FrostedFlake -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 12:31:06 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: curious23 quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote:
ORIGINAL: curious23 I'm not a catholic so I honestly don't know exactly what it takes to get into heaven according to their standards. I thought, being a denomination of christainity, all you needed was to believe in God and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I thought this was the bare necessity in order to reach paradise. If it is, then what's it matter (especially to atheists) if he accepts our good deeds if he still sends us to hell for not believing? And if he doesn't send atheists to hell if they don't believe then, as I originally pointed out, what is even the point of faith? The pope is either pointing out something that is irrelevant (since hell is in the cards anyway) or he's undermining faith. It's my personal interpretation that by the "we will meet one another there" he tried to imply he believes that the ticket to heaven is based on deeds, not faith. As a Jesuit it would make sense if that where the case. And stating that faith isn't necessary to God doesn't undermine the meaning of having it anyways. As a thought experiment, consider God as being an actual father of children. If such a father has 4 sons, and one of them respects and honors him while doing good, while the second does good without doing it to honor and respect the father, and the third respects and honors his father while doing bad, the fourth rejects his father while doing bad. Which of the sons do you think the father would be pleased with, and why? The answer to that question depends on what kind of father you think this hypothetical father is, and what his values are. It's the answer to that question that I think the Pope is driving at, and I think his statement spoke heavily about the type of father he believes God to be, and what kind of values as a father he ascribes to God. Woooaaah you'er asking me to play devil's advocate here by comparing a being that makes absolutely no sense to a father. If I do, then let me present you with my own. This father has condoned rape, the selling of women, the death and murder against those who 'werent' chosen, and the eternal punishment of the Children of parents who at an apple he made and put in front of them. The commands he delivered personally to have fathers slay sons or to have kings destroy entire peoples are noble in the bible but if a person today claims they killed their child because God told them to or if a president declared war on a neighboring nation because Americans are God's chosen people because God told him in a dream, you'd label these folks as mad (I hope). So think twice before asking someone to see God as some sort of authority figure. The bible has him condoning some pretty scary things. If I were to answer your question practically, I'd say the first one who honors and does good by him. Of course, Job (Jobe) was such an individual in the bible and God took everything he had from job and tortured him terribly without killing him just to prove a point to satan that Job would still love him. My question to you is, if a father did the same thing to one of his four sons who actually was dutiful and good just to prove a point to his neighbor that that son will still love him and do good despite being abused and tortured in the worst ways, what kind of father would you consider that man to be? What kind of father do you think God is? But like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I like her. Let's keep her.
|
|
|
|