Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[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.