Is there a true religion?

[Passport]

---

Kanang religion ni Slabdans.. mao na ang Tru

[slabdans]

Kanang religion ni Slabdans.. mao na ang Tru

wala ma register ni ako sa SEC so fake ni ako...kang Jovi kaha musta na kaha tong iya...Registered naba kaha to hehehe

[HeartStops]

So unsa may tawag nimu sa imung kaugalingon, Christian ghapon?

- - - Updated - - -



Some religion use children and then kill and Sacrifice them. Some religion Promotes Genocide...

So does your "True religion exists within ourselves." still Applies?

POV no its not okay, I mean who would want to do such heinous act dibah?
We can talk and go into details and scrutinize every bit of each others belief but then - You need to know (in case you forgot) that Religion is ( subjective ) shared by people with common belief. And with that belief comes several factors you need to consider. Factors that molded each and everyone's belief , take for example: culture. Mao bitaw na for us its not acceptable and practice sa ubang religion because we grew up differently from them.
We can freely talk B.S. about each others Religion practices, but there a little nothing we can do to change that.
I clearly said na True religion exist within ourselves ( w.c means whatever we believe whether its out of the norms or shared ). Who is there to mess up or change our free will? No one, You can believe what you want to believe and that is you.

I don't care if I'm with Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim and etc. Even if I can't agree with them in Religion belief issue- I RESPECT because that's something we can talk but can't change.

[noy]

I'm sure you mean well as a non-clergyman interpreting Church dogmas through the lens of humanism. To quote one historian in a public lecture, "Some people really do not know what orthodoxy was like in those days." I agree with Bertrand Russell when he said that religion is based primarily on fear. I mean, come on. It used to be Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) meant exactly what it said. Nowadays, these masters of doublespeak have reached into their tools of obfuscation and come up with more globally palatable interpretations. That's the job of theology: to make the absurd sound rational.

so i assume Pope Francis was playing tricks then?
Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! - Living Faith - Home & Family - Catholic Online

the Catholic Doctrine maintains the necessity of the Church for Salvation as the Church represents Christ and with Christ as the head.
without the Sacrifice of Christ, there can be no salvation.
Christ did not die for the Christians alone but for the entire Human race.

whatever your religious orientation might be or even if you have none.
if with a pure heart and soul or one that takes that of a repentant heart in the most appointed time, in the mysteries of salvation only known to God
there might still be chances for salvation.

it is undeniable that in the course of long church history, some folks did get too fundamental, some turned greed, some turned hateful..some misunderstood..

but if we go back to the very message of Christ about Salvation and the purpose of His advent, then we know that How the Church now sees "no salvation outside the Church" is closest to the the very message of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

fundies are everywhere and are in every time bears, even you my friend tends to get fundamental about your views towards religion, the Church,church doctrines esp with the clergy Lol

Tony Hadley is probably an atheist/agnostic, as shown by his response in this interview: Tony Hadley

When asked about the order of service at his funeral, he said: "I’d like people to dress as if they’re going to a concert, so it won’t be too sombre. I don’t believe in the afterlife, so I don’t want anything too religious, but maybe someone can tell a few anecdotes about my chaotic life. They can play Pretty Vacant by the *** Pistols during the cremation and I’d like people to file out to Monty Python’s Always Look On The Bright Side of Life."

i really wouldn't care much for the artist's religious views..
as far as the song goes, it's an epic! and so does the guy who authored and portrayed the song.

And then when asked about the crime he would commit knowing he could get away with it, he replied: "I’d break into the vaults underneath the Vatican and root through all the archives."

Nice one, Tony! The Vatican archives are not as open to the public as some people would like you to believe. Vatileaks, though not related to the Archives, could just be the tip of the iceberg of things many people would like to know, like what really happened or what the Popes were saying during the their bloody history, their ties with the mafia or the Nazis. As one comedian once said "The Vatican tried to hitch their wagon to the number of the beast, but unfortunately Nazism went out of style."

or you could be wrong and what's been opened to the public perhaps all there is really and everything else are black propagandas.

here's a little something from wiki about the controversial "Secret Archives"..
Vatican Secret Archives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when Pope Leo XIII opened them to researchers, more than a thousand of whom now examine its documents each year.

The use of the word "secret" in the title "Vatican Secret Archives" does not denote the modern meaning of confidentiality. Its meaning is closer to that of the word "private", indicating that the archives are the Pope's personal property, not belonging to those of any particular department of the Roman Curia or the Holy See. The word "secret" was generally used in this sense as also reflected in phrases such as "secret servants", "secret cupbearer", "secret carver", much like an esteemed position of honor and regard comparable to a VIP.

Qualified scholars from institutions of higher education pursuing scientific researches, with an adequate knowledge of archival research, could apply for an entry card.

so it's not a big secret after all.. Guarded yes but not hidden.

[Bears Grill]

so i assume Pope Francis was playing tricks then?
Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! - Living Faith - Home & Family - Catholic Online

the Catholic Doctrine maintains the necessity of the Church for Salvation as the Church represents Christ and with Christ as the head. without the Sacrifice of Christ, there can be no salvation. Christ did not die for the Christians alone but for the entire Human race.

whatever your religious orientation might be or even if you have none. if with a pure heart and soul or one that takes that of a repentant heart in the most appointed time, in the mysteries of salvation only known to God
there might still be chances for salvation.

