Interesting. So a non-believer might not go to hell, so long as they don’t sin, but nor would they go to heaven. What, then?

Oh; I think I’ve miscommunicated. I’m sorry about that. I wasn’t saying that they don’t go to Heaven; I mean, – technically – one could believe that, if one wanted (there have been no dogmatic statements that that isn’t what happens; in the middle ages, there was this theory than unbaptized infants went to a place called Limbo which was neither Heaven, nor Hell, nor Purgatory. It never really caught on as I think most people find something unsettling about a baby, of all things, not getting into Heaven. So one could believe that but most writing on the subject has assumed the non-believer can go to Heaven).

Of course, this whole thing necessitates that you believe in God and that God is Good (since that’s the perspective Catholics are writing from) but, if we assume these things are true about our world, one could not believe in God while not realizing morality and the Good of the world stems from Him. This becomes a mortal sin when you realize that these things stem from God and then still choose not to believe and reject him. Because – if you truly understand He’s the source, etc. – to still say, “I still won’t follow Him,” kind of requires that you…don’t do the things that are Good either, right? So, when we say that non-belief is a sin, it’s a little different than your average, say, Evangelical for whom the belief is the point, full-stop. Hopefully, I’m making more sense and not just being verbose…

Also, it raises the question of what counts as a sin. There are many things a Catholic would consider a sin that other people would not. Things like eating meat on Friday, use of contraceptives, or sex outside of marriage. Are these, if done by a non-Catholic, considered sins? And if not, is it not just…better not to be Catholic? Like, by converting people, is one not increasing the chance that they go to hell?

It’s a fair question; I’m pretty certain it’s a common fallacy (might not be the most accurate word…) that those who argue against religion – or Christianity, specifically – point to.

I think the issue is you’re considering these things non-harmful; in Catholic theology, sin separates us from God (to say the common quote) which hurts us but, to phrase the same thing differently, – since He’s the embodiment of morality – means we act immorally and hurt ourselves and others. So these things are things which are inherently hurtful and doing them would cause harm, regardless of belief or not. In theory, part of worshipping God is choosing the best thing for you and that’s part of the point in converting people (again, we’re not really the by-faith-alone people).

But I think you’d counter that these things aren’t really harmful (or, if they are, it’s certainly not evident outside of the Catholic Church telling you so). And that’s where I reveal that…I’m not an entirely orthodox Catholic and it’s not your logic that’s being wonky.

Outside of the eating-meat-on-Fridays (as that’s more of a practice of worship and I don’t think that grievous to perform, if you’re truly on board with the whole belief thing), I do find these positions…misguided. I don’t know whether there’s any way to reconcile them during the development of doctrine or they never will be. Maybe I’m the one who’s wrong; obviously, people have fought over these topics for many years.

But, in short, I think the reason your premise makes sense is that it seems more like extra chores than anything else but I think it makes more sense if you bear in mind that most Catholic theologians believe these things truly are harmful not only to our souls but also our bodies (brains included in that; not trying to draw a distinction).

Drag is very disappointed in most people because they don’t think very hard about the consequences of their actions. They do bad stuff like driving cars, voting Republican, eating meat. Drag always wondered where people picked up this nasty habit.

I mean, that’s really fair; and relatable. I certainly do believe there’s a cutoff, somewhere.

Do you think Christianity is responsible for people today being so unwilling to think about the consequences of their actions?

I take the same tact that I had when some people have argued that religion causes more harm to the world: I honestly think people would figure out a way to do it, anyway.

I mean, the Bible (if nothing else) is pretty clear on how we should treat the poor and televangelists still use it to take money from people struggling with cancer; and plenty of people who believe they’re Christian call the police on the homeless (I’m reminded of this statue and how a member of a church called the police because she thought it was a homeless person sleeping on a bench: https://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/302019921/statue-of-a-homeless-jesus-startles-a-wealthy-community).

The difficulty with beliefs is they often span a lot and people inherently lean towards picking the parts they like. And people have a vested interest in pursuing the interpretation which makes things most easy for them (even if it isn’t right).

So I wouldn’t say it’s Christianity (or any other faith) so much as people do it themselves.

And, while I may not know where the line is, I do actually hear you on how these actions by people worsen the world for others and I don’t think there’s carte blanche freedom on ones responsibility towards these subjects.

I mean, the first thing I think of when I think “Christians” is “paedophile priests like Cardinal Pell” whom the Pope himself protected

…yeah; that’s exactly – if anything – the one criticism I had in mind, when I wrote that. Definitely no protest from me, on that one. While there is much I’d hoped for with Francis’s papacy, his inaction and stonewalling on this will likely end up being the largest blight on his job.

