Technically, all you need is baptism to be absolved of Original Sin. And since most Christians (even those who aren't regulars at church) baptize their children by default, you're already "saved" before you're a month old (depending on how your church handles baptism). And once you're absolved of Original Sin, all you need to do is accept Jesus in your heart as your savior and lord and you're set for salvation. Pretty much everything else is just ceremony/ritual.

That said, I'm not a practicing Christian, and haven't been one for about fifteen years, nor do I plan to go back.

Am I a sinner, though? Well, since I don't adhere to any organized religion, I really can't be, can I?

Leto, I think you fail to understand pretty much everything about the Christian faith. Per the New Testament, Christ is the only way into heaven. Good deeds or your perceived lack of sin won't get you there. You fall into the trap that so many Catholics do, that if you are a good person then you will be fine. That's not the way it works if you read the bible.

Stoffel, Catholics are the ones who wrote and (heavily) edited the Bible. I may not be a practicing Catholic, but I get very annoyed when Protestants go around saying the religion of my grandparents is wrong just because they read a few passages differently than the other side. Really, it comes down to Martin Luther being pissed at the Vatican because they were very powerful and pretty corrupt back in the day, so he said screw you to the Pope and made his own Church.

Leto II, if you have theological concerns, even if you've been disappointed before, you might still be better off seeking pastoral wisdom in church. The internet is an orgy of narcissism, a devil's chorus, a virtual space where peevish persons fall to quarrelling. But, for what it's worth, it might be helpful to think of original sin as a human predisposition rather than just the personal disobedience of Adam. Man can transgress in small ways every day in his heart as well as in deed. Most practising Christians are surely habitually and trivially selfish in a way that wouldn't cut them off from God's grace, as they see it. For most, sinlessness must be an aspiration rather than a continuing state. Self-deception may be the hardest sin to guard against. In Christianity, as I understand it, in simple terms, the meek overcome sin by receiving or accepting the gift of grace.

Sean, I've spent a significant amount of my free time studying the history of the bible. I'm quite aware of the role of the catholic church had in choosing and ordering the bible.

Protestant or Catholic makes no difference, both believe that you are not getting into heaven by good works alone. Faith, trust, and belief in Christ is what gets you into heaven, good works are a testament to such. I don't think there is a catholic around that believes a satanist living the life of mother theresa's good works is going to heaven just because he was a good person.

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church also says you have to believe, do all the (to me anyways) pointless rituals, and do good deeds. I admit I haven't studied the Bible from anything other than a historical context since I do not believe any of the religions.

It does say that, or is at least implied. Good deeds alone mean nothing though, they are seen as an integral(at least from what I've come to understand) part of salvation. Its pretty much either do everything, or don't bother.

Pretty much, but will try again tomorrow.

That said, if it comes to pass that there is a God and that Gandhi is in Hell because he did not believe Jesus was the son of God, then I would view the Christian God as a prick undeserving of the praise anyways.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways. To pretend to know what God's plan is and what will precisly happen to the soul upon death would be the sin of pride.

You do the best you can and continue to explore and test your faith every day.

This as far as I will go on an internet forum talking about religion.

To each their own. I was simply pointing out to the OP what the religious institution of their choosing believes. Knowing the history of the bible, I use it sparingly. My faith doesn't stem from a book, preacher, or church.

In the Catholic Faith, the sincere unbeliever has an avenue into Heaven as long as the unbeliever lives his life in ways that emulate the spirit of Catholicism and the teachings of Jesus. The key word is "sincere." To be sincere is to avoid all appearances and substance of contrariness or act against the Catholic Church or its members.

Thus, an atheist who sincerely denies the existence of God, yet otherwise treats his fellow man as would a true Catholic, may very well be received into Heaven. However, the atheist who persecutes Catholics, acts to constrain the freedom of Catholics (ex. the ongoing suit to remove a cross from Mt. Soledad in San Diego) or who claims to be an atheist, but then seeks conversion to Catholicism at the last minute by harboring a lifelong "just in case" intent, isn't a ready candidate for Heaven as a sincere unbeliever.

