Religious foundation authority

[Blue_Horizon]

Sincerity of course does not excuse anyone’s sins.

We know how sincere the devil is about destroying us all.

It is a little more complicated than this I believe.

Natural angelic minds, even including the devil, are unable to sincerely deny the existence of God because the perspicacity of their intellect is such that it is as impossible for them to sincerely deny God 's existence as it would be to deny their own existence. It is a self evident reality for them.
This is basic Aquinas.

For the natural human mind it is entirely possible to be non culpably unaware of God’s existence because this is not a self-evident truth in the same way. All the more so due to the intellectual wound caused by the Fall.

I believe what is meant when we colloquially speak of sincere atheists is that they are non-culpably unable to apprehend the existence of God by reason.

Further, it also suggests that God has not yet extended to them the same strength of graced opportunities for coming to know him through faith either.

For these reasons I would be slow to say that lack of certitude re the existence of God is “grave matter”. Nor can we reasonably assume culpability if atheists are sincere (ie naturally virtuous in every other way).

If this be the case such “sincere” atheists may perhaps not rightly be called either material or formal sinners.

 

[goout]

You as a Catholic should have enough back up to answer my questions when you engage into a discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions so I provide you a clear verse from Bible which indicates that those who believe in Jesus should not perish and have everlasting life… (supposedly in Heaven). So I think I answer your first question.

Pardon me to jump in and observe that it get’s tiresome to repeat one’s self when attacked.

If I’ve learned one thing here, it’s that nothing is new under the sun, and all these questions have been debated here many times. Even in this thread right here answers have been given. It’s demeaning for people to lay out reasons for their beliefs when you are going to reflexively disagree with them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is a little more complicated than this I believe.

Natural angelic minds, even including the devil, are unable to sincerely deny the existence of God because the perspicacity of their intellect is such that it is as impossible for them to sincerely deny God 's existence as it would be to deny their own existence. It is a self evident reality for them.
This is basic Aquinas.

For the natural human mind it is entirely possible to be non culpably unaware of God’s existence because this is not a self-evident truth in the same way. All the more so due to the intellectual wound caused by the Fall.

I believe what is meant when we colloquially speak of sincere atheists is that they are non-culpably unable to apprehend the existence of God by reason.

Further, it also suggests that God has not yet extended to them the same strength of graced opportunities for coming to know him through faith either.

For these reasons I would be slow to say that lack of certitude re the existence of God is “grave matter”. Nor can we reasonably assume culpability if atheists are sincere (ie naturally virtuous in every other way).

If this be the case such “sincere” atheists may perhaps not rightly be called either material or formal sinners.

This to me is a very ugly way to excuse atheism.

Atheism is a sin because it is a choice against God.

You cannot say people are not responsible for their choices, because that would mean all sinning is not culpable.

Please get a grip on Catholic theology and stop looking for way to get everyone into heaven.

Ain 't gonna happen.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

 

[goout]

This to me is a very ugly way to excuse atheism.

Atheism is a sin because it is a choice against God.

You cannot say people are not responsible for their choices, because that would mean all sinning is not culpable.

Please get a grip on Catholic theology and stop looking for way to get everyone into heaven.

Ain 't gonna happen.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

This is a difficult and nuanced topic, for better or worse.
Mortal culpability assumes full knowledge and consent. Some say that includes not just the knowledge and consent that an action is wrong according to Christian teaching, but also the knowledge and consent that the action will kill the life of God within you.

An atheist does not really consent to this and does not have the same knowledge that Catholic has, and so this is not mortally culpable for one who does not fully consent.

I’m not sure if I agree with this, but that’s kinda beside the point. As for me, I know and consent to the teaching, so no excuses and no presumption.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is a difficult and nuanced topic, for better or worse.
Mortal culpability assumes full knowledge and consent.

It is impossible for me to imagine an atheist who does not have full knowledge and consent regarding his atheism.

Ask Bradski, our resident atheist.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is impossible for me to imagine an atheist who does not have full knowledge and consent regarding his atheism.

Ask Bradski, our resident atheist.

Thank goodness Catholic teaching is not dependent on the limits of your imagination .

May as well say it’s impossible to imagine a killer (or adulter, or a stealer etc) who does not have full knowledge and consent regarding his killings .

