Responding To A Catholic About Salvation

Today, as a comment under this video clip,

a self-identified Catholic said this to me: "if you are acting in keeping with your conscience you’ll go to the heaven that you don’t think exists. I have a degree in catholic theology and 45 years study in addition"

My thoughts about this: I don't really believe him about his academic qualifications. Primarily, that's because he's really incorrect about what the Catholic Church has officially declared about this issue today; and for thousands of years. If that had been the Vatican's official position all along, they would not have been baptizing infants; nor re-baptizing on rare occasions when a priest accidentally got the magic words wrong during those ceremonies. However, I'd rather focus on the objections I have to the ideas he is expressing; rather than focus on the history of those ideas. The Roman Catholic "God" judges SOME people by their character. So then the questions become: 1. Which people? 2. Which facets of their character? 3. How does he quantify those facets? 4. Why are those the metrics he uses? According to the Vatican's official statements on these issues, these are those answers: 1. Which people? People who spent their entire adult lives looking for "Him" but randomly fail to ever stumble into discovering Roman Catholicism. 2. Which facets of their character? Whichever moral-character-traits it takes to be someone who *definitely would have* became a Roman Catholic by submitting fully to Papal authority, *if only* they'd stumbled into Catholicism during their life-long search for "God". Examples of salvation-essential character traits include: * lack of rational critical thinking skills, * a sense of urgent desire to be immersive in a magical narrative where we, as the center of the entire universe, are a cosmic hero; merely by the masculine-might of the powers we align ourselves with, * profound gullibility, * selective scientific ignorance; such as ignorance about how written language works when moving ideas from one head into another, * a profound lack of understanding about the entire concept of justice, * a profound lack of understanding about what a healthy relationship looks like, * a desire to always be parented, as a forever-child,

* feeling drawn to abusive, strong-man, cult-personality parental figures (such as the Roman Catholic conceptualization of "Father"), authoritarianism, and to fascism in general, * a desire to evade accountability to others (and to ourselves) for ways they have hurt (and may still hurt) others, * drawn to sexism that "totally isn't sexism" based on the idea that women were created to be lesser,

* drawn to racism; where an artificial social construct serves as a societally divisive Master Race; where ingroup-lives: a.) matter much more than anyone else's. They deny this; but they're gaslighting you about it. Ask me how I know. b.) are ascribed comparatively superior traits which (in reality) they do not actually posses, which c.) they imagine makes them more qualified to run your life than you are, and which d.) they imagine makes them more qualified than anyone else to rule over entire nations.

and also * an "external locus of identity"; which happens (not coincidentally) to be an essential element in clinical Narcissism. 3. How does he quantify those facets? Whichever amounts OF those traits would have been needed for the *Roman Catholic religious outcome. (*or whichever religious faction is selling "salvation") This means the person needs to be: absolutely morally superior (as defined by what "The Church" considers "moral") compared to everyone who would NOT join Roman Catholicism (if they heard about Roman Catholicism).

4. Why are those the metrics he uses? These are the metrics the Catholic "God" must use, because they are the metrics which dignify and necessitate the Roman Catholic Church's claim to rightful authority over literally every human's life. So then if anyone asks "why make anyone the offer at all?", that's the answer. "The offer of Salvation" is merely an offer to "surrender and sacrifice to my politically weaponized religious mafia(s), or else my God will hurt you". And the reasons for THAT should be pretty damned obvious.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church doesn't think "informing people about Catholicism" causes extra-amounts of souls to end up in Hell. Why not? Firstly, because the Vatican knows it's racketeering scheme. Racketeering schemes don't accidentally form from innocent intentions.

They know "Hell" is just made up, because theirs is the cult that made it up. So there's really no risk to anyone's afterlife; even if there might turn out to be an afterlife. Although, "officially", their position is that "God" will read your ghost's mind, assess your ghost's moral character, and then "know" if you WOULD HAVE accepted Roman Catholicism IF you'd heard about Roman Catholicism before you died. So then you aren't really being judged for how much of your character matches up with the "fruits of the spirit"-list, nor with anything the 'Secular Enlightenment' values. Being kind-hearted, thoughtful, sincere, just, accountable, etc.. won't get you into Roman Catholic Heaven. Nope. You'll be judged 'good enough for Heaven' ONLY IF your ghost's tastes are perfectly palleted for Catholic-flavored God-Cock; and none-other.

This is why the Vatican does NOT focus on helping to create-and-sustain societies which generate the highest possible statistical averages for good moral character (defined by human virtues and not by religious dogmas). Because: 1. Healthy human psychologies are incompatible with ALL religious fundamentalisms; including Roman Catholicism. This is why real human virtues would actually work against you when your ghost gets judged by the Roman Catholic "God". What they count as adequate moral virtues ... are really anti-virtues. 2. Healthy human social and societal systems generate healthy human psychologies. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church maintains a vested interest in helping to ensure human social and societal systems do not become too healthy. So if anyone asks "Would (that) "God" send anyone to an eternal Hell for poor moral character?", the real answer is: He doesn't. "God" sends people to Hell (in the land of Catholic Make-believe) for having good moral character. He only rewards sufficiently bad moral character. The Roman Catholic Church merely calls bad "good", and calls good "bad"; because that's what Orwellian authoritarian cults do.

Their theology is wastefully unjust. Their theological narrative is wasteful because that "God" throws away perfectly salvageable souls. It's unjust for the same reason. It's additionally unjust because: a.) it relies on random chance to sort and judge those souls, b.) that very same "God" is credited for the physical systems which sabotage people's outcome, and because c.) those systems sabotage souls unequally.

Character is generated by complex physical systems interacting in the body and mind; most of which happens subconsciously. Nobody volunteers for factors which either sabotage or nurture their many facets of character. People are born into * their genetics, * their epigenetics, * their family, * subject to either abuse & neglect, or safety & nurturing (or a random mix of these), * traumas, * random levels of education, * random levels of social support and connection, * random exposure to healthy and unhealthy ways of thinking, etc.. As a result, many souls would get into "Heaven" only because of unfair advantages "God" gave them; while greatly-many-more other souls would end up in Hell only because of the unfair sabotages that "God" committed against them. All people are also born into ignorance. That means we're all born into complete dependence on random people to shape what we think and how we think. It also means those random people are probably not telling us some very important things we need to know; things which could make tremendous difference in our emotional and cognitive reactions to anyone's "God"-claims. For example, most people go through life entirely ignorant about how their digestive system's microbiome dramatically impacts their moods, personality traits, and cognitive biases. Worse yet, Christian Bibles have "Jesus" teaching that NO SUCH PHYSICS exist.

The Bible verse where Jesus says "what you put into your mouth doesn't matter" is Matthew 15:11 which states, "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.". 

Explanation: Jesus was essentially saying that what makes someone unclean is not the food they eat, but the words they speak, signifying that our actions and thoughts are more important than outward appearances or dietary restrictions. 