Let me say, however, that according to the Catholic Faith, the better and safest path is the path of a believer.

Are you a sinner?

Yes. But I'm working on it.

In the Catholic Faith, the sincere unbeliever has an avenue into Heaven as long as the unbeliever lives his life in ways that emulate the spirit of Catholicism and the teachings of Jesus.

Are you sure about that Civis?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I admit that a lot of what the Bible says is open to interpretation, but that statement seems clear to me. The example Sean951 gave (Gandhi) is the major problem that I have with Christianity, and most other formal religions. That is, only MY religion is correct and everyone else is dammed.

It is my opinion that the reason MOST people believe the way they do is that it was the religion of their parents / their peers / their local society. I know there are millions of exceptions to this statement, but for the vast majority, if believe that this is true.

[This message has been edited by VitruviusAIA (edited 02-23-2011 @ 01:12 PM).]

@VitruviusAIA:

I attended a Catholic university. As such, I was obligated to take a few courses in Catholicism as "electives." This issue came up in a class discussion. Admittedly from my more distant past, my recollection is the emphasis on sincerety and how one lives their lives. The critical measure is not the extent to which the individual adheres to the rituals of Catholicism, but the extent to which the individual lives the principles of Catholicism and how that person treats the Catholic Church. There is no room in "sincerety" for "playing the odds."

Jesus was among all things a great teacher. He spoke in highly subjective terms, with great skill in parables, metaphors and symbolism. The rituals of the Catholic Church are the inventions of man. Jesus never, never, never "said mass." He never conducted marriage ceremonies. He never "heard confession;" nor did he ever declare "meatless Fridays," Sunday being church day, or declare failure to adhere to ritual was either a venal or mortal sin, declare the Pope infallible, priests must be celebate, or state women could not be his disciples. In fact, Jesus kept women close to him throughout his ministry. These "theological laws" were instituted by men centuries after his death for reasons having nothing to do with the New Testament and more to do with the zealotry of Paul and his writings.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

What did He mean by that? The Catholic Church teaches that ordained priests are the intercession between human and Jesus and Jesus the intercession between all mankind and the Father. That's not what Jesus said in the quoted text. He said essentially, 'what I tell you is how I think we should live our lives and if we do so, we gain the portal to "cometh unto the Father."' He condemns the way of the peoples around him: The Romans and the Sadducees of the Jews in particular. Most theological scholars now think that Jesus was a Pharisee (reformers) who was outraged at the way the Sadducees were "perverting" the Jewish Faith in the way they conspired with Roman authority to control the Jews in Palestine and how they managed the Temple, "His Father's house."

It is my opinion that the reason MOST people believe the way they do is that it was the religion of their parents / their peers / their local society. I know there are millions of exceptions to this statement, but for the vast majority, if believe that this is true.

If not for a foundation in some form of morality, where is the young child going to turn to in order to make good moral/social decisions? Thus, parents instill in a child the first basis for understanding morality and learning a code. Afterwards, it is influenced extensively by a Faith's moral code and the culture in which the child lives, as taught generations of parents by that Faith or that culture. Your opinion is well based in believing morality is Faith, community or culturally based and communicated by parents. When it is not, the risk of the child behaving sociopathically is enhanced. Thus, parents who teach atheism to their children are at risk of raising children who have no sense of higher morals as opposed to parents who teach a Faith or agnosticism, or who live in a culture heavily influenced by a Faith.

The example Sean951 gave (Gandhi) is the major problem that I have with Christianity, and most other formal religions. That is, only MY religion is correct and everyone else is dammed.

