thing, but you need to provide a reason to do so. Your personal preference does not count.
There was a long tradition in Jewish theology, going back at least to Trito-Isaiah, that the world would be saved through the Jewish people. One sent to them, if effective, would be sent for the world.

You have also chosen to ignore the entire rest of the passage to which you appeal in which Jesus, having made his brusque assertion of the people to whom he was sent, goes on to aid the woman who is not Jewish.

Now if you are desperate to see a passage in which Jesus notes that he came to save the whole world, try John 3:16 - 17.

One of the Bibles I have read, has John quoting Jesus thus: "And of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. He was speaking to the Jewish people who were following him. So in that sense Matthew still holds true. No contradictions!

[tomndebb]

@monavis

One of the Bibles I have read, has John quoting Jesus thus: "And of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. He was speaking to the Jewish people who were following him. So in that sense Matthew still holds true. No contradictions!

This is a bit garbled, (missing some punctuation?), but even so, you are not actually making your point. It is not John who uttered that phrase in regard to the Jewish people. That phrase is in the hymn (John 1:1 - 14) that opens the Gospel of John and is a general statement regarding Jesus coming to the whole world. John’s statement in that hymn is limited to “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”
The same hymn also says “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” One more example of Jesus coming to the Jews, for the world.

[monavis]

@tomndebb

This is a bit garbled, (missing some punctuation?), but even so, you are not actually making your point. It is not John who uttered that phrase in regard to the Jewish people. That phrase is in the hymn (John 1:1 - 14) that opens the Gospel of John and is a general statement regarding Jesus coming to the whole world. John’s statement in that hymn is limited to “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”
The same hymn also says “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” One more example of Jesus coming to the Jews, for the world.

If that is true then the Psalmist was off base when he called people the sons of God, and Jesus was misquoted in John 10. I guess it depends on how one translates John 10 but in that sense Jesus seemed to be saying all men or at least Jewish men were also gods and sons of God. Then there would be no reason for John’s quote in C 1. Jesus didn’t consider himself any more divine than any other man. I guess it is a matter of what translation one likes.

[rockn_roller]

I am not Catholic, nor do I know much about the history or doctrines of the Catholic Church , but I thought that this was consistent with Vatican doctrine since at least John Paul II’s papacy/the Second Vatican Council. As a result, I don’t see this as real news. If there are other Catholics or other people on this forum who are more knowledgeable about Catholic theology than I do, I welcome you to confirm or deny that my thoughts were correct and to explain the Vatican’s stance if I am wrong.

[tomndebb]

You could read the thread.