The mere fact that the elected head of an organisation can seemingly "changed the rules" that were seemingly written by God must seem a touch fishy even to Catholics? I thought only God could judge and make decisions but apparently the pope is almighty now as well? Sent from my SM-J110F using Tapatalk
No I didn't. I suggested the Pope (indirectly) implied all terrorists are necessarily going against their conscience.
Oh I know. But the Pope was also still making the error I noted even while allowing for your possible salvation when the time comes whether you wish it or not.
The Pope is (when he's able) adjusting Catholicism to conform to the evolving secular moral standard because it makes sense to him and he's not a moron.
I was saying someone willing to die for a cause doesn't seem to be having a crisis of conscience. Sure some of them may be, but it would be naïve to say all of them necessarily are (as the Pope implied).
How is saying atheists can still get into heaven borrowing anything from Catholic/Christian morals? The Pope is obviously pulling that one straight out of his secularly sensible ass.
It is you that is suggesting the terrorists are acting on their conscience. The pope is denouncing the violence ISIS has brought and the suffering of the people who weren't able to flee.
or positive projection..string theory, the belief that anything is possible..what's delusional about that?..you choose billionaire as your projection. Good luck. I don't sell my beliefs or look for groups to support them. I think Nihilism is more self delusional than Taoism. Having money is a tangible..countable thing..believing that we are not confined to the physical form we inhabit forever is interesting if you compare it to emptiness, nothingness. It's a choice but if it seems bizarre to you, that's understandable.
I think the Catholic church is rebuilding..they've taken some serious hits and this is sort of like legalization of marijuana...it's a popular and lucrative stance.
I didn't ask anything about this. You used the term evolving secular moral values. How is it you and the Pope are on the same wave length in this? Where are these values written so you both know what the evolving code is? Or is this secular code simply borrowed?
It's the subject of the thread. Atheists getting into heaven is not Biblical and not a traditional tenet of Christianity or Catholicism, so the alternative is that it's coming from a sense of what is right/just that has nothing to do with those things.
I think you are correct. Just asking Crow, how he made the wavelength connection with the Pope. Or is it written some where.
Pope is playing a losing hand. He's trying to make lemonade out of lemons. How about those mixed metaphors?
Why? Because it's less interesting? I'm just saying genuine belief it not a choice. It is compelled by evidence. If you think there is evidence for what you believe good for you, but saying you choose to believe something because it's the interesting alternative seems like it is by definition fooling yourself.
