Fr Brendan Purcell / Hook / Newstalk

homer911

Very disappointed tonight to hear Fr Brendan Purcell in conversation with George Hook on the subject of Eulogies. The conversation switched briefly to how you can be sure of getting to heaven. Brian Purcell stated that as long as you showed kindness to others, you would be sure of a welcome in Heaven.

Even atheists show kindness to others - I'm sure they would be very disappointed to end up in a heaven they don't believe in!

How does someone in his position get away with statements like this? He is going to be severely judged when he meets his maker!

If people are wondering about the decline in the Christian church in Ireland (Catholic or otherwise), it seems that we don't need to look much further than the clergy. I truely hope and pray that his teaching is not representative of the clergy in Ireland.

Benny_Cake

homer911 wrote: »

Very disappointed tonight to hear Fr Brian Purcell in conversation with George Hook on the subject of Eulogies. The conversation switched briefly to how you can be sure of getting to heaven. Brian Purcell stated that as long as you showed kindness to others, you would be sure of a welcome in Heaven.

Even atheists show kindness to others - I'm sure they would be very disappointed to end up in a heaven they don't believe in!

How does someone in his position get away with statements like this? He is going to be severely judged when he meets his maker!

If people are wondering about the decline in the Christian church in Ireland (Catholic or otherwise), it seems that we don't need to look much further than the clergy. I truely hope and pray that his teaching is not representative of the clergy in Ireland.

I missed it, but do you mean Brendan Purcell, perhaps? He's been a guest on that show in the past.

Others will be better placed to discuss the Catholic view on salvation. The Right Hook probably isn't the best place for theological debate though!

lmaopml

Hi Homer, I was listening to that earlier myself - and for the most part agreed with the eulogies at Mass.

I think it's just a case of the context of what he was speaking about - he was speaking of people who wanted a Catholic funeral, but may not have always gone to Mass - Hook kind of making a bit of a joke of it...

Fr Purcell was pretty much referring to 'The Parable of the Onion' by Fyodor Dostoevsky who was a Russian moral philosopher and author of much renown. (In fairness he didn't explain, or perhaps get to explain his point very well, but I think if he had more time than perhaps it may have been clearer)

Basically the story goes that this woman died and went to hell. She gave out to Satan that she shouldn't really be there as she believed in God. Satan told her she was a right nasty piece of work that never really did a whole lot for anybody in her life....she having thought about this told him she remembered giving a beggar an onion once from her garden. All of a sudden God's hand came down from heaven into hell holding an onion, and the woman grabbed onto it. God started to lift the onion towards heaven and the woman with it, when a number of the other residents in hell decided to tag along for the ride and clung onto her, and on to each other and so on until thousands where hanging out of her. Anyway, even though the onion seemed stable enough, she feared all the extra weight would weigh her down and break the onion so she started kicking and kicking and eventually freed herself of some of the people clinging on to her - as she did so the onion started to fray, but she kept on kicking thinking that it was the weight of the people. As she kicked the last person back to hell the onion frayed and she fell back down never having reached heaven.

I think the Father was referring to this in relation to George saying about somebody who wants a Catholic funeral, but may not have always gone to mass - In other words they have the faith, but it probably wasn't evident to others.

The Father is pretty much just saying that God is the best judge at the end of the day, and a Catholic Mass said for the person is no problem if that's their wish ( they must have 'faith' of some sort) - and using the parable of the onion, he's actually in his own little way saying that the Faith is good, but that it has to have 'shown' in life too, that we're to love God, and Neighbour and how this lady didn't do that.....

Hope this helps.

I defo can give out about some clerics with the best of em, but I think in this instance Fr. Purcell just didn't get the time to elaborate - he's actually a really cool Priest - always calm and joyful, and very interesting to listen to I think.

Doc Farrell

homer911 wrote: »

Very disappointed... Brian Purcell stated that as long as you showed kindness to others, you would be sure of a welcome in Heaven.

Even atheists show kindness to others -

How does someone in his position get away with statements like this? He is going to be severely judged when he meets his maker!

If people are wondering about the decline in the Christian church in Ireland (Catholic or otherwise), it seems that we don't need to look much further than the clergy. I truely hope and pray that his teaching is not representative of the clergy in Ireland.

