# True believing Christians: will you allow me to challenge and probe your beliefs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2011, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809 "2011-01-07T23:54:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/81 "2011-01-12T13:28:49Z")
> [@rulesareweights](#): > > There is no celtic or druid people left in europe, so i think they were mostly exterminiated, i can’t think of any other word for it. I live in the u.s and live on what used to be native land, I have not even seen a native in years. they were forced onto reservations secluded in the middle of nowhere. Colonialism is in every country in the world. Christians dominate most of the countries in the world with exception of asian countries. Even africa is colonialized, the richest people in africa are european christians. south america is dominated by catholicism. > Name one country besides the asian countries that are not ruled by euro/american christians. > we dominate and police the world with zealotry and superiority Do you know what “Celtic” means? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/82 "2011-01-12T13:54:11Z")
No. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/83 "2011-01-12T14:07:59Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Do you know what “Celtic” means? Professional basketball team from the northeast? Fond of the color green? They’ve been exterminated? Sport fandom has become more acrimonious than I feared … ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/84 "2011-01-12T14:42:07Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Professional basketball team from the northeast? Fond of the color green? They’ve been exterminated? Sport fandom has become more acrimonious than I feared … [It’s Obama’s fault.](http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/85 "2011-01-12T15:33:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [It’s Obama’s fault.](http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html) “Ray Allen first victim in Rome’s new inquisition: confused fans blame heated political rhetoric”? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/86 "2011-01-12T18:06:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So that’s my point of view…and since it IS my point of view, does the giver then accept my polite thank you which is the best I can do or recognize that I’m not seeing-hearing-smelling-tasting-touching-perceiving anything at all, get offended that I’m failing to perceive the gift, and take it back? Many things we do for each other are tertiary: there is little or no evidence they occurred, and if we did see any such evidence, we might not even recognize it. I lvoe logic, science, analysis, and thought as much as anyone. It takes a Christian mind to truly use these things, and even the intellectual might of Richard Dawkins is onyl allowed to him because of the Christian civilizaiton which created him: he could never exist in a pagan one. The Atheist can only survive by the Christian. But always recognize these are tools of a man and not the man himself. Our logic is intently fallible, and if the mechanists are right, then they destroy any faith in their own thought processes as well. Yes, _faith_. A man without faith is a sad and miserable creature. I’ve known men without faith. I’ve been a man without faith. It’s a pointless existence. The question is not, if never, about whether you have faith. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be asking any questions about it at all. The quesiton is no, “do I believe?” but rather, “In what do I believe?” The most faithful-seeming churchgoer might in fact be worshipping Mammon at the bank, and the coldest Atheist may be raising up heathen alters to Pleasure or even revelling in his own brilliance. It’s what they really believe in, down at the bottom of it - where they put their money and their hope for happiness. > [@](#): > > Yes, this is the issue I have about equating _acceptance_ with _belief_, as though they are the same. They are not. I will joyfully accept any salvation I am offered and be grateful to receive it. But I cannot will myself to believe that any of this stuff is true to begin with, so that salvation is being withheld from me as a result of my inability to believe it exists. (according to some, not all) Belief is not a choice I can make, so to hang the salvation of my eternal soul on something I have no control over seems grossly unfair. I in this very thread told you what you need to know, and not just me. It is up to you whether you listen. Either you believe God exists or you don’t. If you do not, then it hardly matters what you think he does. If you do, and only then, does the question of who is right about him matter. And if you like, we can easily point you to a number of good sources on that subject. C. S. Lewis is a good start: he’s no theologian, and is just writing what little he knows for everyday people, and neither talks down nor sucks up to him. And who told you this, anyway, and why does what they think matter to you? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/87 "2011-01-12T18:11:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Hmmm…who said it was like that? It certainly wasn’t like that for me. EVERYTHING changed. > > Imagine that you’d been color-blind, seeing the entire world in black-and-white, and then suddenly one day you could see the full spectrum of color in everything. > > It was like that. Only _way_ better. I would agree with this. I’m not even sure how I can explain it. How do you explain color to a man who can’t see it? It is, but it can’t be logically explained. We can logically poiint to certain conseuqneces of it (and many Christians have, and they are right), but there’s no consequence that black-and-white absolutely can’t exaplin. Matter of fact, black-and-white will explain much of it better than the color, because it is not hampered by so many hues, nor that everyone may perceive the same phenomenon just a bit differently. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/88 "2011-01-12T18:15:22Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Selfishness is not good or bad, it depends on how selfishness is expressed. Everything we do is to please and satisfy our own desires, but some of desire to be loved and admired and appreciated, so we do nice things for other people. It makes us feel good. That’s selfish, but not damaging. Pardon, but isn’t this assuming the consequence? There’s nothing any man has ever done outside of Or even if you rgant insanity, then you still have a situation where all possible acitons are either selfish or insane. If so, you ahve defined selfish in such a fashion as to render it meaningless: it merely now means, “All actions are selfish or insane,” or perhaps more accurately and more insulting, “All action I cannot rationalize as being selfish are insane.” You have not defined Selfish. You have simply given up defining Selfish. What action would you describe as “Altruistic”? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/89 "2011-01-12T18:17:49Z")
> [@rulesareweights](#): > > There is no celtic or druid people left in europe It’s an overused phrase, but I really was eating and really almost did spit out my hamburger when I read this. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/90 "2011-01-12T18:57:09Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > There are some schools of theology that believe that all people will be saved through Jesus, eventually, whether they believe in Jesus or not. It’s called Universalism. I’m actually on the fence about that myself. It’s certainly an appealing doctrine. Maybe this will help you off the fence: [**Jesus Saves!**](http://media.jesusoftheweek.com/4947955.0.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/91 "2011-01-12T20:09:38Z")
Pretty agile for guy with his hands and feet nailed down! ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/92 "2011-01-12T20:18:12Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yes and no. Mostly no, but a little yes. > > In a manner of speaking, it was always a matter of language. Few, if any Christians ever subscribed to the idea that faith is irrelevant. But the Church is what you’d call a “hands-on” bunch. As far as we’re concerned, a faith which does nothing is, _well_, not a faith. We’d rather have a man who didn’t entirely believe, but went about and acted as if he did because he thought it right. The belief will take care of itself, if not now, then in death when all illusions (including the weakness of human reason and the deceptions of Satan) are stripped away. > > The theological disagreement with Luther was that it essentially denied the human being’s active alignment with God. We Catholics say that you have to actually act for God: you’re a soldier on his side, now, so get crackin’ recruit! Today, we’d all mostly say it’s a problem with communication. Theologically, there was really never any disagreement with the Anglicans, except over whether the church was headed by the King of England or the Pope. Given that national churches have thankfully faded, and Monarchs don’t have such an interest, the root of the disagreement has gone away. > > Arguments with Presbyterians and maybe Mormons probably go deepest with Catholics. > > (And Luther was kind of a _dick_, even though he wasn’t exactly a bad theologian. I’ve actually heard about people (whose names I won’t repeat) who start yelling and arguing with Luther. He’s so combative that he sparks personal arguments after _death_.) I was going to chime in and give a Catholic response, but this guy articulated it far better than I could have so, yeah – what he said. Also, with respect to: > [@](#): > > 1. The blissful post-death state is only available to the people who accept that Jesus lived and died and acted as a surrogate “sufferer” for the sins committed by the believer in question, and that is the only way - no others are allowed the blissful post-death experience. (Whether that means eternally nothingness or active suffering in a hell-like state is again optional for the purposes of this thread.) Catholics definately do not believe that (and I might go out on a limb and vouch for Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans as well). ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/93 "2011-01-12T20:43:47Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > You have not defined Selfish. You have simply given up defining Selfish. What action would you describe as “Altruistic”? I can describe altruism easily, the same as anyone else. The question is actually whether altrusim exists, if you presume that altrusim must, in order to be genuine, be entirely free of any reward of any description for the person acting altruistically. By that definition, I don’t think that altruism exists. People who behave altruistically are doing so because it satisfies a deep need in themselves to do so. Otherwise they wouldn’t. We do not voluntarily act in ways that have no payoff of any kind, period. We do what we do, no matter what it is, because we want to in order to satisfy a personal need or desire. This doesn’t alter the reality that people who act for the benefit of others are doing nice things and may therefore be viewed as nice people, because they get personal reward from doing things for the benefit of others. That’s the best possible definition of what makes someone good, in my book. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/94 "2011-01-12T20:54:47Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I can describe altruism easily, the same as anyone else. The question is actually whether altrusim exists, if you presume that altrusim must, in order to be genuine, be entirely free of any reward of any description for the person acting altruistically. This is a rational problem, however, because you are simply shoving the issue onto the word “reward.” If anything which can possibly be a reward counts, them obviously anything you do, do not do, and could possibly do must be selfish. You can always come up with a chain of reasoning which supports it. But no-one else ought to listen to you, just as if you were sure that everyone around you is secretly gay and constantly come up with chains of reasoning to explain the heterosexual behavior they frequently display. You may be using your logic, but you are not being reasonable. Edit: I also note that you claim you can define altriusm… but did not actually do so. > [@](#): > > By that definition, I don’t think that altruism exists. People who behave altruistically are doing so because it satisfies a deep need in themselves to do so. Otherwise they wouldn’t. We do not voluntarily act in ways that have no payoff of any kind, period. We do what we do, no matter what it is, because we want to in order to satisfy a personal need or desire. Question: Is there a possible action a human could take which would not be selfish under your view? If not, your argument seems to lack a certain unfalsifiability. In any event, I will attempt to do it and see if I can. I have no particular intent on killing myself for your amusement, of cours,e but if there is an action I can reasonably hope to accomplish I am willing to give it a try. If I find I cannot actually do it, then you would seem to be right. If I can, then it would seem people can do something good. If it all depends on deep psychological factors and is impossible to know in any specific case, then your view would seem to be a personal bit of cynicism and an awful lot of assumptions. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t alter the reality that people who act for the benefit of others are doing nice things and may therefore be viewed as nice people, because they get personal reward from doing things for the benefit of others. That’s the best possible definition of what makes someone good, in my book. As I’ve argued on this board, as near as I can tell you don’t actually bellieve in the concept of good, or wouldn’t if you examined your current set of beliefs honestly and with due care for the implications. This doesn’t render it incorrect neccessarily, only that you have a neccessarily inconsistent belief. But that’s for another day, I’m sure. In fact, if we take the mechanistic view, then humans can never be selfish _or_ charitable. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/95 "2011-01-12T21:01:11Z")
Okay, looked up the Nicene Creed: > [@](#): > > We believe in one God, > the Father, the Almighty, > maker of heaven and earth, > of all that is, seen and unseen. I got that right: > [@](#): > > 1. A sentient and all-powerful Creator created all life on earth (not necessarily that it did so in a week or 6,000 years, just that life was created by a Creator, even if the Creator did so via evolution over hundreds of millions of years). > [@](#): > > We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, > the only Son of God, > eternally begotten of the Father, > God from God, light from light, > true God from true God, > begotten, not made, > of one Being with the Father; > through him all things were made. Ummm… I got that right too. Sorta. Kinda. Seems like there’s a bunch of stuff that doesn’t really add much to “jesus was the son of God and is part of god” > [@](#): > > For us and for our salvation > he came down from heaven, > was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary > and became truly human. > For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; > he suffered death and was buried. I got this right too, at least that jesus did die to save us. > [@](#): > > On the third day he rose again > in accordance with the Scriptures; > he ascended into heaven > and is seated at the right hand of the Father. > He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, > and his kingdom will have no end. > [@](#): > > 1. The Creator “created” a “son” in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, (immaculate conception and virgin birth optional) whose job was to teach what the Creator wanted, to perform some basic miracles, then to die a martyr and rise from the dead to ascend to a place beside the Creator. The purpose of this was to act as a surrogate sufferer for the sins of