It will depend on your parish. Catholicism is not a monolith. But the Catechism is clear :
[2125] Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."
Atheism is taught to be very serious, but the circumstances have to be taken into account. People reject the Church because the believers fail in their mission, either because they wrongly teach or because of their actions which contradict the teaching. In this case, the imputability of the sin of atheism is diminished, so it's not anymore a cardinal sin. God only can make the difference.
I'm no Catholic myself, but their teaching is clear. That members of the Church believe differently, especially in America where Evangelicalism seems to have win the religious cultural war is not surprising, but the teaching stays.
Edit : I may be wrong, as always, but show me one Catholic official text that says that atheists go directly to hell, without the same kind of limitation as the Catechism. I think I'll wait a long time.
But that doesn't negate what you experienced as a child. It's just that these people were not in accordance to the actual objective Catholic teaching, just like JD Vance. Religion in America is sick, and evangelicalism is the cause.
Evangelicalism is a religion of hate, evidence #8376383.
I pray that you'll find Jesus one day. Then you'll understand that he hates no one. In the meantime… bye, you're blocked. I can't do anything more for you.
I'm not American. I know no denomination outside evangelicalism which teach that. And in France, even evangelicals does not teach that for a large part. Catholicism does not. Mainline Protestantism does not. I don't know well Eastern Orthodoxy, but as far as I know, they do not either.
Yeah, that's what cults do. I'm very sorry, and happy for you you found a way out. It's better to be an atheist than jailed in a cult, and I know God will understand.
Wrong. But I had this discussion with evangelicals 1000 hundred times it's not interesting anymore. I'll begin by citing theologians like Aquinas (13^th^ century), you'll answer saying “meh don't care it's not in the Bible” or, if you studied theology (but you probably didn't), citing the one big exception, Augustine (which still wrote that God's mysterious grace could be greater than what he himself thought). But with that I will have proved that no, it's not a recent evolution of Christian theology, but something the churches hold still the beginning, with exceptions.
Then I'll cite Romans 2:12-16, Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 25:31-46 or Acts 10:34-35, and you'll do mental gymnastics that will grant you a place in the coming Olympics to reconcile this with the idea that only Christians are saved, using texts like John 3:18. And I'll say, yes, the Bible contradicts itself on this subject like on most others, but my position is better established and coherent with the global message of the Bible, the church history, and the reason, while yours is not. And you'll be shocked : “what? You don't believe in biblical inerrancy? You're not a Christian!” and I'll answer “okay, bro”, like I do with disrespectful people on the net.
And we will both have lost a lot of time, and you will have push more people to hate Christ while you will feel oh so righteous.
Unitarianism is a good spiritual path, but it is not my tradition. I believe there is more than one valid way to pursue spiritual growth, and Unitarianism is one of them. At the same time, I believe that a person needs to commit to a particular path in order to explore it deeply. My path is Trinitarian Christianity, but that does not mean I reject or dismiss other traditions.
Purgatory is a step that leads to heaven, not a final destination. It's a step that a lot of Catholics will have to take too, according to the catholic church so it's not something that separates believers and non-believers.
Baptism and Pentecostalism are categories of evangelicalism. So yeah, they believe that. But they're a minority within Christianity.
Jesus' sacrifice saving humanity from eternal damnation is a key tenet of nearly all denominations.
Yes.
And most of them also say that you need to actually accept it and turn your life over to him to qualify for the get out of Hell free card.
It always impresses me how Christianity = evangelicalism in the mind of most Lemmynauts. Outside evangelicalism (and even partly within evangelicalism), going to hell or heaven has nothing to do with being theologically correct or not. I mean, even the Catholic church, which is both by far the biggest one and absolutely not one of the most open ones states with an absolute clarity that non-Christians can go to heaven too.
I love to exchange and discuss with people with different opinions, as long as it's respectful! I live in a very secular country, most of my friends are atheists, and we have long and very interesting discussions.
Regarding biblical inconsistencies, we believe that the Bible is not identical to the Word of God; rather, the Word of God is found within the Bible. This may sound like wordplay, but the distinction is fundamental. If the Bible were literally the Word of God, then every word and every comma would have to be absolute truth, because God cannot lie. This is the position held by many evangelical churches.
We, however, believe that God speaks to us through the Bible. God spoke to men and women, and those people wrote down what they understood. Their texts express the Word of God within the cultural frameworks of their own times and societies. There is no other way it could be: as finite human beings, we cannot directly comprehend the infinite with our limited minds. It is simply impossible. As a result, authors from different periods and backgrounds sometimes expressed different ideas.
For example, Genesis contains two creation accounts, in chapters 1 and 2. People in antiquity were aware of these differences, yet they preserved both accounts because they understood that the truth was not necessarily found in one account or the other, but in the dialogue between them. The Bible is full of apparent contradictions because it is a dialogue between a plural humanity and God, rather than a monologue spoken by God in a single, uniform voice.
