So I just read this and thought it was great. What do you guys think of it?

>What do you guys think of it?
It's so incredibly stupid if you actually understand Catholicism. Clearly the author didn't.

Actually this. Whole point of the book is fabrication. It equates Rodriguess fictional apostasy with Ferreiras historic, author clearly misunderstood religious dogma on force apostasy. Furthermore his Ferreira is totally fictional, there are traces of his real personage, but they aren't fully explained. The real one was conflicting and interesting person.
pweb.cc.sophia.ac.jp/britto/xavier/cieslik/cie_ferreira.pdf

It's not a bad novel though. Japanese parts are well researched, and on sound historical background.

>author clearly misunderstood religious dogma on force apostasy.
I don't think so. This is a link to a really great review of the book by someone that I think understands clearly what the apostasy means.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5324/silence_and_apostasy.aspx

The teachings of Jesus are not consequentialist, but are a type of virtue ethics. Endo shows how the pretend apostasy is in fact a real one, for being a Christian is more than just thoughts, but of action and character, which the main character abandons.

There's no such thing as pretend apostasy: "whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

>nothing in the past affects the present!

>tfw no Madison as gf

I'm this guy. Are you using me as an example of why there is no pretend apostasy? Because that is what I was arguing anyway.

I see what you're arguing, I just felt like pointing it out using an actual verse from the Bible, which clearly states the matter.

I wanted deep reflections on the Christian doctrine of "Jesus saves", vs the Buddhist doctrine of "determine your own salvation"; but instead we got another "culture clash" novel.

Is belief in God central to living a righteous and fulfilling life; or is such a concept irrelevant, possibly even delusional?

Also inb4 someone says more heretical crap about how faith in Jesus is irrelevant, and being a Christian is just about "being a good person".

Don't be mad just because you never heard of it until they made it a movie.

>Is belief in God central to living a righteous and fulfilling life; or is such a concept irrelevant, possibly even delusional?
It's central to having a rational basis for the very concept of 'righteousness' - to cling to a moral standard yet deny its foundation is delusional.

The movie is a better interpretation of the intent of the author than the novel.

Do you really believe that? Are you referring to belief in the trinitarian god, or just belief in any supernatural power? Is the vast majority of reflecting humans who ever lived cut off from that relationship, because the revelation of the God of Israel didn't occur until ~4000BC; and remained unreached by much of the globe until it was brought to them in the 15th century?

Have you actually thought this through, or are you another person with a high tolerance for ambiguity?

Romans 2:12-16 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ok, first off this doesn't come remotely close to a response. Paul's letter to the Romans, a refutation to the faction of Christian Judaizers who were pushing for all gentile converts to adopt Judaism, isn't some sort of final authority on this issue. In fact if anything, his argument proves your thesis dead wrong. Gentiles who remained ignorant of Yahweh can indeed have a fulfilling and righteous life, despite never knowing of Yahweh or his son. I don't think you want to use this quote to evade this question.

Secondly, your interpretation of "Law" is most likely flawed as well. In Judaism, the "law" included both righteous deeds and observation of Jewish ritual. James and Paul both agreed that faith in Jesus and righteous deeds were necessary for salvation; but strongly differed on whether or not to continue observance of Jewish ritual. You're taking a quote out of the context of that debate, and applying it to much larger swaths of human history than Paul possibly would've been comfortable with.

So I'll ask you again; is a righteous life contingent on belief in the trinitarian god, belief in supernatural force(s), or not at all?

That wasn't me, and you're not arguing against what I said at all. I'm not claiming it's impossible to live a somewhat "righteous" life according to your conscience, in regard to scripture or otherwise. You're right about the implications of the excerpt user posted, but that's irrelevant.
I said there is no rational basis for morality, none whatsoever, no matter how many mental hoops you jump through, if you don't believe in an objective moral standard, i.e. God.

So your answer is that it's possible to be righteous without the trinitarian god, I assume? Though it had to be pulled out of you and begrudgingly accepted. It's true that there's no confirmed basis for being moral built solely on human reason, but is saying "that's why we need God" anything but an incredibly lazy answer to that problem?

Also don't talk to me about jumping through mental hoops until you clarify exactly and specifically, what "God" is.

>So your answer is that it's possible to be righteous without the trinitarian god, I assume?
Yes.

>Though it had to be pulled out of you and begrudgingly accepted.
Are you serious? You simply started making an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with my claim. It's another topic entirely.

>exactly and specifically, what "God" is
Given the thread we're in, I assumed we're discussing the Judeo-Christian God. However, an objective moral standard is the extent to which God needs to be defined for the purpose of this "discussion", but we don't seem to be on the same page on what the discussion even is about. Let me reiterate, I'm not talking about whether it's possible to adhere to a (pre-established) objective morality without acknowledging it beyond the extent to which it's seemingly built into human conscience. What I'm expressing in my first reply is simply Dostoievski's "If God does not exist, everything is permissible".

not that user, but my answer is that every corridor can be a challenge for leisure

>gosh darn
Pussy

>affects

shut the f*ck up

Yes, affects. Are you dyslexic?

Time travel bro. The affect of the present is felt on the past.

is this what the scorcese movie was based on? it was kinda tight