Pope Francis defends atheists

[CleanShavenJesus]

Atheists and other nonbelievers largely welcomed Wednesday's (May 22) remarks by Pope Francis that performing "good works" is not the exclusive domain of people of faith, but rather a place where they and atheists could and should meet.

In a private homily, Francis described doing good not as a matter of faith, but of "duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because he has made us in his image and likeness."

Then, referring to non-Catholics and nonbelievers, he said, "if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good."

Reaction among American nonbelievers ranged from mild surprise to warm welcome. Some say they see Francis' remarks as a sign that nonbelief - atheism, humanism and other forms of freethought - is being normalized, while others see recognition of what they say they have known all along: Having no faith does not mean having no morality.

"We are a community that is just trying to do good and live good lives, just like most communities are," said Greg Epstein, Harvard University's Humanist chaplain and author of "Good Without God." ''His statement is an acknowledgment of that. It is welcome and it is gratifying."

Epstein was struck by the contrast of Francis' remarks and Tuesday's broadcast of an interview by CNN's Wolf Blitzer of an Oklahoma tornado victim. When Blitzer asked the woman if she wanted to thank God for her family's survival, she replied she is an atheist.

"You have this small example of this soft-spoken young mother who is recovering from the tornado who by her presence, her quiet dignity, not only exemplified what the pope was saying, but overshadowed him," Epstein said. "The quiet dignity of her just being a person and so clearly a good and loving person, it makes my reaction, and I would think a lot of people's reaction (to Francis' remarks), 'Well, of course.'"

Dale McGowan also affirmed the pope's recognition of nonbelievers. His Foundation Beyond Belief collects funds from nonbelievers and distributes them to charities and relief organizations and organizes teams of secular volunteers. To date, Foundation Beyond Belief has raised more than $35,000 for victims of the Oklahoma tornado.

"Anything that decreases the mistrust and fear between people is a good thing," he said. "Some people might say it contradicts past statements (of other popes), but I don't care about any of that. It is terrific when a position evolves to where we can put division behind us, and this is an example of that and I think it is great."

D.J. Grothe, president of the James Randi Education Foundation, an organization of skeptics, said he hears echoes of the landmark Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) in Francis' remarks. And while he takes issue with some policies of the Catholic Church - the promotion of miracles, the opposition to contraception - the pope's address was nonetheless "refreshing."

Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, was a vocal opponent of secularism and unbelief, even as he approved a new initiative called "Courtyard of the Gentiles" to engage in dialogue with nonbelievers and linked arms with outspoken Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, an atheist who saw trouble in the growth of European Islam.

"I don't see that disdain for nonbelief that was so apparent before" in other popes, Grothe said. "He is really talking about what I would call humanism - the ethical approach to making the world a better place without recourse to supernatural beliefs."

In the same homily, Francis said all people, "even the atheists," are "redeemed" through "the Blood of Christ" - the Christian belief that the sins of humanity are wiped clean through the crucifixion of Jesus. The inclusion of atheists in a belief they do not share seemed to raise few hackles.

"He was using his own language and speaking from his own beliefs," McGowan said, a statement echoed by others. "That is not the point. The point is he is saying, 'I don't fear you,' and I think that is a lovely thing."

http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/usa...le/2355935


This guy is a lot better than Benedict (Emperor Palpatine) was.

[Drich]

I do not disagree with what Frankie said. "That the same blood washes the sins of the atheist away as it does for the believer." The only question then becomes, does the Atheist accept what Has been done for him?

[Ryantology]

I do not disagree with what Frankie said. "That the same blood washes the sins of the atheist away as it does for the believer." The only question then becomes, does the Atheist accept what Has been done for him?

I accept that Jesus blackmailed all of humanity by offering everyone a choice between submission or eternal punishment, or at least, that's what it would be if any of it was actually real. Which is why, all I have to say to the Pope is that it is nice that he's officially rejecting the idea that we're a bunch of immoral, Satan-worshiping baby eaters.