Actually, you proved my point about the theologian's mastery in the art of doublespeak and obfuscation. Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) means exactly as it is stated. Atheists can be saved, they say,....BUT they have to convert to Catholicism. Never miss the fine print. Just a few lines from your post, it says "Catholic Doctrine maintains the necessity of the Church for Salvation".

NICE TRY.

fundies are everywhere and are in every time bears, even you my friend tends to get fundamental about your views towards religion, the Church,church doctrines esp with the clergy Lol

I criticize aspects of religion like their con-men...er I mean clergy, some doctrines, the harm they do when they promote pseudo-science or spread lies about condoms or condemn secularism or spew their hate speeches on bully pulpits against those of different beliefs. I don't confine my criticisms on Catholicism, by the way. In fact, I'll defend it somewhat when arrogant Protestants wax lyrical about the Catholic Church "straying from the Bible". We should be criticizing Islam more, since it hasn't been tamed by an Enlightenment of sorts. Any religion that denigrates the human intellect and enjoins its adherents to abdicate their sense of morals to a holy book needs to be de-fanged.

i really wouldn't care much for the artist's religious views..
as far as the song goes, it's an epic! and so does the guy who authored and portrayed the song.

or you could be wrong and what's been opened to the public perhaps all there is really and everything else are black propagandas.

Indeed there are anti-Catholic black propagandas like the Black Legend...but there are likewise White Legends that do the exact opposite.

Interestingly, the word PROPAGANDA came from the Catholic Church, Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Hmmm...Catholic cloak and dagger?

here's a little something from wiki about the controversial "Secret Archives"..
Vatican Secret Archives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when Pope Leo XIII opened them to researchers, more than a thousand of whom now examine its documents each year....

....Qualified scholars from institutions of higher education pursuing scientific researches, with an adequate knowledge of archival research, could apply for an entry card.

so it's not a big secret after all.. Guarded yes but not hidden.

Like I've said before to one Catholic here, there's more than meets the eye. Let's read what W.R. Maxwell tells us about his experience at the Vatican Secret Archives.

---

"In the early days of the "Examination of Conscience", it seemed that just about anyone could walk into the Vatican Library, pull a volume from shelf, and start reading. The only rules were visitors could not take anything with them; the Library's own archivists had to make all copies and that researchers wear clean cotton gloves when handling the volumes. The Vatican Library even provided the gloves. Researchers could take as many notes as they liked, even to the point of copying entire pages.

The Library's reading room was small and could only accommodate twelve people at a time, but it was open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., five days a week. Finding a specific volume in the Library was a daunting task since there was no card catalogue and the Library staff was resentful of their private domain being thrown open to the masses.

But even the Vatican Library has its secrets; these included the Stanza Storica, the Congregationia Indexia, the Inquisition di Siena, and the more generalized Vatican Secret Archives. The first three collections (Storica, Indexia, and I. di Siena) remain off-limits to this day. Their contents are believed to be writings and manuscripts by various popes and cardinals, which have been deemed "too religiously controversial" by the Church and could easily be "misinterpreted by the secular world."

Prior to 1996, the Secret Archives had not been open to anyone, other than the Pope himself, since 1894. The Secret Archives were kept in boxes in storage and contained thousands of records concerning very sensitive matters, including the molestation of altar boys, the Church's role in the campaign of Jewish extermination by the Nazis in WWII, the excommunication of Galileo and 10 centuries of the Catholic Church's Holy Inquisition. As a group, these records covered the most heinous crimes in the Church's history, and for this reason, they had remained unavailable for inspection for over a century. However, as part of the "Examination of Conscience Project" instituted by Pope John Paul II, these documents were catalogued and made available to secular researchers in 1999, but only by request and only in un-translated versions.

The "Examination of Conscience Project" released all their records at a flat rate cost of $24.50 per page plus postage and handling, and three different reproduction methods were available: visible light, infrared light, and x-ray. The latter two methods are necessary, since the paper and the iron gall ink used at this time had become stained and faded to nearly the same color and are practically indistinguishable in normal light. If the researcher needed an x-ray copy of a document, it would cost another $24.50. To get a complete set of photographs of a 1520 letter, which is fifty-two pages, the cost is over $3,800. To obtain copies of any of the documents, a researcher had to submit his credentials to a committee for scrutiny, state his purpose for wanting the items, and wait. The duration depended on whether the documents requested were in the less sensitive Vatican Library or in the Secret Archives. If the researcher was judged as academically worthy, and after six to fifteen months delay, he would receive a very large envelope in the mail containing 16 x 20 inch photographic prints of the pages requested, plus a statement of authenticity. He also received a solicitation for donations to the "Examination of Conscience Project" for the continuation of their work. Since the death of Pope John Paul II, researchers are not allowed to view the original documents under any circumstances, regardless of the quality of the photographs.