It’s just…that one thing is pretty damn fucking huge.

Yep; absolutely.

I must admit, I find this genuinely fascinating.

Heh, I think most do.

I had thought it was pretty standard Christian doctrine that belief in Christ is a prerequisite for getting in to heaven. Is that not the case?

So it is (I think the reasoning here is that, if God is the source of all Goodness and morality, rejecting belief in him necessitates rejecting God and, thus, belief in Him) but, like I mentioned, it’s Catholic belief that, in order for anything to warrant Hell, it just be willfully chosen. We don’t believe that God just punishes people because he can; that’d contradict a loving God (which we purport He is) and, also, collapse any point of morality. To quote Pope Pius IX (in 1863), “God[…]in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

The second Vatican Council, based on the history of teachings such as these, said (in 1964), “For they who[…]seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.”

Basically, you know how atheists always whip out against Evangelicals, “Well, what is someone was born somewhere where they didn’t know about Christianity? Would they go to Hell?” And we were like, “That’s a really valid point; a loving God wouldn’t do that. There’s gotta be another answer, there.”

And, assuming it isn’t official doctrine, do you think most Catholics are aware of the official doctrine, or would they’re believe, as I did, that belief in Christ is necessary?

So one of the phrases the Vatican II council used when discussing this topic was “invincible ignorance”. What constitutes an invincible ignorance such that you’re off the hook? Ehh…the Church doesn’t say, yet (I think the thing a lot of people don’t realize is how…definitional the Church is; people read something that was promulgated and read the possible interpretations of that statement into it but, really, what the Church is trying to do is take a lot of the Unknown and try to precisely define it so we can understand it, over time; which means we can say, “This is true,” even if we don’t understand, yet, examples of the thing).

So there are a lot of Catholics out there who will be quick to remind you, “Ah! Invincible ignorance; it’s not a everything-goes card. Were you really so ignorant that you can be without blame?” If you want to get into Catholic tea and drama, the statements promulgated in Vatican II aren’t dogma so it’s always possible they may get reversed, in the future; there’s a contingency out there who believes the whole council was bunk and beliefs like this are exactly why. Don’t get it twisted, all the nonbelievers will burn.

I find…both positions repulsive. But they are out there. And, while the later group hates all the doctrinal development over the last century and is, like, a hair-breadth away from schism, they are (at this point in time) technically valid positions based on what’s been said by the Church, so far.

For me, someone seeing the absolute abysmal and shameful way the hierarchy has handled the pedophilia crisis and thinking, “I…don’t think that’s where God is,” could easily count as invincible ignorance. How could anyone of reasonable conscience not?

I think the atheist who genuinely can’t believe that there is a God out there or find enough evidence but (to use the old cliche) is just focusing on doing his best to be a good person could count as invincible ignorance.

Maybe I just can’t believe in a God that would send the many friends and family I think are amazing people to Hell over something they genuinely can’t find convincing but, well, I don’t; and I know there are many Christians (including Catholics) who would find this about me to be weak reasoned and borderline vile but clearly I’m not the only Catholic who does.

So – to more directly answer your question – I can’t say if there’s many but they definitely are out there. I wouldn’t be surprised, if we include the less consistently practicing Catholics (the many only-show-up-to-Mass-for-holidays-but-pray-often), that there are many Catholics who would prefer to take my interpretation. Most people don’t like to enforce suffering, I believe.

But it’s undeniable that, at least at this point in time (though there’s a long history so I don’t think that’s getting reversed), – for Catholicism – being aware of something is a part of the equation for it to be sinful; quotes from the current Catechism: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1735 1746 1859

I mean, (at least at this point in time) Catholicism doesn’t claim to know exactly on that specific issue.

That would be my position, I think; I might think you may be being too black and white about how people process information and how easy that is or isn’t.

But, if that’s too lenient for you, I’m sure you could find other Catholics who take a more concrete or defined stance. There simply isn’t any definive dogma, yet, promulgated by the church on exactly where the line is on how much your struggling with an issue is sufficient enough for God.

Perhaps I’m too lenient but I do think that most people don’t decide to do things because they think it’ll make the world worse; that’s just me, though.

Ah; a woman of culture.

Incidentally, Christine Webber (who probably knows a bit about the subject) was going over how decentralized BlueSky really is or not (spoiler, it’s not): https://social.coop/@cwebber/113527462572885698

I mean, they’re good questions. I don’t know if knowing the answer is simple, though.