[Gooders1002]

I do not disagree with what Frankie said. "That the same blood washes the sins of the atheist away as it does for the believer." The only question then becomes, does the Atheist accept what Has been done for him?

Well that comes down to 5 questions:
Did he exist?
If there was no Adam and Eve and all that Jazz, where did original sin come from?
Why would he have to sacrifice himself if there was no original sin?
Was It really a Sacrifice if he came back to life? (Using this definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacrifice)
Was it a free gift to all regardless or gift with condition precedent?

[Drich]

Well that comes down to 5 questions:
Did he exist?

Yes

If there was no Adam and Eve and all that Jazz, where did original sin come from?

Begs the question. You have not established Adam and Eve did not exist.

Why would he have to sacrifice himself if there was no original sin?

Jesus Did not sacrifice Himself for Original sin. Christ sacrificed Himself for sin period. We all sin thus the need for a sin sacrifice.

Was It really a Sacrifice if he came back to life? (Using this definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacrifice)

Did you not read your own definition?
Or do you not understand them?

sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
n.
1.
a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.

b. A victim offered in this way.

2.
a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

b. Something so forfeited.

3.
a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.

b. Something so relinquished.

c. A loss so sustained.

What don't you understand about any of these definations?

Was it a free gift to all regardless or gift with condition precedent?

John 3:16 answers this question
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV
what do you think?

[Ryantology]

Begs the question. You have not established Adam and Eve did not exist.

If you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, then you are forced to accept the young earth creation assertion, because evolution denies the idea that a first man and woman were magicked into existence 6000 years ago. There is far too much evidence for anybody with a brain to believe in that, so, by extension, there's far too much evidence for anyone with a brain to think that Adam and Eve were real people. As it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Adam and Eve did not exist, the idea of Original Sin is thoroughly debunked.

[Minimalist]

Begs the question. You have not established Adam and Eve did not exist.

Kindly produce evidence that they did.

(p.s. your bullshit bible is not evidence)

[rexbeccarox]

I do not disagree with what Frankie said. "That the same blood washes the sins of the atheist away as it does for the believer." The only question then becomes, does the Atheist accept what Has been done for him?

What's been done for him?

[Drich]

Begs the question. You have not established Adam and Eve did not exist.

If you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, then you are forced to accept the young earth creation assertion, because evolution denies the idea that a first man and woman were magicked into existence 6000 years ago. There is far too much evidence for anybody with a brain to believe in that, so, by extension, there's far too much evidence for anyone with a brain to think that Adam and Eve were real people. As it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Adam and Eve did not exist, the idea of Original Sin is thoroughly debunked.

Again, why couldn't both have happened?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

---

Begs the question. You have not established Adam and Eve did not exist.

Kindly produce evidence that they did.

(p.s. your bullshit bible is not evidence)

Actually it is Minnie. Whether you like it or not whether you accept it or not it is indeed evidence. It may not be what you want to see or hear but there it is..

---

I do not disagree with what Frankie said. "That the same blood washes the sins of the atheist away as it does for the believer." The only question then becomes, does the Atheist accept what Has been done for him?

What's been done for him?

John 3:

14 “Moses lifted up the snake in the desert.[a] It is the same with the Son of Man. He must be lifted up too. 15 Then everyone who believes in him can have eternal life.”[b]

16 Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world. He did not send him to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him. 18 People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. But people who do not believe are already judged, because they have not believed in God’s only Son. 19 They are judged by this fact: The light[c] has come into the world. But they did not want light. They wanted darkness, because they were doing evil things. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light. They will not come to the light, because the light will show all the bad things they have done. 21 But anyone who follows the true way comes to the light. Then the light will show that whatever they have done was done through God.

[Ryantology]

Again, why couldn't both have happened?

Modern homo sapiens has been around for a hundred thousand years at the very least. There are human settlements dating back long before 6,000 years ago. So, no, both could not have happened.