---

Mind you, from what I've read, they have a rule that the opening of a Pope's letters, official documents, diaries, etc. can only be done 75 years after his death...not sure about the number of years though (could be more). I think, of interest to historians and to Jews especially, are the letters from Pope Pius XII...the Hitler-era Pope or as some call him "Hitler's Pope" (though debate is still up in the air, in my opinion). But who knows? When these things are revealed, it may be done so only after the Vatican has sanitized them and spun them in the most favorable manner possible. You don't need to look further than the child-*** scandal for an example of cover-ups and the hysterical need for the institution to protect its name at all cost...at the expense of the victims.

[SioDenz]

POV no its not okay, I mean who would want to do such heinous act dibah?
We can talk and go into details and scrutinize every bit of each others belief but then - You need to know (in case you forgot) that Religion is ( subjective ) shared by people with common belief. And with that belief comes several factors you need to consider. Factors that molded each and everyone's belief , take for example: culture. Mao bitaw na for us its not acceptable and practice sa ubang religion because we grew up differently from them.
We can freely talk B.S. about each others Religion practices, but there a little nothing we can do to change that.
I clearly said na True religion exist within ourselves ( w.c means whatever we believe whether its out of the norms or shared ). Who is there to mess up or change our free will? No one, You can believe what you want to believe and that is you.

So based sa akong example, your idea of "True religion exists within ourselves." does not Hold Ground kay Its not okay man kaha.

Youre Using the Word TRUE and applied it to each Individual nya mu dis agree kay about some practices sa uban tawo which is there OWN belief. Di ba biased man...

So if I Believed on human sacrifice as part of my OWN religion, can it be Considered a TRUE Religion also based on your IDEA of true religion exist within ourselves?

I don't care if I'm with Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim and etc. Even if I can't agree with them in Religion belief issue- I RESPECT because that's something we can talk but can't change.

What if naay Group or religion who practices human sacrifice, or killing enemies, or believed that they alone have the right to live... Will you also GIVE your RESPECT to them and their Belief?

[noy]

Actually, you proved my point about the theologian's mastery in the art of doublespeak and obfuscation.

so what the Pope said about the possibility of Salvation for Atheists was an act of doublespeak and obfuscation?
the Pope's statement was clear enough to express the church's stand on Salvation
that it is a mystery and is only known fully to God. therefore not denying Salvation
for Atheists as it is God's part and not the Church.

Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) means exactly as it is stated.

if you say so, but how you see it is not necessarily how the Church sees it as far as official Church teachings are concerned.
some Catholic fundamentalists may agree with you but then again, we're not talking about personal views.

Atheists can be saved, they say,....BUT they have to convert to Catholicism. Never miss the fine print. Just a few lines from your post, it says "Catholic Doctrine maintains the necessity of the Church for Salvation".

according to you of course..hehe
but from the Catholic point of view, the Church is of course necessary for Salvation as instituted by Jesus through His apostles which serves until this day and the days to come as a guideline for Salvation, but it is GOD that SAVES.
which is the Church stand on Salvation and that salvation is a mystery only known to God.

hence the Catechism of the CAtholic Church 2125 states:
"The imputability of this offense(Atheism) can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances"

of which only God can see the purity of intention of one's heart and can know what necessary circumstances that would triumph over the act of unbelief.

Jesus did say it is important to believe in GOd with everything we've got
however right after Jesus said the First commandment He then added to
"Love others as ourselves" as the second commandment which is EQUALLY important to the first one.
see Matt 22:39

and Jesus also concluded one of His parables in Matt 25:40 with:
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

personally, in my faith on God's never-ending mercy, surely God would not condemn an Atheist who bears more Christ-like compassion and purity of the heart towards other people just because they failed to recognize God in their conscience.

NICE TRY.

i didn't , i was just stating a Fact.

I criticize aspects of religion like their con-men...er I mean clergy,

hmmm.. calling the clergy in its entirety "religious con-men" would not be a form of criticism but some sort of prejudice i say.

some doctrines, the harm they do when they promote pseudo-science or spread lies about condoms or condemn secularism or spew their hate speeches on bully pulpits against those of different beliefs.

it is the Church stand to go against any form of artificial birth control as it is believed to be offensive to God and not moral within the perspective of Catholic point of view.
however i would strongly agree that condemning those of different belief is not right as well.
the Church should oppose the idea only not the people adhering the idea.
therefore i personally find hate speeches and bullying if there is, very unnecessary and offensive.
if a priest is doing a hate speech in their homily during mass, that priest is accountable for his choice of words and is subject to God's judgment in His terms but not men.
we can only go as far as to agree or disgree, to support or not support.
to second the motion or to object..
again i personally disagree with how the opposition is being laid over. things could have been done in a more Christ-like fashion.
i believe not all priests and churches do this though.

We should be criticizing Islam more, since it hasn't been tamed by an Enlightenment of sorts.

the Islamic faith is always being criticized man bai, sometimes even to a point that it is being unjustly done.
like stereotyping muslims with suicide bombers.

Any religion that denigrates the human intellect and enjoins its adherents to abdicate their sense of morals to a holy book needs to be de-fanged.

if a certain religious denegrates or belittle opinions that he doesn't agree with,
should the religion of that person immideately take the fall?
like one forumer here said, though he believes that Catholicism is the true religion he maintains that "not all Catholics are ideal".

