You had better find a new pet peeve then, mate.
Everybody that makes these kind of jokes, and they are jokes, doesn’t believe in hell.
Do you really think there are people that don’t believe in god or that Jezus was the messiah or heaven and all the other crap, but they do believe the bit about hell is real?
When I was young, an impressive and unworldly Christian Monk spoke in Religious Education Lessons about hell. He described hell as eternal separation from God- dreadful for a believer and not for a non-believer.
I am not a believer but remain impressed by the spirituality of many people using their faith as a basis for morality.
So if I, as a convinced atheist who does good deeds, am totally wrong about the universe and Pope Francis’ boss actually exists, what does redemption mean for me personally?
Well, I would say best case scenario is that if you die, and are presented with evidence of God and Jesus and such in the afterlife, that you then accept them, and you are given the chance to do so at that point because you led a just life.
I don’t believe in a sentient, conscious God or Jesus as an immortal savior, but I more or less hold to the same ideals that are outlined by Jesus in the New Testament. If at some point in my life or afterlife, I found myself in the presence of God, or Jesus, or other supernatural beings, I certainly would not reject their presence.
That isn’t faith, because I’m basically requiring proof to believe, and if you can prove something you don’t need to have faith it exists. But I wouldn’t reject proof just out of arrogance. Of course, the key would be knowing what constituted proof and not what just constituted a psychotic break or somesuch.
Regardless of exactly how the new Pope meant this, it is certainly a much more helpful viewpoint to approach interacting with people of other faiths. Saying “you better believe or you will be damned” is basically trying to win an argument by fear - even if it turns out to be true - and many people (myself included) will instinctively oppose something presented to them as a threat.
What a ridiculous pet peeve. There’s nothing sacred about mythology, and no reason why someone should have to eat the whole thing if they take a nibble.
“Heaven for climate, Hell for company.”
If either is fictional, I’m not worried. But I’m packing my asbestos suit, just in case. 
So, if I understand correctly, now that atheists can go to heaven, the only people left that are going to hell are the protestants. Right?
Isn’t that nice. I’m invited to the play tea party!
The RCC’s modern position IIRC is that Christ’s salvation is offered to the whole of humanity, whatever their current faith status, and people of good will who seek righteousness and love their neighbor are actually being drawn, even if inadvertently, to Christ, whose Mystical Body on Earth is the Church – and unlike Jack Chick, the RCC does not claim that seeking righteousness and loving your neighbor without adopting the exact form of devotion will count for naught.
Says Ratzinger (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dominus Iesus”, 2000): “for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit; it has a relationship with the Church, which, according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
You are all Catholics and you don’t know it 
Catholicism AIUI has for a long time accepted that much of Scripture is symbolic/allegorical and subject to interpretation, preferrably by a trained professional. Inerrant in ultimate moral teaching – if you can figure out what IS the ultimate moral teaching in the story – but not factually literal to every last word.
Isn’t that nice of the Pope. In the same spirit, I’d like to announce right now that if the Pope is really good in life, when he dies he will be allowed to go to the same place as me - oblivion.
I appreciate the thought, if not the theology.
Yeah, I’m not seeing anything new here. I think most of you guys just don’t understand Catholic doctrine.
What rock have you been under? Biblical literalism isn’t a pan-Christian doctrine at all, and if anything, is specifically NOT one. Most denominations aren’t literalists, with only the ones from the Baptist/Evangelical derivations having this belief.
Most of the other mainstream ones(Catholic, Episcopalian/Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc…) are specifically not literalist. Their beliefs are ones that look to the Bible as a source of information, but not ones that believe the literal words printed on the page as being inerrant and literal.
Hell, I got taught the theory of evolution by a Jesuit priest, and had explained as absolute fact, not as some sort of counterpoint to intelligent design or anything like that.
It sounds like maybe Pope Francis is an adherent to the doctrine of “anonymous Christianity”, which is a concept developed by Fr. Karl Rahner, SJ that basically states that people who are either unexposed to Christ, or who are exposed to Christ ineffectively can still be saved if they live a life in accordance with Christ’s teachings.
Note- this isn’t quite like that posthumous Mormon baptism or whatever; Fr. Rahner was more explaining a philosophical basis for people who never heard of Christ to not be damned to Hell, in essence.
I could be wrong, but he seems to have emphasized this doctrine more than recent popes have, especially regarding atheists.
I’m not aware of any person named Pope Rat and I don’t grok how anything that you posted is supposed to serve as evidence that what Pope Francis said is radical.
What you linked to would seem to confirm that what Pope Francis said is not radical, if it’s accurate. (Always doubtful with Wikipedia)
The question of why anyone would consider this radical thus remains.
And here I thought you had to seek salvation and be forgiven for your sins.
To think, all this time Catholics have been doing this the hard way.
I am optimistic that the Pope’s comments will soften the stances of some particularly hard-core Catholics, like my mother, who believe that atheists are essentially evil people who are destined for Hell. I have no idea how much in keeping with Catholic doctrine that belief of hers is. Maybe not at all. But with the Pope himself saying, look, atheists are okay, and they can be saved too, maybe she and others like her will be more tolerant of their godless friends and relatives.
I mean, personally speaking I don’t really give a crap if the Pope thinks I can be saved or not, but if it means less hostility towards atheists from the religious, then I am all for it.
On the contrary. It’s the slackers now who will have the hard time later…
I said nothing about literalism.
Some tenets are adhered to strongly by this or that branch of Christianity without buying the whole book as the literal word of god. To hold that the only way to heaven is via Jesus does not (necessarily) mean someone is a literalist. They just buy that particular part.
I thought the Catholic church held to this particular view and it was a central tenet of Christianity as a whole. Others above have educated me differently. Glad I asked. Learned something.
I think that part’s universal or nearly so among Christians.
What’s not so universal is the non-literalist belief that the only way you can get to heaven is by coming to a belief in Jesus’s divinity during this lifetime. It’s a non-literalist interpretation because it’s getting more specific than John 14:6 in a couple of different ways. (Yeah, I know, it’s largely self-proclaimed literalists and inerrantists who buy into this interpretation. I never said they were consistent. :))