Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[Catholic_Lady]

I would be remiss in my duties as a Student of Swedenborg if I did not mention New Church doctrines that I believe make explicit doctrines that are tacit in other denominations.

There seems to be concern about good people going to hell, either voluntarily or by compulsion. We need to ask ourselves if it is even possible for someone to be good. In truth, people are not in-and-of-themselves good.* Whatever good anyone has comes not from him- or herself but from God working in and through them. Thus the Christian makes no claims to virtue for him or her self. In contrast to this, the non-Christian, whether religious heathen or atheist, attributes their goodness to themselves, something they have attained by their own merits. This belief subverts God's moral authority and separates someone from God because he or she is looking to themselves as the highest moral authority and not God.

The question for me is not whether a heathen or nonbeliever has tacitly accepted some kind of Christ-Incognito; but rather, if, apart from Christian doctrine, he recognizes that he is not the source of his own virtue, acknowledges some moral authority higher than himself, allows Grace to work through him, and does not claim personal credit for the good that he has done.

*similar to Total Depravity

I mean, if he is atheist then of course he's not going to know it comes from a higher power. He doesn't think one exists in the first place.

Without knowing it comes from God, the person nonetheless recognizes that it is good. And can't something be said if they embrace it and choose to live by it?

[LadyForCamus]

No, that doesn't necessarily follow.  A perfect being should be capable of at least seeing an imperfect being's point of view and able to lead that party closer to an acceptable state.  Your argument just makes your god sound fragile and petty.

I don't know where you got that point, but my God went the extra mile and actually walked in our shoes for 33 years with exact intention (and more) that you asked for. 

I've been aware of Christianity for over fifty years.  If anything, it makes even less sense than when I was first exposed to it.

Those "2 millennium [sic]" and "billions of hours of thought" are no help at all, as Christian theology doesn't come even remotely close to lining up with the reality that I'm aware of.  I've probably heard the best apologetic arguments dozens of times in the last decade or so, and from my POV the lot of you are just whistling in a big, noisy graveyard of stillborn ideas and wishful thinking.

Listen, I enjoy having a respectful conversation, so don't take this the wrong way. The points/concerns in your objections prove that you do not fully understand the doctrines that you are objecting to. That is my point. These are not one-liner type beliefs that can be dismissed with a sentence or two. Christianity is one of the most examined bodies of knowledge in the history of the world. There are thorough answers to every objection ever conceived. They might not all be convincing to all people, but they are not going to be dismantled in a sentence or two.

If you need mountains and mountains of research, and generations of studying and interpretation in order to explain away the obvious moral and logical objections to one book, then the problem lies within the book; not the objections to it.

[KevinM1]

Apologetics, noun:

"We're sorry none of this actually makes any kind of sense."

[Succubus]

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!!"

Of course the church doesn't say that, it's not church doctrine, so what gives you the authority to say these things?

...Heck, Pope Francis got a lot of crap for saying almost exactly that lol.

Lol? Are you sure you're a Catholic? Do you really not understand why Franky's comments went down like a lead balloon with the Vatican apparatchiks? What he said did not comply with church doctrine.

...I dont see how it can make logical sense for good and honest people to get damned from an honest mistake,...

You've been talking to atheist haven't you? It's a rum do all right. Now apply that newly acquired logical sense of yours to, let's say... how about transubstantiation? What do you make of it?

[SteveII]

Except I have shown the logic behind it. Obviously there are eternal consequences when and eternal soul rejects an eternal God. Bringing up a "finite mortal existence" is a straw man. Your objection is an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity. 

It matters because you're attempting to state that a finite mortal existence is somehow better than nonexistence for those who will suffer an eternity of torture once their mortal existence is over.  It's ridiculous in a logical sense, given that since something that doesn't exist cannot feel pain, and an eternity of non-awareness is better than an eternity - mortal lifetime of pain.

First, why would we look at it on a person-by-person basis? There are billions upon billions of people who have had, on average, good lives and will would participate in heaven--so there is certainly an argument to be made the there is an aggregate greater good than bad to our existence. 

Second, for your objection to be carry any weight, you would have to ignore the fact that the people bound for hell didn't have any say in it.  

Third, I could argue that even the chance of eternal bliss outweighs the chance of eternal hell (especially factoring you that the result has to do with your choices) in the question of whether it is better to have existed or not. 

I also said this earlier: 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. 

Pain is pain.  Emotional pain can be just as crippling as physical pain.  Moreover, I don't see how the distinction even matters.  We're talking about a state (physical, mental, spiritual - doesn't matter) in which the individual is being tortured (or, perhaps more accurately, in such pain that it may as well be torture, even if it's not administered by an external force).  Is that the ethical treatment of a prisoner?

It is easy to think the doctrine of Hell is like one of the many caricatures one sees of hell over a lifetime. Again, it is not like this cannot be avoided by one's own actions. It is a logical consequence, not a selected punishment from a list of possibilities. Other than no escape, it has nothing in common with a prison and "prisoner" is not the right word.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not the right word, eh?  "I object your honor!"  On what grounds?  "This is damaging to my case!"  

Look, if you want to believe in a punitive god that files damned souls away then be satisfied with it for what it is.  They're your beliefs, after all, nobody forced you to hold them. The same can't be said for your headhunting god sending me to the bodyfarm, now can it?

[polymath257]

Except I have shown the logic behind it. Obviously there are eternal consequences when and eternal soul rejects an eternal God. Bringing up a "finite mortal existence" is a straw man. Your objection is an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity. 

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.

I said this earlier in this thread: It [free will] 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. 

God did populate heaven with holy creatures. Angels. We are obviously created with a different purpose.

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?

I also said this earlier: 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. 

What is the big deal with being separated from a tyrant? Seems like a desirable state of affairs to me. Maybe the whole thing is a propaganda piece: like Greenland was all ice and Iceland was all green. Maybe that separation brings the greatest joy, eh?

For that matter, why would such a separation have such a horrid effect on an immortal soul?  Wouldn't that something of a design flaw? Sounds like the designer needs to go back to the drawing board. In fact, it sounds down-right evil after a moment reflection.

And, of course, this is ignoring the more fundamental issue that the whole scenario is a fabrication. It's like being afraid of the lion is Aesop's fables.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would be remiss in my duties as a Student of Swedenborg if I did not mention New Church doctrines that I believe make explicit doctrines that are tacit in other denominations.

There seems to be concern about good people going to hell, either voluntarily or by compulsion. We need to ask ourselves if it is even possible for someone to be good. In truth, people are not in-and-of-themselves good.* Whatever good anyone has comes not from him- or herself but from God working in and through them. Thus the Christian makes no claims to virtue for him or her self. In contrast to this, the non-Christian, whether religious heathen or atheist, attributes their goodness to themselves, something they have attained by their own merits. This belief subverts God's moral authority and separates someone from God because he or she is looking to themselves as the highest moral authority and not God.

The question for me is not whether a heathen or nonbeliever has tacitly accepted some kind of Christ-Incognito; but rather, if, apart from Christian doctrine, he recognizes that he is not the source of his own virtue, acknowledges some moral authority higher than himself, allows Grace to work through him, and does not claim personal credit for the good that he has done.

*similar to Total Depravity

I mean, if he is atheist then of course he's not going to know it comes from a higher power. He doesn't think one exists in the first place.

Without knowing it comes from God, the person nonetheless recognizes that it is good. And can't something be said if they embrace it and choose to live by it?

What you are describing, CL, is an empty set. No atheist I know recognizes any kind of transcendent Good and thus there is nothing for them to embrace.

[Catholic_Lady]

I mean, if he is atheist then of course he's not going to know it comes from a higher power. He doesn't think one exists in the first place.

Without knowing it comes from God, the person nonetheless recognizes that it is good. And can't something be said if they embrace it and choose to live by it?

What you are describing, CL, is an empty set. No atheist I know recognizes any kind of transcendent Good and thus there is nothing for them to embrace.

As an example, what about CD having started that fundraiser for the homeless in his area, and all the people here who donated for the cause...

[polymath257]

I mean, if he is atheist then of course he's not going to know it comes from a higher power. He doesn't think one exists in the first place.

Without knowing it comes from God, the person nonetheless recognizes that it is good. And can't something be said if they embrace it and choose to live by it?

What you are describing,  CL, is an empty set. No atheist I know recognizes any kind of transcendent Good and thus there is nothing for them to embrace.

I don't know if I believe in a *transcendent good', since I have no idea what that even means. But I do believe in doing good for others and embrace that.