Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[Catholic_Lady]

I agree with the "condition you are in", but as I tried to explain earlier, I don't think this hinges necessarily on belief vs disbelief, when the disbelief is an honest mistake. Don't you think a person can be in a state of grace if they strive to do good? If they love others, if they love truth? Isn't accepting love and goodness a form of accepting God without realizing it?

---

For the record, this is what Catholic Answers has to say. And they are super conservative/err on the side of caution about everything:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-an-atheist-go-to-heaven

No I don't think that striving to do good or making an honest effort is enough. "State of Grace" is the state where you are made holy before God because of a very specific act: accepting Jesus as your savior and the redemption that comes with it. A position such as the one you suggest actually unravels the whole core of Christianity and all the various doctrines become internally inconsistent. 

I don't disagree at all with the statement in the link you posted.  "Invincible ignorance" is the description of people who did not have an opportunity to hear (such as remote peoples or babies and young children). This does not apply to most adults on earth. Most have heard the gospel and many have rejected it. 

Some verses that illustrate my points:

Romans 6:23 NKJV – For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its savior. (John 3:16-17)

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

I don't see how invincible ignorance is simply just someone who has never heard of God/Jesus, especially the way it was framed on the link lol.

The link described a person culpable for lack of belief as someone who is being stubborn about it or not wanting to bother with the moral lifestyle that would come with it.

...Not as someone who has heard of Jesus but wasn't able to sincerely come to believe it's all real. That sounds more like the person being described as having invincible ignorance.

I guess on this we will just have to disagree. I personally don't see how a person who otherwise strives for truth and strives to live a moral life can be damned forever for an honest mistake. I think such person is accepting Christ in a way, by accepting love and goodness and truth.

[SteveII]

No I don't think that striving to do good or making an honest effort is enough. "State of Grace" is the state where you are made holy before God because of a very specific act: accepting Jesus as your savior and the redemption that comes with it. A position such as the one you suggest actually unravels the whole core of Christianity and all the various doctrines become internally inconsistent. 

I don't disagree at all with the statement in the link you posted.  "Invincible ignorance" is the description of people who did not have an opportunity to hear (such as remote peoples or babies and young children). This does not apply to most adults on earth. Most have heard the gospel and many have rejected it. 

Some verses that illustrate my points:

Romans 6:23 NKJV – For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its savior. (John 3:16-17)

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

I don't see how invincible ignorance is simply just someone who has never heard of God/Jesus, especially the way it was framed on the link lol.

The link described a person culpable for lack of belief as someone who is being stubborn about it or not wanting to bother with the moral lifestyle that would come with it.

...Not as someone who has heard of Jesus but wasn't able to sincerely come to believe it's all real. That sounds more like the person being described as having invincible ignorance.

I guess on this we will just have to disagree. I personally don't see how a person who otherwise strives for truth and strives to live a moral life can be damned forever for an honest mistake. I think such person is accepting Christ in a way, by accepting love and goodness and truth.

A bit about Invincible Ignorance (I had to look it up because it is not a phrase protestants use--but the concept is the same in both branches of Christianity):

The term "invincible ignorance" has its roots in Catholic theology, where [...] it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have been Pope Pius IX in the allocution Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and the encyclicals Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863). The term, however, is far older than that. Aquinas, for instance, uses it in his Summa Theologica (written 1265–1274),[1] and discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen (3rd century). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible..._theology)

The key criteria in your original quote is "because of circumstances" and not "a sincere person".

[Astreja]

No I don't think that striving to do good or making an honest effort is enough. "State of Grace" is the state where you are made holy before God because of a very specific act: accepting Jesus as your savior and the redemption that comes with it (that's the Grace part).

I've always found this utterly baffling.  If people can't do sufficient good to get themselves into heaven, how can they possibly make themselves bad enough to warrant an eternity in hell?  The whole scenario is just too creepy and manipulative for my tastes.

[emjay]

Of course there are all kinds of doctrinal nuances. Just for the sake of sounding tolerant and non-judgmental I don't think we should suggest there is some kind of loophole for "sincere" non-believers. It's like perfect contrition, a very high standard. Outside of actual piety, it's not as easy to qualify as it seems.

Fair enough. I just personally don't see someone going to Hell for a genuine mistake. I think Hell is a more deliberate choice by the individual.

I don't think the Bible leaves much room for misunderstanding on that point: "... he who believeth in me shall have eternal life"; it is belief that is being tested, first and foremost... illogical as that is. What you suggest is IMO how it should be if it was in any way logical. So if God exists I'd expect to go to hell as an atheist, but if I was allowed any last words to God before I was sent down, then in all good conscience I couldn't go down without saying: "you tested the wrong thing; Satan saw you and knew your power but still chose to defy you; that was the right test... a test of his obedience given that he knew you were God. But to humans you did not give that knowledge, only the capacity to believe... but where belief is anything but straightforward, not just in terms of variable levels of skepticism, but also in terms of succeptibility to all sorts of influence, internal and external, conscious and subconscious, wilful and not. To test that - not to mention creating a brain with all those sorts of complications in belief possible in the first place - rather than obedience given innate knowledge of God, is utterly illogical."

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC, catholics aren't beholden to magic book..not that their own doctrine will ever explicitly state otherwise.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see how invincible ignorance is simply just someone who has never heard of God/Jesus, especially the way it was framed on the link lol.

The link described a person culpable for lack of belief as someone who is being stubborn about it or not wanting to bother with the moral lifestyle that would come with it.

...Not as someone who has heard of Jesus but wasn't able to sincerely come to believe it's all real. That sounds more like the person being described as having invincible ignorance.

I guess on this we will just have to disagree. I personally don't see how a person who otherwise strives for truth and strives to live a moral life can be damned forever for an honest mistake. I think such person is accepting Christ in a way, by accepting love and goodness and truth.

A bit about Invincible Ignorance (I had to look it up because it is not a phrase protestants use--but the concept is the same in both branches of Christianity):

The term "invincible ignorance" has its roots in Catholic theology, where [...] it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have been Pope Pius IX in the allocution Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and the encyclicals Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863). The term, however, is far older than that. Aquinas, for instance, uses it in his Summa Theologica (written 1265–1274),[1] and discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen (3rd century). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible..._theology)

The key criteria in your original quote is "because of circumstances" and not "a sincere person".

This seems like a very simplistic desrciption of vincible vs invincible ignorance, and like I said, doesn't jive with the answer given by the priest on the link I shared.

It would have been much easier to say "if the atheist has heard of Jesus, yes, he will go to Hell. If not, he has a chance," if that's what they meant. "Because of circumstance" could just as easily mean the person was not able to sincerely come to the conclusion that it was all true when they looked into it.

If you've heard of the story of Jesus, explored it thoroughly, but still can't bring yourself to conclude it's true, I don't see how you can be culpable, since it wasn't freely chosen. It doesn't make much logical sense.

But this is, after all, my opinion. We shouldn't make any assumptions of any particular person being in Hell, even if we know they died an atheist. So I prefer to take the charitable approach.

---

No I don't think that striving to do good or making an honest effort is enough. "State of Grace" is the state where you are made holy before God because of a very specific act: accepting Jesus as your savior and the redemption that comes with it (that's the Grace part).

I've always found this utterly baffling.  If people can't do sufficient good to get themselves into heaven, how can they possibly make themselves bad enough to warrant an eternity in hell?  The whole scenario is just too creepy and manipulative for my tastes.

I actuslly agree with you here. No offense to Steve and Neo, they know how highly I think of them. But it makes no logical sense to me that an otherwise good and honest person would be damned forever for an honest mistake.

God is goodness and love. If a person strives for goodness and love, that person has indeed found and accepted a certain connection to God, as far as I'm concerned. Even if unknowingly. God can work His way into people's hearts in ways we can't even imagine, and I think love is one.

