Different wording of "question about hell"

[notachance]

There are many competing opinions among theists regarding the nature of God and the nature of what happens after death. So I was hoping to identify a bottom line all theists can all agree on.

Are we completely free to love God, hate God, ignore God, fight against God, rebel against God, reject God, spite God, believe that he doesn't exist, disobey his commandments, believe in a false God, start a competing religion, worship the devil, not worship anything, etc without fear that there might be some kind of eternal unpleasantness in the afterlife?

Can I be absolutely 100% certain that no matter what, GOD WILL NEVER TORMENT ME, PUNISH ME, DEPRIVE ME OF HIS PRESENCE, TORTURE ME, ALLOW THE DEVIL TO TORTURE ME, ANNIHILATE ME WHILE ALLOWING OTHERS TO LVE FOREVER or any such fundamentally unfair and cruel thing?

Can I be absolutely certain of at least that?

It's a very simple question, which requires a yes or no answer.

The reason I ask is this: If an omnipotent entity cannot be counted on to at least not cause its creations to suffer for eternity, then by definition it is not worthy of its creations' love.


Disclaimer: This is all a thought experiment for me. Obviously, since there is no evidence for God or for an afterlife, and since there is a mountain of empirical evidence that positively suggests the non-existence of God or an afterlife, I don't believe that any of this is real.

[notachance]

I love this!

I love this, I love this, I love this!

I LOVE this new religion you're starting. I mean, it's got NOTHING to do with Christianity, but it's great!

Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity?

How quaint. Allow me to explain why American fundamentalist evangelicalism isn't representative of Christianity; I'm Catholic. Catholicism has been around 1900 years longer than evangelicalism. I'm answering with pretty average Catholic ideas about Hell. These ideas of mine are also the ideas of many, many other Catholic theologians and philosophers.

So that you no longer get the idea I'm making this all up for my own "obscure" version of Christianity, I'm just going to answer with a passage from the Catechism.

You are saying that it's possible for an atheist to get into heaven! That's what you're saying.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Ah ah ah! Now you're backpedaling!

First you said an atheist can get into heaven now you're saying that they can't.

This is how you described a person who can get into heaven, just a few hours ago:

an atheist who throughout his life seeks to live rightly, in accord with what he is best able to determine are moral principles, with an open-mindedness to alternate beliefs that he evaluates as objectively as he can

But then you said this:

They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

You specifically used the word ATHEIST to describe one who can get into heaven. An atheist is one who rejects God(s), not one who is unaware that a specific God is said to exists or to have started a church. That fits the definition you use to describe a person who can get into heaven, and to describe a person who cannot get into heaven.

You are saying one thing, and its exact opposite, at the same time.

That is a very common thing for Christians to do. Just look at Exodus 20 ("don't murder") and Exodus 21 ("Murder your children if they curse at you or hit you").

Why don't we do this Aquinas, take the night off to figure out what you believe, and then we can resume our conversation when you have all your ducks in a row, ok? I can't debate a person who simultaneously believes something and its exact opposite.

If you want, try creating a 2nd username for this forum and try debating yourself. Maybe by externalizing both of your contradictory beliefs you'll be able to figure out what you true belief is.

Good luck.

[AquinasD]

This is how you described a person who can get into heaven, just a few hours ago:

an atheist who throughout his life seeks to live rightly, in accord with what he is best able to determine are moral principles, with an open-mindedness to alternate beliefs that he evaluates as objectively as he can

But then you said this:

They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Do you know what the word "know" means?

What was stated is that an atheist who knows the truth of Christianity but still refuses it is rejecting salvation. This does not contradiction "an atheist could still come to salvation," because being an atheist does not necessarily imply that they know Christianity is true.

Are you trying to read what I'm saying or just looking for "gotcha" moments? It's getting old and trying my patience. Either you can meet me halfway in this discussion, or else I should save my time.

You specifically used the word ATHEIST to describe one who can get into heaven. An atheist is one who rejects God(s), not one who is unaware that a specific God is said to exists or to have started a church. That fits the definition you use to describe a person who can get into heaven, and to describe a person who cannot get into heaven.

That's an odd definition of atheist. Atheism is typically defined as "lacking the belief that God exists," so you're weird re-definition in order to create a contradiction between atheist and "one who hasn't necessarily ultimately rejected God" is just that; weird. When I said atheist, I, like most people, was using it to mean how most people use it to mean; "a person with a lack of belief in God."

Just another instance of you choosing to read what I say looking for gotcha moments rather than reading what I say to see what I mean.

[WinePusher]

I love this!

I love this, I love this, I love this!