I think you should take a break from the Internet and involve yourself in some other hobby. Someone who shows kindness to others in this world is called a saint. Take a break.

lazygal

Curious as to how practicing Catholics feel about atheists being given church funerals, even when they've done count me out or otherwise totally rejected the teachings and beliefs of the church. I've had the experience of being at one such funeral where the deceased's wishes were overridden and the priest made a point of drawing attention to how even though he (deceased) was atheist, at least his family had done the right thing having a 'proper' funeral. Very uncomfortable for those of us who knew the deceased wasn't a believer.

Personally, I don't see the big deal with eulogies not being allowed. Very often it puts pressure on people who aren't used to public speaking or feel under pressure to say a few words. I also cringe when inappropriate songs are played - Stairway to Heaven is one that springs to mind.

lmaopml

Hmm, I dunno Lazygal, I imagine that it has happened that family members may just go ahead and bury somebody against their wishes. Some Atheists don't really mind how they are buried and others will mind I suppose if somebody prays for them. I think it's important to let family members know if a person feels strongly about not wanting prayers said for them, and to have a humanist or other type of ceremony.

As far as how I personally would feel as a Catholic - well I suppose Mass is Mass whether it's for a funeral or on Sunday.
We pray for the 'faithful' departed and indeed being a Catholic 'with' the faithful departed, and give thanks during Mass - we pray for everybody to received God's mercy, past present and future. It's where the entire body of the Church meet and give thanks and offer prayers through Jesus Christ as one.

We pray that even in the hour of death that a person can receive God's mercy.

So, I guess I would indeed pray for somebody who may have been Atheist that they received his mercy too.

There is a parable of Jesus, about the 'Workers in the Vineyard' it's Matthew 20: 1-16....basically everybody gets the same pay, the first to labour and the last. As a Catholic I would be super aware that it's not my place to grumble about God's judgement on others, it's only my place to do the work at the hour I'm called I suppose.

I hope that helps understand somewhat from a Catholic perspective.

tommy2bad

Hmm, I dunno Lazygal, I imagine that it has happened that family members may just go ahead and bury somebody against their wishes.

We thought of doing that with my mother but decided to put her in a home instead.

I don't like eulogies at funeral masses, keep them for the graveside. In my own case once I'm taken to the chaple it's up to the priests to do the job according to the rites of the church, not the sentimental wishes of the mourners. Who will be too heartbroken to even notice anyway such will be my loss to them . Or not, it a long time away I may have annoyed them by then.

SoulandForm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I think you should take a break from the Internet and involve yourself in some other hobby. Someone who shows kindness to others in this world is called a saint. Take a break.

Who by?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Doc Farrell
I think you should take a break from the Internet and involve yourself in some other hobby. Someone who shows kindness to others in this world is called a saint.

Practically everybody shows kindness to others in this world, at some time.
Technically speaking, a saint is a Saved Christian.

Acts 9:32
And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

Romans 1:7
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 16:15
Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

martinedwards

saint has become a word used in different ways by different denominations.

most prods take the NT version that the word saint is interchangable with believer while the RC view is much more the Superstars of the faith.

J C

martinedwards wrote: »

saint has become a word used in different ways by different denominations.

most prods take the NT version that the word saint is interchangable with believer while the RC view is much more the Superstars of the faith.

Either way, a saint is technically a Saved Christian.:)
... so are you a saint/saved, Martin?

SoulandForm

J C wrote: »

Either way, a saint is technically a Saved Christian.:)
... so are you a saint/saved, Martin?

Well yes and no- saint means holy.

SoulandForm

martinedwards wrote: »

saint has become a word used in different ways by different denominations.

most prods take the NT version that the word saint is interchangable with believer while the RC view is much more the Superstars of the faith.

Dont Roman Catholics however consider all those who have actually made Heaven to be saints but with a small "s"?

lmaopml

Hi Soul and Form.

The 'S' and 's' thing I've never heard of - in fact I never even notice when I do it myself. Perhaps a tradition of sorts? I'm not sure....

As a Catholic I would generally say that we refer to ourselves as those that are 'set apart' or 'called to be Holy' as such when we refer to a ourselves - then we would perhaps say a 'living saint' for one who's holiness is apparent I guess to all.......

Then we would refer to saints who have reached perfect sanctity as those who are 'in heaven' in the presence of God. We're all called to be saints, we know this, but your average catholic wouldn't quite say they have reached sainthood, but that it's what we're being transformed into and called to be 'Holy' as such....