Our task today is to read these texts through a particular interpretive key—a metaphor associated with Luther. In Christ, God gave us life out of love for humanity. Therefore, when reading any biblical passage, we should ask ourselves: Could a loving God—one who gave us life out of love—say this? If the answer is yes, then the passage represents a legitimate, though not necessarily infallible, interpretation. If the answer is no, then it is not a legitimate interpretation and should be rejected.
To distinguish between different legitimate interpretations, we use the tools of science, especially history, linguistics, and philosophy. History helps us better understand the cultures and circumstances of the biblical authors. Linguistics helps us translate the original Hebrew and Greek texts more accurately. These original languages have authority; the King James Version, by contrast, is only one translation among many—and it is an English translation, a language that is not central to our approach. Philosophy helps us ensure that the theology emerging from our interpretation is internally coherent.
Religion is not about accepting a simple, complete truth without questioning it or examining it through reason. That is closer to a cult. Religion is a series of questions that people investigate together using shared intellectual tools. Religion is not the enemy of critical thought; rather, critical thought is necessary for religion to function properly.
A warning about the site you used though: we Protestants lack a central authority which could differentiate acceptable and unacceptable theologies, unlike the Catholic church with the Papacy. Every Protestant must find its own way. So we are veeeeeeery divided, it's a complicated mess. “Reformed” for example means something different in the Anglo-Saxon world and in the old continent. My tradition is more like what is called “Presbyterianism” in America. At least I think so, I'm not a specialist of American Christianity. If I was American, I would probably be a member of the United Church of Christ but others seem cool too, like the Presbyterian Church or the Lutheran Church. But I wouldn't be a member of the United Reformed Churches in North America which published the site you cited.
I don't think most people get it wrong. In fact you're the first one I meet, both IRL and on the Internet, who thinks that Islamist = Muslim. But it may be because English is not my mother tongue, maybe it's clearer in French than in English. If it's the case, I'm sorry for my mistake (I added a precision to correct it).
And colloquially, the difference is even greater, at least in French, my mother tongue. Two of my best friends are a Muslim couple, they are the most regular players of my DnD table. Some times we stop our games for them to pray. They are devout Muslims, but not islamists.
But muh renewables!
Hi! I just saw a podcast about the art of letter writing, can I share it here, even if it's not strictly following the 5^th^ rule?
Hey, je n'avais pas vu qu'il y avait une communauté en français !
Superbe machine, et superbe travail ! Je n'ai jamais réparé de machine électrique.
I hope that the guy on the left doesn't think that eating pussies is a lesbian thing, or I pity his girlfriend (if he's straight, of course).
Yuve yuve yu!
It will depend on your parish. Catholicism is not a monolith. But the Catechism is clear :
Atheism is taught to be very serious, but the circumstances have to be taken into account. People reject the Church because the believers fail in their mission, either because they wrongly teach or because of their actions which contradict the teaching. In this case, the imputability of the sin of atheism is diminished, so it's not anymore a cardinal sin. God only can make the difference.
I'm no Catholic myself, but their teaching is clear. That members of the Church believe differently, especially in America where Evangelicalism seems to have win the religious cultural war is not surprising, but the teaching stays.
Edit : I may be wrong, as always, but show me one Catholic official text that says that atheists go directly to hell, without the same kind of limitation as the Catechism. I think I'll wait a long time.
But that doesn't negate what you experienced as a child. It's just that these people were not in accordance to the actual objective Catholic teaching, just like JD Vance. Religion in America is sick, and evangelicalism is the cause.
Evangelicalism is a religion of hate, evidence #8376383.
I pray that you'll find Jesus one day. Then you'll understand that he hates no one. In the meantime… bye, you're blocked. I can't do anything more for you.
Okay, bro.
I used LaTeX to typeset it, so it's okay.
I'm not American. I know no denomination outside evangelicalism which teach that. And in France, even evangelicals does not teach that for a large part. Catholicism does not. Mainline Protestantism does not. I don't know well Eastern Orthodoxy, but as far as I know, they do not either.
Yeah, that's what cults do. I'm very sorry, and happy for you you found a way out. It's better to be an atheist than jailed in a cult, and I know God will understand.
Wrong. But I had this discussion with evangelicals 1000 hundred times it's not interesting anymore. I'll begin by citing theologians like Aquinas (13^th^ century), you'll answer saying “meh don't care it's not in the Bible” or, if you studied theology (but you probably didn't), citing the one big exception, Augustine (which still wrote that God's mysterious grace could be greater than what he himself thought). But with that I will have proved that no, it's not a recent evolution of Christian theology, but something the churches hold still the beginning, with exceptions.