The singularism of formal religions which includes Christianity, Islam and all other Faiths advocating sole legitimacy is the construct of man. I hope I don't violate some philosophical truth by saying I fall back onto Socratic logic and decry all such utterances coming from a man. If by utterance a man condems the moral code of another whose moral code is not deemed predatory upon humanity or seeking secular hegemony, and persecutes those thus condemned, then that man's condemnation is self-incriminatory. It is self-incriminatory because it neither respects nor adheres to the higher moral code it advocates for itself. Thus, it is hypocrisy and an all-knowing, infinitely powerful, good, benevolent, loving God would not reward hypocrisy, if that God existed. If that God does not exist, neither should the predatory Faith that clings to that God.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 02-23-2011 @ 02:18 PM).]

From Civis:

Thus, parents who teach atheism to their children are at risk of raising children who have no sense of higher morals as opposed to parents who teach a Faith or agnosticism, or who live in a culture heavily influenced by a Faith.

Are you saying then that parents who teach atheism to their children may have common moralistic value and know the consequences to their physical being but for all purpose don't sense or require a knowledge there are spiritual consequences for immorality? Do you, if I may ask, find that to be a healthy way to live your life? And if so where does the atheist's soul go to if anywhere. Are they a sinner because they have no belief for afterlife?

I will try to be brief. I am not a theologian. I am using logic for these responses.

Are you saying then that parents who teach atheism to their children may have common moralistic value and know the consequences to their physical being but for all purpose don't sense or require a knowledge there are spiritual consequences for immorality?

Parents who teach atheism or who discourage agnosticism or a specific Faith, teach by default their own unique moral values or the values of the community/culture in which they live. This doesn't necessarily mean the children become immoral, unless either the parents or the community's values are immoral. It means the children learn the values that influence their parent's or community's values, which may or may not be based on some adaptation of a theology. The risk is that a child not brought up with a finely structured set of moral values will behave more sociopathically than one which is brought up with structured morals.

Do you, if I may ask, find that to be a healthy way to live your life?

Since I don't live my life that way, I presume I'm healthy morally. Depending upon their community's moral values, I would think the risk of children leading an unhealthy moral life is greater when the environment fosters sociopathic behavior.

And if so where does the atheist's soul go to if anywhere. Are they a sinner because they have no belief for afterlife?

Where did all the Ancient Egyptians go who believed in an afterlife, but not one associated with the Hebrew God? Their Field of Reeds mystery was well known to them centuries before the arrival of the Hebrews. Did a merciless God condemn those Ancient Egyptians to hell for not believing? For not being baptized? For worshipping multiple gods in a temple? What about all of those priests of Ra, Isis and Ptah? Were they condemned as well? I hope you realize that the Hebrews did not believe in a spiritual heaven or hell, IIRC, yet they were self-proclaimed to be "God's Chosen People." Would an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, all-good God choose a single small race of humans over all others and descriminate accordingly? If so, why?

As for the soul, human spiritualism has repeatedly assigned something insubstantial to the essence of a person to symbolize that person when the person is no longer corporeal. It is called Ka in Ancient Egyptian, spirit elsewhere, and called a soul in Christianity. Because humanity is possessed of cognitive thinking, it is plagued with wonder at what happens to its dead. Because grief among the living is accentuated by proximity to death, the first priority of theology is to express continuity after death in order to relieve grief. The second priority is to explain what the human mind cannot grasp, hence "Adam and Eve" and similar theological stories in human cultures. The third priority is establishing social order which is first achieved through common unity of belief and then through secular control. It is this third priority which is easily perverted by the ambitious who selfishly seek personal power.

When you have the corpse of a human in front of you which is unmoving, how do you explain what has become of the person you once knew? Thus was created the undetectable spirit, another unfathomable mystery, which transcends the corporeal aspect of the human body. It has many names, the Christian name for it is "soul." I suspect, if you believe that only good Catholics go to heaven, then the souls of billions of Homo Sapiens, from Neanderthals, through Cro-Magnon, through every race ever evolved, has had no opportunity to be in heaven until the advent of Christianity. What is more, they never will if you don't accept the idea of life ratification. So where would a good, law abiding, morally sound atheist soul go when the atheist dies? I wouldn't really know, but logically speaking, that atheist will have a terrific time if an ancient history or prehistoric era buff.