Sorry for the unclear quick posting style - I'm working here too and just dipping in and out today.

SoulandForm

Sorry by made Heaven I meant actually having died and entered into paradise.

b318isp

homer911 wrote: »

VBrian Purcell stated that as long as you showed kindness to others, you would be sure of a welcome in Heaven.

Even atheists show kindness to others - I'm sure they would be very disappointed to end up in a heaven they don't believe in!

I'm not sure of your issue here. Fr. Purcell is a huge believer in human unity under God, no matter who you are or what you've been. How an individual responds to the call to demonstrate love and compassion is a prime factor, whether you are an aborigine, Buddhist or Christian.

You may argue that a clear acceptance of God is a precursor for getting into heaven. Fr. Purcell's work on identifying a common humanity is well published; and unless someone is (say) Baptist or ultra-conservative, progressive global and religious unity has been a major movement in the RCC for around 50 years. His recognition of how we value ourselves and those around us is his major motive of his devotion. He would probably say that we all have to respond to the call in our own way, but I guess that he will fundamentally revert to how we show love every day as being the most important thing (insofar as this can lead one to God).

If atheists are wrong about God existing but are worthy of getting in heaven it is only a good thing!

homer911

b318isp wrote: »

I'm not sure of your issue here. Fr. Purcell is a huge believer in human unity under God, no matter who you are or what you've been. How an individual responds to the call to demonstrate love and compassion is a prime factor, whether you are an aborigine, Buddhist or Christian.

You may argue that a clear acceptance of God is a precursor for getting into heaven. Fr. Purcell's work on identifying a common humanity is well published; and unless someone is (say) Baptist or ultra-conservative, progressive global and religious unity has been a major movement in the RCC for around 50 years. His recognition of how we value ourselves and those around us is his major motive of his devotion. He would probably say that we all have to respond to the call in our own way, but I guess that he will fundamentally revert to how we show love every day as being the most important thing (insofar as this can lead one to God).

If atheists are wrong about God existing but are worthy of getting in heaven it is only a good thing!

I guess we are heading down a Faith Vs Works debate again. The Bible is clear that faith without works is nothing, but works without faith is also nothing

J C

SoulandForm wrote: »

Sorry by made Heaven I meant actually having died and entered into paradise.

I think the difference is that some churches believe you can only be saved (and therefore a saint) when you enter Heaven i.e. there is no certainty of Salvation until you die and Salvation is by works ... thus the need for holiness and all that good stuff to be a saint.
... while other Christians believe that you can be Saved when alive through faith alone ... therby becoming a saint right here, right now ... with Jesus Christ doing all of the 'heavy lifting' with the remission of sin.
I'm in the latter category.:)

lmaopml

homer911 wrote: »

I guess we are heading down a Faith Vs Works debate again. The Bible is clear that faith without works is nothing, but works without faith is also nothing

I agree, that both are necessary. One on it's own is of no use really...
and nobody can force one or the other, but only God moving in the heart of a soul who listens and asks for understanding.

Love God, and Love neighbour is the very basics.

I think it's important however to remember that where an unbeliever is concerned that does 'good' throughout their lives that we really aren't the best judges because God is in action there and he can use the tiniest measure to bring equilibrium about, even at the very very last moment - our job is to pray for the same mercy for all. We're all children of God, no matter whom or when or where. Jesus loved so much that it's enough for all..

recedite

lmaopml wrote: »

Fr Purcell was pretty much referring to 'The Parable of the Onion' by Fyodor Dostoevsky who was a Russian moral philosopher and author of much renown. (In fairness he didn't explain, or perhaps get to explain his point very well, but I think if he had more time than perhaps it may have been clearer)

Basically the story goes that this woman died and went to hell. She gave out to Satan that she shouldn't really be there as she believed in God. Satan told her she was a right nasty piece of work that never really did a whole lot for anybody in her life....she having thought about this told him she remembered giving a beggar an onion once from her garden. All of a sudden God's hand came down from heaven into hell holding an onion, and the woman grabbed onto it. God started to lift the onion towards heaven and the woman with it, when a number of the other residents in hell decided to tag along for the ride and clung onto her, and on to each other and so on until thousands where hanging out of her. Anyway, even though the onion seemed stable enough, she feared all the extra weight would weigh her down and break the onion so she started kicking and kicking and eventually freed herself of some of the people clinging on to her - as she did so the onion started to fray, but she kept on kicking thinking that it was the weight of the people. As she kicked the last person back to hell the onion frayed and she fell back down never having reached heaven.