I LOVE this new religion you're starting. I mean, it's got NOTHING to do with Christianity, but it's great!

Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity?

How quaint. Allow me to explain why American fundamentalist evangelicalism isn't representative of Christianity; I'm Catholic. Catholicism has been around 1900 years longer than evangelicalism. I'm answering with pretty average Catholic ideas about Hell. These ideas of mine are also the ideas of many, many other Catholic theologians and philosophers.

Interesting and amusing how a summary of Catholic Dogma can ignite such an extreme and uncontrollable sensation of ectasy, to such a severe degree where it must be expressed repetitively, in words and in caps on a public internet forum, amoung some people. I have to ask you for some additional clarification though, Aquinas. Are you suggesting that the doctrine of 'ex ecclesia nova solis' would exclude someone like a protestant (one who follows Christ by does not affirm the foundation of the Catholic Church by Christ) from entering into full union with God?

[AquinasD]

I have to ask you for some additional clarification though, Aquinas. Are you suggesting that the doctrine of 'ex ecclesia nova solis' would exclude someone like a protestant (one who follows Christ by does not affirm the foundation of the Catholic Church by Christ) from entering into full union with God?

Protestants are Christians who enjoy a partial communion with God in virtue of their baptism, but they are otherwise cut off from the fullness of sacramental grace available through the Church so long as they insist on their Protestantism over the Tradition as handed down in the Church. Like other non-believers, though, I think that while they stand a better chance of ultimately accepting the totality of union with God (because union with the Church is a prerequisite), the ultimate rejection of the Church would be a rejection of God.

[notachance]

This is how you described a person who can get into heaven, just a few hours ago:

an atheist who throughout his life seeks to live rightly, in accord with what he is best able to determine are moral principles, with an open-mindedness to alternate beliefs that he evaluates as objectively as he can

But then you said this:

They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Do you know what the word "know" means?

What was stated is that an atheist who knows the truth of Christianity but still refuses it is rejecting salvation.

"An atheist who knows the truth of Christianity" is an oxymoron. That's like saying "A person who doesn't believe in Santa but knows that Santa is real".

Sorry. You're not making any sense. Earlier you said that atheists can go to heaven, then in the next post you said that only Catholics go to heaven.

I'm not making this up! Read back what you wrote!

I just want to know which one you actually believe. Feel free to debate with yourself at length, but don't expect anybody else to debate you when you appear to be arguing two opposites simultaneously.

Just answer:
a) It's possible for people who die atheists, muslims, Jews, Hindu, Buddhists, etc to change their mind and accept Jesus and heaven after they die

or

b) Only people that die Catholics go to heaven, all others, including all protestants go to hell unless they accept that an active supporter of pedophilia is the direct representative of God on earth.

Just tell me which one of these two positions that you clearly profess as your own is the one you ACTUALLY believe. That's all I ask.

[AquinasD]

"An atheist who knows the truth of Christianity" is an oxymoron. That's like saying "A person who doesn't believe in Santa but knows that Santa is real".

Belief is a complex reality. Clearly, there could be instances in which, if Christianity is true, certain atheists ought to know that but they don't because of some decision they make about how to actually seek out the truth, and other atheists might be seeking but simply never find it or are able to really figure it out.

Think of creationists. They have every good reason to believe that evolution is true, but they pretty much just refuse to see it. I'm saying there could exist a case in which the same holds for an atheist in respect to Christianity; they have good reasons to believe, but they just refuse to see or understand those reasons.

I'm not defending anything incoherent or even remotely unorthodox here.

Suppose there were two children who both loved their mother very much. Since they both love her, they want to please her; one knows that she would like a handwritten card, but the other doesn't know this, and instead gets her a Hot Wheels track. The mother, even though she preferred the handwritten card, will still accept the love of the other child because she understands that it was motivated by sincerity, and the child would've given her a handwritten card had they known that's what she wanted.

But then there are two other children, who aren't motivated by love. One simply refuses to give her a gift, and the mother understands that this is because the child doesn't love her. The other gives her a handwritten card, but one that they didn't put any effort or thought into, because they never really loved the mother anyway. Again the mother understands that this child doesn't love her.

Can you see the point here?

And can you acknowledge the point without going off on some irrelevant tangent?

[notachance]

"An atheist who knows the truth of Christianity" is an oxymoron. That's like saying "A person who doesn't believe in Santa but knows that Santa is real".

Belief is a complex reality. Clearly, there could be instances in which, if Christianity is true, certain atheists ought to know that but they don't because of some decision they make about how to actually seek out the truth, and other atheists might be seeking but simply never find it or are able to really figure it out.