Then I'll cite Romans 2:12-16, Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 25:31-46 or Acts 10:34-35, and you'll do mental gymnastics that will grant you a place in the coming Olympics to reconcile this with the idea that only Christians are saved, using texts like John 3:18. And I'll say, yes, the Bible contradicts itself on this subject like on most others, but my position is better established and coherent with the global message of the Bible, the church history, and the reason, while yours is not. And you'll be shocked : “what? You don't believe in biblical inerrancy? You're not a Christian!” and I'll answer “okay, bro”, like I do with disrespectful people on the net.
And we will both have lost a lot of time, and you will have push more people to hate Christ while you will feel oh so righteous.
Unitarianism is a good spiritual path, but it is not my tradition. I believe there is more than one valid way to pursue spiritual growth, and Unitarianism is one of them. At the same time, I believe that a person needs to commit to a particular path in order to explore it deeply. My path is Trinitarian Christianity, but that does not mean I reject or dismiss other traditions.
Purgatory is a step that leads to heaven, not a final destination. It's a step that a lot of Catholics will have to take too, according to the catholic church so it's not something that separates believers and non-believers.
Baptism and Pentecostalism are categories of evangelicalism. So yeah, they believe that. But they're a minority within Christianity.
Yes.
No. Only in evangelicalism.
It always impresses me how Christianity = evangelicalism in the mind of most Lemmynauts. Outside evangelicalism (and even partly within evangelicalism), going to hell or heaven has nothing to do with being theologically correct or not. I mean, even the Catholic church, which is both by far the biggest one and absolutely not one of the most open ones states with an absolute clarity that non-Christians can go to heaven too.
I love to exchange and discuss with people with different opinions, as long as it's respectful! I live in a very secular country, most of my friends are atheists, and we have long and very interesting discussions.
Regarding biblical inconsistencies, we believe that the Bible is not identical to the Word of God; rather, the Word of God is found within the Bible. This may sound like wordplay, but the distinction is fundamental. If the Bible were literally the Word of God, then every word and every comma would have to be absolute truth, because God cannot lie. This is the position held by many evangelical churches.
We, however, believe that God speaks to us through the Bible. God spoke to men and women, and those people wrote down what they understood. Their texts express the Word of God within the cultural frameworks of their own times and societies. There is no other way it could be: as finite human beings, we cannot directly comprehend the infinite with our limited minds. It is simply impossible. As a result, authors from different periods and backgrounds sometimes expressed different ideas.
For example, Genesis contains two creation accounts, in chapters 1 and 2. People in antiquity were aware of these differences, yet they preserved both accounts because they understood that the truth was not necessarily found in one account or the other, but in the dialogue between them. The Bible is full of apparent contradictions because it is a dialogue between a plural humanity and God, rather than a monologue spoken by God in a single, uniform voice.
Our task today is to read these texts through a particular interpretive key—a metaphor associated with Luther. In Christ, God gave us life out of love for humanity. Therefore, when reading any biblical passage, we should ask ourselves: Could a loving God—one who gave us life out of love—say this? If the answer is yes, then the passage represents a legitimate, though not necessarily infallible, interpretation. If the answer is no, then it is not a legitimate interpretation and should be rejected.
To distinguish between different legitimate interpretations, we use the tools of science, especially history, linguistics, and philosophy. History helps us better understand the cultures and circumstances of the biblical authors. Linguistics helps us translate the original Hebrew and Greek texts more accurately. These original languages have authority; the King James Version, by contrast, is only one translation among many—and it is an English translation, a language that is not central to our approach. Philosophy helps us ensure that the theology emerging from our interpretation is internally coherent.
Religion is not about accepting a simple, complete truth without questioning it or examining it through reason. That is closer to a cult. Religion is a series of questions that people investigate together using shared intellectual tools. Religion is not the enemy of critical thought; rather, critical thought is necessary for religion to function properly.
A warning about the site you used though: we Protestants lack a central authority which could differentiate acceptable and unacceptable theologies, unlike the Catholic church with the Papacy. Every Protestant must find its own way. So we are veeeeeeery divided, it's a complicated mess. “Reformed” for example means something different in the Anglo-Saxon world and in the old continent. My tradition is more like what is called “Presbyterianism” in America. At least I think so, I'm not a specialist of American Christianity. If I was American, I would probably be a member of the United Church of Christ but others seem cool too, like the Presbyterian Church or the Lutheran Church. But I wouldn't be a member of the United Reformed Churches in North America which published the site you cited.
Mainline Protestant (in a united Reformed-Lutheran church).
I don't think most people get it wrong. In fact you're the first one I meet, both IRL and on the Internet, who thinks that Islamist = Muslim. But it may be because English is not my mother tongue, maybe it's clearer in French than in English. If it's the case, I'm sorry for my mistake (I added a precision to correct it).
Islamist ≠ Muslim. Here a link which explains the difference.
And colloquially, the difference is even greater, at least in French, my mother tongue. Two of my best friends are a Muslim couple, they are the most regular players of my DnD table. Some times we stop our games for them to pray. They are devout Muslims, but not islamists.
Thank you! I'm so relieved.