I think the Father was referring to this in relation to George saying about somebody who wants a Catholic funeral, but may not have always gone to mass - In other words they have the faith, but it probably wasn't evident to others.

The Father is pretty much just saying that God is the best judge at the end of the day, and a Catholic Mass said for the person is no problem if that's their wish ( they must have 'faith' of some sort) - and using the parable of the onion, he's actually in his own little way saying that the Faith is good, but that it has to have 'shown' in life too, that we're to love God, and Neighbour and how this lady didn't do that.....

That's an interesting little parable, though its strange that God had to be reminded about the onion that the woman gave to the beggar. Maybe some glitch in the heavenly accountancy system?
Anyway, being an atheist I havent bothered listening to the radio show, but I can see straight away that people are at cross purposes on this thread. There are two different doctrines involved, and both are seen somewhat differently by different denominations. Two separate issues.

1. The faith V good works issue. Technically, to be a good Christian requires both.

2. The last minute salvation issue. This is the conversion of somebody late in the day, maybe even on their deathbed, and quite possibly after leading a life of debauchery as an atheist.

Someone who has led a "holier than thou" existence all their life might (quite rightly IMO) feel cheated when they see someone else taking advantage of Clause 2 above, at the the last minute, having enjoyed a life of guilt free pleasure up until then... Hence the parable of the onion. Do not resent other people's salvation, even when it seems they are undeserving, because in doing so you risk your own.

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it's important however to remember that where an unbeliever is concerned that does 'good' throughout their lives that we really aren't the best judges because God is in action there....

You just refuse to give credit where credit is due, don't you!

SoulandForm

homer911 wrote: »

I guess we are heading down a Faith Vs Works debate again. The Bible is clear that faith without works is nothing, but works without faith is also nothing

A lot of Catholics believe that Protestant and Orthodox Christians will be damned because they have the wrong faith so I dont think that person's statement is really heading in that direction.

The Bible clearly teaches that atheists are without excuse.

Pious Muslims and Jews may be saved- but idolatry and atheism clearly go against the law upon our hearts.

endacl

homer911 wrote: »

Even atheists show kindness to others - I'm sure they would be very disappointed to end up in a heaven they don't believe in!

Au contraire. I'd be surprised, I'll admit, to find a heaven after I die. But disappointed? No, not at all.

And why the 'even'. Should a 'kind atheist' be an oxymoron? I'd be generally regarded as a pretty decent person. Should a christian not avoid being judgmental?

My two cents...

brian_t

recedite wrote: »

Someone who has led a "holier than thou" existence all their life might (quite rightly IMO) feel cheated when they see someone else taking advantage of Clause 2 above, at the the last minute, having enjoyed a life of guilt free pleasure up until then... Hence the parable of the onion. Do not resent other people's salvation, even when it seems they are undeserving, because in doing so you risk your own.

I've never heard of the parable of the onion but this is already covered by Jesus in the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.

Matthew 20:1–16

endacl

SoulandForm wrote: »

Pious Muslims and Jews may be saved- but idolatry and atheism clearly go against the law upon our hearts.

Ain't no statute book in your chest cavity.

brian_t

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, even though the onion seemed stable enough, she feared all the extra weight would weigh her down and break the onion.

I never heard of this story before so I googled it.
Just to correct a little thing. It seems that she wasn't concerned about the extra weight but that she just didn't want them hanging on to her anyway.

He had just pulled her right out, when the other sin­ners in the lake, see­ing how she was being drawn out, began catch­ing hold of her so as to be pulled out with her. But she was a very wicked woman and she began kick­ing them. ‘I’m to be pulled out, not you. It’s my onion, not yours.’

http://www.classicreader.com/book/276/44/

http://threekeywords.com/quotes/top-posts/the-onion-a-fable-from-the-brothers-karamazov/

recedite

brian_t wrote: »

I've never heard of the parable of the onion but this is already covered by Jesus in the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.

Matthew 20:1–16

Good point, but this goes a bit further in the sense that she fell back down herself after trying to stop the undeserving (late arrival) people.
In the vinyard, the workers who had been there all day grumbled about the late arrivals getting the same pay, but they all still got paid.

