Do Christians believe that non-Christians are going to hell?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Piffle. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 836 - 848 Piffle, again.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church does not claim that all non-believers are damned and certainly does not claim that all non-Catholics are damned. This is not to claim that no Catholic authority has made those claims, some have, but it has never been doctrine or a formal teaching of the church. (The last priest to preach that only Catholics were saved was excommunicated.)

There are both Christians and members of the subset of Christianity, Catholics, who do believe that only Christians (or Catholics) are saved, but that views is opposed to many other Christians.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, you’ve shown that pagans who have never heard of Christ can be saved (and pagan babies no doubt.) This does not appear to cover Christians not of the Church (unless those in other churches are considered to really be Catholics,) and it certainly does not cover Jews or Moslems or Hindus with good access to telecommunications.

We’ve got non-Catholics trying to convert Catholics, I assume we have Catholics trying to convert non-Catholic Christians (as well as others.) Unless this is purely a power and market share thing, many Christians are acting as if not seeing things their way has major consequences.

62

[QUOTE=kunilou]
As a “progressive Christian” I don’t need a lot of legalistic quibbling to say that atheists are NOT automatically condemned to Hell. First off, I don’t believe that the every word of the Bible is literal. I believe it’s an inspired set of writings to help me live a better life.

Second, I don’t know what’s in your heart.

Third, I don’t know what’s in God’s heart, and it’s really God’s call, not mine.
[/QUOTE]

There are degrees of literalism. I certainly understand how Christians can believe the Geneis story is just a story, and not affect their faith any. However, if your non-literalism extends to Jesus being the son of God, then perhaps you are actually a very Reformed Jew. I’m sure this is wrong, but it sounds like you consider the Bible a very old self-help book.

We certainly don’t know the mind of god - but if various holy books don’t give us a clue as to what god wants, what is the point? You’re kind of a deist then - there is a god, but we have no clue as to who he is or what he wants.

63

[QUOTE=Apos]
I think its quote a losing battle to try and argue that the vast majority of Christians and Christian sects don’t believe that non-believers: people that really don’t believe in god, are going to hell. The amount of legalistic quibbling necessary to even try to make it a plausible position is just too much. A lot of it seems to have developed as a half-hearted means to avoid the full brunt of the publcally embarrasing idea of sending, say, Ghandi to hell. But what’s the real theology there?

Heck, many important sects in history even believe that most CHRISTIANS are going to hell: forget non-Christians. Mel Gibson, for instance, seems to believe that his own wife is hellbound.

Now, today, there is a lot more progressive Christianity around. Hell is subtly redefined to either sound sort of like those bitter little atheists are just snubbing god as opposed to the other way around, or mostly just be something not talked about too much: sort of like women speaking in church. But it seems ridiculous to deny that sinners are hellbound is a major theme in Christianity, and that unbelievers are the absolute worst of all. In fact, most Christians and the Bible pretty well assert that thoughtful unbelief is THE worst, possibly even the one unforgivable, sin.
[/QUOTE]

Ghandi and Hitler are the two names I keep hearing when people talk about this. Ghandi specifically rejected Christianity (mostly because he had been to South Africa and India where “Christians” were the main oppressors and dealers of misery). Many claim that Hitler was a devout Christian (he mentions God and Christianity a lot in his speeches).

I sometimes wonder if the comic books of the 121st century will have characters like Thor, Hercules and Jesus. People of the 121st century might wonder how people in the 21st century could have actually believed in Jesus when it was so obvious that we were all the incarnations of murdered aliens from the planet Xenu and Tom Cruise was their prophet. I’m kidding but just a little bit.

64

[QUOTE=Voyager]
We’ve got non-Catholics trying to convert Catholics, I assume we have Catholics trying to convert non-Catholic Christians
[/QUOTE]

Actually, in my experience, Catholics aren’t really looking to convert people, unless those people show an interest in Catholicism on their own. I know a few people who are married to Catholics, and AFAIK nobody tries to persuade them to convert. I disagree with the Catholic Church on a lot of things, but I like and respect them for not hassling non-believers who aren’t interested in converting.

