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%201746%201859

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.

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)

The Sword in the Stone by T. H. White has always been a favorite of mine.

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.

Void, I hope so.

Honestly, that's the best critique I've heard of this, so far; so much of us complaining about people's noise in public just reminds me of the adults in our youth and just…I dunno, rubs me the wrong way.

I don't know if you've been following what Lina Khan's been doing with the FTC but there's some incredibly antitrust work which she's been putting into play. They've been really going after monopolization and Biden's been putting forth rules to make breaking subscriptions easier, which would help with OPs particular problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/15/us/us-government-unsubscribe-memberships.html.

It's O. K. to admit you didn't understand something but it's pretty evidently not saying nothing; I can use smaller words, if that'd help.