The onion story tells people not to be jealous, but it appeals to the selfish instinct.
The vinyard parable tells people not to be jealous, but its trying to appeal to their generosity. It lacks natural justice and fairness though, IMO, so its also an appeal to authority. The notion of maintaining an unquestioning obedience to an authority figure, even when your own feeling of what is "right" becomes offended.

brian_t

recedite wrote: »

The notion of maintaining an unquestioning obedience to an authority figure.

To a lot of people this authority figure is Satan although they just don't realise it.

tommy2bad

recedite wrote: »

Good point, but this goes a bit further in the sense that she fell back down herself after trying to stop the undeserving (late arrival) people.
In the vinyard, the workers who had been there all day grumbled about the late arrivals getting the same pay, but they all still got paid.

The onion story tells people not to be jealous, but it appeals to the selfish instinct.
The vinyard parable tells people not to be jealous, but its trying to appeal to their generosity. It lacks natural justice and fairness though, IMO, so its also an appeal to authority. The notion of maintaining an unquestioning obedience to an authority figure, even when your own feeling of what is "right" becomes offended.

Funny this should come up. It's actual the parable that brought me to Christianity.
The insight that it was measuring ourselves against others rather than against Gods measure was what made me realize that the bible is more than a rule book for god bothers.
If we are jealous of people coming to salvation the we don't deserve salvation ourselves. It's an all or nothing thing, either we want everybody in heaven or we just want a club for the wise ones. As tempting as the elitism of limited salvation is, the prospect of salvation being so wonderful that everyone gets a share should be more appealing.

J C

wrote:

recedite

Anyway, being an atheist I havent bothered listening to the radio show, but I can see straight away that people are at cross purposes on this thread. There are two different doctrines involved, and both are seen somewhat differently by different denominations. Two separate issues.

1. The faith V good works issue. Technically, to be a good Christian requires both.

Technically, to be a Christian all you need is to be Saved ... good works should follow from Salvation ... but they aren't necessary to be Saved.

wrote:

recedite

2. The last minute salvation issue. This is the conversion of somebody late in the day, maybe even on their deathbed, and quite possibly after leading a life of debauchery as an atheist.

Someone who has led a "holier than thou" existence all their life might (quite rightly IMO) feel cheated when they see someone else taking advantage of Clause 2 above, at the the last minute, having enjoyed a life of guilt free pleasure up until then... Hence the parable of the onion. Do not resent other people's salvation, even when it seems they are undeserving, because in doing so you risk your own.

We should welcome other people's Salvation because we are all sinners undeserving of Salvation ... and because Jesus Saves all who ask.

Somebody who has led a 'holier than thou' existence, without being Saved ... may have much bigger problems than other people 'skipping the Salvation queue' ... they may end in eternal perdition themselves !!!

Matthew 7:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Bible clearly teaches that atheists are without excuse.

Where does it say this?

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

If we are jealous of people coming to salvation the we don't deserve salvation ourselves. It's an all or nothing thing, either we want everybody in heaven or we just want a club for the wise ones.

I agree Tommy, Salvation is such a great gift from God, why wouldn't we want everyone to share it? ... it costs us nothing for other people to be Saved ... and it provides them with everything they could possibly desire in eternity.

I want everyone in Heaven ... but its up to them ... and God will not force anybody to be Saved.

SoulandForm

J C wrote: »

Where does it say this?

The first chapter of St Paul's letter to the Romans but I believe there are other verses in the Old Testament.

SoulandForm

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV

This is why its wrong to argue with atheists in a lot of cases.

J C

SoulandForm wrote: »

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV

This is why its wrong to argue with atheists in a lot of cases.

The verse says that people who deny God's eternal power and divine nature, even though His existence is clear from all that He has made, are without excuse. There are many other people besides Atheists, who do this.
... and although they are without excuse ... they can still be Saved ... if they believe on Jesus Christ.

Its wrong to argue with anybody ... we should present the Word of God with love and humilty to everybody who asks, whether they are Atheists or not.

SoulandForm

But if an atheist believes on Jesus Christ than they are no longer an atheist.

My point is that atheism is a positive act rather than a passive condition.

J C

SoulandForm wrote: »

But if an atheist believes on Jesus Christ than they are no longer an atheist.

My point is that atheism is a positive act rather than a passive condition.

Atheism can be either passive or active ... but either way, Atheists (or any other unSaved person) can be Saved if they decide to believe on Jesus Christ.

