The central problem is not IMO that the priest can go to heaven it is the contrast to the boy who goes to hell. I recognize that many Christians believe in an age of accountability, but I don't think the problem becomes significantly less troubling if we stipulate the boy only commits suicide at say 20. Now obviously this is still not a valid critique of every branch of Christianity, it would certainly not work against universalist, but the beleif that every adult who reject Jesus goes to hell is certainly not a marginal or fringe belief in American Christianity (assuming it’s an American meme).
I have a cousin who took his own life. He was 28. I don’t know exactly what he was struggling with, but, he was a kind and caring young man. And a strong believer. No truely good God would turn his back him, and I don’t believe that’s what happened. Rip Sonny Age 🙏🪽🌤️🤍
Theology aside, suicide is an act that one commits on oneself. Like homicide, fratricide, or even genocide, it is a transitive verb requiring an action and the object of the action. If one can die by suicide, an entire race can die by genocide, thus relieving the ones committing the action of responsibility for the action. I am not trying to be condemnatory, but just posing a linguistic argument because, to a large extent, philosophy depends on the precise use of language, or so my logical positivist professor told me nearly 60 years ago.
The meme still makes its point even if it said, "The priest asked Jesus for forgiveness. The priest wen to heaven". The meme isn't making a point that anyone can still go to Heaven regardless of their crimes (if they jump through all the correct hoops); it's making a point that the child didn't go to Heaven (because he didn't jump through the correct hoops).
This highlights that people can lose their salvation by no fault of their own, which is key to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. Christians who don’t want to consider that possibility will often insist that, even if it’s blind, faith is a virtuous, conscious choice that should be maintained at all costs. That means nonresistant nonbelievers don’t exist. I’m sure Dr. Rauser would disagree, but I’d be interested to see how.
I mean, that’s what the traditional theology says, yeah. That’s what most Christians I’ve talked to say they believe. At the very least, I’m not straw manning all the Christians I talk to? Christians rant about how nonbelievers just don’t want to be held accountable, but the theology says nonbelievers are the only ones ultimately held accountable for their actions. It’s a bizarre contradiction.
The meme is an attack on Evangelicalism rather than Christianity. With Catholicism or Orthodoxy works can be relevant to salvation. With Calvinism and Evangelicalism there is no judgment of conduct as there is in for instance Islam
Isn't it the case under Catholicism that you need both works and belief? Someone who rejects God still goes to hell even if they otherwise lead a good life under Catholicism. BTW, you have highlighted my idea that "Evangelicalism" is a misnomer. That we live in a world ruled by such a petty, vicious god as "Evangelicals" claim is definitively BAD NEWS. They should be called "disangelicals". Either way, I do not see anyone giving a view that orthodox (small "g") Christianity does not hold that the tormented boy would go to hell. The meme stands.
How about this as an option: Upon the death of the boy and the priest who brutalized him, their souls met and jointly administered to each other in an effort to heal the pain that resided within each of them until they were reconciled and able to move on in their spiritual progression. Sounds like something God would do to me...
God's grace and mercy is available to all. Many people who do heinous things are mentally ill. They may still suffer consequences for their actions, but they may lack the capacity to fully understand what they have done. There was once a child who was brutalized, starved and tormented by his parents and was discovered and rescued near death. There was great public outcry and sympathy for the child. At the age of 16, he committed a murder. There was little sympathy for him, and he was charged as an adult. Given his history, at what point was the switch flipped that turned him from a sympathetic, tortured child into a fully formed human adult worthy of punishment as an adult? I think that when Jesus said judge not, he was talking about not judging the condition of someone else's soul or standing in the sight of God.
It's this type of thing that leads me to believe that universalism in some form is the only possible just system. There are simply too many random factors in early life -- especially given that around 99% of people who die as Christians were raised in a Christian family and/or community -- for any other system to be remotely equitable.
This was a great response (especially the parody meme). But I don’t think the meme was intended as a critique of Christianity simpliciter, but Roman Catholicism in particular, where suicide is considered a mortal sin (barring any factors that take away culpability). This is clear from the reference to altar boys and priests, which, while not exclusive to Catholicism, are most commonly associated with it. Although, even then it is not a fair representation, as you have shown. I’m also curious why you dismiss the idea that suicide is sinful. That appears to me to be the consensus opinion within Church history. Granted, there are many psychological factors that often go into the decision to kill oneself that the individual is not culpable for, but it’s at least conceivable that someone might kill themself in a way that bears some culpability (take Hitler killing himself to avoid justice for his actions). I suppose this gets into the question of how much our psychology predetermines our actions and mitigates culpability. To what degree do we have control over our psychological predilections, and are we culpable for actions that arise from them?
I find a lot of internet atheist evangelism is aimed at certain flavors of Calvinism like this for some reason. Probably because it is the main source of "reactionary" or "conservative" non-apostolic Christianity in the west? And because it is so noxious and hard headed?