Not to divert the thread conversation but is anyone watching the scifi series "V"? It has an alien race which shows no religious affiliation and its only purpose is the preservation and advancement of it's species. In man, it finds the human soul to be an obstacle and a threat to this purpose and therefore it is trying to understand its function, extracting it, and possibly using it to their advantage. It is interesting that they feel the soul or spirit of man is a physical driving force. Something to be broken before they can proceed.

Christianity, to me, seems to preach that the soul is the important part of man and not the physical body itself. And that even though the physical body will become ash, the soul remains and how we live our lives will determine where our soul will end up.

Quoted from Micah Aragorn:

It is interesting that they feel the soul or spirit of man is a physical driving force. Something to be broken before they can proceed.

Christianity, to me, seems to preach that the soul is the important part of man and not the physical body itself. And that even though the physical body will become ash, the soul remains and how we live our lives will determine where our soul will end up.

"V" is science fiction. SciFi creates its own world whether feasible or not.

Christianity preaches the soul because it is intangible and sustainable however it wants to sustain it in an air of mystery. The unknown or unknowable is the strongest ally theology can have. That's why it fights against science so vigorously. This isn't unique to Christianity. Control is exercised by ensuring it is, in fact, indeterminable "where our soul will end up."

The greatest shock to ever strike humankind and theology will be the discovery on another planet, or the arrival on our planet, of a cognitive species either not like us or very, very similar in origin to us. Whereupon, the entire human theological house of cards will collapse. The fundies of all kinds will go berserk in whirlwind of confusion or denial. We will suddenly realize we are not alone in the universe and ours is not the only intelligent species inhabiting a planet. The more the alien species is not like us, the more we will call into question the Adam and Eve story. The response? Well, only humans have souls. Why is that? Because I (the priest) said that God said so. Hopefully, like Smothers Bros. humor, God doesn't like the other species more because it is more in His image. I mean, if they said so, how could we know?

I hope so.

The concept of sin disgusts me.

The greatest shock to ever strike humankind and theology will be the discovery on another planet, or the arrival on our planet, of a cognitive species either not like us or very, very similar in origin to us. Whereupon, the entire human theological house of cards will collapse. The fundies of all kinds will go berserk in whirlwind of confusion or denial. We will suddenly realize we are not alone in the universe and ours is not the only intelligent species inhabiting a planet. The more the alien species is not like us, the more we will call into question the Adam and Eve story.

I think finding life period on another planet will do that, regardless if it's complex or just simple bacteria/amoeba-like lifeforms. Said life being intelligent in a way that we recognize intelligence would just be icing on the cake.

Civis,

Thank you for your response. It was well constructed and much appreciated.

Sin is laughed at where I come from, most people don't believe in God.

Sometimes a sin can go many years suppressed in your mind and conscious. You may not feel guilt or remorse for the things you have done and believe you had the right or freedom to do those things. But then you must compare yourself to a set of moral guidelines. Christianity has a well developed code of conduct, and it is hard not to have breached some or many of those benchmarks. It also depends on your ability to see yourself from the third person view or birds eye view. For example you may have needed some money during your younger days and took some without asking be it from loose change at the back of the sofa, or mom's dressing table. At the time you thought it is insignificant say 20 cents. But what you did was steal. You could have stolen an apple overhanging into your yard from a neighbours tree or a flower from a private property near the footpath. All insignificant things but all fall back to the bottom line of stealing. So when you ask the question "Am I a sinner" the question is preceded by a simple ability to see what you have done wrong. That in itself is a skill that takes time to develop. A critical self analysis of ones behaviour and its moral impact, is what determining sins is all about.

