Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Am I going to hell?

13567…10

Comments

  • #62
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    homer911 wrote: »
    Just to be clear hinault, living a righteous life will not ensure your salvation - even atheists can live a righteous life. You have to love God first..

    Indeed you are correct to highlight that one must love God and live a righteous life in order to be saved.


  • #63
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    The RCC position is whats called 'invincible ignorance' People who because of some reason never had the chance to choose are assumed to have chosen by their deeds and are judged solely on that.
    Again it an example of how we attempt ownership of God as if we could decide who He will save and who He won't. What happens the rainforest tribesman or the cave man is up to God not us.

    Actually those people who may not have heard the Gospel cannot be expected to be judged upon the Gospel.

    The people who have heard the Gospel or have been made aware of the existence of Jesus Christ have no such excuse.


  • #64
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,068 ✭✭✭homer911


    hinault wrote: »
    Actually those people who may not have heard the Gospel cannot be expected to be judged upon the Gospel.

    I'm going to disagree with you hinault (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85229714&postcount=3)

    If those who have not heard the gospel cannot be judged by it, then why would God tell us, through the Bible, to evangelise? Surely we would then guarantee a 100% salvation rate if Christians did not share the word of God with those who hadn't heard it?


  • #65
    silentrust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭silentrust


    welkin wrote: »
    I'm a non-believer but I live a moral life.

    Supposing I'm completely wrong and I meet God when I die.
    Can he send me to an eternity of miserable suffering because I never prayed to him?

    Having met a number of religious people,the thought of sharing eternity with them in Heaven makes me feel that Hell would be by far the better option.


  • #66
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    The RCC position is whats called 'invincible ignorance' People who because of some reason never had the chance to choose are assumed to have chosen by their deeds and are judged solely on that.
    Again it an example of how we attempt ownership of God as if we could decide who He will save and who He won't. What happens the rainforest tribesman or the cave man is up to God not us.

    Is it just me or is there a slight smell of logical gymnastics off that theory tommy?
    This is god, for gods sake! - are you seriously telling me he couldn't get word to to a tribesman in guatemala if he wanted to?
    Or by that same token does that mean that an indian, for example, who through a fluke of geography outside of their control (but not gods) has only ever been exposed to hinduism, can live a good hindu life and get in to christian heaven despite worshipping countless dozens of "false" gods, ie blatantly breaking one of the golden rules?
    Even in court they'll tell you ignorance of the law is no defence!
    homer911 wrote: »
    I'm going to disagree with you hinault (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85229714&postcount=3)

    If those who have not heard the gospel cannot be judged by it, then why would God tell us, through the Bible, to evangelise? Surely we would then guarantee a 100% salvation rate if Christians did not share the word of God with those who hadn't heard it?

    That's exactly what i was thinking - in my opinion the majority of people worldwide are "good" but may not be following the 10 commandments - telling them only condems them, so why do it?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Is it just me or is there a slight smell of logical gymnastics off that theory tommy?
    This is god, for gods sake! - are you seriously telling me he couldn't get word to to a tribesman in guatemala if he wanted to?
    Or by that same token does that mean that an indian, for example, who through a fluke of geography outside of their control (but not gods) has only ever been exposed to hinduism, can live a good hindu life and get in to christian heaven despite worshipping countless dozens of "false" gods, ie blatantly breaking one of the golden rules?
    Even in court they'll tell you ignorance of the law is no defence!



    That's exactly what i was thinking - in my opinion the majority of people worldwide are "good" but may not be following the 10 commandments - telling them only condems them, so why do it?

    Well of course it logical gymnastics, that's what we do to tidy up the untidy bits. Who said He didn't get to the tribesman? God isn't just the God of Christians you know, Christianity is the religion of Christians not God.


  • #68
    ziedth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    But how the hell can you follow that. Tens of millions of people on this planet live good lives, try and make the world a little better and live lives that are ethical.

    Even if I had 100% proof that your right about everything and all these people are being sent to eternal torture just because they didn't believe in organized religion. I'd take my chances with them rather than follow a god that would do that.


  • #69
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    homer911 wrote: »
    I'm going to disagree with you hinault (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85229714&postcount=3)

    If those who have not heard the gospel cannot be judged by it, then why would God tell us, through the Bible, to evangelise? Surely we would then guarantee a 100% salvation rate if Christians did not share the word of God with those who hadn't heard it?

