Red Front
Gold Member
- Jul 7, 2022
- 5,253
- 1,463
- 138
- Banned
- #361
Two points to remember: Jesus told his disciples to proclaim the Gospel he gave them because that is the way to the Kingdom of God. We have Christ's promise of that.
Jesus also said he had other flocks.
The Catholic Catechism notes that it can only assure people that it is teaching Christ's way into the Kingdom. It points out God also has an eternal covenant with the Jews. The Catechism mentions that the Church cannot assume just because it cannot teach all people to be Christian, and it cannot assume that the Spirit of God does not reach them in other ways. The Catholic Church leaves all of this in the hands of a merciful and loving God.
Basically the Church is saying that it cannot (for example) assure Buddhists that they will be in heaven because this was not handed down to them by Jesus during his time on earth. The Church cannot presume any further than to assure those who are not Christian that they are in the hands of a merciful and loving God. The Catechism also notes that the Catholic Church does not know who--if anyone--is not in heaven.
Two points to remember: Jesus told his disciples to proclaim the Gospel he gave them because that is the way to the Kingdom of God. We have Christ's promise of that.
Unfortunately, you didn't read what Jesus said, carefully enough. He told his disciples to make other disciples, teaching them EVERYTHING that he had taught them. That included communism, which you hate, and Torah. Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, who in real life, might have believed he was the promised Messiah. He didn't come to establish a new religion called "Christianity". That came later, especially after 70ad. Christianity is really, Paulianity. The religion of Paul, not Jesus.
Jesus also said he had other flocks.
Yes, he supposedly said that. That can refer to the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, who had assimilated into the surrounding nations. The Mormons interpret that as the Native Americans who had descended from Israelites who migrated to the American continent. That might also refer to the Jews of the diaspora. It's an open question, who exactly Jesus was referring to? He might not have said anything about that, and those words were inserted in his mouth by the church. We simply don't know.
However, we do know based upon the NT text and extra-biblical sources, that Jesus and his 12 apostles were Torah observant Jews. All of the scholarship agrees with that.
The Catholic Catechism notes that it can only assure people that it is teaching Christ's way into the Kingdom. It points out God also has an eternal covenant with the Jews. The Catechism mentions that the Church cannot assume just because it cannot teach all people to be Christian, and it cannot assume that the Spirit of God does not reach them in other ways. The Catholic Church leaves all of this in the hands of a merciful and loving God.Basically, the Church is saying that it cannot (for example) assure Buddhists that they will be in heaven because this was not handed down to them by Jesus during his time on earth. The Church cannot presume any further than to assure those who are not Christian that they are in the hands of a merciful and loving God. The Catechism also notes that the Catholic Church does not know who--if anyone--is not in heaven.
I must admit, there are different opinions among Catholics on the state of non-Christians after death. What I've read and heard, varies, but in general, they seem to be more open to non-Christians being saved as well. Catholics seem a bit more open-minded and reasonable than Evangelicals with respect to salvation.
Any religion that teaches that the only way human beings can establish a relationship with their creator is by accepting a list of religious, unfalsifiable dogmas, based on faith, is evil. Maybe in the past when humanity was living in much harsher, more brutal conditions, such ideas actually contributed to a person's survival, strengthening and improving social cohesion, and organizing labor and materials for producing food..etc. People that see each other as brothers and sisters in God..etc. All of this in ancient times, might have given people an edge to survive through hard times.
However, in the modern age, with all of the knowledge that we have about the world, and the human condition, there are other ways to develop a sense of purpose, community, empathy..etc. Deal with our fears and suffering, other than self-deception, suspending our reason, in order to escape reality, in blissful ignorance. Karl Marx wrote:
" Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people [bold added].
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Religion is the result of the present, mortal human condition. A way to cope with all of the suffering and insecurities that come with being alive in a universe that is trying to kill us. Being part of a humane, empathetic, civilized community of people cooperating together, to survive and thrive in an indifferent universe, can produce a sense of purpose and real happiness. We commit ourselves to genuinely pursuing the truth and coming to terms with our own mortality, we no longer need the religious "opium". The illusory happiness and the false sense of security that religion provides withers away and is replaced with true happiness and peace.
It's better to have many questions that you can't answer, than answers you can't question. Your relationship with your deity is based on fear if not terror. It's a mythological virus or bug that your mind is enslaved by. Question everything and reason, and you will be much more content than having to lie to yourself. Being an intelligent person like you, who believes in all of the religious nonsense, must be quite exhausting.
This is part of reality:
I confirmed the existence of these entities myself. But we don't know who or what they are. The fact that paranormal phenomena exist, doesn't verify Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu..etc, dogma. I've communicated with these entities using radio-sweepers and when I was conducting the research in my apartment in Tucson, Arizona, a few years ago. I had A LOT of poltergeist activity.
Computer headphones, moving across the desk on their own. Kitchen cabinets opening and closing, a spatula flew off the kitchen counter in front of me and my family. A bottle of Scope mouthwash, on the bathroom cabinet above the sink, with a loose top, moving up and down, "click click click click click", in front of me. The paranormal is real. We just don't know exactly what it is. There is a UFO connection to this phenomenon, which investigators are beginning to discover.
Take a look at the Scole Experiments, and all of the phenomena that appeared there, with scientists in the room.
They had little UFOs flying around the seance room. An ET appeared to them. I believe it, based on my personal experience (what I've witnessed empirically) and all of the evidence supported by witnesses.
My spirituality has to be rational and based on evidence, or I will reject it. I'm an agnostic atheist, not out of spite or hatred, but out of respect for the unknown. If a personal God exists, I don't want to believe lies about Him. Slander Him. Better to step back and not affirm anything, and continue asking questions.
Last edited: