Jump to content
IGNORED

God Prefers Kind Atheists over Hateful Christians


NurseNell

Recommended Posts

I think it's a great sign. I can't wait for all the fundy backlash of, "How can mere man expect to know the mind of God?" bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a great sign. I can't wait for all the fundy backlash of, "How can mere man expect to know the mind of God?" bullshit.

And when they say that it can be thrown back in their faces. Hey... thats not a bad idea. What would these patriarch types say if someone said that to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a great sign too, and gives food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of church I can get behind. Our last church was like this and we loved it, but now with a new pastor things have changed so we left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem is fundies think they are kind or good or doing gods work. without a clue how revolting they really are. It's like smokers who don't know how bad they really stink. or the duggers on how bad they really are at music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like they believe their deity prefers "kind atheists," but I'd be interested to know if this church think it's enough to let us into their positive afterlife, or if we're still going to be punished for our lack of belief. Have these Methodists gotten rid of the concept of hell?

From the article:

“I got an email from a young Mormon man saying, ‘Thank you so much. It made me rethink how I treat people,’†Ms. Pettygrove said. “Many atheists have said, ‘If there were more churches like yours, we would probably reconsider.’â€

They really don't get it, do they? :roll:

There is nothing that annoys me more than the notion that atheists lack belief in gods because churches are mean and hateful. Sure, some churches are mean and hateful, but there are plenty that are open-minded and progressive. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not gods are real! This church might be nice, but that doesn't make what they believe true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you dont have to be an athiest to not want to go to church. My ex said he was a believer but churches shit on him enough times it got to be too much for him. He told me one day "Why should I go to a church when I can stay at home and read the Bible?,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you dont have to be an athiest to not want to go to church. My ex said he was a believer but churches shit on him enough times it got to be too much for him. He told me one day "Why should I go to a church when I can stay at home and read the Bible?,

That's actually why my parents stopped going to church altogether. I know a staggering number of Christians who refuse to go to church for that reason, actually. They're tired of the bullying, the drama, the hypocrisy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like they believe their deity prefers "kind atheists," but I'd be interested to know if this church think it's enough to let us into their positive afterlife, or if we're still going to be punished for our lack of belief. Have these Methodists gotten rid of the concept of hell?

Only Evangelical Christians think that non-believers are automatically going to hell. Mainstream liturgical Christians, presumably including Methodists, don't think that. (Obviously there might be individuals within these churches with their own wack beliefs, but in general, non-Evangelicals don't automatically assume atheists are going to hell.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only Evangelical Christians think that non-believers are automatically going to hell. Mainstream liturgical Christians, presumably including Methodists, don't think that. (Obviously there might be individuals within these churches with their own wack beliefs, but in general, non-Evangelicals don't automatically assume atheists are going to hell.)

I'm afraid I can't agree that it's limited to evangelicals. Only the most liberal Christians have rejected the concept of hell entirely, and many different denominations assert that a belief in their deity is necessary to attain a positive afterlife.

Of course, there's always a split between the conservatives and the liberals. Conservative Methodists do believe that heaven and hell are literal places. It sounds like this church is more liberal. I wonder if they think there's a hell at all, or if they just believe that "nice atheists" are spared from going there.

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Methodist/Beliefs/Afterlife-and-Salvation.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I can't agree that it's limited to evangelicals. Only the most liberal Christians have rejected the concept of hell entirely, and many different denominations assert that a belief in their deity is necessary to attain a positive afterlife.

Which non-Evangelical denominations do that? I don't disbelieve you, but I'm interested to know.

Of course, it is true that most(?) Christian denominations believe that hell is a real place. But that's a different question than whether all non-believers go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that salvation being restricted to theists was controversial. Most Christians aren't universalists, after all. They don't believe that everyone is saved regardless of their belief system. Some do, but they are the most liberal of the liberal branches and don't make up the majority of Christians in the United States.

Which non-Evangelical denominations do that? I don't disbelieve you, but I'm interested to know.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. There's a difference between believing that a positive afterlife is available to people who reject their deity and believing that a negative afterlife awaits those who do not believe in their god. I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian denominations that assert the former, but some of them do hedge on the latter.

There's a split between religious liberals and religious conservatives, but in general the official doctrine of most Protestant churches does assert that belief in their god is necessary for salvation. For example, the United Methodists (who put up this billboard) officially believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation.

Do United Methodists believe that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary to go to heaven?

Yes, United Methodists do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way the Bible gives as clearly God's gift and way of salvation and heaven. God can save anyone that God chooses to save and we cannot decide whom God will save. We simply trust the plain teaching of scripture. See John 3:16, Acts 4:12 and many other texts.

Our belief in this unique path of salvation can never be used to put down other religions and the gifts that they have to give to the world, even to Christians. That we have a gospel to proclaim is not grounds for hurting others. We can and must be friends with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. In dialogue with them we learn and they learn. In a time when religion is so much in the news and on our minds, we need to be vigilant against our own hostility and follow Jesus in the way of love.

Our Book of Resolutions says, "While we as Christians respond faithfully to the call to proclaim the gospel in all places, we can never presume to know the full extent of God's work in the world, and we recognize the reality of God's activity outside the Christian church. It is central to our faith that salvation is accomplished not by human beings, but by God. We know that judgment as to the ultimate salvation of persons from any faith community, including Christianity and Judaism, belongs to God alone."

Rev. Dan Benedict

Center for Worship Resourcing

General Board of Discipleship

(Building New Bridges in Hope, The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church — 2008. Copyright © 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.)

That's not to say that individual Methodists might disagree, but I must admit that I'm puzzled by the notion that they can accept the above statements and still believe that people who explicitly reject Jesus can attain salvation.

Of course, it is true that most(?) Christian denominations believe that hell is a real place. But that's a different question than whether all non-believers go there.

It sounds like they believe that "nice ones" get a pass. I don't find that much better, but I think it's typical of 21st century discomfort with the idea of hell. The fundies relish the idea, of course, but most normal people have a problem with the majority of the world's population being consigned to eternal torment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up Baptist and the rule was that it didn't really matter how you acted b/c everybody sinned. You just had to "get saved" at some point, which meant accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior and asking him "into your heart" (whatever that even really means). Then you're pretty much in the club, but you have to try not to sin, but if you do, ask for forgiveness periodically. If you don't get saved it doesn't matter if you never sin, there is still "original sin." You can only get rid of that by getting saved. Also, there are people like me, who were saved, then became evil and decide to be come Humanist, etc. so they reject their faith and are now going to hell again. At least as far as our congregation, all non-Christians go there. However, it was also very much an "it's between you and God" situation, as long as you are Christian/Catholic/Jewish, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a split between religious liberals and religious conservatives, but in general the official doctrine of most Protestant churches does assert that belief in their god is necessary for salvation.

I disagree strongly with that. I am not aware of any non-Evangelical denominations that believe that. Baptists are evangelicals, as are many Methodists (including the United Methodist Church). The split isn't, as you say, between conservative and liberal Christians so much as between evangelical and non-evangelical (sometimes called "liturgical," although that's not always accurate) Christians.

In my Presbyterian church we were explicitly taught that we don't know who will go to Heaven, but that Christians do not necessarily have sole purchase on it. I got the same sense from the Episcopalian church I attended during college, although it wasn't said as explicitly. Several congregants and a few elders in my Presbyterian church mentioned to me the possibility that everyone goes to Heaven. I don't know how many of them personally believed it, but it didn't seem far from the mainstream in my church.

I am by no means an expert on Christianity, but the central divide among American Protestants is definitely Evangelical vs. non-Evangelical. And the primary way to distinguish an evangelical from a non-evangelical is that evangelicals think only believers can be Saved. That's why they're always evangelizing. In your comments, you are overlooking the entire non-Evangelical faction of Christianity, which is a very large one, and even larger outside this country.

There's a difference between believing that a positive afterlife is available to people who reject their deity and believing that a negative afterlife awaits those who do not believe in their god. I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian denominations that assert the former, but some of them do hedge on the latter.

I'm not aware that any mainstream Protestant churches subscribe to a "none-of-the-above" option for the afterlife (to which you're suggesting they think rejectors-of-their-deity will go). Of course, there's purgatory, but that's temporary, and anyway it's a mostly Catholic thing. For everyone else, there is Heaven and there is Hell, although certain denominations either don't believe in Hell or are extremely skeptical of it. (I think a lot of that bifurcation comes from the Old Testament idea that one either does or does not have a share in Olam Haba, the World to Come.) But anyway, there isn't really a non-Heaven/non-Hell afterlife according to most Christians. So I don't see what you could be talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree strongly with that. I am not aware of any non-Evangelical denominations that believe that. Baptists are evangelicals, as are many Methodists (including the United Methodist Church). The split isn't, as you say, between conservative and liberal Christians so much as between evangelical and non-evangelical (sometimes called "liturgical," although that's not always accurate) Christians.

From the website of the Presbyterian Church USA:

Presbyterians believe God has offered us salvation because of God’s loving nature. It is not a right or a privilege to be earned by being “good enough.†No one of us is good enough on our own — we are all dependent upon God’s goodness and mercy. From the kindest, most devoted churchgoer to the most blatant sinner, we are all saved solely by the grace of God.

Out of the greatest possible love and compassion God reached out to us and redeemed us through Jesus Christ, the only one who was ever without sin. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection God triumphed over sin.

Presbyterians believe it is through the action of God working in us that we become aware of our sinfulness and our need for God’s mercy and forgiveness. Just as a parent is quick to welcome a wayward child who has repented of rebellion, God is willing to forgive our sins if we but confess them and ask for forgiveness in the name of Christ.

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church too. It definitely wasn't much of a "sinners go to hell" kind of place, but I don't remember them saying that you could be saved if you didn't believe in God, and Jesus as the son of God. We recited the apostles' creed all the time, and gloria patri in every service. Maybe you're right to specify a distinction between "salvation" and "going to Heaven", but I'm not sure what the point of religious salvation would be if you weren't also going to receive everlasting life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like they believe their deity prefers "kind atheists," but I'd be interested to know if this church think it's enough to let us into their positive afterlife, or if we're still going to be punished for our lack of belief. Have these Methodists gotten rid of the concept of hell?

From the article:

They really don't get it, do they? :roll:

There is nothing that annoys me more than the notion that atheists lack belief in gods because churches are mean and hateful. Sure, some churches are mean and hateful, but there are plenty that are open-minded and progressive. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not gods are real! This church might be nice, but that doesn't make what they believe true.

Wait... How is them quoting what Atheists have said to them, them not getting it? Ms. Pettygrove isn't saying that more Atheists would believe if more churches were like this one. She's saying that's what she's been told by "many Athiests".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree strongly with that. I am not aware of any non-Evangelical denominations that believe that. Baptists are evangelicals, as are many Methodists (including the United Methodist Church). The split isn't, as you say, between conservative and liberal Christians so much as between evangelical and non-evangelical (sometimes called "liturgical," although that's not always accurate) Christians.

Well, now I'm confused. The United Methodist church counts as evangelical? I admit I'm not an expert on the different denominations, but I thought the United Methodists were pretty solidly mainline Protestant.

In my Presbyterian church we were explicitly taught that we don't know who will go to Heaven, but that Christians do not necessarily have sole purchase on it. I got the same sense from the Episcopalian church I attended during college, although it wasn't said as explicitly. Several congregants and a few elders in my Presbyterian church mentioned to me the possibility that everyone goes to Heaven. I don't know how many of them personally believed it, but it didn't seem far from the mainstream in my church.

I'm not saying that "everyone goes to heaven" is not a popular belief among Protestants, but it's not in the official doctrine of most Protestant denominations. If you can point to some evidence that says the Presbyterians or the Episcopalians are confirmed universalists who explicitly reject hell and assert that everyone goes to heaven regardless of whether or not they believe in a god or Jesus, I would admit that I'm wrong, but I don't think such evidence exists. Private opinions notwithstanding, the official stance of the church does not seem to reflect that.

I am by no means an expert on Christianity, but the central divide among American Protestants is definitely Evangelical vs. non-Evangelical. And the primary way to distinguish an evangelical from a non-evangelical is that evangelicals think only believers can be Saved. That's why they're always evangelizing. In your comments, you are overlooking the entire non-Evangelical faction of Christianity, which is a very large one, and even larger outside this country.

Wait, but you just said that the United Methodists count as evangelical, yet here they are with this billboard saying (or implying) that you can be an atheist and go to heaven. I thought the primary feature of evangelicals is that they spend a great amount of time trying to convert others, and the United Methodist church doesn't fit that description. They are also quite moderate, if not downright liberal.

I'm not aware that any mainstream Protestant churches subscribe to a "none-of-the-above" option for the afterlife (to which you're suggesting they think rejectors-of-their-deity will go). Of course, there's purgatory, but that's temporary, and anyway it's a mostly Catholic thing. For everyone else, there is Heaven and there is Hell, although certain denominations either don't believe in Hell or are extremely skeptical of it. (I think a lot of that bifurcation comes from the Old Testament idea that one either does or does not have a share in Olam Haba, the World to Come.) But anyway, there isn't really a non-Heaven/non-Hell afterlife according to most Christians. So I don't see what you could be talking about.

I think some of them believe in annihilation for people who explicitly reject their god. But honestly, I'm confused by the notion that mainstream Protestant denominations promote the idea that people who reject their deity will go to heaven. I just don't think the evidence for that exists in their official doctrine. You can certainly find plenty of nice Protestants who believe that, but most churches take a wishy-washy "we can't know" stand when it comes to the afterlife. They try to dodge the bullet when it comes to people who reject the divine. They won't say we go to hell, but they're not exactly asserting that we go to heaven either.

And even the Catholics haven't gone all universalist on us! While the church has decided to make its doctrine more inclusive in recent years, it's not universalist and the official party line is that hell does exist and that if you knowingly reject their deity, you're going there:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

Everyone, therefore, ought to become converted to Christ, who is known through the preaching of the Church, and they ought, by baptism, to become incorporated into Him, and into the Church which is His body. Christ Himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16.16, John 3.5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church, which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence, those cannot be saved, who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it, or to remain in it. So, although in ways known only to Himself, God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11.6)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... How is them quoting what Atheists have said to them, them not getting it? Ms. Pettygrove isn't saying that more Atheists would believe if more churches were like this one. She's saying that's what she's been told by "many Athiests".

Frankly, I doubt the truth of her statement. I have a hard time believing that "many atheists" said such a thing to her. There are lots of people who leave the church for emotional reasons, so maybe she heard from some of them. But there's a difference between not believing in a god and being upset with Christianity because of their exclusivity, homophobia, sexism, etc.

It doesn't make sense for people to convert to Christianity simply because the church starts promoting "nice" things. Either what the church teaches is true, or it isn't. Being nice has nothing to do with it. I think the vast majority of atheists understand that. Maybe there's an ignorant atheist somewhere who doesn't get it, but I don't believe "many atheists" are flocking to this church to tell them they would "probably reconsider" if more churches were like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I doubt the truth of her statement. I have a hard time believing that "many atheists" said such a thing to her. There are lots of people who leave the church for emotional reasons, so maybe she heard from some of them. But there's a difference between not believing in a god and being upset with Christianity because of their exclusivity, homophobia, sexism, etc.

It doesn't make sense for people to convert to Christianity simply because the church starts promoting "nice" things. Either what the church teaches is true, or it isn't. Being nice has nothing to do with it. I think the vast majority of atheists understand that. Maybe there's an ignorant atheist somewhere who doesn't get it, but I don't believe "many atheists" are flocking to this church to tell them they would "probably reconsider" if more churches were like them.

So because of a unspecific quantifier you aren't going to believe that she may have been told something?

Honestly, it sounds to me that you just want to lump this church in with all the rest.

As for what is in bold, way to be black and white about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QAF_Rocks, I'm going to spend some time researching in order to give you a better answer to other parts of what you said, but there is one thing I wanted to clarify first because I think it's important. The evangelical vs. non-evangelical division has not much to do with "conservative" vs. "liberal" Christianity. Admittedly, I don't think the conservative/liberal divide is as meaningful as you do. I assume you're talking about a conservative doctrine, rather than politics; in that case, yes, evangelicals have a conservative doctrine insofar as they think non-believers are going to hell. But I don't know what the usefulness is of calling that "conservative" rather than "evangelical." If you wanted to make a more political divide, Catholics would certainly fall on the side of "conservative" as they don't ordain women or gays. But their position on the issue in question is clear. Here is an extension of that Vatican text which demonstrates that Catholics don't assume atheists are going to hell:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and are moved by grace to strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (Lumen Gentium 16)

Granted, "without blame on their part" creates a gray area here. This is why you can find doctrinal variations across congregations and across congregants: the doctrine is open enough that people can interpret it different ways and take different positions within it. Some Catholics might say that atheists are of course to blame because they have rejected God outright; others might say that atheists are not to blame for being misguided. And individuals in the churches do say and believe things with as much variation as that. All this to say that I disagree with your assumption that the non-evangelical Christian denominations rigorously dictate that non-believers are going to Hell, and that members who believe otherwise are just "exceptions."

But I've gotten a little off track...what I originally wanted to post about here was the evangelical/non-evangelical divide. Doing some further reading, the United Methodist Church is weird in that some congregations are evangelical and others are non-evangelical. It seems that several denominations are like that (Baptists are another notable exception). Wikipediahas a description of Evangelicalsm's particular theology, the primary distinctive aspect being conversionism. Conversionism is basically what we're talking about here: whether non-believers need to accept Christ in order to attain Salvation. (Salvation=not going to Hell. As I've said, for most Christians, not going to Hell =going to Heaven.) I actually disagree with Wikipedia's "Mainline vs. Evangelical" section which states, "The distinction between the two [Evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism] can be due as much to sociopolitical attitude as theological doctrine, though doctrinal differences may exist as well." In my experience, while the sociopolitical differences are often more manifest to outsiders, the doctrinal differences are really the fundamental distinctions which underlie everything else.

As I said, I want to do some more research on official doctrines in non-evangelical churches in hopes of posting concrete examples for you. However, since what we were originally discussing is whether most Christians in fact believe that atheists will go to Hell (or not-Heaven), I think this article is very revealing on that point. (It also underscores that this is essentially about the evangelical/non-evangelical divide.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because of a unspecific quantifier you aren't going to believe that she may have been told something?

No, I believe she was told something. I just don't think that "many atheists" have been coming to her and saying that they would "probably reconsider" because her church put up a nice sign. I believe people are approaching them, but it's possible she might be mistaken with regard to their beliefs. What she says is completely foreign to everything I know about self-identified atheists.

Honestly, it sounds to me that you just want to lump this church in with all the rest. As for what is in bold, way to be black and white about things.

What do you want me to say? I have no problem with the liberal Methodists on social issues. I just don't think that what they believe makes any sense.

As for the bolded part, since when is it controversial to say that something is either true or false? If Christianity is true, then it makes sense for people to embrace it and attend church. If it's not true, then it doesn't matter how many nice signs this church puts up. A sign doesn't make their god any more or less real. Their god either exists or does not exist, regardless of the actions of any particular church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to quote from the article I linked because I think its information belongs in the thread itself. I will say, about the original article, that its second-to-last sentence is very misleading and misinformed. It is not a "basic tenet of faith" that non-believers will go to Hell; it is a hotly contested question on which churches vary widely in their official doctrines. Christians who think non-Christians aren't necessarily going to Hell are not ignoring the official doctrine; in numerous cases, their interpretation fits squarely within official doctrine. (I hope to give you more quotes in a bit to back that up, but the Vatican text is one example.)

So, the article:

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

This threw evangelicals into a tizzy. After all, the Bible makes it clear that heaven is a velvet-roped V.I.P. area reserved for Christians. Jesus said so: “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.†But the survey suggested that Americans just weren’t buying that.

The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?

So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them.

And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.

What on earth does this mean?

One very plausible explanation is that Americans just want good things to come to good people, regardless of their faith. As Alan Segal, a professor of religion at Barnard College told me: “We are a multicultural society, and people expect this American life to continue the same way in heaven.†He explained that in our society, we meet so many good people of different faiths that it’s hard for us to imagine God letting them go to hell. In fact, in the most recent survey, Pew asked people what they thought determined whether a person would achieve eternal life. Nearly as many Christians said you could achieve eternal life by just being a good person as said that you had to believe in Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now I'm confused. The United Methodist church counts as evangelical? I admit I'm not an expert on the different denominations, but I thought the United Methodists were pretty solidly mainline Protestant.

I'm not saying that "everyone goes to heaven" is not a popular belief among Protestants, but it's not in the official doctrine of most Protestant denominations. If you can point to some evidence that says the Presbyterians or the Episcopalians are confirmed universalists who explicitly reject hell and assert that everyone goes to heaven regardless of whether or not they believe in a god or Jesus, I would admit that I'm wrong, but I don't think such evidence exists. Private opinions notwithstanding, the official stance of the church does not seem to reflect that.

Wait, but you just said that the United Methodists count as evangelical, yet here they are with this billboard saying (or implying) that you can be an atheist and go to heaven. I thought the primary feature of evangelicals is that they spend a great amount of time trying to convert others, and the United Methodist church doesn't fit that description. They are also quite moderate, if not downright liberal.

I think some of them believe in annihilation for people who explicitly reject their god. But honestly, I'm confused by the notion that mainstream Protestant denominations promote the idea that people who reject their deity will go to heaven. I just don't think the evidence for that exists in their official doctrine. You can certainly find plenty of nice Protestants who believe that, but most churches take a wishy-washy "we can't know" stand when it comes to the afterlife. They try to dodge the bullet when it comes to people who reject the divine. They won't say we go to hell, but they're not exactly asserting that we go to heaven either.

And even the Catholics haven't gone all universalist on us! While the church has decided to make its doctrine more inclusive in recent years, it's not universalist and the official party line is that hell does exist and that if you knowingly reject their deity, you're going there:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Yeah, all of this. Most liturgical churches have some evangelical wing. I used to attend an Anglican church that was VERY evangelical, almost fundie lite territory - but it still had a substantial liturgical aspect. Likewise, many liberal Christians attend very un-liturgical churches, eg Quaker meetings or Metropolitan Community Churches (a group of churches aimed at serving LGBTQ people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I believe she was told something. I just don't think that "many atheists" have been coming to her and saying that they would "probably reconsider" because her church put up a nice sign. I believe people are approaching them, but it's possible she might be mistaken with regard to their beliefs. What she says is completely foreign to everything I know about self-identified atheists.

What do you want me to say? I have no problem with the liberal Methodists on social issues. I just don't think that what they believe makes any sense.

As for the bolded part, since when is it controversial to say that something is either true or false? If Christianity is true, then it makes sense for people to embrace it and attend church. If it's not true, then it doesn't matter how many nice signs this church puts up. A sign doesn't make their god any more or less real. Their god either exists or does not exist, regardless of the actions of any particular church.

First, you can believe what you want but I have a right to point out you are being a little narrow minded if you assume that she is lying just because you personally don't agree with what the people she was talking to said. Second, you said "these people just don't get it" in relation to what this woman was quoted as saying, operating entirely on your own opinion of what must have happened because you just can seem to wrap your mind around the last point I am going to make...

Not everyone who attends church does so because they are believers in everything the church teaches. Some only believe most, some only believe a portion, and some just want to be part of the church's community. Alternately, just because someone believes, it doesn't mean they attend church. You didn't say "their god" you said "what this church teaches" and what this church teaches is made up of a whole lot of different ideas and beliefs, some of which may be true, some of which may not be true and which the parishioners can decide for themselves what they believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.