Indeed there are anti-Catholic black propagandas like the Black Legend...but there are likewise White Legends that do the exact opposite.

Interestingly, the word PROPAGANDA came from the Catholic Church, Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda.

there's obviously a HUGE difference between Black propagandas and propagandas as we know it. even a simple commercial on the TV is alreay a "propaganda" in itself. an ad, a persuation, an introduction...and the likes..
that is exactly what the Church is doing with the Christian Faith.
a black propaganda however only aims at one thing and that is to destroy.
hence your comparison with the church's propagation of faith with Black propaganda is irrelevant.

Hmmm...Catholic cloak and dagger?

i doubt that this statement is still a form of criticism. hmmmm...

---

"In the early days of the "Examination of Conscience", it seemed that just about anyone could walk into the Vatican Library, pull a volume from shelf, and start reading. The only rules were visitors could not take anything with them; the Library's own archivists had to make all copies and that researchers wear clean cotton gloves when handling the volumes. The Vatican Library even provided the gloves. Researchers could take as many notes as they liked, even to the point of copying entire pages.

The Library's reading room was small and could only accommodate twelve people at a time, but it was open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., five days a week. Finding a specific volume in the Library was a daunting task since there was no card catalogue and the Library staff was resentful of their private domain being thrown open to the masses.

But even the Vatican Library has its secrets; these included the Stanza Storica, the Congregationia Indexia, the Inquisition di Siena, and the more generalized Vatican Secret Archives. The first three collections (Storica, Indexia, and I. di Siena) remain off-limits to this day. Their contents are believed to be writings and manuscripts by various popes and cardinals, which have been deemed "too religiously controversial" by the Church and could easily be "misinterpreted by the secular world."

Prior to 1996, the Secret Archives had not been open to anyone, other than the Pope himself, since 1894. The Secret Archives were kept in boxes in storage and contained thousands of records concerning very sensitive matters, including the molestation of altar boys, the Church's role in the campaign of Jewish extermination by the Nazis in WWII, the excommunication of Galileo and 10 centuries of the Catholic Church's Holy Inquisition. As a group, these records covered the most heinous crimes in the Church's history, and for this reason, they had remained unavailable for inspection for over a century. However, as part of the "Examination of Conscience Project" instituted by Pope John Paul II, these documents were catalogued and made available to secular researchers in 1999, but only by request and only in un-translated versions.

The "Examination of Conscience Project" released all their records at a flat rate cost of $24.50 per page plus postage and handling, and three different reproduction methods were available: visible light, infrared light, and x-ray. The latter two methods are necessary, since the paper and the iron gall ink used at this time had become stained and faded to nearly the same color and are practically indistinguishable in normal light. If the researcher needed an x-ray copy of a document, it would cost another $24.50. To get a complete set of photographs of a 1520 letter, which is fifty-two pages, the cost is over $3,800. To obtain copies of any of the documents, a researcher had to submit his credentials to a committee for scrutiny, state his purpose for wanting the items, and wait. The duration depended on whether the documents requested were in the less sensitive Vatican Library or in the Secret Archives. If the researcher was judged as academically worthy, and after six to fifteen months delay, he would receive a very large envelope in the mail containing 16 x 20 inch photographic prints of the pages requested, plus a statement of authenticity. He also received a solicitation for donations to the "Examination of Conscience Project" for the continuation of their work. Since the death of Pope John Paul II, researchers are not allowed to view the original documents under any circumstances, regardless of the quality of the photographs.

---

bears, i did search for W.R. Maxwell but i couldn't find a bio ..
not even in wiki of which i find very strange by the way.
it's not that i'm doubting his credentials but it would be nice to read about them.
you know, everybody can write almost anything these days.

about what he wrote, church scandals are no secret naman, at least recently.
but it doesn't mean all clergy are doing the scandalous acts or worse the church supports it.
and "the Church's role in the campaign of Jewish extermination by the Nazis in WWII"?
please read this article:
A Pius Legend | Catholic Answers

"here's what wiki has to say about the church and the nazis
During the 1920s and 1930s, Catholic leaders made a number of forthright attacks on Nazi ideology and the main Christian opposition to Nazism in Germany had come from the Catholic Church. Before Hitler came to power, German bishops warned Catholics against Nazi racism and some dioceses banned membership of the Nazi Party. The Catholic press condemned Nazism."
Catholic Church and Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about the galileo controversy,
The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

basin ug black propaganda na kang W.R. maxwell bears ha. Lol

Mind you, from what I've read, they have a rule that the opening of a Pope's letters, official documents, diaries, etc. can only be done 75 years after his death...not sure about the number of years though (could be more). I think, of interest to historians and to Jews especially, are the letters from Pope Pius XII...the Hitler-era Pope or as some call him "Hitler's Pope" (though debate is still up in the air, in my opinion). But who knows? When these things are revealed, it may be done so only after the Vatican has sanitized them and spun them in the most favorable manner possible. You don't need to look further than the child-*** scandal for an example of cover-ups and the hysterical need for the institution to protect its name at all cost...at the expense of the victims.

