Judeo-Christian religions that believe in hell as the destination for people who do not believe in their god
If you studied the theology of judeo-Christian religions, you’d learn that this view is very much a minority one. In Christianity for example, outside evangelicalism, nobody teaches that (Catholicism teaches for example that a “hidden Jesus” saves outside the church). In Judaism, as far as I know, no sect teaches that at all. In Islam, outside a few sects, nobody teaches that either (in shia islam for example, most non-Muslims are Jahil-e-Qasir, “inculpable ignorant”).
First I would like to clarify my words a bit, when I said “judeo christian religions that believe X”
I intended to mean “in the case of religions that believe X” (as in, I wanted to apply my I don’t comprehend how a mixed religion relationship works for people who believe salvation is tied to belief), not to imply all judeo christian religions believe belief = salvation.
However.
At least from what I can see, just looking up different catholic sources. Unless I’m completely misunderstanding, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church , more or less from what I can gather, that’s primarally applying for say people who… literally have never heard or rejected the gospel. IE, not someone who’s married to a catholic wife and had a bible in the house and has the choice to refuse church every week.
Sort of the old joke
Eskimo “If I did not know about god and sin would I go to hell”
Missionary: “of course not, if you didn’t know you couldn’t be blamed”
Eskimo: “Why did you tell me then?”
IE the concept of “invincible ignorance”. and from what I’m searching the “inculpable ignorant” in islam. basically applies to people who have never been exposed to the religion. IE if they were around people of the faith… had access to a church/mosque etc… that doesn’t seem to apply.
Pope francis had his line in 2018 that he implied atheists could go to heaven, but the vatican was quick to say taht should not “be considered as a faithful transcription of the Holy father’s words”. In other words, the vatican isn’t fully standing behind that, and that’s very far from anything that the previous popes would have said.
I apologize for that! Now that I read you again, yes your wording was pretty clear, I misunderstood. As you can see by my poor expression, English is not my mother tongue, and I often misunderstand some nuances like that. Sorry again!
the concept of “invincible ignorance”. and from what I’m searching the “inculpable ignorant” in Islam. basically applies to people who have never been exposed to the religion
No it’s still apply. I’m not Catholic myself, but I’ll use again Catholic texts, as they are a very hierarchical denomination it’s easier as they have authoritative texts. In Gaudium et Spes, a document from the last council (so one of the most authoritative texts of this church), it is written:
taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion (§19)
One can then be atheist not because they never heard of Christianity, but because the Christians themselves taught by their words or their acts something wrong about the Church. And I mean, I’m a Christian, and I can’t reproach people to hate the Church (and by Church here I mean the Christian one, not specifically the Catholic one) when I see how far from the Gospel it often is! I didn’t heard what Francis said about atheism, so I have no opinion on the matter.
For Islam, as it’s a more horizontal faith, it will be harder to find clear proofs, but from discussions I had with Muslims I know, it’s more or less the same thing. They said to me that Islam is badly spoken about in our Western society, so even if they know what Islam is and have mosques around them, they still are seen as ignorant.
Eskimo: “Why did you tell me then?”
That’s a fun story, I never heard it, thanks!
If I were this missionary, I’d answer something like this: outside evangelicalism again, the Christian faith is only secondarily about salvation. If you read the Gospels, for example, Jesus almost never speaks about the afterlife. And when he does, he generally isn’t actually teaching about the afterlife; rather, he uses it as a metaphor to teach us how to live a full life here and now. The same is true of the Old Testament.
Paul emphasizes the subject more, but his point is something like: “This question is settled: you are saved by grace, so stop worrying about it and do good instead!” The problem is that his definition of “doing good” comes from a man living 2000 years ago, and some people (within evangelicalism, but unfortunately not only there this time) nowadays focus on the details of his definition of a good life rather than on the spirit of his teaching.
How convenient for you that you get to pick and choose which parts you like.
Even though your own lord and savior said that he didn’t come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it, and that not a single bit of that old law will change until the end of the earth (paraphrasing Matthew 5:17).
You don’t get to pick and choose what that “old law” was, it’s literally the entire first part of your holy book. And it explicitly condones slavery (among a litany of other heinous shit).
How convenient for you that you get to pick and choose which parts you like.
It’s not cherrypicking, it’s interpretation. I do not arbitrarily choose, I study the context, and use the Love of God as an hermeneutical key, to cite Martin Luther.
Even though your own lord and savior said that he didn’t come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it, and that not a single bit of that old law will change until the end of the earth (paraphrasing Matthew 5:17).
I feel free, thank you. I hope than one day, you’ll learn that it makes more happy to actually think that there’s more than one legitimate way to see the world.
I’ll give a bit more detail there. also looks like I was way off on the year. First off I’ll admit, majority of my knowledge of Christianity is based on American versions. Of which I gotta admit, American believers are a different animal than European ones. IE hence American Catholics are basically considering our current president more authoritative than the pope in spiritual matters. But even so from what I’ve seen of say actual bishops debating with Hitchens etc… It still seems to me that at least a fairly significant portion even at an international level. This ain’t a Jubalee fact check episode so obviously we shouldn’t do it as, oh if 49.9% believe belief = salvation, then you are right and if 50.1% believe it than I’m right. I’m just saying it’s not an insignificant portion. My point is someone who believes belief = salvation, and also marries someone who doesn’t believe. Is either not as convinced of their belief as they claim, or they are expecting their spouse to change, maybe thinking that being around them but not preaching, is it’s own witnessing strategy (IE let them see the light in your life),
Yes, I agree with you on the last part. I’m happily married with someone who doesn’t believe, and I couldn’t live with the idea that she could be damned just for that.
If you studied the theology of judeo-Christian religions, you’d learn that this view is very much a minority one. In Christianity for example, outside evangelicalism, nobody teaches that (Catholicism teaches for example that a “hidden Jesus” saves outside the church). In Judaism, as far as I know, no sect teaches that at all. In Islam, outside a few sects, nobody teaches that either (in shia islam for example, most non-Muslims are Jahil-e-Qasir, “inculpable ignorant”).
First I would like to clarify my words a bit, when I said “judeo christian religions that believe X”
I intended to mean “in the case of religions that believe X” (as in, I wanted to apply my I don’t comprehend how a mixed religion relationship works for people who believe salvation is tied to belief), not to imply all judeo christian religions believe belief = salvation.
However.
At least from what I can see, just looking up different catholic sources. Unless I’m completely misunderstanding, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church , more or less from what I can gather, that’s primarally applying for say people who… literally have never heard or rejected the gospel. IE, not someone who’s married to a catholic wife and had a bible in the house and has the choice to refuse church every week.
Sort of the old joke
Eskimo “If I did not know about god and sin would I go to hell”
Missionary: “of course not, if you didn’t know you couldn’t be blamed”
Eskimo: “Why did you tell me then?”
IE the concept of “invincible ignorance”. and from what I’m searching the “inculpable ignorant” in islam. basically applies to people who have never been exposed to the religion. IE if they were around people of the faith… had access to a church/mosque etc… that doesn’t seem to apply.
Pope francis had his line in 2018 that he implied atheists could go to heaven, but the vatican was quick to say taht should not “be considered as a faithful transcription of the Holy father’s words”. In other words, the vatican isn’t fully standing behind that, and that’s very far from anything that the previous popes would have said.
I apologize for that! Now that I read you again, yes your wording was pretty clear, I misunderstood. As you can see by my poor expression, English is not my mother tongue, and I often misunderstand some nuances like that. Sorry again!
No it’s still apply. I’m not Catholic myself, but I’ll use again Catholic texts, as they are a very hierarchical denomination it’s easier as they have authoritative texts. In Gaudium et Spes, a document from the last council (so one of the most authoritative texts of this church), it is written:
One can then be atheist not because they never heard of Christianity, but because the Christians themselves taught by their words or their acts something wrong about the Church. And I mean, I’m a Christian, and I can’t reproach people to hate the Church (and by Church here I mean the Christian one, not specifically the Catholic one) when I see how far from the Gospel it often is! I didn’t heard what Francis said about atheism, so I have no opinion on the matter.
For Islam, as it’s a more horizontal faith, it will be harder to find clear proofs, but from discussions I had with Muslims I know, it’s more or less the same thing. They said to me that Islam is badly spoken about in our Western society, so even if they know what Islam is and have mosques around them, they still are seen as ignorant.
That’s a fun story, I never heard it, thanks!
If I were this missionary, I’d answer something like this: outside evangelicalism again, the Christian faith is only secondarily about salvation. If you read the Gospels, for example, Jesus almost never speaks about the afterlife. And when he does, he generally isn’t actually teaching about the afterlife; rather, he uses it as a metaphor to teach us how to live a full life here and now. The same is true of the Old Testament.
Paul emphasizes the subject more, but his point is something like: “This question is settled: you are saved by grace, so stop worrying about it and do good instead!” The problem is that his definition of “doing good” comes from a man living 2000 years ago, and some people (within evangelicalism, but unfortunately not only there this time) nowadays focus on the details of his definition of a good life rather than on the spirit of his teaching.
Your god condones slavery. You can pontificate all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that your religion is vile.
It doesn’t. Parts of the Bible do, but I do not believe that the Bible is the inherent word of God. Only fundamentalists believe that.
How convenient for you that you get to pick and choose which parts you like.
Even though your own lord and savior said that he didn’t come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it, and that not a single bit of that old law will change until the end of the earth (paraphrasing Matthew 5:17).
You don’t get to pick and choose what that “old law” was, it’s literally the entire first part of your holy book. And it explicitly condones slavery (among a litany of other heinous shit).
It’s not cherrypicking, it’s interpretation. I do not arbitrarily choose, I study the context, and use the Love of God as an hermeneutical key, to cite Martin Luther.
I answered about this text here.
I have no interest in your pathetic apologetics.
I hope that one day you’re able to escape the abusive relationship you’ve chosen to have with a non-existent entity. It’s so very freeing.
I feel free, thank you. I hope than one day, you’ll learn that it makes more happy to actually think that there’s more than one legitimate way to see the world.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/05/29/187009384/Pope-Francis-Even-Atheists-Can-Be-Redeemed
I’ll give a bit more detail there. also looks like I was way off on the year. First off I’ll admit, majority of my knowledge of Christianity is based on American versions. Of which I gotta admit, American believers are a different animal than European ones. IE hence American Catholics are basically considering our current president more authoritative than the pope in spiritual matters. But even so from what I’ve seen of say actual bishops debating with Hitchens etc… It still seems to me that at least a fairly significant portion even at an international level. This ain’t a Jubalee fact check episode so obviously we shouldn’t do it as, oh if 49.9% believe belief = salvation, then you are right and if 50.1% believe it than I’m right. I’m just saying it’s not an insignificant portion. My point is someone who believes belief = salvation, and also marries someone who doesn’t believe. Is either not as convinced of their belief as they claim, or they are expecting their spouse to change, maybe thinking that being around them but not preaching, is it’s own witnessing strategy (IE let them see the light in your life),
Yes, I agree with you on the last part. I’m happily married with someone who doesn’t believe, and I couldn’t live with the idea that she could be damned just for that.