    If someone lives on a part of this planet where no knowledge of Christ or His Gospel exists, then they can't be judged on the basis of their knowledge of something that they do not know to exist.

    However if they lead a righteous life in that existence of no knowledge of Christ and His gospels they can according to the Catechism be saved :

    1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."


  • #70
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    hinault wrote: »
    "63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

    What if their god had a fondness for throwing virgins into volcanoes, or cutting out the hearts of opposing tribes? As many a god down the ages has.
    If young pablo dutifully chopped up a few innocent people to ensure the crops would grow, or the rains would come, or just in an effort to please his god cos he was a god fearing man, does he get in to heaven on the old "i didn't know" clause?


  • #71
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,068 ✭✭✭homer911


    hinault wrote: »
    If someone lives on a part of this planet where no knowledge of Christ or His Gospel exists, then they can't be judged on the basis of their knowledge of something that they do not know to exist.

    However if they lead a righteous life in that existence of no knowledge of Christ and His gospels they can according to the Catechism be saved :

    1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

    We do actually agree! ;) God's righteousness is revealed through his creation and while this person is not judged by their explicit knowledge of God, they are judged by their implicit knowledge of God as revealed to them in their circumstances and how they respond to this


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,068 ✭✭✭homer911


    ziedth wrote: »
    But how the hell can you follow that. Tens of millions of people on this planet live good lives, try and make the world a little better and live lives that are ethical.

    Even if I had 100% proof that your right about everything and all these people are being sent to eternal torture just because they didn't believe in organized religion. I'd take my chances with them rather than follow a god that would do that.

    Care to define what you mean by "organized religion"? and why anyone should believe in it? Personally I believe in God, not religion.


  • #73
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    homer911 wrote: »
    Care to define what you mean by "organized religion"? and why anyone should believe in it? Personally I believe in God, not religion.

    Unless God came down and revealed his entire message to you personally, you believe in religion. :p

    You believe in all the various prophets and messengers, authors and priests, that compiled the Bible and claimed it was God's message to mankind, along with the religious cultural tradition that filtered out the good from the heretical.

    I don't know why some Christians say they don't follow a religion. You couldn't get a more religious religion than Christianity.


  • #74
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    homer911 wrote: »
    We do actually agree! ;) God's righteousness is revealed through his creation and while this person is not judged by their explicit knowledge of God, they are judged by their implicit knowledge of God as revealed to them in their circumstances and how they respond to this

    It is interesting to ponder on what Hell actually is and the fact that Hell exists for eternity.

    Our actions and thoughts in the life will set the context of our existence after this life ends.

    I try to meditate upon this from time to time in order to "get back to basics".
    This world with all it's distractions and temptations can lead many to lose focus upon what is actually far far more important.


  • #75
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    hinault wrote: »
    Our actions and thoughts in the life will set the context of our existence after this life ends.

    So what about my question?
    What happens to the otherwise decent aztec warrior who dutifully chopped up another equally decent inca warrior and tossed him in a volcanoe to appease his god so that the harvest would be good. What awaits him?


  • #76
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    The answer depends on who you ask. The main options are:

    eternal punishment/ separation;
    annihilationism;
    universalism.


  • #77
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,068 ✭✭✭homer911


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't know why some Christians say they don't follow a religion. You couldn't get a more religious religion than Christianity.

    Probably becuase the term has been abused so much and the desire to disassociate ourselves from that abuse.

    You get committed christians who want to disassociate themselves from those with no real faith, but who 'follow' their chosen religion, and at the other end and those who who say they are committed christians, yet 'choose to follow God in their own way'

    ABTW, God has revealed himself to me (thats what becomming a Christian is about), but as God is omnipresent, he didnt need to comes down from anywhere..

    so if someone asked me if I was religious, the answer would be 'No, I'm a Christian'


  • #78
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The answer depends on who you ask. The main options are:

    eternal punishment/ separation;
    annihilationism;
    universalism.

    Why are those the options though? Why not eternal salvation? He had never heard any christian teachings, what he was told was chop him up, throw him in the volcano and god is happy and the crops will grow. Is that not invincible ignorance?
    homer911 wrote: »
    so if someone asked me if I was religious, the answer would be 'No, I'm a Christian'

    Do you go to mass? If so which church? Or do you chop and change?


  • #79
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    hinault wrote: »
    It is interesting to ponder on what Hell actually is and the fact that Hell exists for eternity.

    Our actions and thoughts in the life will set the context of our existence after this life ends.