The "Jesus" character in that story was simply wrong. That wrongness has been significantly consequential for humanity. What goes into each person's mouth will always be a MAJOR contributing factor to the development and manifestation of every person's character and behaviors. It greatly impacts our emotions, cognitions, and attitudes. As a result, it greatly determines what we end up thinking, feeling, and perceiving. In turn, it greatly effects which actions and inactions we commit to. It also has a huge impact on how long we live. That, in turn, worsens the tremendous inequality-of-outcome for how LONG we each have on this Earth to DEVELOP towards knowledge, understanding, character-virtues, etc.. There is no honest way to get that story-character off the hook for being so wrong about something that matters so much; except to admit that character was fallible and ignorant. Meanwhile, I have some extreme abusers to look back on. Some of them committed serious crimes against me and my children; respectively. There are some such injustices I have healed from. There are others I might never heal from. Meanwhile, such people have avoided answering to anyone for what they've done; with only a few minor exceptions. Nor do any of those people lose ANY sleep over what they've done; even though they have some levels of awareness of what they've one. And yet, I would NOT send them to a "Hell" for such monstrous moral character, nor for anything they've specifically done, nor for what any of it cost. Why not? First, unlike the biblical "God"(s), I understand and appreciate the difference between a.) self-satisfying revenge vs b.) actually-productive justice. Also, I understand that there has never been a dangerous person who is to blame for their own psychology. Although, please understand. I DO want to see all willfully harmful people held accountable. But that's only because I want to help them mature, while also helping to make our world safer for everyone. Someone should reduce how free they feel to keep hurting others; thereby reducing the danger their very existence poses to others. Perhaps, along the way, they might grow a little; and then shine brighter. This would benefit them as much as it would benefit anyone else. Failings of moral character are every individual's responsibility to own and struggle against. As such, they should be held responsible. However, they didn't "freely choose" to have the limits they have. There are limits to what they can even realize. There are also limits to the growing they can do. Brain morphology and neurophysiology determine the limits of our potential character. That's why there are also limits to what monster-people can even care about. They can't feel ... what they can't feel. And that includes compassion, empathy, moral courage, guilt, and personal accountability. Those limits are not their fault. Nor has their ever been a human-monster who is beyond restoration of their humanity ... "if only" a Being with God-Powers exists who CAN heal their minds and thus restore their lost humanity; a humanity which was stolen from them when they were young. True justice isn't seeing, hearing, or knowing they are suffering for being bad people. True justice and true HEAVEN is seeing their lost humanity restored. From there, we hug, cry, and laugh. And then begins the gentle and adventurous process of building a new and healthy friendship and familyship with each other. Even if we pretend that Liberian Free Will is even a rational, possible, or factual thing [it's not. But let's pretend it is], ... Those people could have their humanity restored to them without violating their right to self-determination. It wouldn't even be hard to do, IF a Super-Being has keen insight into where a human's cognition 'went off the rails', and also the ability to heal those unchosen defects. These are among the most consequential failings found in religious thinking. 1. To think of people as disposable. 2. To think VIOLENCE is the solution for dealing with broken people. As humans, we sometimes have no viable choice except for violence; such as for self-defense and emergency defense of others. However, if ANYONE had the knowledge and power it takes to prevent or resolve a problem (any problem at all) without violence, then they are automatically ethically bound to the non-violent solution. A "God" would always be obligated to non-violent solutions; else they'd be demonstrating the very same failed character they rage against. In other words, Christians describe an ignorant, selfish, and hypocritical "God". Calling all of that "good" ... only compounds and shelters the problem. It's an alleged "God" who doesn't plan to harm my enemies for what they've done to ME. Granted, I would not want anyways. But even if I did want that, he doesn't give a fuck about how any of it effected me. Instead, (according to Christians) "God" plans to harm my enemies only because of how those people's character effects him. That's plainly obvious, because: if ANY of those enemies-of-mine start jumping through the "correct" hoops of his "one true" ego-circus, ... they'll be "forgiven"; specifically forgiven for how their very existence was previously offensive to that God's ego. That same "God" will absolutely not require those enemies-of-mine to stop choosing to be my enemies. Christians describe a violently, wastefully destructive "God"; who doesn't sufficiently honor people's value. Some monster-people still have a brilliant spark of 'who they really are'. For many people, it's lost somewhere deep inside. They see it sometimes. They feel is sometimes. It re-becomes them, in fleeting moments. But then it disappears again; lost in a chaotic sea of destructive bullshit. Granted, this doesn't excuse monsters for being monsters. They still have moral debts to pay.

Consider the case of my brother. He is NOT a nice person. He's not even a safe person. To make matters worse, Christianity gave him a nonsensical and artificial DEFINITION for "morality" to feel "good" about. In doing so, Christianity provide him with an unearned and nonsensical PREMISE for what it means to be "righteous". Think about it. What if you were manipulated into a religion that said "You should make amends to The Creator Of The Universe ... for the sin of often hanging toilet-paper rolls facing the wickedly-wrong direction. GOD wrote it into our hearts to know which direction is the right direction. "Atheists" just want to keep sinfully hanging it in the wrong direction because it's easier and more natural for them. I bet they even enjoy it. They don't care how that makes GOD feel. They know he's always watching. And they know how sensitive he is.

