Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[Succubus]

I never said atheists are believers but don't realize it. Obviously I know yall don't believe.

I also never said that following the rules of civilized society was enough.

Misrepresentations! Misrepresentations everywhere!

---

Edited^^

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.

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.

[KevinM1]

I would say that God is the perfection of each of his attributes. Arguments can be made that holiness is better than wicked. Justice is better than injustice. Concepts of perfectly holy and perfectly just separately and together carry entailments such as can't abide the presence of sin nor the can allow it to go unaddressed.

Do you think that hell - a state of place/being that is torturous for those in it - is an ethical solution?

Please remember that the main doctrines of Christianity have been discussed and written about by learned people for 2 millennium. Billions of hours of thought have gone into these concepts. Christianity's main problem today is the inability of the typical believer to defend doctrine against a more organized and sophisticated objector. However, that does not mean the there are not very good answers to the objections.

Argument from popularity again. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[Catholic_Lady]

I never said atheists are believers but don't realize it. Obviously I know yall don't believe.

I also never said that following the rules of civilized society was enough.

Misrepresentations! Misrepresentations everywhere!

---

Edited^^

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.

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.

Yep, I am well aware if what i said and of what my position is, thanks. And none of it is that atheists actually do believe without realizing, or that "following society's rules" is all it takes.

[RoadRunner79]

I understand. The caution would be that to adopt a liberal interpretation of this doctrine is the the price of being wrong is of ultimate significance. Telling people they are okay as long as they honestly try is not only a very minority position among all Christian groups (including Catholics), but seems motivated by emotions--not a different interpretation of scripture. If people come to rely on this for their own lives, the price of being wrong has eternal consequences.

I get erring on the side of caution, which is why the Church is very careful not to say "Everyone can go to Heaven, don't worry, just be a good person!!"

...Heck, Pope Francis got a lot of crap for saying almost exactly that lol. It can give off the impression that seeking truth honestly isn't important, when indeed it is a major part of it.

That's not the message I'm trying to give off, and I would say my conclusions about this come from logic, not emotion. I dont see how it can make logical sense for good and honest people to get damned from an honest mistake, imho, considering Hell is supposed to be something that you choose by deliberately rejecting God.

My two cents....   I would agree, that it does not make sense for good and honest people to be in hell.  I don't believe that there will be any such people in hell period.    However most when they talk about good and honest people, are speaking in a general or relative sense.  I also don't think that it is correct to say that people will be in hell, because of an honest mistake.  They will be in hell, because they are sinful. 

As to those who are saved.  I agree, with what has been said in regards to, I'm not too dogmatic and their may be things that I am missing in the picture.   The protestant position, I agree with, and is carefully worded as "by grace; through faith"   That is that it is unearned and unmerited favor (not due to us, for being good little boys and girls....relatively speaking).  And that it comes through faith in Jesus as Lord.  It is also this same faith, which saves those who where before Jesus (Abraham, Moses).  And this is where I think it gets difficult and the question comes up "can someone else have a similar kind of faith", without knowledge?

I don't think that it is about anything that you do (good works).  I think that the case can and has been made, that if you are relying on works you will fail.  I also, would agree, that it is not about having the correct knowledge.  I don't think that there will be a theological test, which you must pass to gain entrance.  And yet Paul I believe asked the rhetorical question "how can they believe; if they have not heard".  Here, I woudl say that the word "believe" is not talking about mere intellectual acknowledgement.  This can turn into a very large discussion. But for me, it is a matter of the heart.  When Jesus asked "Who do you say that I am?", he wasn't just polling opinions.  That is the question... do you submit, that Jesus may stand in over and for you?

As for purgatory.  I would agree with the reformers view.  I don't really see it taught in scripture, and I would ask, if Jesus's sacrifice was sufficient, and your sins are covered, then I don't see where it makes much sense.

[Succubus]

Catholic_Lady

...just curious what your thoughts were on some sort of last chance after death, once the person realizes they were wrong...

If we follow this to its logical conclusion; hell is empty.

Don't you think if you were born into the Muslim faith, for example, that's what you'd be? Impossible to say of course, but my point is that it seems like almost always it's a matter of luck that you were born into the "right" circumstances, if another circumstance would have led you to eternal damnation.

Not luck, geography.