The key point, which you finally fess up to after a lot of tedious nitpicking, is that traditional Christian doctrine will put some people who did bad things in Heaven, and some people who did good things in Hell. This offends the moral sensibilities of a lot of people and makes them question the whole system. This leads some people to adopt annihilationism instead of Hell, or to argue that Jesus can save even people who disbelieve in Him, etc., in order to soft-pedal the harsher aspects of the doctrine. Others happily double-down on the traditional doctrine without too much worry, content that their in-group is “saved” despite all their sins, while feeling superior to the “damned” out-group. It’s a mess.
Atheism isn’t claimed to be a system of perfect justice, or a source of personal meaning, so your counter meme falls flat. It’s like claiming that stamp collectors must starve to death because no one can survive on a diet of stamps alone.
Well I do think the central philosophical issue of this still revolves around the issue of Christian salvation, which I gather - not intending to strawman - requires an act of will to accept. If not, and Universalism is the rule, then one might well argue priests serve little to no purpose. Otherwise, it does raise the distasteful theoretical possibility of a victim abused by their supposed guide to salvation rejecting it on that basis, being damned as a result, and the abuser later getting off spiritually scot-free (The "regret" / "true repentance" argument is clutching at straws - the essential point still stands). Then again one could well argue that there would be no issue but for the determination to keep the doctrine of eternal damnation for finite crimes - sure one of the most appalling philosophical flourishes of humanity - alive and kicking.
Your example of the thief on the cross is hardly a model for the kind of profound, anguished, long-suffering, and transformative repentance you imply Jesus requires. It looks a lot more like the kind of useless deathbed conversion that nonbelievers mock - of no value to those sinned against, and with no possibility of future good deeds in the real world. From a real-world utilitarian standpoint, we can try to justify holding open the possibility of a Heavenly reward for repentance, particularly with a half-veiled threat not to wait to long, but it has to be weighed against the uselessness of actual deathbed conversions.
5:37 Change "now in heaven" to "now in purgatory."
The central problem is not IMO that the priest can go to heaven it is the contrast to the boy who goes to hell. I recognize that many Christians believe in an age of accountability, but I don't think the problem becomes significantly less troubling if we stipulate the boy only commits suicide at say 20. Now obviously this is still not a valid critique of every branch of Christianity, it would certainly not work against universalist, but the beleif that every adult who reject Jesus goes to hell is certainly not a marginal or fringe belief in American Christianity (assuming it’s an American meme).
Exactly and Randall doesn't address that. This video fails. The meme is still valid
I have a cousin who took his own life. He was 28. I don’t know exactly what he was struggling with, but, he was a kind and caring young man. And a strong believer. No truely good God would turn his back him, and I don’t believe that’s what happened. Rip Sonny Age 🙏🪽🌤️🤍
This is why I totally rejected ALL denominations many years ago. I detest bibliolators and I detest dogma.
Theology aside, suicide is an act that one commits on oneself. Like homicide, fratricide, or even genocide, it is a transitive verb requiring an action and the object of the action. If one can die by suicide, an entire race can die by genocide, thus relieving the ones committing the action of responsibility for the action. I am not trying to be condemnatory, but just posing a linguistic argument because, to a large extent, philosophy depends on the precise use of language, or so my logical positivist professor told me nearly 60 years ago.
The meme still makes its point even if it said, "The priest asked Jesus for forgiveness. The priest wen to heaven". The meme isn't making a point that anyone can still go to Heaven regardless of their crimes (if they jump through all the correct hoops); it's making a point that the child didn't go to Heaven (because he didn't jump through the correct hoops).
This highlights that people can lose their salvation by no fault of their own, which is key to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. Christians who don’t want to consider that possibility will often insist that, even if it’s blind, faith is a virtuous, conscious choice that should be maintained at all costs. That means nonresistant nonbelievers don’t exist. I’m sure Dr. Rauser would disagree, but I’d be interested to see how.
I mean, that’s what the traditional theology says, yeah. That’s what most Christians I’ve talked to say they believe. At the very least, I’m not straw manning all the Christians I talk to?
Christians rant about how nonbelievers just don’t want to be held accountable, but the theology says nonbelievers are the only ones ultimately held accountable for their actions. It’s a bizarre contradiction.
The meme is an attack on Evangelicalism rather than Christianity. With Catholicism or Orthodoxy works can be relevant to salvation. With Calvinism and Evangelicalism there is no judgment of conduct as there is in for instance Islam
Isn't it the case under Catholicism that you need both works and belief? Someone who rejects God still goes to hell even if they otherwise lead a good life under Catholicism. BTW, you have highlighted my idea that "Evangelicalism" is a misnomer. That we live in a world ruled by such a petty, vicious god as "Evangelicals" claim is definitively BAD NEWS. They should be called "disangelicals". Either way, I do not see anyone giving a view that orthodox (small "g") Christianity does not hold that the tormented boy would go to hell. The meme stands.