[SteveII]

No I don't think that striving to do good or making an honest effort is enough. "State of Grace" is the state where you are made holy before God because of a very specific act: accepting Jesus as your savior and the redemption that comes with it (that's the Grace part).

I've always found this utterly baffling.  If people can't do sufficient good to get themselves into heaven, how can they possibly make themselves bad enough to warrant an eternity in hell?  The whole scenario is just too creepy and manipulative for my tastes.

It seems the confusion comes from your understanding heaven/hell as components in a rewards system. It is not. If God is perfectly holy, he cannot have a relationship with us because of our sin. He has provided a way to overcome this barrier. Going to heaven means you took him up on his offer to overcome the barrier. Hell you did not.

[Catholic_Lady]

I've always found this utterly baffling.  If people can't do sufficient good to get themselves into heaven, how can they possibly make themselves bad enough to warrant an eternity in hell?  The whole scenario is just too creepy and manipulative for my tastes.

It seems the confusion comes from your understanding heaven/hell as components in a rewards system. It is not. If God is perfectly holy, he cannot have a relationship with us because of our sin. He has provided a way to overcome this barrier. Going to heaven means you took him up on his offer to overcome the barrier. Hell you did not.

For the record, I do agree that Heaven is a state of perfect holiness and we cannot be in that state until our hearts are completely pure.

Steve, what are your thoughts on Purgatory? Purgatory makes sense to me, personally. It allows the person to transition into a state of perfect holiness before reaching Heaven, since I assume the vast majority of us are not there yet when we die.

[shadow]

Fair enough. I just personally don't see someone going to Hell for a genuine mistake. I think Hell is a more deliberate choice by the individual.

I don't think the Bible leaves much room for misunderstanding on that point: "... he who believeth in me shall have eternal life"; it is belief that is being tested, first and foremost... illogical as that is. What you suggest is IMO how it should be if it was in any way logical. So if God exists I'd expect to go to hell as an atheist, but if I was allowed any last words to God before I was sent down, then in all good conscience I couldn't go down without saying: "you tested the wrong thing; Satan saw you and knew your power but still chose to defy you; that was the right test... a test of his obedience given that he knew you were God. But to humans you did not give that knowledge, only the capacity to believe... but where belief is anything but straightforward, not just in terms of variable levels of skepticism, but also in terms of succeptibility to all sorts of influence, internal and external, conscious and subconscious, wilful and not. To test that - not to mention creating a brain with all those sorts of complications in belief possible in the first place - rather than obedience given innate knowledge of God, is utterly illogical."

If there does happen to be a god thinking about sending me to hell when I die, I want to bring emjay along as my lawyer

[SteveII]

It seems the confusion comes from your understanding heaven/hell as components in a rewards system. It is not. If God is perfectly holy, he cannot have a relationship with us because of our sin. He has provided a way to overcome this barrier. Going to heaven means you took him up on his offer to overcome the barrier. Hell you did not.

For the record, I do agree that Heaven is a state of perfect holiness and we cannot be in that state until our hearts are completely pure.

Steve, what are your thoughts on Purgatory? Purgatory makes sense to me, personally. It allows the person to transition into a state of perfect holiness before reaching Heaven, since I assume the vast majority of us are not there yet when we die.

I'm not sure any Protestant group believes in Purgatory. Almost all doctrine in Protestant churches is supported directly with the Bible (sola scriptura) and I don't think there is a reading of the Bible that gives us Purgatory. 

Most don't realize the most significant difference between the two main branches of Christianity is that the Catholic Church follows the doctrine that the Catholic Church (via the Pope--the direct spiritual successor of the Apostle Peter) continues to be a conduit for new revelation from God that can add to the NT with the authority of Christ himself. The protestant branch believes that nothing should be added to the NT. Understanding this helps in understanding why there are added layers that Catholics believe.