Okay, I have a question: If God loves us all, how come he doesn't let us all into heaven? And if he's all-powerful, how come he couldn't let people into heaven before Jesus?

I think this is more of a general Christianity question, but I'll go ahead and tackle it here.

*edit*  Almost answered 'why God allows people to go to hell', instead of the question stated.  Helps if you read the whole sentence, huh?

I can give you two answers.

The first is because we were not ready on our own to accept God.  After all, heaven and hell isn't a choice God makes, it's a choice we make, and the results of pursuing heaven may be much more immediately painful than seeking refuge in hell.  So Jesus serves as a way to help us bridge that gap and enter heaven.  He can help us deal with the pain of accepting everything we've done, overcoming our ego, and entering into heaven.

You specified 'with God being all powerful', to which the simplest answer I can give is 'I don't know'.  I presume that Jesus was God excercising that 'all powerful'.  I'd also take a wild guess and say waiting outside of the gates of heaven isn't too bad of a life either, and without being alive, the passage of time may be a little more gentle on our fragile minds, in which case waiting a few thousand years for Jesus isn't really a big problem.  So the question becomes a non-issue.

no, it still begs the question of why jesus didn't just come out and do his thing when the first humans showed up, or at least the first human civilizations.  was there something special about roman-occupied judea that made them better-suited for a visit from jesus than, say, early sumeria?

Well, the idea is that the Jews had strayed from God's teachings and sinned immensely. So Jesus came, corrected their doctrine, and died to purge them of their sins... Or something like that.

I'll make a new thread about heaven.

I'd assume it has to do about the level of civilization, and our understanding of the universe.  After all, look at other religions that 'arose naturally' over time.  When the first men were alive, you mostly had shamanism, individuals who didn't report to anyone, and didn't work towards social unity.  If Jesus came to one tribe and said 'follow me!' it could have spread to a few neighboring tribes, but it would have changed significantly, and wouldn't have gotten far.

You have the first organized religions with Sumeria, but even then, had Jesus come, a few traditions would have been carried off, but you would see only a fraction of what Christianity is now, if that.

The Romans were the first 'great empire'.  They spanned from the Atlantic to the Pacific (almost).  Their only real competition was China and India.  The Romans covered three continets, had inherited both the Greeks and the Sumerians.  They had an empire-wide organized religion.  Yet, they didn't have anything that applied to the larger, poorer classes like Christianity would.

As you saw, Christianity spread slowly at first, but became very popular with the poorer classes.  It then became the official religion, and the entire empire of Rome spread it half way across the globe.

If you think picked the time for Jesus to arrive based on ease of marketing, wouldn't have been better to wait until now?  When the Internet, TV or radio could broadcast His message everywhere?

I think we are a little out of league here, trying to determine why God picked a certain time to do something.

At that time, most of the world spoke a common language, greek.  Granted now ways of communication are greatly improved but I think we get bombarded with it so much that people don't really stop and honestly consider as much as back then.

I think the bigger question is, would anything fill the niche that Christianity fills now?  After all, the biggest thing that made Christianity special is that it was the POOR who were special, not the rich.  The poor would inherit the earth.  The meek, the sick, the unhappy, they were the special ones.  There was no other religion that preached that at that time.

Following the fall of the Roman Empire, it would be difficult to get the message out because everything was so fragmented.  That fragmentation remained through Europe for some time, and with the Rennaisance, we've entered the age of reason, when spirituality has generally been in decline.  Plus, there was simply no other time that so much area was under the rule of only a single government, muchless a government that would make a necessary state religion.  Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Speed of communication isn't everything.  If people aren't open to the idea, you can say it to them all you want, and they won't accept.  Looking at religions within the last century (and there have been a number), despite the help of easy communication, none of them have shown the same growth rate as Christianity.

katisara, i'm a little lost on what you're arguing?  Are you giving reasons why Christianity has done so well as a religion from a sociological view?  Or why God decided to send His Son to earth at that time?

I agree with you on a lot of the reasons it has done well, but that is different than saying God picked that time because it would be easier to spread His message then.  What about everyone in Asia (Far East)?  What about the Americas?  I'm not sure you can argue God's reasons for a certain time at all, but I especially don't think you can without knowing what He was trying to accomplish.  I hate to shoot down speculation on the mind of God, it is a fun and interesting exercise, but I think it might be confusing the Catholicism issue a bit.

And Paulos, educated people spoke Greek, not everyone.  Otherwise, on the first Pentecost, there would be no need for a miracle, Peter could've just spoke in Greek and everyone would understand him.