I would say that I’d think any conception of a Just or Good god would take into account one’s level of power in a system, though.

A CEO who has access to the data and the power to do something? I expect you could make the argument yes.

I think the average person who has to use a car because it’s the only way to get to the job which feeds their family is probably not committing a mortal sin.

And I think it’s fair to consider cases where a person may be aware of the data (and able to transfer away from a car by making changes in their life) but not fully register how they contribute to it to be cases where we might argue that they aren’t fully aware that they’re doing wrong or harm.

As a Catholic, it’s slightly grating for most criticisms regarding Christianity to just be reactions to the most obnoxious Protestants.

(for reference,

• not being a Christian isn’t a sin
• while it is required to believe a Hell exists, there is no requirement to believe anyone is there
  • we don’t ever purport to know whether anyone is there or not
  • https://64.media.tumblr.com/c687504931fcc8f598b1eba5157ec59f/930251a53f94acd8-e8/s1280x1920/deb1ae7d735c691b97d3766207fcd10da8eae4a1.pnj
• free choice/will is paramount
  • we break sins into veneal and mortal
    • mortal sins are the ones that send you to Hell
  • you cannot commit a mortal sin without full knowledge that what you’re doing is wrong and choosing so anyway
  • we may not necessary be clear on the hows/whys/details but it follows that anyone in Hell is there because of deliberate choice on their part
  • again, not believing isn’t a sin
  • see previous point about the possibility no one is there

Not to say that Catholicism doesn’t have things it can be criticized for (Lord knows) but I know the type of Christians your taking about and it’s just so far and beyond removed from our actual theology)

See, my problem is that it’s never 2 minutes.

I tell myself it is; I truly think it is. A half hour later…

…but did it not happen via purpose?

Honestly, all of the examples in your link sort of has me feeling it; it’s certainly not any less consistent.

That’s…honestly a fair point; a good chunk of why I never bothered with TikTok is it has some of the worst UX I’ve ever experienced in my life.

Because of the conduction?

I don’t think they were saying they’re Nazis; unfortunately, many people can’t recognize the harm a group does if that harm is slow or “off-screen” (like the poverty or civil restrictions most conservative policies inevitably result in).

I think they were just using a conservative group such as the Nazis since it’d be much more obvious to the average person as to why we need to draw a line, with some groups, and cleanly indicate why OP’s blanket statement that “everyone should be welcome” can’t possibly be true.

There are those who view this offer to share their thoughts and existence as an opportunity to permanently terminate the same of others.

That’s kind of the funniest way to not know what it is, though.

I haven’t figured out how to channel it into convincing others, yet (though I haven’t done a lot of activism for, like, going on a decade now), but I have been having the thought, for the last 4 years, that focusing on tangible goals could really help us.

Just seeing the Republicans turn half a century of steadfast obsession into actually overturning Roe has me thinking we need material results fast.

Because, if the one constant for our side since the 60s has been anything, it’s been a slow erosion at our ability to even effect change.

I feel like even the need for lockstep consensus to work together wouldn’t be so direly needed if we had rank-choice voting and a dismantling of the two party system.

To use your union example, more unions mean a slow of concentration of wealth which means less influence for the wealthy upon our society including more stability so there’s less desperation to vote for a Hail Mary solution like thinking Trump ever gave a single care about the price of eggs.

Just…really concentrating on tangible goals and carving out progress on them.

Of course, we’d need your aforementioned agreement, for that…

Another platform will pop up over the next week if TikTok is banned.

Or an existing social media will try to take its place; Meta and Google have sites which imitate TikTok’s UI (at least, in part).

I don’t think it’s the only reason necessarily (and I’m inclined to agree your reasons are, at least, part of it) but I think the chance for U. S. companies to cannibalize TikTok’s market demographics is, also, a happy little coincidence of the consequences.

Which is galling, in its own right, as it’s – by definition – all overtime.

Usually, the brackets include a part of the sentence that wasn’t said but the interviewer believes the speaker meant or was implied.

In cases like this, maybe the speaker was speaking quickly (and, so, didn’t say the words during the interview) or were dropping implied parts is the sentence (like we all sometimes do when speaking casually; like if I say, “Quick thinking,” to someone. It’s implied that I was saying, “[That was] quick thinking”).

This also gets used often if the interviewee is talking about someone they know personally but we don’t so they’re usually just using the first name (e.g. “Yeah; me and [General] Howard [Zimmerman] go way back”).

I know it won’t make a difference to them (who’re the cafeteria Catholics, now?) but it is an official part of the catechism.