SoulandForm

J C wrote: »

Atheism can be either passive or active ... but either way, Atheists (or any other unSaved person) can be Saved if they decide to believe on Jesus Christ.

I disagree with both those statements- the existence of God is written on our hearts and in the world around us. I also believe that those who genuinely follow the law on their hearts even if they havent come across the Gospel can be saved- however everyone who is saved is saved through Christ alone. So I guess to a lot of people here Im a fundie and to a lot of people a liberal.

J C

SoulandForm wrote: »

I disagree with both those statements- the existence of God is written on our hearts and in the world around us. I also believe that those who genuinely follow the law on their hearts even if they havent come across the Gospel can be saved- however everyone who is saved is saved through Christ alone.

I agree with all you have said in this posting ... why do you disagree with me then, that Atheists can be either passive or active in their Atheism ... and can be Saved?

SoulandForm wrote: »

So I guess to a lot of people here Im a fundie and to a lot of people a liberal.

These views are simply orthodox Christian beliefs ... so, you seem to be neither a fundie nor a liberal ... just an 'honest to God' Christian, like myself.:)

SoulandForm

I cant agree with the idea of passive atheism.

endacl

SoulandForm wrote: »

I cant agree with the idea of passive atheism.

Why not?

J C

SoulandForm wrote: »

I cant agree with the idea of passive atheism.

There are plenty of passive (cultural) Christians around ... so I don't see why there can't be any passive / cultural Atheists ... indeed I know a few of them myself, who are very good friends of mine!!!

endacl

Imagine an island with no contact to the rest of the world. Imagine a population living on the island and raising a generation of entirely non-religious children. God is never mentioned. Imagine it continues for a few more generations.

See? Easy. I've just imagined a whole island full of passive atheists.

lmaopml

brian_t wrote: »

I never heard of this story before so I googled it.
Just to correct a little thing. It seems that she wasn't concerned about the extra weight but that she just didn't want them hanging on to her anyway.

You are quite right brian that my telling wasn't word for word, I was posting rather quickly from memory, really in my own words, because it struck a chord with me at the time. This 'parable' which is a a literary style, is not found in Scripture but by a really cool Russian moral philosopher - I highly recommend reading anything by Dostoyevsky - what a life lived and indeed considered, and it's a gift to us that he put pen to paper imo.

lmaopml

recedite wrote: »

You just refuse to give credit where credit is due, don't you!

Not at all. I think I give the credit exactly where it's due, I'm a Catholic afterall who believes that every single person is made in the image of God..I give all credit where it belongs and no more or less.

J C

endacl wrote: »

Imagine an island with no contact to the rest of the world. Imagine a population living on the island and raising a generation of entirely non-religious children. God is never mentioned. Imagine it continues for a few more generations.

See? Easy. I've just imagined a whole island full of passive atheists.

You don't even have to imagine them, endacl ... some Atheists actively prosletize their Atheism, just like some Christians do ... but some don't think too deeply about it ... just like some cultural Christians also don't.

endacl

J C wrote: »

You don't even have to imagine them, endacl ... some Atheists actively prosletize their Atheism, just like some Christians do ... but some don't think too deeply about it ... just like some cultural Christians also don't.

Indeed. That'd probably describe me from time to time. When appropriate....

I was responding to SoulandForm though. Who for some reason can't accept that atheists can be passive.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

A lot of Catholics believe that Protestant and Orthodox Christians will be damned because they have the wrong faith so I dont think that person's statement is really heading in that direction.

I don't know where you found this to be true, but imo and experience, most practicing Catholics don't consider themselves any better or indeed worse than their neighbours, we're not constantly thinking about the salvation or no of others because we believe it's not ours to grant, it's only our duty to point the way - we simply are on a journey, and sometimes to our shame the 'talk' gets so loud that it drowns out common sense, and the unity that we should be seeking is drowned out to by a world of voices. Still, there are some that proclaim the truth about unity and love..

The Bible clearly teaches that atheists are without excuse.

I would ask you to read Romans all the way through, and in doing so to recall another part of Scripture, because one lends understanding to the other..John 8: 1-11 is particularly relevant.

Pious Muslims and Jews may be saved- but idolatry and atheism clearly go against the law upon our hearts.