On the issue of John 14:6. Jesus was saying to his disciples that he was one and the same as God. That those that saw and came to Jesus also came and saw the Father. He was not saying follow me or else. He was answering the question "How will we know the way (to the Father)?" So for the disciples the way was to first believe in the Christ because without their faith, what was destined to happen would not have happened. They doubted him even after telling them this...
14.8. Philip *said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

And yet he just finished telling them he was the Father in that the Father was in him and the Son was part of the Father.

On the issue of foreign life. Civis you make an invalid point. The Bible was clearly written for humanity. There is no reason to think another intelligent life form shouldn't have it's own codex or bible. The only thing that could shake faith is if there was an identical bible. Only where it says "man was created in their image" to us implied Humans and to them it implied Reptilians.

As a side note on the Nicene Creed there is one particular thing I would like to mention. I will do so by a pragmatic example. Imagine a glass of water. This water will represent God. Imagine now an empty glass and we pour the water into it slowly. In the original cup there is God, as the cup flows it creates a steady stream. This stream represents the Holy Spirit. Now the cup receiving the water represents Jesus. The water is all the same thing, God. But it has parts to it. It has a stream (Holy Spirit) and a receptor (Jesus). Was Jesus and the Holy spirit around at the same time as God? Yes! But did the holy spirit proceed from the Father and Jesus? No. God (the original cup) gave rise to the different parts or forms. This is why it is important sometimes to question your affirmation of faith and believe what is correct.

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

Any time, VitruviusAIA. You posed a very good question.

I think finding life period on another planet will do that, regardless if it's complex or just simple bacteria/amoeba-like lifeforms.

Are you so sure? The fundies have an answer to that and it's called spiritualism, which is that "Great Mystery" thing again upon which they depend so much. Ask a fundie why Neanderthal Man did not go to heaven, and he will tell you Neanderthal Man was not Adam or Eve nor created in God's image. When you counter with the fact DNA of Neanderthal Man exists in modern humans, and that he is considered by science to be a branch of Homo Sapiens, the fundie will counter with his version of the Nuclear Bomb. He will tell you Neanderthal Man did not have a "soul." Thus, under pressure, the fundie retreats to the "Great Mystery" for protection. These are not minds seeking truths, but seeking ways to defend their theological houses of cards.

If life is found on another planet, the fundie defense will be anchored somehow in the "Great Mystery."

Amoeba is not human.
Strange beasts are not human.
That intelligent crystalline creature is not made in God's image because my book, written and interpreted by humans, says man was created in His image.

And the ultimate condemnation: "That closely human-like intelligent creature we discovered living similarly to us in cities on Planet X doesn't have a soul, and therefore, only humans are God's chosen people because we do. My priest says so. Besides," thinks the fundie, "if I were to question the Bible or the Koran, what would my life mean. I cannot with my rigid mind, contemplate I could be wrong about what God really means. God said it, man wrote it in the Book, and that's that."

Thus would begin the war over who was God's chosen and fought in the Name of God. Is that what God would want? Nope, just those who fear loss of societal rank, economic security, or temporal power.

@hellespont:
Speaking of sinners... Couldn't you have waited out your one-week ban, ephestion, which would have ended on 26 February 2011, before trying to post again? As it is, you just committed a mortal sin against the Code of Conduct by using a smurf to post in place of an actively banned account. Now you cannot post using either account, and join the ranks of Wu and Co. for a full month.

To other Forumers: Please, please, please, if you are banned for any reason, do not try to post with a smurf account. It will only lead to something far worse than a temporary ban.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 02-24-2011 @ 02:10 PM).]

I wasn't raised atheist per se, but I was never raised with a specific religion guiding my morals. My parents just taught me to not be a jerk and then my own guidance brought me to where I am today. I give blood fairly often as I am type O- (I've hit 9 units this last fall), I donate money to the Salvation Army because I believe their cause is just, and I volunteer occasionally, most recently with Habitat for Humanity. I just don't like to see others who are down on their luck get swept under the rug and forgotten.