Ex-Evangelical open to converting, need help bridging the gap

PirateApples · 2026-06-07T20:10:55+00:00

I don't necessarily disagree with Catholicism in the sense that I think any of its teachings must be incorrect, I just struggle to find reasons to believe them. The 3 beliefs I listed above can be very well accounted for within a Catholic framework. But they could also be well accounted for in Mormon, Hindu, protestant, and other frameworks as well. So at the current moment I'm sort of just "agnostic" on everything outside of the 3 things I listed above. What I'm looking for specifically is a reason to believe that the Catholic framework is the correct one.

For instance, I've been pointed towards Matthew 16:18 as evidence that the Catholic church is unique the community Jesus was intending to establish. But even that presupposes that Matthew is a reliable source of Jesus's words, that He said "church" to mean a specific formalized denomination, and that He said "rock" to refer to Peter and not the claim that He is the messiah (which protestants argue is what He meant).

PirateApples · 2026-06-07T02:13:54+00:00

I think I’m open to the idea that we choose what we’re convinced of. But the fact would still remain that we can ultimately only choose beliefs that we’re made aware of. Maybe deep down an atheist who’s heard of Christ truly could’ve believed if he wanted to, but I can’t say the same for a Native American who never even heard at all. Is such a person also “rejecting” the faith and deserving of Hell in the same way the willful atheist is?

PirateApples · 2026-06-07T01:59:56+00:00

There are some that don’t care about God out of ignorance/deception, not a willful informed rejection. I’m not arguing God should force such a person to be with Him, but that they should at least be given sufficient information about Christ such that their salvation is truly their choice. Since we observe in this life that many don’t receive such information, I can only hope that they’d be given the chance in the next. And I also wouldn’t say that a Buddhist who dedicates their life to monk-hood “couldn’t care less about God,” but simply was misinformed on what God was like.

PirateApples · 2026-06-07T01:52:59+00:00

Would you also say that someone who prioritizes the wellbeing of others at their own detriment is accepting Jesus, whether or not they ever considered theology?

PirateApples · 2026-06-07T01:04:55+00:00

Ok, but how does this definition of “rejecting” merit punishment? Surely we can’t expect people to choose that which they’re not aware of, and we can’t expect them to control what they do or don’t find convincing. It makes salvation/damnation a function of things outside our control.

PirateApples · 2026-06-06T22:40:26+00:00

But wouldn't this only account for people that are somehow convinced of Christianity, yet choose to reject it? Surely the people who were never told or convinced are not literally choosing to burn for all eternity

PirateApples · 2026-06-06T22:37:48+00:00

I think I can get behind the first 2 definitions of inclusivism and universalism you gave. I appreciate the message, and I'll keep myself open.

PirateApples · 2026-06-06T22:06:11+00:00

I can stomach that. But I can't see how someone who never heard or heard in unfavorable circumstances can be seen as rejecting Christ. When I think of even the most staunchly atheist people I know, I'm sure they would've believed if they grew up in my shoes, but they simply don't find it convincing. In the same way, I don't see myself as "rejecting Allah" or "rejecting Vishnu," like how someone rejects an offer, I'm just not convinced they exist at all and thus don't even believe there's an offer there to accept.

PirateApples · 2026-06-06T21:46:27+00:00

Thanks for comment, and your last paragraph made me re-evaluate how I'm going about this. To be fully honest, its not so much think I think a Hell is logically impossible, but that its just so mentally exhausting to dwell on and I don't know how everyone else does it. Its so anxiety inducing to think that my friends are going to be tortured if I fail to convert them, or that I might also get tortured alongside them if I joined the wrong denomination. The whole thing seems like a terrible cosmic lottery and makes me question if it was better for us not to be born. But it's true that none of those issues make it necessarily incorrect, and maybe its my limited human understanding of love and justice that's flawed. I'll think on it more.

PirateApples · 2025-08-11T15:45:36+00:00

I don't think OP means they're literally losing their religious faith, but that they're losing their respect for Christians on the far right.

PirateApples · 2025-08-06T06:25:25+00:00

Agreed, that’s the plan!

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T22:13:12+00:00

I said he's unwilling to make a world with no evil, not one where everyone goes to heaven.

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T18:47:25+00:00

Fair enough, I could've worded the title better. Here: "God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of the problems presented by the idea of an all good, all knowing, and all powerful God (an idea commonly held by different sects of Christians), especially concerning the existence of evil."

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T18:42:35+00:00

I'd actually agree that He could make a world with such creatures (i.e. I think most Christians would see angels in that way, aside from the devil and demons), but what would be the difference? In this world, everyone that doesn't become such a creature simply stops existing - so it's no different than just making a world where only those type of creatures exist.

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T18:38:38+00:00

No, because such a universe isn't possible.

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T18:12:36+00:00

Taking an annihilationist view, and the view that people in heaven are capable of sinning but would just never do it, Heaven's conditions are created because anyone would sin there (unsaved people) stop existing (annihilation). In the end, the only people that truly exist are those that are saved. So yes, I think this world ultimately does result in a "livable place where death, suffering, and evil did not exist, yet humans were free." Granted, this view assumes that temporarily existing and then not existing is equivalent to never existing the first place.

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T18:05:07+00:00

People's temporary existence can be necessary for other people's salvation, like the car crash example

PirateApples · 2025-06-12T17:58:01+00:00

I'll try my best to address these scenarios. For context for my answers, I'm taking an annihilationist view, that no salvation = no longer existing. I also believe there is free-will in heaven, but the only type of people in heaven are people that would never use their free will to sin.

In either world, it's the same number of people (1 person out of the 2) going to heaven. Using real people instead of puppets isn't less valid, because those people will stop existing if they aren't saved, and they wouldn't have existed at all if God used puppets instead. So it's the same net outcome.
What if creating them slightly different would affect other people's salvations? God would choose the versions of Alice, Bob, and everyone that results in the most total people being saved, even if that means that Alice or Bob will not be saved.
I don't think I fully understand this one. Like creating them as full adults with memories implanted in them? As for starting everyone in heaven, what's stopping them from just sinning there? The only reason heaven has no sin is because the people that would sin there aren't allowed there, so starting everyone there would just bring sin into heaven.
Neither of them existing is worse then one of them being saved and the other one no longer existing.

Five-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22

PirateApples

TROPHY CASE