• 2 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 19th, 2025

help-circle




  • Not using poll data from over a decade ago may help with that: https://www.pewresearch.org/. PEW’s 2021 study found that 34% of Protestants believed only those who believed would go to Heaven though that’s largely due to 21% of Evangelicals and 31% of historically black churches: 56% of Mainline Protestants believe people who don’t believe can go Heaven.

    And what individual Catholics believe doesn’t matter because Catholics aren’t Protestants; the Magisterium of the Church teaches – multiple times, stretching back to at least the beginning of the last century – that those who don’t believe are capable of going to Heaven. Anyone can believe otherwise but that’s, definitionally, not a Catholic belief (though, for the sake of completeness, it’s 68% of individual Catholics who believe non-believers can go to Heaven, as of 2021).

    Again, there’s no way you can say this is true universally and, for neither Catholics nor Mainline Protestants, it’s not a minority who believe it.

    EDIT: this would be the second time, in the last 2 days, someone provided updated information that I didn’t see because I was in the middle of writing a reply; looks like you found the same source as I had


  • One of the core tenets of Christianity is that the only path to salvation is through Christ. That means non Christians are going to hell.

    This isn’t universally true (and is often a byproduct of most people thinking that the claims of Evangelicals are true; to be fair, it’s in part because they’re so loud and won’t shut up).

    Catholicism believes it’s very well possible for non-Christians to go to Heaven (JD Vance, I’m sure, doesn’t but there’s a reason he’s had to’ve been corrected by the Vatican multiple times).






  • tomenzgg@midwest.socialtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldTrue that
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    These critiques also always feel like massive misunderstandings of why we tell stories (and the necessary metaphor/allegory comics almost certainly have to take in order to tell meaningful stories that we can relate to).

    Can I guarantee that the creator of Batman had class-consciousness in mind when creating the character (Hell, I can’t even guarantee that it wasn’t any deeper than finding old money such as still having a butler just quirky because the creator was so far removed from it)? No. If we’re making new characters, should we continue to make benevolent billionaires? Probably not.

    But stories are something we shape and (as many people keep pointing out) the narrative and world of Batman keeps getting complicated so that we can tell interesting stories and not have it function as a glorification of capital and put forward the idea that we just need rich men to save us.

    It also feels like people who fundamental don’t under stand how comics (or any long-form media) works; if we found out the creator was actually a capitalist fascist, that doesn’t suddenly expose a rot at the root. Long-form media is continuously building on what came before it and sometimes we don’t like it so we retcon or restructure things (there’s no way we can guarantee that every contributor to the decades-long canon was swell and great, after all); or create alternative universes as one-shots to try thought experiments about the characters and universe. I don’t particularly like Frank Miller’s politics but that doesn’t mean that I’m bound, now, to take his takes on Batman as foundation to how I view Batman; we create an alternative universe and chuck out the trash. Like, are we so alienated from art that we don’t understand how it works, anymore?

    Anyway, doesn’t directly touch the Batman-is-a-billionaire debate but my favorite encapsulation of my headcanon of the character: https://youtu.be/CUy5rsO5cwo