65

Catholicism has changed a heck of a lot over the years (they can go on saying that nothing has changed, that’s fine with me, but the reality is that they have changed drastically in ways I like). It’s definately one of the better religions out there, as far as us non-religious people go. The worst most Catholics will do to anyone is be arrogantly insulting.

66

[QUOTE=Apos]
Catholicism has changed a heck of a lot over the years (they can go on saying that nothing has changed, that’s fine with me, but the reality is that they have changed drastically in ways I like). It’s definately one of the better religions out there, as far as us non-religious people go. The worst most Catholics will do to anyone is be arrogantly insulting.
[/QUOTE]
Glad to hear we have evolved in positive ways, but please share for me examples of a Catholic being “arrogantly insulting.” I certainly want to avoid that if I possibly can!

67

What do you mean by “thrown out”, though? If you’re advocating that the creation story in Genesis should not be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe and of life, then I agree with you.

If you’re claiming that nobody ought to believe it in any way, shape or form, though, I don’t buy it. A narrative can be spiritually or psychologically meaningful without being scientifically valid. Moreover, science is the study of nature and natural laws; it is intrinsically incapable of determining whether supernatural entities or events exist, or can exist. Trying to use science to draw conclusions about the supernatural is like trying to detect sound with a pH test. That’s just not what the tool in question is designed to do.

68

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Evolution has an enormous amount of evidence for it. Christianity has . . . the Bible. If the Bible isn’t true, then there’s no reason to believe Christianity at all. If Genesis doesn’t match evolution, then Genesis should be thrown out because evolution has so much more evidence.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
There are degrees of literalism. I certainly understand how Christians can believe the Geneis story is just a story, and not affect their faith any. However, if your non-literalism extends to Jesus being the son of God, then perhaps you are actually a very Reformed Jew. I’m sure this is wrong, but it sounds like you consider the Bible a very old self-help book.

We certainly don’t know the mind of god - but if various holy books don’t give us a clue as to what god wants, what is the point? You’re kind of a deist then - there is a god, but we have no clue as to who he is or what he wants.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure of the point that’s being made here. Is the argument that the Bible must be literally factual for Christianity to have any validity as a belief? Is the argument that if every word of the Bible isn’t literally true, then it is utterly without value? Is the argument that if I don’t believe every word in the Bible has to be literally true, then I don’t have the right to call myself a Christian?

That kind of reduction down to black/white, true/false, you are or you ain’t, pretty much hardens any discussion to fights between two extreme elements.

69

[QUOTE=kunilou]
I’m not sure of the point that’s being made here. Is the argument that the Bible must be literally factual for Christianity to have any validity as a belief? Is the argument that if every word of the Bible isn’t literally true, then it is utterly without value? Is the argument that if I don’t believe every word in the Bible has to be literally true, then I don’t have the right to call myself a Christian?

That kind of reduction down to black/white, true/false, you are or you ain’t, pretty much hardens any discussion to fights between two extreme elements.
[/QUOTE]

I thought my comment about Genesis made it clear that I was not requiring literalism. But you seemed to be going way beyond rejecting the literal truth of the just-so stories. If you believe that the words of Jesus are enlightening and helpful (something Jews and atheists can accept) but that Jesus was not the son of God, and he did not get resurrected, I would guess that many Christians would say you don’t qualify as one.

Just about any theistic religion based on a set of holy books must have some minimal subset of creeds that you must accept to be a part of that religion. A fundamentalist would have the entire Bible, but most Christians have a much smaller set.

I hope that’s clear. There are interesting arguments in support of literalism, I think, but that’s not where I’m going here.

70

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
What do you mean by “thrown out”, though? If you’re advocating that the creation story in Genesis should not be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe and of life, then I agree with you.
[/quote]
Yes. kunilou was referring to the fundie take on creation vrs evolution.