If persistent clearly it does, but indeed we're all here to carry a cross and indeed we carry eachother too as part of that cross, and not for gain or reward but because it's the law. The law is love - self examination is constantly necessary.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

I disagree with both those statements- the existence of God is written on our hearts and in the world around us. I also believe that those who genuinely follow the law on their hearts even if they havent come across the Gospel can be saved- however everyone who is saved is saved through Christ alone. So I guess to a lot of people here Im a fundie and to a lot of people a liberal.

No, I imagine that you are just a person in discussion with others. Not a fundie in the negative sense, because originally it was a positive term believe it or not, and not particularly a liberal either, because clearly you don't quite tick those boxes I think you are just a person, like everybody else.

You are right however, at least from my perspective speaking as a Catholic is concerned...if anybody is saved it's because of the display of ultimate love and through Jesus Christ and knowing him that one learns to love proper.

endacl

Serious question, although I know by reputation I am a bit of a messer.....

I don't believe in God. I don't accept any of the evidence presented to support the existence of God. And I've heard and considered it all.... I don't reject it, I just don't accept it as compelling evidence. I never took a single isolated decision to become an atheist. There was no single point of 'realization' - no anti-epiphany if you like. I am however atheist, in the sense I have described, and have been for as long as I remember. Even in religion classes in primary school, the stories just came across as, well, they just came across as stories. Interestingly enough, even as a small child I remember being vaguely uncomfortable in the presence of very religious people when they were being overtly 'religious'.

I am as flawed as anybody else. I am generally, though, a decent person. If I see a chance to do some good, I take it. If I see a chance to avoid doing something bad, I take that. I am (to the best of my knowledge) well thought of, liked, and respected by family, friends and colleagues. I work in a 'helping' field. I do this by choice, as it suits my nature.

My question therefore is, 'am I damned'?

Yes or no? Presuming that the above is extremely unlikely to change.

lmaopml

endacl wrote: »

Serious question, although I know by reputation I am a bit of a messer.....

I don't believe in God. I don't accept any of the evidence presented to support the existence of God. And I've heard and considered it all.... I don't reject it, I just don't accept it as compelling evidence. I never took a single isolated decision to become an atheist. There was no single point of 'realization' - no anti-epiphany if you like. I am however atheist, in the sense I have described, and have been for as long as I remember. Even in religion classes in primary school, the stories just came across as, well, they just came across as stories. Interestingly enough, even as a small child I remember being vaguely uncomfortable in the presence of very religious people when they were being overtly 'religious'.

I am as flawed as anybody else. I am generally, though, a decent person. If I see a chance to do some good, I take it. If I see a chance to avoid doing something bad, I take that. I am (to the best of my knowledge) well thought of, liked, and respected by family, friends and colleagues. I work in a 'helping' field. I do this by choice, as it suits my nature.

My question therefore is, 'am I damned'?

Yes or no? Presuming that the above is extremely unlikely to change.

endacl, I have only recently noticed your odd posts here - I find most amusing, fun or lighthearted, quite a dry sense of humour I think, I laugh at the dry humour. This is a quality you have.

I would suggest that you not only believe in the qualities you posses, but build on them, never 'tag' yourself as having arrived at a location, 'damned' or 'not damned' because the judge has not sat for you quite yet - when you believe you have opened your mind, don't trust it by persuasion, but by posession of your own mind - but if you must open it, close it on something solid.

An open mind is a good thing, but it's made to deliberate, digest, explore and indeed imo to see God at work.

Then I am a Christian, and you would expect this response I suppose...still..no harm in saying it.

endacl

Thanks lmaopml. I do try to inject a little humour into most situations. Let me assure you, its not always appreciated!

To the question though. I'll need a 'yes*' or 'no'.



Might make an interesting polled thread here....










* No offense will be taken to 'yes'!

lmaopml

endacl wrote: »

Thanks lmaopml. I do try to inject a little humour into most situations. Let me assure you, its not always appreciated!

To the question though. I'll need a 'yes*' or 'no'.



Might make an interesting polled thread here....

I suggest that, 'Yes' and 'No' should be followed by, 'I don't know your destination' should be a third option - keeping in line with the Spirit of Christianity and a core teaching?

Would you be willing to pole three options and not two? It's not like as if it were your final judgement or anything, or even remotely likely to be compared to the same thing...but it seems to me that 'yes' or 'no' is asking people to sit in judgement, I wonder how many will.