But there's a way to be forgiven! You must "choose to believe" that an Iron-Age salesman of quilted spiritual butt-leaves was anally tortured to death, so that a GOD could forgive your filthy soul for being born with a brown-stained poop-hole! His ass was violated in ways that My GOD says YOUR ASS deserves! Repent(!). Of what? Of being not-a-member of my "totally not a cult"! Start following all of our "totally not rules" that you better follow or else! Because we don't have any rules you have to follow, because only cults do that! Then, you can be forgiven, washed clean and made into a new and glorious ass!". If you BOUGHT INTO all of that gaslighting nonsense, it would take a LOT of attention and importance away from real-world responsibilities. It helped to ensure my brother would be effectively FIREWALLED away from his potential to take an honest and accurate personal inventory of his own life and character. He'll never own anything he's ever done. And why should he? After all, the only "forgiveness" that matters for a Catholic, Protestant, or "independent" Christian-Fundamentalist ... is "God's forgiveness". He has mentally transferred all accountability for his failings onto an innocent scapegoat. He was even taught to BRAG about how he didn't have to earn that forgiveness. He didn't have to put in any of the work it takes to grow as a person and thus INTO being someone who warrants any human's forgiveness. In fact, "fuck those humans". Only "God" matters. In fact, this is what it means when people say "only God can judge me". They mean only "God" has any right to claim and/or collect on moral debts. They mean to say that the people they've hurt in this world have NO RIGHT to claim moral debts for anything the Christian may have done to them. They mean to say those people really don't matter. He didn't even have earn the lavish treasures his mother's religion promised in trade for his mental slavery and outbursts of sycophantry.  It's the same reason our unhinged mother remains unaccountable and un-sorry for all the evil shit she's ever done. Christians (including Catholics) stand before us, in a quantum moral superposition. They are both a.) morally righteous, in a world where you and I are NOT righteous, and (at the same time) b.) really not "good", and "no better than us", but forgiven anyways. They don't switch out of that superposition, to land on either of those states until after we stop to examine their state. That's when they choose which apologetic spin suits that moment's rhetorical interests. Although, sometimes, to keep things interesting, they settle for a middle-position instead, as beacons of "meh; good-enough"-ness.

In any case, they're "washed clean" from all their personal moral debts, as a "new creation". In trade, they gladly sacrificed whatever remained of their capacity to rightly value everyone who isn't a proper cultist. Now, they can only see people's value as potential future members of their "totally not a cult". And why does that matter so much to them? Because such membership endorses the narrative by which religious-people's selfish interests are served. Now, credit where credit is due, ... Out of all my enemies, I most respect the ones who never decided to CHEAT and SHORTCUT their way into self-righteous superiority and feigned humility. Despite their lack of conscience, they weren't about to disrespect themselves by putting on Christian Clown-Shoes. As Mindy once said, "Christianity is a religion for children and child-minds. I really can't respect anyone as an "adult" while they're committed to self-infantilizing." Mindy had an AMAZING beauty within. As a covert narcissist, she just lacked the moral courage to connect with that beauty. I've seen moments of true wisdom and beauty, even in the worst people. And yet, Christians BOAST of how their "God" is willing to SOMETIMES not destroy (or torture forever) those beautiful and unique sparks; if only the born-damned can get lucky enough to win a contest-of-character. -A contest which is determined by entirely physical causes. -Physical causes which (according to religious people) were "intelligently designed" by their "God". We're talking about causal factors most people know very little about, and which people have no real control over. Perhaps that's what's wrong with "God" too; aside from the whole not-existing thing. Perhaps he simply can't transcend the unfortunate and unchosen limits of his character. As a result of those limits, he had to weave a nonsensical world-view that justifies his lack of fucks to give, and further justifies the insatiable thirst of his ego. Perhaps the reason he can't heal and grow past it, is because nobody is ever in a position to hold him accountable. So greatly troubled are the souls who project such a "God" onto our world