[Catholic_Lady]

Catholic_Lady

...just curious what your thoughts were on some sort of last chance after death, once the person realizes they were wrong...

If we follow this to its logical conclusion; hell is empty.

It might be. Though highly doubtful. I wouldn't underestimate people's pride and dark hearts.

[SteveII]

I would say that God is the perfection of each of his attributes. Arguments can be made that holiness is better than wicked. Justice is better than injustice. Concepts of perfectly holy and perfectly just separately and together carry entailments such as can't abide the presence of sin nor the can allow it to go unaddressed.

Do you think that hell - a state of place/being that is torturous for those in it - is an ethical solution?

Implicit in your question is that there is another possible solution. Given our free will, our resulting condition of being unholy, God's necessarily perfect holiness/justice, there is not another solution except not to make any people with free will. It is easy to argue that it is, on average, a greater good for billions of people having lived a life than none at all--even if a only a portion respond to God. 

Please remember that the main doctrines of Christianity have been discussed and written about by learned people for 2 millennium. Billions of hours of thought have gone into these concepts. Christianity's main problem today is the inability of the typical believer to defend doctrine against a more organized and sophisticated objector. However, that does not mean the there are not very good answers to the objections.

Argument from popularity again.  Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Nope. Not at all. My point was a general point to address people who think they understand Christianity and think they know the weaknesses of the belief system when it is painfully obvious they know next to nothing about which they rail against. Only the young and/or stupid (on both sides) think they know everything and are above seeing things from other perspectives.

[KevinM1]

Do you think that hell - a state of place/being that is torturous for those in it - is an ethical solution?

Implicit in your question is that there is another possible solution. Given our free will, our resulting condition of being unholy, God's necessarily perfect holiness/justice, there is not another solution except not to make any people with free will. It is easy to argue that it is, on average, a greater good for billions of people having lived a life than none at all--even if a only a portion respond to God. 

I don't see how that's an easy, or even correct conclusion, given that you're comparing an eternity of torture to a finite mortal existence. It's the kind of statement that makes me question your morality in addition to your god's.

Also, I've yet to encounter a cogent argument for why free will is so important to god, why he wants to spend eternity with lesser creatures, and why, instead, he couldn't directly populate heaven with the kind of creatures he wants rather than go through this test of faith.

But, no, what I was actually trying to get you to think about is the ethical treatment of prisoners. I mean, hell is essentially a prison, is it not? Then how is it morally justified that time spent there is torturous? Doesn't perfect morality demand that the souls in hell not be tortured (either directly or indirectly) by your god?

[Succubus]

...In the very end of it, he even says this about atheists: "...if through no ill will someone cannot believe in God, but nevertheless lives a morally upright life then in some way God's grace will be able to work." He then says "Obviously here it depends on each individual and we have to leave it up to God to judge." ... which has really been my main point through all of this.

In some way? If he knew what god's intentions were he would say wouldn't he, instead he uses weasel words like 'In some way'.
Just another priest bullshiting the doubters.

[LadyForCamus]

To clarify here, Catholicism certainly does not teach that people of other faiths are damned, and that only people who died Christian go to Purgatory. We make no such judgements on the state of souls that way. Though I wasn't referring to Purgatory specifically, since I know it's not part of your faith... just curious what your thoughts were on some sort of last chance after death, once the person realizes they were wrong.

Don't you think if you were born into the Muslim faith, for example, that's what you'd be? Impossible to say of course, but my point is that it seems like almost always it's a matter of luck that you were born into the "right" circumstances, if another circumstance would have led you to eternal damnation.

I am still finding I have no substantial disagreement with the official Catholic position on this subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...lic-church

If you were born a Muslim and never heard of Jesus, then you are "invincibly ignorant" and you will be judged on your response to what was revealed to you. I don't think this a low bar--you have to actually try. There is room for your "honest mistake" in this scenario only. 

If you were born a Muslim and heard of Jesus and the plan of salvation, now you have an obligation to respond to that specifically. 

This takes care of any objection based on not being fair, or unlucky as to place of birth.

What logical, rational reason would a person, born and raised into any specific relgion/religious doctrine, have to think that their religion is the wrong one, and someone else’s is the right one?  Clearly no Christians here have ever given that serious consideration, so why would a Muslim or a Jewish person do so?