Think of creationists. They have every good reason to believe that evolution is true, but they pretty much just refuse to see it. I'm saying there could exist a case in which the same holds for an atheist in respect to Christianity; they have good reasons to believe, but they just refuse to see or understand those reasons.

I'm not defending anything incoherent or even remotely unorthodox here.

Suppose there were two children who both loved their mother very much. Since they both love her, they want to please her; one knows that she would like a handwritten card, but the other doesn't know this, and instead gets her a Hot Wheels track. The mother, even though she preferred the handwritten card, will still accept the love of the other child because she understands that it was motivated by sincerity, and the child would've given her a handwritten card had they known that's what she wanted.

But then there are two other children, who aren't motivated by love. One simply refuses to give her a gift, and the mother understands that this is because the child doesn't love her. The other gives her a handwritten card, but one that they didn't put any effort or thought into, because they never really loved the mother anyway. Again the mother understands that this child doesn't love her.

Can you see the point here?

And can you acknowledge the point without going off on some irrelevant tangent?

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying here.

According to your metaphor, there are 4 types of people.

Type 1: Those who truly love the mother and who know how to please her. That would be a metaphor for people who love God and worship him in the right way. Namely Catholics according to you.

Type 2: Those who truly love the mother but dont know how to please her. Their heart is in the right place but they unintentionally mess up. That would be a metaphor for people who love God but worship him in the wrong way. Namely the other 29,999 denominations of Christianity, and possibly other religions too.

Type 3: People who dislike the mother and are open about it. That's an analogy for people who hate God. I'm guessing that would be Satanists or something.

Type 4: People who give lip service to loving their mother but don't truly love her in their heart. That's a metaphor for people who go through the motions of going to church and being spiritual, but in their heart are evil. Examples of this might be people like Hitler or the current Pope, who supposedly are catholics, but committed mass murder and promote child rape respectively.

There is a type 5, though, and that's atheists. Atheists are people who don't believe that the "mother" concept (metaphor for God) exists. Atheists neither love nor hate God, neither try to please him, nor do they try to piss him off. Atheists believe that the entire God story was a fabrication concocted by shrewd politicians/clergymen for the purpose of controlling people. We are no more able to love God than we are able to love Santa.

I'm hoping that you'll realize that that's a different category from the 4 you mentioned.

But either way, this is my question:

Of types 1 through 5, which ones have a chance of going to heaven assuming that they retain their lifelong worldview at the moment of death?

You've had a couple of contradictory statements so far, and I was hoping you'd clear this up.

First you said this:

Can they make this choice after they die?

I'm led to believe that the final decision a person makes only occurs then, but is informed by their choices and motivations here on earth.

This would imply that you STILL HAVE FREE WILL after death and are able to make your final decision at that time. That's what you said, right? Regardless of whether your decision is "informed" by stuff from earlier in life, by definition, if you can make a decision you have free will. If you have free will you can choose anything. Therefore by this statement you made, it would seem that it's possible for anybody to make a complete change of heart after they're dead and accept God and heaven. For some it will be difficult, but not impossible.

Therefore this first statement you made would suggest that Jesus is a bold faced liar and in truth anybody can get into heaven. Including evil people like Hitler, Stalin or the Pope, as long as they realize in their post-death decision that it was wrong for them to commit genocide and support child rape.

Then you wrote this:

An atheist who throughout his life seeks to live rightly, in accord with what he is best able to determine are moral principles, with an open-mindedness to alternate beliefs that he evaluates as objectively as he can, [might get into heaven]

You also phrased it thus:

That is what I meant. A person who makes an effort to live by what is true will be the one who decides to live by truth in eternity.

I think what you mean by these confusing phrases is that both type 1 and type 2 can get into heaven. If you are basically the kind of person who tries to be good, and tries to learn the truth, don't actively try to do evil things, then you can get into heaven.

Them, you wrote this:

"Outside the [Catholic]Church there is no salvation"

That would indicate that contrary to previous statements, only type 1 people get to go to heaven.

So, first you say that anybody can get into heaven, including evil people like Hitler and the Pope.

Then you say that only some people can get into heaven. Namely type 1 and type 2, those who honestly try to find God, irrespective of whether they manage to find him or not.

Then you say that only Catholics get into heaven.

Then in your last post, which is quoted in full above, you seem to change your mind again and go back to your second stance.

Can you please make up your mind? that's all I ask. Are there three people with different opinions trapped inside your body? I can't debate with all three of you at the same time.

When you get your house (your brain) in order, let me know and we can resume the debate.

[AquinasD]

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying here.

According to your metaphor, there are 4 types of people.

There is a type 5, though, and that's atheists.