personally, if one goes against the Laws of the land, may he be a priest or the pope himself should be subject to criminal charges if proven guilty
as the church and its clergy are also bound by the Laws governing the land.

about concealing scandals and issues within the church. i personally and strongly do not agree with it. but not closing all doors for a better understanding on the subject though as parents would at times consider to not disclose past mistakes to their children esp third party issues to save their children's view about family but it doesn't mean that the parents advocated such acts for concealing them.
The Church by the way never denies the reality of these cases.
the church even recognizes the negative impact of these abuses.

our hearts go out to the victims of course, but it would have been better to not accept any form of settlement if offered in exchange for silence on the victim's part if we truly seek justice.
Yes there are bad priests. but i do not see how this discredits the Catholic Church.
but it sure does discredit the Christianity of the clergy involved.
we can only hope to live and see justice being served but hope is highly set for divine justice which will be served in its most appointed time.

by the way, i'm not entirely sure if we are still within the topic..

well to not make this post an OT, OnT: my bet would be the Catholic Church. hehe

[enimavix]

IMO, no. Religions are there to keep us from doing what is wrong and feeding us vague facts to keep us in line.

[Bears Grill]

so what the Pope said about the possibility of Salvation for Atheists was an act of doublespeak and obfuscation? the Pope's statement was clear enough to express the church's stand on Salvation
that it is a mystery and is only known fully to God. therefore not denying Salvation for Atheists as it is God's part and not the Church.

but from the Catholic point of view, the Church is of course necessary for Salvation as instituted by Jesus through His apostles which serves until this day and the days to come as a guideline for Salvation, but it is GOD that SAVES. which is the Church stand on Salvation and that salvation is a mystery only known to God.

Pope Francis has been doing and saying the right things since he's been Pope, in order to stem the decline of Catholicism in many parts of the world (empty churches in Western Europe, Latinos moving in droves to Protestantism, people fed up in general by their abuse of power and irresponsible lies about contraception). After being rocked by scandals like the global child *** abuse epidemic, Vatileaks (which exposed corruption, blackmailing of homosexual clergy, money laundering, etc) during the reign of ex-Nazi youth and cover-up artist Ratzinger, the Vatican is desperate for new gimmicks. That's why it's not a surprise to see Pope Francis doing selfie pictures with teenagers, talking with passengers on an airplane, washing the feet of a woman...kind of like what Filipino politicians often do during elections when you'll see them huddled among the masses and eating with their bare hands and insisting they be called by their down-to-earth nicknames.

Let me show you when this art of doublespeak and obfuscation comes up. It's always when people seek clarification on a statement that seems to suggest a radical shift from orthodox dogma. It's only then when you hear a different interpretation, like this clarification from Father Longenecker (great surname )....(from this link What Pope Francis Really Said About Atheists)

The Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any somewhat knowledgeable Catholic will uphold.

First, that Christ died to redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However, many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

Secondly, the Pope is also affirming that all humans are created in God’s image and are therefore created good. Yes, created good, but that goodness is wounded by original sin.

Thirdly, he is affirming that all men and women are obliged to pursue what is beautiful, good and true. Natural virtue is possible–even obligatory, but natural virtue on its own is not sufficient for salvation. Grace is necessary to advance beyond natural virtue to bring the soul to salvation. The Pope does not say atheists being good on their own will be saved. He says they, like all men, are redeemed by Christ’s death and their good works are the starting place where we can meet with them–the implication being “meet with them in an encounter that leads eventually to faith in Christ.

Bottom line is, the statement "Atheists can be saved" has those crucial "IF" components. Good works is not enough, as what I've highlighted from Father Longenecker's clarification. And what else is there for an atheist but GOOD WORKS. Therefore, conversion to Catholicism is necessary. Enough with the double-talk. When they say that the Church is necessary for salvation, it means the atheist must convert in order to be saved.

Look through the gimmicks and obfuscations and all the atheist can see in this metaphysical struggle is an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem. There's no heaven nor hell nor any of these imagined after-life theme parks for the atheists. What awaits is just the coldness of the grave. This life is all there is...so make the most of it.

hence the Catechism of the CAtholic Church 2125 states:
"The imputability of this offense(Atheism) can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances"

of which only God can see the purity of intention of one's heart and can know what necessary circumstances that would triumph over the act of unbelief.

Sigh....you're a good man, @NOY. I can sense you're trying to reach out. But you're not allowed to propound your own doctrines. In Catholicism, you toe the line or else you're committing heresy. Like I said, these are imaginary solutions to imaginary problems.

hmmm.. calling the clergy in its entirety "religious con-men" would not be a form of criticism but some sort of prejudice i say.

hmmm...it's either that or I just can't tell the difference.

it is the Church stand to go against any form of artificial birth control as it is believed to be offensive to God

DELUDED LOGIC. Offensive to God? Has anyone really asked Him or is it just a bunch of sinister virgins called clergy making this stuff up? I lean toward the latter.

the Islamic faith is always being criticized man bai, sometimes even to a point that it is being unjustly done.like stereotyping muslims with suicide bombers.

The reality is, people are afraid to criticize them for fear of violence. One false utterance and it's mayhem on the streets. You will never fail to see this sign on their banners: FREEDOM GO TO H-E-L-L.

like one forumer here said, though he believes that Catholicism is the true religion he maintains that "not all Catholics are ideal".