    I try to meditate upon this from time to time in order to "get back to basics".
    This world with all it's distractions and temptations can lead many to lose focus upon what is actually far far more important.
    And this is another reason why it doesn't make any sense. There is a problem with proportionality. Whether a person lives for a second, or lives for 120 years, the reward or punishment at the end of it makes no sense.

    MrP


  • #80
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    MrPudding wrote: »
    And this is another reason why it doesn't make any sense. There is a problem with proportionality. Whether a person lives for a second, or lives for 120 years, the reward or punishment at the end of it makes no sense.

    MrP

    I didn't set the house rules:)

    If one abides by the rules and the spirit of the rules, salvation is theirs, by the grace of God!


  • #81
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    hinault wrote: »
    I didn't set the house rules:)

    If one abides by the rules and the spirit of the rules, salvation is theirs, by the grace of God!

    And yet it makes no sense, as per MrP's comment. Care to address that instead of saying "that's just how it is :) "?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Gumbi wrote: »
    And yet it makes no sense, as per MrP's comment. Care to address that instead of saying "that's just how it is :) "?

    If you come here expecting any of this to make sense, you are in for some serious disappointment!

    But if you look at it proportionaly as Mr. P suggests there is feck all difference between 1 second and 120 years to an eternal being!


  • #83
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Gumbi wrote: »
    And yet it makes no sense, as per MrP's comment. Care to address that instead of saying "that's just how it is :) "?

    What exactly doesn't make sense in your opinion?


  • #84
    JoeB-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    homer911 wrote: »
    I'm going to disagree with you hinault (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85229714&postcount=3)

    If those who have not heard the gospel cannot be judged by it, then why would God tell us, through the Bible, to evangelise? Surely we would then guarantee a 100% salvation rate if Christians did not share the word of God with those who hadn't heard it?


    This is very similar to something I asked previously.. namely, why don't parents kill their own children immediately after baptism? It would guarantee the child's entry into eternal heaven, .. which is presumably what most faithful parents want.

    Many parents would willingly die to donate bone marrow etc to a child.... and of what value is this mortal life compared to eternal heaven? If a parent can guarantee a child's entry into heaven, and they actually believe in heaven, then why don't they actually do it?

    Has there ever been a case of it?, at any time or in any place?

    I'd suggest that no parents actually believe in heaven... based on the fact that no parent has ever killed their own child after baptism.


    Of course the parents would go to hell and incur Gods wrath, .. but so what?, parents make sacrifices all the time.

    Did Thomas of Aquinas or anyone else have anything to say on this?


  • #85
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    hinault wrote: »
    What exactly doesn't make sense in your opinion?

    I think you should address MrPudding's comment, upon which my own is based, and in which the original point was made.


  • #86
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Gumbi wrote: »
    I think you should address MrPudding's comment, upon which my own is based, and in which the original point was made.

    I already have.

    Now I addressing your question.
    What in your opinion doesn't make sense?


  • #87
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    hinault wrote: »
    I already have.

    Now I addressing your question.
    What in your opinion doesn't make sense?

    If we view this life as a trial to see who gets into the good one then surely we should all be judged equally. That's what doesn't make sense.

    If fifa said tomorrow that all matches played by ireland would now last for 120 minutes whereas all matches played by spain would be for 60 minutes do you think an answer like, well fifa make the rules would be sufficient?
    So to get back to the game of life, if some "lucky" baby only has to endure 2 minutes of this trial and then wins by default, why does some "unlucky" 99 year old still have more to go?


  • #88
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    hinault wrote: »
    I already have.

    Now I addressing your question.
    What in your opinion doesn't make sense?

    Where? You haven't...which was my point.


  • #89
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Why are those the options though? Why not eternal salvation?
    Interpretation of the meaning of certain passages. As for eternal salvation, you may wish to read up on the third option I mentioned.


  • #90
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Where? You haven't...which was my point.

    In my direct reply to Mr.Pudding that's where.

    At the third time of asking whatin your opinion doesn't make sense?

    Why are you reluctant to give your opinion about what doesn't make sense?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    hinault wrote: »
    In my direct reply to Mr.Pudding that's where.

    At the third time of asking whatin your opinion doesn't make sense?

    Why are you reluctant to give your opinion about what doesn't make sense?
    Let's start with that which I already pointed out (for the third time now), MrPudding's point - which you still haven't addressed??? You said "I didn't set the rules", that's neither an explanation nor a justification.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement