Is there a true religion?

[Bears Grill]

---

...
"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.

[B][I]“meet with them in an encounter that leads eventually to faith in Christ. "

I'd say so far so good for Pope Francis. He's said the best thing I've heard from a Pope:

We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there.

He impresses me as a unifying figure and I hope he lives up to that expectation. I'm sure there are ultra-conservatives in the hierarchy who don't like the things he's been saying lately.

...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.

@NOY, do you remember, in one of our conversations, I asked "Does believing mean professing beliefs in dogma and getting your name listed in a baptismal registry?" If proof of belief lies in deeds, then Pope Francis is right. Let's meet one another doing good.

I don't believe there is a logical pathway that leads from being doubtful of God's existence to immorality. If that were so, a quick survey of religious denominations among convicted criminals would show a majority of atheists/agnostics. But the evidence doesn't show this to be so. If, after an honest examination of the evidence and arguments for the existence of God, one comes to the conclusion that he/she should suspend judgment, he/she should roast for all eternity? I smell something fishy about that BELIEVE-OR-ELSE proposition.

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..

not all muslims are extremist by the way.

I agree. In all my years in Singapore, I've never had any problems with Muslims. It's great working with them. There are just lots of these extremist groups like Al Quaeda, Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Sayyaf, Jamaat Mujahideen, etc that divide the world into Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War) and would like nothing more than to subjugate the entire world under the sword of Islam.

....Pope Pius XII...Galileo....
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.

On Pius XII, like I said, the debate rages. There are Jews who like him and there are Jews who protest whenever the issue of Pius XII's canonization is mentioned. I think I've mentioned before that I found little evidence that a clear, public condemnation of the Holocaust was made by Pius XII.

It's true that when approached on many occasions, the Pope interceded to save Jewish lives. But what's at question here, from what I understand from Cornwell's book, is not whether someone who could save lives actually did save lives. We would like to believe that anyone who without risk to themselves could save lives did so. But every time there was something public, the Pope absolutely refused to take sides in the war between the Allies and the Germans. In the words of a Jewish rabbi in the US, "If there was a clear example in world history of a fight between good and evil, this was it. But the Pope decided to be neutral in this instance."

Pius XII reportedly claimed, in front of the Supreme Council of the Arab People of Palestine, "We condemned on various occasions in the past the persecution, that fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the Hebrew people." On this point, Cornwell wrote: "From all we knew about this papacy, this constituted a blatant lie." Gary Wills in his Structures of Deceit: Papal Sin wrote "That this is a deliberate falsehood. He never publicly mentioned the Holocaust".

If you check for news related to this, you'll see there are both sides of the issue fiercely debating. But you're right. We're in no position to judge matters that are distant to us in space and time. Let's leave it at that.

As for Galileo, I did say I didn't bring that up. I only showed you a snippet from the New York Times and asked you what you think. BUT anyway...let's leave it at that as well.

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

Actually, that misquotation came to Einstein's attention in November 1950, when a minister of a church in Brooklyn wrote him to ask if he could write for him that oft-quoted praise of the Catholic Church and autograph that letter so he could frame it together with his picture and hang it in his room.

Here's Einstein's response to the minister regarding that misquoted statement of his (from the book Albert Einstein, the Human Side: New Glimpses from His Archives - Helen Dukas, ‎Banesh Hoffmann):

---

On 14 November 1950, Einstein replied in in English:

I was deeply impressed with the fine and generous way you have approached me in your letter of November 11th. I am, however, a little embarrassed. The wording of the statement you have quoted is not my own. Shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany, I had an oral conversation with a newspaper man about these matters. Since then, my remarks have been elaborated and exaggerated nearly beyond recognition. I cannot in good conscience write down the statement you sent me as my own.

The matter is all the more embarrassing to me because I, like yourself, am predominantly critical concerning the activities, and especially the political activities, through history of the official clergy. Thus, my former statement, even if reduced to my actual words (which I do not remember in detail) gives a wrong impression of my general attitude.

---

Now you believe me?

thanks bears, nice chat.

Pleasure's all mine, @NOY. Thanks for the chat.

[noy]

@NOY, do you remember, in one of our conversations, I asked "Does believing mean professing beliefs in dogma and getting your name listed in a baptismal registry?" If proof of belief lies in deeds, then Pope Francis is right. Let's meet one another doing good.

i'm not entirely sure if i remember. Lol

Baptism is necessary as Church teachings are under normal circumstances.
however there are circumstances that affects salvation which are only known to God that are so great and mysterious that we could not afford to take Salvation with the "black and white" approach.

this is in reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "

doing good however like i said is the best way to know the author of goodness which for us is God. somewhere along the way, may it be in this life or beyond..all of us will meet for an accounting and final decision whether we are for or against God.

if God is real, any good and pure hearted Atheist will have no issues with humility and would definitely not miss his/her last chance to repent and accept God as He is.

I don't believe there is a logical pathway that leads from being doubtful of God's existence to immorality. If that were so, a quick survey of religious denominations among convicted criminals would show a majority of atheists/agnostics. But the evidence doesn't show this to be so.