I think the claim went like this: Only Catholicism teaches the ideal way of being. So the other religions (Judaism, Islam, Protestantism (all their denominations), Buddhism, Hinduism...they don't teach the IDEAL WAY OF BEING?

By their works shall ye find them...and I thought humility was a Christian virtue.

there's obviously a HUGE difference between Black propagandas and propagandas as we know it. even a simple commercial on the TV is alreay a "propaganda" in itself. an ad, a persuation, an introduction...and the likes..that is exactly what the Church is doing with the Christian Faith.
a black propaganda however only aims at one thing and that is to destroy.hence your comparison with the church's propagation of faith with Black propaganda is irrelevant.

So it's only BLACK PROPAGANDA when it's critical of the Catholic Church? Anyway, if you re-read my post, I said that there are BLACK LEGENDS and WHITE LEGENDS and both exaggerate from opposite directions. Then I said that the word "PROPAGANDA" came from the Catholic Church...I did not equate Catholic propaganda with Black Propaganda...although I would not believe that the Catholic Church never engaged in such campaigns throughout their history. That would be WHITE LEGEND.

bears, i did search for W.R. Maxwell but i couldn't find a bio ..not even in wiki of which i find very strange by the way. it's not that i'm doubting his credentials but it would be nice to read about them. you know, everybody can write almost anything these days.

basin ug black propaganda na kang W.R. maxwell bears ha. Lol

@NOY, I was actually doing a quick search for any first-hand account on researching inside the Secret Archives. So I googled "Finding letters in Vatican Archives". There's one from USA Today which gives a more-or-less tourist perspective of the Archives plus some useful insights. And then there's W. R. Maxwell who has sample pages from his book "Letters from the Inquisition" hosted in Google. In a small part of one chapter, he gives a first-hand account of what it's like to conduct research inside the Archives. I haven't read his book nor can I comment about his reputation. It's his experience while doing research inside the Archives which I was interested in, to shed light as to how "open" the Secret Archives really are to researchers...let alone the public. Remember that my contention is that it's not as open as you think. There's more than meets the eye.

The USA Today's article entitled "Vatican Secret Archives hold tales fascinating ... and not" said the following:

The archives are akin to the U.S. National Archives, Flaiani says. They are more secretarial than truly "secret" and do not hold records related to sexual abuse scandals rocking the church.

But they are surrounded with their own controversy over what they might show about the Church's diplomatic conduct in World War II, and whether Pope Pius XII did too little to protest the Holocaust. Debate has been raging since an International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission suspended its activities in 2000 after requests by panel members for unrestricted access to the archives were TURNED DOWN.

The restricted records, those from the 1939 accession of Pope Pius XII forward, rest on fenced shelves at the back of one basement level. Flaiani says an index to those records will be completed by 2014, after which the current pope would have to decide to make them available. Popes generally make records available 70 years after the death of a predecessor, according to historian William Patch of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., writing in the current edition of The Journal of Modern History.

So now we have W.R. Maxwell's and USA Today's Dan Vergano's inside look at the Archives.

If one's attitude is to assail the author's reputation instead of checking out the facts of what he's saying, then that's Catholic propaganda for you.

about what he wrote, church scandals are no secret naman, at least recently.
but it doesn't mean all clergy are doing the scandalous acts or worse the church supports it.
and "the Church's role in the campaign of Jewish extermination by the Nazis in WWII"?
please read this article:
A Pius Legend | Catholic Answers

"here's what wiki has to say about the church and the nazis

Like I've been saying, the debate about Pius XII's role or silence during the Holocaust still rages. I find John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope compelling. For one, he was one of those allowed access to the Vatican Secret Archives. After writing a "sympathetic" biography of the late John Paul II, the Vatican thought Cornwell would give a favorable account of Pius XII. Cornwell himself initially thought that all the allegations against Pius XII were unfair. It was after Hitler's Pope that reviews came accusing Cornwell of bias in his books A Pontiff in Winter and Hitler's Pope.

Apologists are desperate to fastrack Pius XII to sainthood. While Yad Vashem has indeed recently softened their stance, they really await more evidence from the Archives before endorsing Pius XII. Einstein himself was misquoted when apologists claim that he said favorable things about Pius XII. There are several facts and details from Hitler's Pope that when assembled together points to an unfavorable conclusion, but it's not a discussion I'd like to get into. It'll take up a lot of time. You'll have to read the book yourself...dispassionately of course.

about the galileo controversy,
The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

I don't remember bringing up Galileo. But here's the thing. Read this account of the Galileo trial from the New York Times March 24, 1878:

---

On being told that if he persisted further, recourse would be had to the TORTURE, Galileo reiterated: "I am here in your hands; deal with me as you please." At this point, the report abruptly terminates with a few words stating that nothing further could be done, followed by the signature of Galileo in attestation of his own deposition.

---

Nobody today can claim that they saw Galileo tortured. But you can read between the lines from trasnscripts of that trial and imagine what may have transpired.

by the way, i'm not entirely sure if we are still within the topic..

well to not make this post an OT, OnT: my bet would be the Catholic Church. hehe

TRUE RELIGION is an oxym-o-r-o-n. They're all equal glimpses of the untruth.