3:00 So where does one go for current official Catholic doctrine? Meant as a sincere question.
The Catechism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Suicide is specifically referenced and has its own section.
“Outdated language” implies an evolution of morals. The theology concerning an “unchanging god” shouldn’t evolve.
How about this as an option: Upon the death of the boy and the priest who brutalized him, their souls met and jointly administered to each other in an effort to heal the pain that resided within each of them until they were reconciled and able to move on in their spiritual progression. Sounds like something God would do to me...
The title speaks to some grave moral and theological problems apologists face. Most do not handle them well.
God's grace and mercy is available to all. Many people who do heinous things are mentally ill. They may still suffer consequences for their actions, but they may lack the capacity to fully understand what they have done. There was once a child who was brutalized, starved and tormented by his parents and was discovered and rescued near death. There was great public outcry and sympathy for the child. At the age of 16, he committed a murder. There was little sympathy for him, and he was charged as an adult. Given his history, at what point was the switch flipped that turned him from a sympathetic, tortured child into a fully formed human adult worthy of punishment as an adult? I think that when Jesus said judge not, he was talking about not judging the condition of someone else's soul or standing in the sight of God.
It's this type of thing that leads me to believe that universalism in some form is the only possible just system. There are simply too many random factors in early life -- especially given that around 99% of people who die as Christians were raised in a Christian family and/or community -- for any other system to be remotely equitable.
This was a great response (especially the parody meme). But I don’t think the meme was intended as a critique of Christianity simpliciter, but Roman Catholicism in particular, where suicide is considered a mortal sin (barring any factors that take away culpability). This is clear from the reference to altar boys and priests, which, while not exclusive to Catholicism, are most commonly associated with it. Although, even then it is not a fair representation, as you have shown.
I’m also curious why you dismiss the idea that suicide is sinful. That appears to me to be the consensus opinion within Church history. Granted, there are many psychological factors that often go into the decision to kill oneself that the individual is not culpable for, but it’s at least conceivable that someone might kill themself in a way that bears some culpability (take Hitler killing himself to avoid justice for his actions). I suppose this gets into the question of how much our psychology predetermines our actions and mitigates culpability. To what degree do we have control over our psychological predilections, and are we culpable for actions that arise from them?
ALL are forgiven, even Dalmer, Hitler and Satan.
Yet many prefer a system where billions of normal human beings burn alongside them in Hell. It's perverse.
Actually nobody has any idea what they want to do in an afterlife for eternity removed from their time and place and history.
I find a lot of internet atheist evangelism is aimed at certain flavors of Calvinism like this for some reason. Probably because it is the main source of "reactionary" or "conservative" non-apostolic Christianity in the west? And because it is so noxious and hard headed?
The key point, which you finally fess up to after a lot of tedious nitpicking, is that traditional Christian doctrine will put some people who did bad things in Heaven, and some people who did good things in Hell. This offends the moral sensibilities of a lot of people and makes them question the whole system. This leads some people to adopt annihilationism instead of Hell, or to argue that Jesus can save even people who disbelieve in Him, etc., in order to soft-pedal the harsher aspects of the doctrine. Others happily double-down on the traditional doctrine without too much worry, content that their in-group is “saved” despite all their sins, while feeling superior to the “damned” out-group. It’s a mess.
Atheism isn’t claimed to be a system of perfect justice, or a source of personal meaning, so your counter meme falls flat. It’s like claiming that stamp collectors must starve to death because no one can survive on a diet of stamps alone.
Well I do think the central philosophical issue of this still revolves around the issue of Christian salvation, which I gather - not intending to strawman - requires an act of will to accept. If not, and Universalism is the rule, then one might well argue priests serve little to no purpose. Otherwise, it does raise the distasteful theoretical possibility of a victim abused by their supposed guide to salvation rejecting it on that basis, being damned as a result, and the abuser later getting off spiritually scot-free (The "regret" / "true repentance" argument is clutching at straws - the essential point still stands). Then again one could well argue that there would be no issue but for the determination to keep the doctrine of eternal damnation for finite crimes - sure one of the most appalling philosophical flourishes of humanity - alive and kicking.
Your example of the thief on the cross is hardly a model for the kind of profound, anguished, long-suffering, and transformative repentance you imply Jesus requires. It looks a lot more like the kind of useless deathbed conversion that nonbelievers mock - of no value to those sinned against, and with no possibility of future good deeds in the real world.
From a real-world utilitarian standpoint, we can try to justify holding open the possibility of a Heavenly reward for repentance, particularly with a half-veiled threat not to wait to long, but it has to be weighed against the uselessness of actual deathbed conversions.
Hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the priest has repented, why does he go to Heaven, to the EVIL god that he worshipped? He was a WORSHIPPER OF EVIL.
Why believe any of this silliness in the first place?