Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

I'd like to further add to this in case I haven't been clear enough on my earlier posts. I do believe that Christ is the way to salvation. But as Catholics we do leave an open door at least to the possibility of a person following Christ without the explicit knowledge of doing so. Some of us are more optimistic/charitable than others about this. I'm in the former category.

[SteveII]

Yes. Even if they have never heard, they most respond to God on what has been revealed to them (which can be a lot). That's why I think ancient people almost universally believed in the supernatural. The Wise Men in the NT are a good example. They found evidence of God and followed it (literally!). 

My understanding of purgatory is that it is a place for Christians who need to work on a few things. It is not a place for people like Ghandi to change their mind about things (become a Christian). So it would seem that by both protestant and Catholic doctrine, Ghandi failed to make the cut because he was certainly aware of the message of salvation by Jesus yet chose not to believe it (at least as far as we know) and therefore died without having dealt with the basic human condition: sin separates us from God.

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.

[Little Rik]

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.

I'd like to further add to this in case I haven't been clear enough on my earlier posts. I do believe that Christ is the way to salvation. But as Catholics we do leave an open door at least to the possibility of a person following Christ without the explicit knowledge of doing so. Some of us are more optimistic/charitable than others about this. I'm in the former category.

Oh, well if Christ is the way to salvation then all those who never heard about Christ are in real trouble.  

DOGMAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA





(color mine)

[SteveII]

He created hell, with the knowledge that many people weren't going to fulfill his criteria to avoid going there. He could have destroyed it, or created different rules for being sent there. Yet, he created the rules for being sent there, despite knowing, with absolute certainty, that the vast majority of his creation would end up there.

How am I responsible for 'sending myself to hell' again.

And this is where you misunderstand the doctrine; and reasoning without understanding get's you to incorrect conclusions such as the one you come to above. 

No doctrine exists in isolation. The doctrine of hell is no exception. The doctrine starts with the justice/holiness of God. God created us with free will. It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God.

This is a two-edged sword. Because of God's justice/holiness, he cannot have a relationship with something not holy. This doctrine is not a choice that God made for things to be this way--it is a necessary (as in couldn't have been any other way) condition of being perfectly just and perfectly holy. Free will, with all of the benefits I listed above will always result in us choosing to sin and results in a separation that must be repaired.

The repair necessary could only come from the God side of the equation. God could always forgive sins. They were not paid for (slate wiped clean as if they never existed) until the Cross. Just like you can forgive someone that wrongs you--but forgiving does not remove the consequences of the action. The Cross removed the consequences (at least the eternal ones--i.e. the gulf between us and God's justice and holiness) of sin to those who freely accept it.

So, what is hell? It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul.

So, God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

[pocaracas]

And just how would anyone know any of that, Steve?

[Astreja]

So, God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

Ah, but if your god created the place, it is fully responsible in perpetuity for the suffering that occurs there.  This is why I deem all hell-creating gods to be unworthy of respect.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

Tim Staples (the guy who answered the question) is a former protestant turned catholic and takes the uber conservative approach to everything lol. I am familiar with him. Nothing he says is heretical, but his take away/break down is certainly on the very conservative end of the spectrum. If you read the actual catechism, it speaks about having knowledge, and purposely rejecting that knowledge. That's the crux. It doesn't necessarily specify that it can only mean literally that you have never heard of Jesus. It's certainly one for sure way of not having knowledge, and is perhaps why it was used as an example, but I don't see how it's the only way. I don't think even Tim said explicitly that it's the only way, though that seems to be his implication. 

In contrast, check out how this priest answered the same question and said no such thing: http://www.xt3.com/library/view.php?id=9728

...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.

[SteveII]

So, God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

Ah, but if your god created the place, it is fully responsible in perpetuity for the suffering that occurs there.  This is why I deem all hell-creating gods to be unworthy of respect.

But if a place had to be created that was separate from God as a result of our sins in light of God's essential (as in could not have been any other way) perfect holiness/justice, then who is responsible for such a place existing? Your argument rests on "in could have been set up differently". It is far from clear that between God's perfect holiness/justice, our lack of holiness, our free will, and our eternal souls that another system was possible.

---

And just how would anyone know any of that, Steve?

The doctrines come from assembling the information we have in the Bible into a systematic, internally consistent framework.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find it amusing that a person refers to the conservative opinion as though it were not the opinion most closely aligned with and delineated by the catholic authority.

As observed, the RCC allows people to be bad catholics to keep the pews full..that doesn't mean that they agree with those bad catholics or their cafeteria doctrine. This is the same organization that still asserts that not only is christian belief a requirement..but that catholic -rituals- are a requirement. The same organization that only recently waffled (but did not officially rewrite) that un-enfranchised infants go to purgatory, which..you know, may or may not exist. If anyone is imagining that the RCC has made some significant change to their doctrine regarding religious affiliation and hell that would be the only place that any such change occurred...their imaginations. We hear that all the time, too, don;t we? "Nope, the church hasn't reversed itself!"...until, you know, someone starts really wishing they had.

The fear of the RCC (and my hope) is that someday, those "catholics" will realise that they are not meaningfully catholic, that they are fundamentally at odds with the church on nearly every significant point of doctrine. Unfortunately, that will be the end of a long running tax scam and notable pedo ring.

: cries real tears :

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

I also wanted to discuss this specifically. Because I do very much see it as still being a chance/unlucky thing.

Let's just be reasonable for a second here. If you were raised a Muslim, believed in salvation through Islam, believed in Mohammed, etc etc... how would you know that you had a moral obligation to examine Christianity in the first place?? How would you be like "Well, I was taught by my parents and everyone I love and trust that Islam is the way to salvation... but someone mentioned something about some Jesus guy today and said I need to be Christian to be saved. Yikes! I better look into it." I mean, do we, as Christians, feel like we have a moral obligation to look into other religions because people of those religions also say you need to be saved through their own prophet? If you and I were raised Muslim chances are we'd both be Muslim today lol.

We all have a moral obligation to seek truth, yes, but we can't discount the fact that people can make honest mistakes and that upbringing and other factors which are outside their control doesn't play a role in their conclusion of the truth.

So going purely by whether or not you've heard of Jesus still seems unfair and unlucky if you happened to be born into a different faith.