[noy]

Pope Francis has been doing and saying the right things since he's been Pope, in order to stem the decline of Catholicism in many parts of the world (empty churches in Western Europe, Latinos moving in droves to Protestantism, people fed up in general by their abuse of power and irresponsible lies about contraception). After being rocked by scandals like the global child *** abuse epidemic, Vatileaks (which exposed corruption, blackmailing of homosexual clergy, money laundering, etc)

oh boy, you made it sound like all the nasty things you've mentioned were authored and taught by the Church and that all priest are doing the deeds. tsk tsk tsk

and of course, if i were to put myself on the Pope's shoe. i would've done the same thing. not the kind that you perceived though, but to highlight the very message of Christ about Love and Salvation which unfortunately has long been stained by the evil deeds and the irony portrayed by the failures of some Church leaders.

during the reign of ex-Nazi youth and cover-up artist Ratzinger,

i believe the would be Pope being German doesn't much have of a choice about being part of the Nazi youth.
"Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after March 1939"
source:Pope Benedict XVI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resources - The Holy See (Church response to abuse of minors)

and

Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI breaks silence, says he "never" tried to cover up *** abuse - CBS News

again, the church recognize these things as part of the Church unfortunate reality.
a cover-up wouldn't be that significant to change this sad reality.
it's easy for us to point fingers and place labels on people who are in charge when we are not.

the Vatican is desperate for new gimmicks. That's why it's not a surprise to see Pope Francis doing selfie pictures with teenagers, talking with passengers on an airplane, washing the feet of a woman...kind of like what Filipino politicians often do during elections when you'll see them huddled among the masses and eating with their bare hands and insisting they be called by their down-to-earth nicknames.

or the Pope could just be a genuine Christian, a regular person who runs after God's heart.. that's still possible right?
and at least the Pope didn't do the Gangnam...hehe

Bottom line is, the statement "Atheists can be saved" has those crucial "IF" components. Good works is not enough, as what I've highlighted from Father Longenecker's clarification. And what else is there for an atheist but GOOD WORKS. Therefore, conversion to Catholicism is necessary. Enough with the double-talk. When they say that the Church is necessary for salvation, it means the atheist must convert in order to be saved.

i never thought you'd be so fundamental. LOL

would you consider this as a convertion?
Suppose one Atheist does almost exactly the things that God commanded as far as morality is concerned but of course denies the existence of God because of an honest adherence to where he believes his conscience was leading him.
the Atheist of course died, then Christ meets with Him.
what do you think would be the most honest and logical thing to do when this happpens? of course that would be to accept Christ.
now should convertion be limited to the living?

didn't Jesus preached to the souls of the people who died in the time of the Old Testament before He resurrected? they sure ain't alive.at least physically.
( Peter 3:19-20)

Salvation by the way does not mean a soul would go directly to Heaven because of the sins we had while we still walk this earth which where the doctrine of purgatory comes in.
but it gives the assurance of being united with God through the sacrifice of Christ in the most appointed time.

you highlighted the phrases from the article you posted:
"To say that he redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved."
of course, how can one be saved if one refuses to be saved?
the sacrifice of Christ is for all however not all would accept Christ.
but God would never reject a humble and repentant heart. (Psalm 51:17)
what if an Atheist would repent soon after he learns that God does exist. would that Atheist be damned to Hell?

"The Pope does not say atheists being good on their own will be saved."
of course, in the same way that Christians are being saved by the grace of God.

“meet with them in an encounter that leads eventually to faith in Christ. "
through good deeds we follow the very nature of God that has been laid over within our souls as we have been crafted by his image and likeness.
goodness and purity of the soul would be the best way to come to know the author of Goodness Himself which is Christ.
and this does not necessarily mean convertion to the Catholic Church but coming in faith and acceptance of Christ. this acceptance however should not necessarily
take place in this passing world although it would have been far more better if we come to Christ in Faith than by sight.
this principle does not only apply to Atheist but to everyone else who does not believe in Jesus as God.

like the Marian Devotion, Petition to the Saints, the no salvation outside the church is one of the most misunderstood teachings.
What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers
ug wala koy mahimo bears if imo jud ipamugos nga this reformulation is a form of doublespeak.

"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." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 846)

did the Atheist know and understood the necessity of the Church? of course they didn't. they would have otherwise embraced the Christian Faith.
now should we put Atheists in the same category with the Demons and Satan whom with ALL KNOWLEDGE chooses to defy and turned against God?
of course we can't.
No salvation comes to those whom with ABSOLUTE knowledge yet freely chooses to not be with God, unless at the time of death when absolute knowledge has been given to the Atheist but would still choose the other camp, then sureball na na ug asa siya padung.

by the way, this is NOT to conclude that Atheists can freely go to heaven as God would forgive them anyway if they repent after death. and there is this thing called purgatory where we can have our sins of unbelief be cleansed at a certain point of time.

