Not just Catholics. Father, son, holy spirit, Satan, but just one god, amirite?
I’m guessing you don’t come from a region that has been historically Abrahamic. I’m secular myself but it’s interesting that you would throw Satan in there with the rest.
I do, and I’m not sure why what I said would make you think otherwise. The way Satan is popularly depicted today makes him indistinguishable from the “evil gods” of other religions.
Well, the way Satan is depicted in pop culture has little to do with actual christianity, and I am not sure why you felt the need to include him, despite the fact he is a very minor character in christianity, and also even in the popular depiction he is not nearly on the same level, as he was created by God, is not omnipotent, omniscient, unlike God, etc.
he is a very minor character in christianity
In the text, definitely. In the practiced religion (especially in America), not so much. And even in the text he has a much larger role than in its predecessor Judaism.
I think the pop culture versions of religions have become so deeply ingrained that they became a part of many adherent’s actual beliefs. For example, ask the average Catholic to describe hell and see how long it takes for something from Paradise Lost to pop up.
even in the popular depiction he is not nearly on the same level, as he was created by God, is not omnipotent, omniscient, unlike God, etc.
Why would that disqualify him as god-like? Polytheistic religions had gods of varying strengths, many created by other gods - the Greek pantheon is a tangle of lesser gods created by greater ones, and even Zeus came from Chronos, a Titan (which is somehow different from a god).
The whole assigning of godhood seems completely arbitrary to me. Archangels are more powerful than many full-on gods from other mythologies yet somehow don’t count, whereas even humans could have been (or will become) gods in other lives in religions such as Jainism or Mormonism.
Ok, I will concede to you that pop culture should be considered, however I would not say angels are gods.
The christian God is the supreme power, he is the monarch of the universe, so to speak, everything is under his authority. An angel is not a god, because he is a creature, not the creator, he is subordinate. He is not all-powerful, he is a servant. Within the logic of christianity there is absolute difference between god and everything else.
In greek paganism Zeus was the king of the gods. However, he was not allpowerful(there were some henoteistic tendencies, however), other gods were still powerful in their own right, and there were gods he was afraid of(in a famous passage from the Iliad that I do not quite remember, it is mentioned that he was afraid of Nyx). There was a revolution when Kronos was overthrown, as you mentioned. So those two religions are quite different.
In Jainism, the so called “gods” are a different thing altogether, no need to mention it.
I do not know much about mormons, aren’t they christians? I thought they were.
My point is that what constitutes a god differs between religions, and the Christian claim of monotheism uses a very narrow definition of god that excludes the many supernatural beings described in their religious texts.
If you use the standards of other religions, one could easily argue it’s a polytheistic religion - the Trinity, or one divinity appearing in multiple forms, is similar to other religions generally considered polytheistic.
It’s an endless debate because both sides talk past each other due to disagreeing on the basic definition of the term.
I do not know much about mormons, aren’t they christians? I thought they were.
That’s a matter of debate I’m not at all qualified to get into. They have some very out there beliefs that they understandably don’t advertise to outsiders, and that only became common knowledge with the advent of the internet.
Yes, gods are different in different religions, but why would you, to determine whether something is a god in christianity use pagan standards?
My point is, that within the logic of christianity you can not say there is more than one god, it is unreasonable to say that christianity is polytheistic.
Also, “one divinity appearing in multiple forms” is not a polytheistic thing, since you only have one divinity. The trinity does not consist of three gods, but of three hypostases of the same god. My point is that it can only seem like those are three gods, but if you have more deep knowledge of christianity you will never say that.
For all Protestants bang on about hell and the devil, they are well on their way to paganism too.
We all just want cool lore
Too bad it was stolen from Greek lore
All religions steal from prior religions, it’s all about who makes up the best story. The best religious memes survive and spread.
An all-loving god sentencing sinners to eternal damnation is bad writing. Plus it ethically justifies ANY atrocity if the atrocity is done in service of converting ONE sinner. One person going to hell is worse than a million holocausts. A Christian who believes in hell can justify doing anything to “save souls”. Conversion therapy, witch burnings, crusades… If it keeps one person out of hell, it was worth it. That’s not a good mindset.
As a Catholic, it’s slightly grating for most criticisms regarding Christianity to just be reactions to the most obnoxious Protestants.
(for reference,
- not being a Christian isn’t a sin
- while it is required to believe a Hell exists, there is no requirement to believe anyone is there
- we don’t ever purport to know whether anyone is there or not
- https://64.media.tumblr.com/c687504931fcc8f598b1eba5157ec59f/930251a53f94acd8-e8/s1280x1920/deb1ae7d735c691b97d3766207fcd10da8eae4a1.pnj
- free choice/will is paramount
- we break sins into veneal and mortal
- mortal sins are the ones that send you to Hell
- you cannot commit a mortal sin without full knowledge that what you’re doing is wrong and choosing so anyway
- we may not necessary be clear on the hows/whys/details but it follows that anyone in Hell is there because of deliberate choice on their part
- again, not believing isn’t a sin
- see previous point about the possibility no one is there
- we break sins into veneal and mortal
Not to say that Catholicism doesn’t have things it can be criticized for (Lord knows) but I know the type of Christians your taking about and it’s just so far and beyond removed from our actual theology)
it’s slightly grating for most criticisms regarding Christianity to just be reactions to the most obnoxious Protestants
I mean, the first thing I think of when I think “Christians” is “paedophile priests like Cardinal Pell” whom the Pope himself protected.