I'm not sure about only educated people speaking greek, that's not what I see when I look into writings back then, maybe classical greek that's to my understanding was more top notch, but in Jerusalem probally more people spoke greek than hebrew.

And at pentecost the tongues thing was the Gospel given in their own language, it doesn't say anything about the people there not understanding the common trade language of greek.

Educated people during the time of Jesus spoke Greek. The language of the common man in that area was Aramaic, with Hebrew somewhere in between.

It is only speculation, of course.  As long as we realize it's only that, I think it can be fairly enlightening.

I don't think there was any point in the history of the world that Jesus' coming as he did could have had a greater impact on the Americas AND the far East than it has so far.

But you're right, this has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism specifically.

Yeah good call, getting off subject :)

Well, in view of the recent news of the selection of the new pope, and since this is the Catholicism thread, does anyone want to speak to the role of the pope in the world/Catholic church?

Bump in case you want to talk about the scandals or similar things, we can do it here.

Falkus, you may want to consider that if 1.1 billion catholics are catholics, how can you say they are illegitamate catholics?

Falkus, you may want to consider that if 1.1 billion catholics are catholics, how can you say they are illegitamate catholics?

There's a difference between catholics and the institution of the church.

If the Pope had the slightest shred of decency, he would resign for his part in the child abuse scandal. If he'd turned the names he had over to the police during his time as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he could have saved countless children from being sexually abused.

So you're saying they can be catholic, just not part of the catholic organization?

This may be the reason that any others may have been confused by what you said earlier. I'm still not really understanding how one can be catholic, but not be catholic. The church is a building, the catholic organization are the people.

Also, a church is a very special type of organization, not like a corporation or political position, so you don't just "resign."  And because it must deal with repentance and absolution, even for the priests, then it could have a catch 22 if it didn't absolve the priests, although I agree that they should have been removed from their positions.

We should read a bit more into the church's explanation about why it did what it did.  I feel I'm groping in the dark; it's not something I followed really closely.

So you're saying they can be catholic, just not part of the catholic organization?

No, I'm saying that there's a difference between the members of the Catholic church and its administration.

Also, a church is a very special type of organization, not like a corporation or political position, so you don't just "resign."

I should think that one of the qualifications to be the highest ranking member of the catholic church should include at least a rudimentary understanding of the bible, including that of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

nd because it must deal with repentance and absolution, even for the priests, then it could have a catch 22 if it didn't absolve the priests

This isn't the tenth century. Secular law trumps religious law. If you want to live in the democratic countries of the western world, you agree to obey the laws. And one law that is in on the books in just about every country in the world is that it is illegal not to report a crime to the police.

I don't see how you can remove the administration from the membership. Without the administration there would be no catholic church.  Also, you're still lumping lots of people together. Not all administration could be behind some kind of child rape ring.

I don't see how you can remove the administration from the membership.

Different motivations. The average member of the catholic church tends to be a religious person. The administration, on the other hand, has repeateadedly demonstrated itself to be primarily concerned with political reasons. Not all of them, but enough.

Also, you're still lumping lots of people together. Not all administration could be behind some kind of child rape ring.

Enough of them to warrant serious investigation.

I've seen various statements by agnostics to make the statement that agnostics should seriously be investigated. Out of the possibly  hundreds of millions, there have been many statements of hate, and prejudice. Numerous agnostics have commited theft, rape and murder.

While I accept there are many agnostics who are good, the idea that there are plenty to discredit all the rest of the people who feel the stance of agnostcism is real, the beliefs of it should be prevented for the saftey of all others.

Certainly you should go back and replace catholic for nearly any other belief system. Agnostic and athiest would fit equally. Both belief systems have had numerous mass murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

How about a Chinese government department that has hiden assassinations? Does that mean all chinese people are held responsible? (I'm figuring a unified group by the same numbers is a very close comparison)

Basically Falkus, I'm saying you're holding too many someones accountable for these actions.

I've seen various statements by agnostics to make the statement that agnostics should seriously be investigated. Out of the possibly  hundreds of millions, there have been many statements of hate, and prejudice. Numerous agnostics have commited theft, rape and murder.

I was not aware that all agnostics were members of a single organization with a stratified hierarchy.

How about a Chinese government department that has hiden assassinations? Does that mean all chinese people are held responsible?

Apparantly, you've ignored my statements where I pointed out I was only condemning the administration of the catholic curch.