God may be infinitely merciful but He is also Just, the sin of unbelief is a direct offense to God but not entirely unforgivable depending on the circumstances of course and because of His mercy.
it's a good thing that coming to accept Christ brings Salvation but it's disturbing to know that we could have been be with God already while spending time paying for the things we've done while we were still alive, including unbelief.
for nothing defiled shall enter heaven. (rev 21:27)
and For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:14 )

Look through the gimmicks and obfuscations and all the atheist can see in this metaphysical struggle is an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem. There's no heaven nor hell nor any of these imagined after-life theme parks for the atheists. What awaits is just the coldness of the grave. This life is all there is...so make the most of it.

would an Atheist remain an Atheist if he realizes that he's mistaken about what he believed in while he was alive? Yes this life is all there is for us to come to Faith.
why decide to not believe when we are free to open ourselves to different possiblities?

anyone who repents might not be condemned to Hell but everything is subject to cause and effect including our sin of unbelief and everything that comes along with it. and cleansing through the purging fire of being separated from God although temporarily is not really that pleasant either.

Sigh....you're a good man, @NOY. I can sense you're trying to reach out. But you're not allowed to propound your own doctrines. In Catholicism, you toe the line or else you're committing heresy. Like I said, these are imaginary solutions to imaginary problems.

thanks bears. i can assure you that i haven't strayed from the Catholic Doctrines.

DELUDED LOGIC. Offensive to God? Has anyone really asked Him or is it just a bunch of sinister virgins called clergy making this stuff up? I lean toward the latter.

LOL Contraception and Sterilization | Catholic Answers

The reality is, people are afraid to criticize them for fear of violence. One false utterance and it's mayhem on the streets. You will never fail to see this sign on their banners: FREEDOM GO TO H-E-L-L.

some people are getting killed because of their faith which happens to contradict Islamic Doctrines. unfortunately some would just like to take it to the extremes..
Prayer and Martyrdom are Mightier than the Sword | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views
not all muslims are extremist by the way.

If one's attitude is to assail the author's reputation instead of checking out the facts of what he's saying, then that's Catholic propaganda for you.

oh not really, it's just that it's part of the basics. nobody would believe me saying
something without at least looking through my credentials.
if we put a witness to the stand, first thing the judge and the jury should look at is the witness's credibility right?

Like I've been saying, the debate about Pius XII's role or silence during the Holocaust still rages. I find John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope compelling. For one, he was one of those allowed access to the Vatican Secret Archives. After writing a "sympathetic" biography of the late John Paul II, the Vatican thought Cornwell would give a favorable account of Pius XII. Cornwell himself initially thought that all the allegations against Pius XII were unfair. It was after Hitler's Pope that reviews came accusing Cornwell of bias in his books A Pontiff in Winter and Hitler's Pope.

Apologists are desperate to fastrack Pius XII to sainthood. While Yad Vashem has indeed recently softened their stance, they really await more evidence from the Archives before endorsing Pius XII. Einstein himself was misquoted when apologists claim that he said favorable things about Pius XII. There are several facts and details from Hitler's Pope that when assembled together points to an unfavorable conclusion, but it's not a discussion I'd like to get into. It'll take up a lot of time. You'll have to read the book yourself...dispassionately of course.

bears, neither of us are in the position to conclude whether Pope Pius XII failed to act accordingly in protecting the Jews or not.
also about whether the archives did or did not contain shameful acts of the people of the Church.
about Galileo, and everything people accused the Catholic Church of.

i will therefore rest my case on this and will leave things to your discretion as how things should be 'cause at the end of the day, we can always agree to disagree.
if you think that the Catholic Church, the Pope and the rest of the clergy are Evil or however you may see it then so be it. after all, it is your point of view.

my personal conviction would be: regardless of the controversies the Church is facing, regardless of the failures made by the clergy, regardless of the shameful acts of the people sorrounding the Church, it doesn't disprove the Church
only the Christianity of the people who are involved.
after all, Catholicism and Catholics are two different things.


i will leave you with these links to show that despite the fact that many things were said against Pope Pius XII and the Vatican, there is always the other side of the coin..
check them or not it wouldn't really matter.

The Holy See
this is the official website of the Holy See.
in this link you can browse apostolic letters, manuscripts a lot of things about Catholicism

these two links are italian, although you may not understand its contents but the point i am making is that the information has been made available.
(perhaps English Transalation might be available somewhere on the web)

Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relative to the Second World War (acts of the Holy See from 1865 to 2007 )
and
Sito ufficiale dell'Archivio Segreto Vaticano – Città del Vaticano | Archivio Segreto Vaticano (Vatican Secret Archives)

here's the Catholic POV on PIUS XII's silence..
How Pius XII Protected Jews | Catholic Answers
Sobran's --- For the Record
and
LIBRARY DOCUMENTS ON PIUS XII

and by the way with Einstein being misqouted..
Einstein may have not said anything directly to Pope Pius but sure did towards the Church.
if Einstein was misqouted by Time Magazine, 23rd of Dec 1940

How is it that Einstein never corrected the misqoute when he died in 1955
he had 15 years to correct the widespread supposed misqoute on him towards the Church like how he confirms being agnostic when others assert Atheism on him.

"He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist."
Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks bears, nice chat.