I agree. first of all i didn't say that Atheists are incapable of doing good.
if it's because what i said about sin of unbelief as well as everything that comes along with it.. i believe you have misunderstood my point.
as it just simply refers to anything we've done caused by our unbelief like having nothing to do with anything that relates to God and the likes which of course is a sin or at least for us.
but the statement does in no way equates to Atheists being immoral because of their unbelief.

there's no doubt that in the vastness of this earth, there are some Atheist who are more Christ-like than Christians, more faithful than Muslims, more compassionate than Buddhists and more disciplined than the Jews.

however without the absoluteness of morality, although this is not a guarantee..
we might get lost along the way with decision making between right and wrong..
like abortion, some atheists even shares with the Catholic point of view on abortion
although they wouldn't call it a sin of course but definitely inhumane.
while some maintain that it isn't as long as it benefits the community as a whole.

in these confusing times..with or without referring to God's commandment about Life and death, about how to treat others... by just listening to the depths of our hearts through the very core of our souls and conscience..or simply by just being human..we would know what to do..and by that we can do good.

If, after an honest examination of the evidence and arguments for the existence of God, one comes to the conclusion that he/she should suspend judgment, he/she should roast for all eternity? I smell something fishy about that BELIEVE-OR-ELSE proposition.

not necessarily. do't forget that you get to answer the final question only when you've been given absolute knowledge. in other words, when you're already dead. however, it doesn't mean you get to go straight to the good part when you've decided to be with God and acknowledge that you were wrong in your conclusion about Him while you were alive..as we may be honest and sincere yet mistaken at the same time.
we would have to take accountability of the things we did here on earth and unbelief is one of them of course..

it's comforting to know that the mercy of God is so great
however it's concerning that His judgment might just be about the same size with His mercy.
to put things in a better perspective, purgatory would have been the best illustration of God's infinite mercy and absolute justice.
and like i said earlier, purgatory is not that pleasant either esp that we don't have the slightest idea how long the temporary separation would be and what type of cleansing we might have to go through.

I agree. In all my years in Singapore, I've never had any problems with Muslims. It's great working with them. There are just lots of these extremist groups like Al Quaeda, Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Sayyaf, Jamaat Mujahideen, etc that divide the world into Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War) and would like nothing more than to subjugate the entire world under the sword of Islam.

exactly. i spent most of my childhood in Brunei. i can remember the muslims there being very tolerant towards diversity in religion.
so i hope we can agree that we cannot discredit a certain religion with the religious as basis. hehehe

On Pius XII, like I said, the debate rages. There are Jews who like him and there are Jews who protest whenever the issue of Pius XII's canonization is mentioned. I think I've mentioned before that I found little evidence that a clear, public condemnation of the Holocaust was made by Pius XII.

It's true that when approached on many occasions, the Pope interceded to save Jewish lives. But what's at question here, from what I understand from Cornwell's book, is not whether someone who could save lives actually did save lives. We would like to believe that anyone who without risk to themselves could save lives did so. But every time there was something public, the Pope absolutely refused to take sides in the war between the Allies and the Germans. In the words of a Jewish rabbi in the US, "If there was a clear example in world history of a fight between good and evil, this was it. But the Pope decided to be neutral in this instance."

Pius XII reportedly claimed, in front of the Supreme Council of the Arab People of Palestine, "We condemned on various occasions in the past the persecution, that fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the Hebrew people." On this point, Cornwell wrote: "From all we knew about this papacy, this constituted a blatant lie." Gary Wills in his Structures of Deceit: Papal Sin wrote "That this is a deliberate falsehood. He never publicly mentioned the Holocaust".

one thing's for sure though, the Hitler's Pope title might be a little too harsh..Lol
but yes i'd like to leave it at that for now..

As for Galileo, I did say I didn't bring that up. I only showed you a snippet from the New York Times and asked you what you think. BUT anyway...let's leave it at that as well.

and this one too.. LOL

Actually, that misquotation came to Einstein's attention in November 1950, when a minister of a church in Brooklyn wrote him to ask if he could write for him that oft-quoted praise of the Catholic Church and autograph that letter so he could frame it together with his picture and hang it in his room.

Here's Einstein's response to the minister regarding that misquoted statement of his (from the book Albert Einstein, the Human Side: New Glimpses from His Archives - Helen Dukas, ‎Banesh Hoffmann):

---

On 14 November 1950, Einstein replied in in English:

I was deeply impressed with the fine and generous way you have approached me in your letter of November 11th. I am, however, a little embarrassed. The wording of the statement you have quoted is not my own. Shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany, I had an oral conversation with a newspaper man about these matters. Since then, my remarks have been elaborated and exaggerated nearly beyond recognition. I cannot in good conscience write down the statement you sent me as my own.

The matter is all the more embarrassing to me because I, like yourself, am predominantly critical concerning the activities, and especially the political activities, through history of the official clergy. Thus, my former statement, even if reduced to my actual words (which I do not remember in detail) gives a wrong impression of my general attitude.

---

Now you believe me?

you know i'm inclined to be Skeptic about this right? LOL
but nonetheless, very intersting.

Pleasure's all mine, @NOY. Thanks for the chat.

all yours? how about 50/50.. hehe..

[Tech Guru]

Judaism ang first religion

[tumble]

tanan religion is true but it depends on how big is your faith to the lord

[vixenshoppe]

mahal kaayo ng true religion na brand hehehe

[euijin]

ang imo gituho.an

[Half]

True religion lies within our instinct.