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Moreover, science is the study of nature and natural laws; it is intrinsically incapable of determining whether supernatural entities or events exist, or can exist. Trying to use science to draw conclusions about the supernatural is like trying to detect sound with a pH test. That’s just not what the tool in question is designed to do.
[/QUOTE]
It could, if the “supernatural” was real. There has to be an underlying logic and structure, or it couldn’t work. Science has never been able to analyse the “supernatural” ( a nonsensical word IMHO ), because it has nothing to analyse, not because science can’t do it.

[QUOTE=kunilou]
I’m not sure of the point that’s being made here. Is the argument that the Bible must be literally factual for Christianity to have any validity as a belief? Is the argument that if every word of the Bible isn’t literally true, then it is utterly without value? Is the argument that if I don’t believe every word in the Bible has to be literally true, then I don’t have the right to call myself a Christian?
[/QUOTE]
It has to have a fairly close relation to reality to qualify as true. Not word for word, but if the events in the Bible didn’t happen more or less as described, then it’s historical fiction.

71

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
Actually, in my experience, Catholics aren’t really looking to convert people, unless those people show an interest in Catholicism on their own. I know a few people who are married to Catholics, and AFAIK nobody tries to persuade them to convert. I disagree with the Catholic Church on a lot of things, but I like and respect them for not hassling non-believers who aren’t interested in converting.
[/QUOTE]

I thought that to get married in the church, you had to at least agree to have your children raised Catholic. But in general, today there seems to be a lot less conversion activity. I’m more wondering if there ever was an effort to convert Protestants, or if the Catholic Church is waiting for all of them to see the error of their ways and come back.

72

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I thought my comment about Genesis made it clear that I was not requiring literalism. But you seemed to be going way beyond rejecting the literal truth of the just-so stories. If you believe that the words of Jesus are enlightening and helpful (something Jews and atheists can accept) but that Jesus was not the son of God, and he did not get resurrected, I would guess that many Christians would say you don’t qualify as one.

Just about any theistic religion based on a set of holy books must have some minimal subset of creeds that you must accept to be a part of that religion. A fundamentalist would have the entire Bible, but most Christians have a much smaller set.

I hope that’s clear. There are interesting arguments in support of literalism, I think, but that’s not where I’m going here.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously I have not stated my own position clearly.

[QUOTE=Me]
First off, I don’t believe that the every word of the Bible is literal. I believe it’s an inspired set of writings to help me live a better life.
[/QUOTE]

By “every word” I mean the type of literal, word-for-word belief that Biblical literalists require. It does not matter to me whether Jesus fed 4,000 (Matthew 15:38), 5,000 (Mark 5:44) or “about 5,000” (Luke 9:14). And, for the record, I do not reject the idea that at least some of the stories actually are true. I certainly believe, for example, that there was a historical Jesus.

By “inspired” I mean inspired by God. To me that means there is Truth (with a capital T) in the message even if not every single passage is a literal history.

73

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I thought that to get married in the church, you had to at least agree to have your children raised Catholic. But in general, today there seems to be a lot less conversion activity. I’m more wondering if there ever was an effort to convert Protestants, or if the Catholic Church is waiting for all of them to see the error of their ways and come back.
[/QUOTE]
You do have to agree to raise the children Catholic, but you don’t have to convert. It has always been legitimate for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic.

74

[QUOTE=kunilou]
What standard of authenticity do you apply to any 2,000 year old book which collected oral traditions (dating much further back) and which has gone through numerous translations?
[/quote]

You doubt it all. Especially the most extraordinary claims; miracles, actual divinity of characters etc. Or do you do differently when you read the Iliad?

[QUOTE=kunilou]
You look for messages and themes, not specific words.
[/quote]

The closest I can come to a biblical theme is god saying love me or else. It pervades both the old and new testaments.

[QUOTE=kunilou]
Frankly, it always amazes me when non-believers challenge belief on the grounds that the Bible can’t possibly be literally true. To me it’s the mirror image of Biblical literalists mocking evolution because it doesn’t literally match the story of Genesis.
[/QUOTE]

Frankly, it always amazes me when liberal Christians claim the bible is full of error but then take it at face value when it says Jesus is lord, heaven awaits, etc.

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
That’s exactly right. This is why the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years discussing it, and has a book that attempts to explain it all that’s almost as big as the bible itself. Sure, the catechism is based on the bible, but there is certainly no cut-and-dried answer for what it is all supposed to mean.
[/QUOTE]

That is certainly true. The bible is so contradictory and convoluted one might conclude there was no divine inspiration at all.

[QUOTE=kunilou]

By “inspired” I mean inspired by God. To me that means there is Truth (with a capital T) in the message even if not every single passage is a literal history.
[/QUOTE]

What do you claim is the Truth (with a capital T), and how did you recognize it?

[QUOTE=Kimstu]

Moreover, science is the study of nature and natural laws; it is intrinsically incapable of determining whether supernatural entities or events exist, or can exist.
[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that religion, faith or some other means is capable of determining whether supernatural entities or events exist, or can exist?

75

[QUOTE=kunilou]
Obviously I have not stated my own position clearly.

By “every word” I mean the type of literal, word-for-word belief that Biblical literalists require. It does not matter to me whether Jesus fed 4,000 (Matthew 15:38), 5,000 (Mark 5:44) or “about 5,000” (Luke 9:14). And, for the record, I do not reject the idea that at least some of the stories actually are true. I certainly believe, for example, that there was a historical Jesus.
[/QUOTE]

Aside: The feeding of the 5000 is (the only miracle to be) mentioned in all four Gospels. Matthew also mentions feeding of 4000 as a separate event.

76

That’s one raason I was drawn to Reform Judaism; questioning and deconstruction is not only encouraged, but also expected.

77

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
That’s exactly right. This is why the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years discussing it, and has a book that attempts to explain it all that’s almost as big as the bible itself. Sure, the catechism is based on the bible, but there is certainly no cut-and-dried answer for what it is all supposed to mean. And after Protestantism broke off, there have been thousands of denominations who all think THEY know the truth of it. Anyone who thinks they can blanket “Christianity” under one simple definition or interpretation of the Bible, doesn’t really understand how the bible is read by real people.
[/QUOTE]

If there’s no “cut-and-dried” answer to what it all means, why do you believe any of it is true? Why wouldn’t you say, “I don’t know but I find the subject interesting.”? Your statement sounds much more like an agnostic’s statement than that of a catholic.

78

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I thought that to get married in the church, you had to at least agree to have your children raised Catholic.
[/quote]

You do. But the non-Catholic spouse isn’t pressured to convert to Catholicism, AFAIK.

79

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
You do. But the non-Catholic spouse isn’t pressured to convert to Catholicism, AFAIK.
[/QUOTE]

You are correct.

80

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
If there’s no “cut-and-dried” answer to what it all means, why do you believe any of it is true? Why wouldn’t you say, “I don’t know but I find the subject interesting.”? Your statement sounds much more like an agnostic’s statement than that of a catholic.
[/QUOTE]
Because I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Why do I? Because after about a year spent studying it, as well as some of the more prominent Protestant denominations, I felt that the Catholic Church has the most consistent & logical interpretation over 2000 years. Many other people believe that at some point the Church lost its way, and their Protestant denomination figured out the REAL Truth.

To be honest, I don’t think God cares all that much about these details. I have always been taught that what is really necessary was to have Faith in God. God gave us brains to think with, and He knows that each of us is different, and has to approach our relationship with Him in a different way. IMO, he would rather have us struggle & question & try to figure it out than just accept everything at face value, anyway. Maybe that’s why the Bible is so mysterious. On the other hand, maybe it’s because it was written over many many years by a bunch of different people.

If this smacks of agnosticism to you, then maybe it’s because you only think of Christians as people who don’t think…but I assure you, many of us do. Many of us doubt, and question, and wonder what it’s all for in the end. I have struggled with it all my life. But one thing I do know is that there is a God, and none of us on earth will ever truly understand Him until we stand before Him.