Pope woos Atheists, do not fall for it

20130525-190943.jpg

My comrades, my fellow anti theists, atheists and contrarians, if you really think this is an olive branch to us with the pope saying:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, 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. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a 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. And He does good, always.” Vatican Radio

Then we need to talk about original sin.

Christ died for the original sin of Adam. That covers all of us, whether we believe it or not. Without that sacrifice we would all be unworthy of redemption. Nothing we could do on earth would recover us from this sin we ourselves did not commit, but was imprinted on us by what took place before the human race begat with a vengeance. Yes the pope said, atheists could do good. However the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ is what redeems us in the end.

As the Vatican explains:

IN BRIEF

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1).

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each'” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20).

421 Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . .” (GS 2 § 2).

The redemption that spreads much further than loaves and fishes ever could in the economy of salvation.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

This is no new revelation. You have this imprinted on you, transmitted by descent. It was a problem for humanity for hundreds of thousands of years till a sacrificial scapegoat became the ultimate offering of flesh and blood born without man’s seed of a virgin for double purity. We would be wretched things if we had to believe this.

20130525-191137.jpg

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

To fully seize this you must accept baptism (my emphasis in above quote). There is a chance for you atheist. Lead a good moral life, pope says you can you know. Just before you push off this mortal coil a splash of water will give you God’s grace. The priest will wait, your whole life if necessary, to help in this final act of salvation. Your moral life would have been a lot easier with a little of the religious cool aid.

I hope if in my last moments of time I do not succumb to invitations to seek the spiritual side, coaxed perhaps by well wishers concerned for all the blog posts I have written. Christopher Hitchens reminded us:

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.

The rational response to the pope is thanks but no thanks. I do not want to be considered worthy and redeemed only by an un-biological tortured zombie fairy story, helped by holy water taken externally.

Follow Up Post: Audio of Hitchens on metaphysics and a conversation on pope’s offer

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under atheism, Hitchens, Religion

15 responses to “Pope woos Atheists, do not fall for it

  1. From Harry Perry via Facebook:

    Weirdest news item of the week. Man in frock and silly hat says people who don’t believe in his imaginary friend can still play in his imaginary garden – but only if they’re good. It feels like there’s a flaw in the logic there but I’ve consulted my unicorn and talking snake and none of us can spot where it is.

  2. Hitchens was wounded and very ill as are atheists in general. You need sustenance. Hitchens says, “Don’t eat. Don’t accept medicine. Die in pain and die for pain and be the pain.” But, that is irrational.

    • We are born as wretched with original sin, and the only thing after hundreds of thousands of years to cure us all is the birth from a virgin a perfect man to die via crucifixion for a sin we ourselves did not commit. Without this salvation and redemption our lives would be meaningless whatever good you may do in this life.

      Atheists are not the ones making up illnesses here and saying you will never be free from this sickness unless you believe someone else can take away a sin that was never yours to have.

      Hitchens showed a dignity in dying that makes a mockery of your asinine fake quote.

      • Indeed, atheists would not “make up” a truth about God since they tend to vigorously refute His existence and other truths based upon an autonomous (self-isolating) reasoning which protests against that which they blame for wounding them. I see atheists as uncooperative patients in need of a lot of help. An atheist is embarrassed by my statement because his pride buoys and disguises his wounds. I have compassion for atheists like Hitchens. I see him as a patient who deserved the dignity of assistance and love. But even a dignified soul can resist and refuse help by his own free will (as we see in Adam and Eve).

      • Why on earth would I be embarrassed by your condescending ideas? I’m sure you are not.

        Christianity holds we are all sick and need Jesus to die for us. That we are wretched sinners without God’s grace. We have neither done anything for our pains, nor were we able to lift the burden ourselves placed by a God who made all things.

        I do not need to make up this nonsense. Theists have been more than able to develop it for themselves.

        My dignity is best placed not taking the poisonous elixir you offer.

      • Why is your response such that you think, in your case, that my remarks are “condescending”? Why do you see my ideas as a “poisonous elixir”?

        What in you causes you to feel this way?

        I’m asking these questions not to get an answer, but to encourage reflection.

      • You remark that atheists like myself are ill, you make a bad crack at analysing Hitchens with a fake quote of his inner self derived by you, which given Hitchens death from cancer is offensive.

        As to poisonous, there is the assumption that good works are not enough. I have to accept and believe in a doctrine which makes no sense whatsoever except in primitive times of sacrificial scapegoats. A time when walking on water and being born of a virgin were what you needed to be taken seriously.

        We live in more serious times. Time to move on.

      • No sir, we’re all affected by concupiscence – not just atheists; we’re all “ill.” But Hitchens was very loud – screaming out in opposition to the beliefs of many more peaceful and tranquil people who seem to have adjusted better to the idea of One greater than themselves.

        Indeed, we are living in a more serious time – one which calls, very seriously, for self-reflection and humility.

      • You made up a fictions quote from Hitchens inner self which given he died of cancer was in bad taste. You remark atheists are ill.

        Condescending that you think you can read anyone’s inner self, and obnoxious what you made up.

        Then again theism has that affect on some people.

      • I did not orient my comment based upon how Hitchens died. I apologize for causing you grief in this way – certainly not intended to disrespect Hitchens’ suffering or your suffering with him in his illness. I’m very sorry.

  3. And my quote is not fake since I created it to analogously portray what Hitchens “speaks” to me in my mind based upon my understanding of his life. I did not intend it to portray exactly what he actually stated. I apologize for not carefully qualifying my statement.

  4. The Syed Atheist

    Reblogged this on The Syed Atheist.

  5. Pingback: Pope Francis Is Not The Person of The Year | Homo economicus' Weblog

  6. Pingback: Pope Francis Is Not The Person of The Year | Speaker's Corner

  7. Pingback: Ricky Gervais Has A Crucifix | Homo economicus' Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s