But yeah, after that one thing, most of the criticisms I have of Christianity fall more heavily on Protestants than Catholics. It’s just…that one thing is pretty damn fucking huge.
again, not believing isn’t a sin
I must admit, I find this genuinely fascinating. I had thought it was pretty standard Christian doctrine that belief in Christ is a prerequisite for getting in to heaven. Is that not the case? And, assuming it isn’t official doctrine, do you think most Catholics are aware of the official doctrine, or would they believe, as I did, that belief in Christ is necessary?
I mean, the first thing I think of when I think “Christians” is “paedophile priests like Cardinal Pell” whom the Pope himself protected
…yeah; that’s exactly – if anything – the one criticism I had in mind, when I wrote that. Definitely no protest from me, on that one. While there is much I’d hoped for with Francis’s papacy, his inaction and stonewalling on this will likely end up being the largest blight on his job.
It’s just…that one thing is pretty damn fucking huge.
Yep; absolutely.
I must admit, I find this genuinely fascinating.
Heh, I think most do.
I had thought it was pretty standard Christian doctrine that belief in Christ is a prerequisite for getting in to heaven. Is that not the case?
So it is (I think the reasoning here is that, if God is the source of all Goodness and morality, rejecting belief in him necessitates rejecting God and, thus, belief in Him) but, like I mentioned, it’s Catholic belief that, in order for anything to warrant Hell, it just be willfully chosen. We don’t believe that God just punishes people because he can; that’d contradict a loving God (which we purport He is) and, also, collapse any point of morality. To quote Pope Pius IX (in 1863), “God[…]in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”
The second Vatican Council, based on the history of teachings such as these, said (in 1964), “For they who[…]seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.”
Basically, you know how atheists always whip out against Evangelicals, “Well, what is someone was born somewhere where they didn’t know about Christianity? Would they go to Hell?” And we were like, “That’s a really valid point; a loving God wouldn’t do that. There’s gotta be another answer, there.”
And, assuming it isn’t official doctrine, do you think most Catholics are aware of the official doctrine, or would they’re believe, as I did, that belief in Christ is necessary?
So one of the phrases the Vatican II council used when discussing this topic was “invincible ignorance”. What constitutes an invincible ignorance such that you’re off the hook? Ehh…the Church doesn’t say, yet (I think the thing a lot of people don’t realize is how…definitional the Church is; people read something that was promulgated and read the possible interpretations of that statement into it but, really, what the Church is trying to do is take a lot of the Unknown and try to precisely define it so we can understand it, over time; which means we can say, “This is true,” even if we don’t understand, yet, examples of the thing).
So there are a lot of Catholics out there who will be quick to remind you, “Ah! Invincible ignorance; it’s not a everything-goes card. Were you really so ignorant that you can be without blame?” If you want to get into Catholic tea and drama, the statements promulgated in Vatican II aren’t dogma so it’s always possible they may get reversed, in the future; there’s a contingency out there who believes the whole council was bunk and beliefs like this are exactly why. Don’t get it twisted, all the nonbelievers will burn.
I find…both positions repulsive. But they are out there. And, while the later group hates all the doctrinal development over the last century and is, like, a hair-breadth away from schism, they are (at this point in time) technically valid positions based on what’s been said by the Church, so far.
For me, someone seeing the absolute abysmal and shameful way the hierarchy has handled the pedophilia crisis and thinking, “I…don’t think that’s where God is,” could easily count as invincible ignorance. How could anyone of reasonable conscience not?
I think the atheist who genuinely can’t believe that there is a God out there or find enough evidence but (to use the old cliche) is just focusing on doing his best to be a good person could count as invincible ignorance.
Maybe I just can’t believe in a God that would send the many friends and family I think are amazing people to Hell over something they genuinely can’t find convincing but, well, I don’t; and I know there are many Christians (including Catholics) who would find this about me to be weak reasoned and borderline vile but clearly I’m not the only Catholic who does.
So – to more directly answer your question – I can’t say if there’s many but they definitely are out there. I wouldn’t be surprised, if we include the less consistently practicing Catholics (the many only-show-up-to-Mass-for-holidays-but-pray-often), that there are many Catholics who would prefer to take my interpretation. Most people don’t like to enforce suffering, I believe.
But it’s undeniable that, at least at this point in time (though there’s a long history so I don’t think that’s getting reversed), – for Catholicism – being aware of something is a part of the equation for it to be sinful; quotes from the current Catechism: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1735 1746 1859