The same application of your principle…which does suggest it has a few holes.

In any case this was not my point.

My point was that this is what people usually mean when they talk about sincere atheists.
Whether sincere atheists exist in practice is another topic…one I am sure only God knows the final answer to…you and I not so much.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This to me is a very ugly way to excuse atheism.

Atheism is a sin because it is a choice against God.

You cannot say people are not responsible for their choices, because that would mean all sinning is not culpable.

Please get a grip on Catholic theology and stop looking for way to get everyone into heaven.

Ain 't gonna happen.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

As they say, the devil himself can quote the Catechism to serve his purposes.
The CCC like many seminal works, is a thing of beauty and delicate balance of what may seem to be opposing concepts. It’s easy to cherry pick one side of the harmony to suit our personal prejudices and in doing so ignore the difficult task of harmonising our own inevitable ignorances which is the journey of a lifetime…just as the CCC also states.

So in order to reestablish the balance here is the other side of the story, much longer than your quote, which you left out:

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So in order to reestablish the balance here is the other side of the story, much longer than your quote, which you left out:

Your quote says only that it diminishes (not removes) the imputability of atheism as a sin.

If I ceased to be a Catholic and became an atheist because I met a few hypocrites in the Church, I think that would only be an excuse for leaving the Church, and that I had a disposition to be an atheist that was interior, rather than to be blamed on someone else.
Atheism would be on me, not on the fact that I noticed a few pedophile priests in the Church, for example.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your quote says only that it diminishes (not removes) the imputability of atheism…

Correct, may I remind you of your quote that I was balancing:

It is impossible for me to imagine an atheist who does not have full knowledge and consent…

I can see you are not familiar with formal moral theology vocabulary. The very factors that diminish imputability are: less than full knowledge or less than full consent. While you personally cannot imagine less than plenitude for each of these re atheism… the CCC you appear to respect in other areas clearly disagrees with you on this point.
And yes, it is also standard moral theology that sins of grave matter can also be rendered fully non imputable at times. The CCC does not need to repeat this every time for every example in the CCC because the principle is well known to priests and moral theologians and was established some centuries ago. It is not uncommon for atheists to suffer from invincible ignorance. This is a form of defect in the knowledge/understanding needed for a moral or immoral act. Invincible ignorance, if sincere, is fully non imputable.

 

[ericc]

Yes, according to the verse one who does not believe in God should to Hell and vise verse. What is the contradiction?

I may have understood the situation unclearly. You said you disagree that a sincere atheist should go to hell. I said such a person may end up there according to that verse. But I am not the judge of that and I do not wish anyone to be there. However I think I should warn people (myself included) that they could end up there by not believing in God.

Since you disagree and you bring up the verse to spotlight the issue, there seems some angle I am missing. But put that aside for the sake of discussion. Tell us why the sincere atheist doesn’t deserve hell if found “guilty” of that verse. How would you explain yourself if at the end of the journey there is God at the end of the tunnel of light? Ignorance? God is not great enough for you for worship? Let’s hear from you. Obviously if there is no God, this is a non-issue per Pascal Wager.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Invincible ignorance, if sincere, is fully non imputable.

Let me understand you fully.

Are you saying that atheists go to heaven because they are invincibly ignorant?

Sounds like we should all be invincibly ignorant atheists?

Bottom line, anyone who dies and has not repented his sins and asked God’s forgiveness and mercy has embarked on the surest path to hell. Do you agree?

 

[STT]

Tell us why the sincere atheist doesn’t deserve hell if found “guilty” of that verse.

You don’t blame and punish people for ignorance. This is type of ignorance which is imposed by God, absence of God, so why atheists should pay for it.

How would you explain yourself if at the end of the journey there is God at the end of the tunnel of light? Ignorance?

I was not convinced. Ignorance.

God is not great enough for you for worship?

I don’t believe in worshiping even if there is a God. It is matter of irrespecting yourself as a grand part of creation and this by itself is self-contradictory. Why we should worship God? Because He is so great that He is able to create human. So why we should worship God if we are great enough.

Let’s hear from you. Obviously if there is no God, this is a non-issue per Pascal Wager.

I believe that Pascal Wanger’s approach is a non-sincere approach and I am wondering those who follow this approach should deserve Heaven.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You don’t blame and punish people for ignorance. This is type of ignorance which is imposed by God, absence of God, so why atheists should pay for it.

I was not convinced. Ignorance.

I don’t believe in worshiping even if there is a God. It is matter of irrespecting yourself as a grand part of creation and this by itself is self-contradictory. Why we should worship God? Because He is so great that He is able to create human. So why we should worship God if we are great enough.

I believe that Pascal Wanger’s approach is a non-sincere approach and I am wondering those who follow this approach should deserve Heaven.

Pascal Wanger?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let me understand you fully.

Are you saying that atheists go to heaven because they are invincibly ignorant?

Sounds like we should all be invincibly ignorant atheists?

Bottom line, anyone who dies and has not repented his sins and asked God’s forgiveness and mercy has embarked on the surest path to hell. Do you agree?

I am simply observing that your personal experience below that all atheists are fully imputable for their sin and that the CCC says so is mistaken. The CCC says atheism, like any other objective “disorder” can be subject to diminished imputability.

Also, sincerity (coupled with an otherwise virtuous chacter) would suggest the presence of invincible ignorance which by definition means zero imputability. This is recognised by your Church as a real possibility for many grave objective disorders and as atheism has never been singled out as an exception to this principle I see no reason why it would not hold for breaking the 1st Commandment too.

As Aquinas stated one should always first assume the best of one’s opponents arguments…and I dare say their imputability which is best known only to God or their confessor. But then I am usually a glass half full person not a Crusader.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I may have understood the situation unclearly. You said you disagree that a sincere atheist should go to hell. I said such a person may end up there according to that verse. But I am not the judge of that and I do not wish anyone to be there. However I think I should warn people (myself included) that they could end up there by not believing in God.

Since you disagree and you bring up the verse to spotlight the issue, there seems some angle I am missing. But put that aside for the sake of discussion. Tell us why the sincere atheist doesn’t deserve hell if found “guilty” of that verse. How would you explain yourself if at the end of the journey there is God at the end of the tunnel of light? Ignorance? God is not great enough for you for worship? Let’s hear from you. Obviously if there is no God, this is a non-issue per Pascal Wager.

There is a difference between rejecting a gift and walking past due to not yet realising a gift has been offered in the first place. Being born into a Christian family is not the gift…but it is a great head start in giving one eyes to see the gift of faith that may be being offered when it is offered.

Not all of us are born into such optimal circumstances.

Hence the possibility of dimished imputability due to lack of understanding.
And this is possible even for those born into Christian households…especially if poor example of virtue or understanding of faith is given. Just as the CCC states.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am simply observing that your personal experience below that all atheists are fully imputable for their sin and that the CCC says so is mistaken. The CCC says atheism, like any other objective “disorder” can be subject to diminished imputability.

Also, sincerity (coupled with an otherwise virtuous chacter) would suggest the presence of invincible ignorance which by definition means zero imputability. This is recognised by your Church as a real possibility for many grave objective disorders and as atheism has never been singled out as an exception to this principle I see no reason why it would not hold for breaking the 1st Commandment too.

As Aquinas stated one should always first assume the best of one’s opponents arguments…and I dare say their imputability which is best known only to God or their confessor. But then I am usually a glass half full person not a Crusader.

Well, since you refuse to answer my question and offer instead the royal runaround, I guess we are through.

Your treatise on invincible atheism is not convincing.

There is no such thing as invincible ignorance of the existence of God. If you really knew much theology, you would also know that God has planted in us the natural law, as St. Paul and Aquinas affirm, and the natural law applies no less to the 1st Commandment than it does to all the others.

:sad_bye:

 

[jlhargus]

Great question! With competing claims of divine revelation, like anything else, we have to look rationally at the claims and decide which, if any, are authentic. In the case of Jesus Christ there are the following: fulfilled prophesies, miracles performed, future events predicted, radically changed lives of his immediate followers, witness and recording of events by his enemies and non-believers.

I would add also continuity and fulfillment from Abraham to Christ to the Church. Although changes yet not a total disconnect from God’s original revelation.

 

[ericc]

It is not uncommon for atheists to suffer from invincible ignorance. This is a form of defect in the knowledge/understanding needed for a moral or immoral act. Invincible ignorance, if sincere, is fully non imputable.

I believe this defense is available only for those who never had the opportunity to know of God. Such as remote geography and the relevant timing. People in far off lands or living before the time of Christ who never had the opportunity to know of Christ may fall into this category. Modern day atheists would/could/should have heard of Christ and chose not to accept him would not be a good candidate for invincible ignorance. For those, Christ says to shake the dust off your sandals and move on. God does give them many chances to accept or reject him.

Wilful ignorance can not be relied on. If one were to stretch it, perhaps a person who has a genetic/mental defect due to, for example, sickness or brainwashing resulting in a general resistance to religious matters may try to apply this defense. Those with their basic faculties intact most likely will fail the invincible ignorance test.

However, the conversion of one’s heart is the job of the Holy Spirit. Come Judgement Day, only the Divine Judge knows what was in their heart/minds. His judgement will be just. I can’t imagine anyone arguing with Christ that he should be allowed heaven when he has resisted him throughout his life and deny him. Mat 10:33. Condemnation is always of our own choosing, not God.

Some atheists as you may have observed here will try many methods to discourage the weak in faith to move away from God. The damage is multiplied. A non-believer that actively promote against the first commandment will be more severely judged than one that does not.

Often times, it is totally unnecessary to come up with a million proofs that God exist. OT has shown that the Israelites even those that have seen God still betray him with their infidelities. Likewise atheists will resist and hold on to their unbelief. They will clutch on to any random chance of improbabilities that God doesn’t exist. They search for the multiple universes, take shelter under the quantum uncertainty principle, blame God for all wrongs/evils/imperfections of the world and so on just to avoid meeting God. Those who sincerely trying to avoid Him will succeed. In the afterlife, God’s absence will be felt by them intensely. It is not our job for us to find excuses for them and there is no need to. The Judge knows all information intimately.

 

[STT]

Modern day atheists would/could/should have heard of Christ and chose not to accept him would not be a good candidate for invincible ignorance. For those, Christ says to shake the dust off your sandals and move on. God does give them many chances to accept or reject him.

I think that believers suffer from invincible ignorance too otherwise they would never doubt. Have you ever doubted?

Moreover, one needs to witness the act of creation by an agent to make sure that the agent is God. That is true since God is the creator. Otherwise one can even blame believer since anybody can claim that s/he is God.

 

[ericc]

You don’t blame and punish people for ignorance. This is type of ignorance which is imposed by God, absence of God, so why atheists should pay for it.

The ignorance wasn’t imposed by God but by self. One only has himself to blame for remaining ignorant. You have freewill to decide whether you want to know God or not. If one is obese and/or unhealthy, one can choose a healthier lifestyle by engaging in proper diet and exercise. If one is spiritually unhealthy, the same reasoning applies. How can one claim ignorance or special pleading? Why should God reward anyone with the right to live with him in heaven who didn’t want to have anything to do with him in the first place? So at the very least one would need to acknowledge that there is no obligation by God to reward the atheist.

I was not convinced. Ignorance.

Don’t bother trying to convince me. I am not the Judge and I can’t know the hearts of men. Try pleading ignorance to the judge. It doesn’t even work with secular judges.

I don’t believe in worshiping even if there is a God. It is matter of irrespecting yourself as a grand part of creation and this by itself is self-contradictory. Why we should worship God? Because He is so great that He is able to create human. So why we should worship God if we are great enough.

And I rest my case. There is no reason or obligation for God to take care of this group of people. And Hell by definition is the absence of God. Without God, I doubt anyone will be enjoying nice balmy sunshine. Without a nice habitable Earth, the rest of the universe is either the frigid cold of empty space or fiery fusion of atoms in the suns/stars. Take your pick of which one is least desirable and then put in a multiplier effect for the spiritual realm plus the company of Satan and his demons.

I believe that Pascal Wanger’s approach is a non-sincere approach and I am wondering those who follow this approach should deserve Heaven.

But wait, atheists don’t believe in the after life. It’s ok. But when reality sets in, see who is the thinking gambler. Pascal Wager is a powerful weapon for the proper exercise of probabilistic reasoning and understanding expected payoffs. . Why is it non-sincere? The educational approach of this method is rather good to understand probabilistic payoffs. On the other hand, trying to hang on to the probabilistic emergence of a universe and intelligent life by random chance is truly insincere.