You might be pushing the allegory a bit too far. As I have spoken previously, an atheist who lives with love must necessarily be living in accord to some principle, or at least trying to find that principle of truth and being. That would be their "mother" to which they attend.

But it's just an allegory, and you do get my point, so good.

Of types 1 through 5, which ones have a chance of going to heaven assuming that they retain their lifelong worldview at the moment of death?

Those who desire and try to live rightly, aka types 1 and 2.

You've had a couple of contradictory statements so far, and I was hoping you'd clear this up.

Y'know, I really think the only contradiction here is your lingering assumptions about Christianity being essentially fundamentalist. If you'd just drop the assumptions and read what I say for what I say and no more (and I am trying to fill out tangents here within reason), you wouldn't "find" so many contradictions.

If you can understand my allegory about the children and their mother, then the rest should fall into place.

This would imply that you STILL HAVE FREE WILL after death and are able to make your final decision at that time. That's what you said, right? Regardless of whether your decision is "informed" by stuff from earlier in life, by definition, if you can make a decision you have free will. If you have free will you can choose anything. Therefore by this statement you made, it would seem that it's possible for anybody to make a complete change of heart after they're dead and accept God and heaven. For some it will be difficult, but not impossible.

Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying; that the choice is made after death, but that it is informed by what we've chosen to do with our lives previously.

Right living is something to be practiced. So, for those who don't practice it, it will be much harder to make the decision towards right living.

Therefore this first statement you made would suggest that Jesus is a bold faced liar and in truth anybody can get into heaven.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Including evil people like Hitler, Stalin or the Pope, as long as they realize in their post-death decision that it was wrong for them to commit genocide and support child rape.

I hope you know that your constant assumption about the Pope being some child rapist makes you sound incredibly ignorant.

If you are basically the kind of person who tries to be good, and tries to learn the truth, don't actively try to do evil things, then you can get into heaven.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along; only I'd add that one must also try not to reject the truth.

"Outside the [Catholic]Church there is no salvation"

That would indicate that contrary to previous statements, only type 1 people get to go to heaven.

If only you would have read on for clarification of what that statement is taken to mean.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.

What it says is that all salvation flows from God through the Church to man; that is simply how God chose to effect salvation. While a person may still gain salvation despite their ignorance of God so long as they are seeking Him in their hearts, their salvation is still effected by God's grace as passed through the Church to the world.

That is what "No salvation outside the Catholic Church" means. There are no alternate sources of grace. That is why it's important for a person who knows and understands why he should be Catholic (which I will point out obviously doesn't include you, for you have some great misunderstandings) to be Catholic.

Then you say that only Catholics get into heaven.

Assume Catholicism is true, just for the sake of me detailing why.

In order to be truly united with God in communion with Him, one must accept the totality of God's truth; this would include His revelation to man in the person of Christ and His grace given to us through the Church. A person who seeks after God will naturally accept this truth, and in accepting that truth would be essentially Catholic.

[notachance]

Ok. I think I get it.

You're saying that salvation is only through the Catholic Church, but that one way in which the Catholic church saves you is by "saving you even though you're not a member of the Catholic Church, as long as you're trying to be a good person".

So the fact that non-Catholics can go to heaven is an example of how the Catholic Church, being the creation of God, is capable of saving Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Catholicism is so awesome that, as long as you're a good person, it can save you even if you're not a Catholic!

Well, this is an unfalsifiable claim, on top of the unfalsifiable claim that the whole heaven and hell story is real, so unfalsifiability squared. But if it were true, this would be the logical conclusion:

If you're a good person, there's no need to be Catholic, because Catholicism is such an awesome thing (being the creation of God) that it can save you even if you're not a Catholic.

If you're a bad person, giving lip service to the Catholic rituals will not help you because god sees through that.

In short, even if heaven and hell are real, Catholicism is meaningless. If you're a good person you get into heaven irrespective of being a practicing Catholic because catholicism is so awesome that it even saves non-catholics, if you're a bad person you're screwed either way.

Just try to be a good person.

I didn't need the Bible to figure that one out, now, did I?

[AquinasD]

Well, this is an unfalsifiable claim, on top of the unfalsifiable claim that the whole heaven and hell story is real, so unfalsifiability squared.

This isn't the natural sciences, but philosophy.

(I was wondering when that fallback response of yours would come up. It's not a legitimate response.)

But if it were true, this would be the logical conclusion:

A person would still be called to join the Church, because a rejection of the Church would be a Church, because one who seeks God seeks all of God's truth. Not to mention, a person who seeks God would be seeking the graces of the Church anyway, so there's really no reason to say "Nah, that's okay God, I don't need none of that grace stuff."