others. > [@](#): > > We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, > who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], > who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. > We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Not much here one way or another, at least regarding what I thought. > [@](#): > > We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. > We look for the resurrection of the dead, > and the life of the world to come. Amen And this looks close to what I said: > [@](#): > > 1. There is a kind of blissful state available after death which is designed as a reward by the Creator, allows reuniting with one’s loved ones, and lasts for infinity. > > 2. The blissful post-death state is only available to the people who accept that Jesus lived and died and acted as a surrogate “sufferer” for the sins committed by the believer in question, and that is the only way - no others are allowed the blissful post-death experience. (Whether that means eternally nothingness or active suffering in a hell-like state is again optional for the purposes of this thread.) So I added some things that aren’t in there, but the fundamentals don’t seem all that different to my eyes: God created everything. Sent Jesus to earth to die for our sins. This allows us to ascend to heaven. As I’ve said, the earned/free thing turned out to be an unexpected area of debate. Wiki seems to sum up all that rather nicely, turns out: > [@](#): > > The Catholic Church teaches that salvation does not occur \*without faithfulness \*on the part of Christians; converts must live in accordance with principles of love and ordinarily must be baptized.[48][49] Martin Luther taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, but modern Lutherans and other Protestants tend to teach that salvation is a gift that comes to an individual by God’s grace, sometimes defined as “unmerited favor”, even apart from baptism. > > Christians differ in their views on the extent to which individuals’ salvation is pre-ordained by God. Reformed theology places distinctive emphasis on grace by teaching that individuals are completely incapable of self-redemption, but that sanctifying grace is irresistible.[50] In contrast Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Arminian Protestants believe that the exercise of free will is necessary to have faith in Jesus Still not crystal clear on the “must believe/don’t hafta” issue, but definitely in the ballpark. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/96 "2011-01-12T21:01:52Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > This seems much more likely to me. In my own spiritual quest during my life, the one thing that emerges above everything is the idea that love is the greatest thing there is. In my personal world life is love and love is life. > > So if in fact there is a creator, the creator is love, and if the creator is the greatest being, the creator’s capacity for love is infinite and embraces everything. And the greatest expression of love is forgiveness; so to reject anyone on the basis that they failed to believe during life would be to fail to forgive them, and I cannot believe that any true creator would do that, could do that, or would in fact even care one way or another. Because to care implies ego, and if ego is anything it is human. Look around you: do animals have egos? > > So my inability to believe in a creator doesn’t bother me because if the creator exists I know I’m forgiven for my failure. I would agree with all this. > [@](#): > > And this also, by the way, extends to every other thing a human being does, no matter how heinous. If the creator exists, the creator is love, and love is forgiveness, so all is forgiven, no matter what. So I believe that Mother Theresa is no closer to God than Hitler is, if there is anything to any of it. In the sense that (if what I believe is in fact true) we all reach the same destination, that’s so. But in order to let God be present to us, we’ll all have to unwind the sin inside us that we prefer to the grace of loving God and being loved and forgiven in return. And while there is darkness in the hearts of all of us, Hitler surely has a lot more to unwind than Mother Teresa does. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/97 "2011-01-12T21:13:21Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Question: Is there a possible action a human could take which would not be selfish under your view? Of course: any action they are forced to take by threat or coercion. But really, even that is selfish, of course: they selfishly desire not to suffer the consequences of the threat or selfishly desire to reap the rewards of the coercion. > [@](#): > > As I’ve argued on this board, as near as I can tell you don’t actually bellieve in the concept of good, or wouldn’t if you examined your current set of beliefs honestly and with due care for the implications. Good = that which supports and enhances health, joy, love, peace, happiness, laughter. Bad= that which supports and enhances pain, suffering, disease, violence, cruelty, hate and other types of harm. I believe in both good and bad, and can’t imagine why you’d conclude otherwise (apart from discussions of a possible spiritual existence. Within the context of life on earth, I absolutely recognize that good and evil exist!) I think the real problem lies with your apparent discomfort at viewing selfishness as anything other than a negative. It can be negative, it can be positive, it can be neither. It merely describes that a motive arises from concern for one’s own needs or desires, which I consider neutral until we know what the needs and desires are. ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/98 "2011-01-12T21:14:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Still not crystal clear on the “must believe/don’t hafta” issue, but definitely in the ballpark. Not a bad job matching up your conclusions with the Nicene Creed. See, it is rather intuitive when you think about it, isn’t it? About the “must believe/don’t hafta” question, here’s what the Catechism has to say: [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/\_P29.HTM#2FM](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM#2FM) > [@](#): > > “Outside the Church there is no salvation” > > 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: > > Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 > > 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: > > Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 > > 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 > > 335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536. > > 336 LG 14; cf. ⇒ Mk 16:16; ⇒ Jn 3:5[ETML:C/]. > > 337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872. > > 338 AG 7; cf. ⇒ Heb 11:6; ⇒ 1 Cor 9:16. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/99 "2011-01-12T21:22:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Then the gift wasn’t merely salvation, it was also the ability to perceive that the gift had been given at all. > > I’m told that the gift is freely given to us all. I am not perceiving mine. Where’s the failure? Maybe you have to be in the right place, inside yourself, to perceive the reality of the gift. I don’t know, but I expect there’s some of that. If you don’t _want_ to place your trust in the Lord - hell, if you don’t believe there _is_ a Lord to trust, then I doubt you’re in a place where you can perceive the gift. You think you’re doing just fine without it, and you may well be. It’s got to be hard to see the gift under those circumstances; I’m not sure it would even look like a gift. One of the things I still remember from that September night, even after forty years, was the sense of realizing how _wrong_ I’d been about so many things - my whole world view at the time, really - but glad to let go of all that as my eyes and heart were opened. If I’d been happy in my life as it was, I don’t know if I’d have seen or felt anything new that night. But I wasn’t: I’d spent all that year trying my damnedest to fight my way _out_ of the box I knew I was in. And then there was no box. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809/100 "2011-01-12T21:22:38Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > In the sense that (if what I believe is in fact true) we all reach the same destination, that’s so. But in order to let God be present to us, we’ll all have to unwind the sin inside us that we prefer to the grace of loving God and being loved and forgiven in return. And while there is darkness in the hearts of all of us, Hitler surely has a lot more to unwind than Mother Teresa does. Indeed! But how about this possibility: that good and evil do NOT actually exist, but are merely two sides of one coin - perhaps the Chinese concept of yin yang is closer to the reality: > [@](#): > > In Taoist philosophy, yin and yang (☯) arise together from an initial quiescence or emptiness (wuji, sometimes symbolized by an empty circle), and continue moving in tandem until quiescence is reached again. For instance, dropping a stone in a calm pool of water will simultaneously raise waves and lower troughs between them, and this alternation of high and low points in the water will radiate outward until the movement dissipates and the pool is calm once more. Yin and yang are thus are always opposite and equal qualities. Further, whenever one quality reaches its peak, it will naturally begin to transform into the opposite quality: for example, grain that reaches its full height in summer (fully yang) will produce seeds and die back in winter (fully yin) in an endless cycle. > > It is impossible to talk about yin or yang without some reference to the opposite, since yin and yang are bound together as parts of a mutual whole (i.e. you cannot have the back of a hand without the front). A way to illustrate this idea is to postulate the notion of a race with only men or only women; this race would disappear in a single generation. Yet, men and women together create new generations that allow the race they mutually create (and mutually come from) to survive. The interaction of the two gives birth to things.[3] Yin and yang transform each other: like an undertow in the ocean, every advance is complemented by a retreat, and every rise transforms into a fall. Thus, a seed will sprout from the earth and grow upwards towards the sky – an intrinsically yang movement. Then, when it reaches its full potential height, it will fall. Perhaps we are here merely to experience life, and this is only possible in the balance of good and evil, so some spirits embody the evil, others the good, in the same way that actors may play the good or evil, but when the play is over, it has nothing to do with who they really are. This actually seems much more likely to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/true-believing-christians-will-you-allow-me-to-challenge-and-probe-your-beliefs/566809.md?page=6)