What is exactly and precisely "invincible ignorance"?

[chercheur]

I think that seems a bit overly strict. How do we know there aren’t other obstacles to understanding the truth adequately? How in control are we really of the conclusions we draw, even when the information is available to us?

 

[Nahar]

sin = before all else, is an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. Like crime, it has a degree of lesser or greater offense.

So it is not applicable to non-religious people.

can one say in another sense, that science isn’t accepted as an authority for any non scientific people?

Science can be PROVEN, religion cannot. It is not based on evidence, but faith.

Do YOU not recognize any book of laws?

Of course. I can look them up.

If you are driving a car anywhere in the U.S. you are expected to be familiar with the driving laws. No excuses allowed. If one doesn’t know the laws, it is NOT a get outta jail free card if caught breaking them that have fines attached to them…

Since those laws are universal, they are known.

 

[thistle]

And now we are here. Let’s take a concrete example. According to the catholic teaching, sex outside marriage is a mortal sin (as long as all the requirements of mortal sin are met). I am aware that this is the teaching, and yet, I reject (or discard) it - and I have my reasons for it. I do not KNOW if it is a mortal sin, I only know that in the church’s teaching (opinion) it is. That is all.

When it comes to Church teachings they are NOT opinions. Christ established the Catholic Church and entrusted it with the Deposit of Faith and gave it authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. All teachings of the Church are fully supported by the authority of God.
Teachings of the Church are teachings of God.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

sin = before all else, is an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. Like crime, it has a degree of lesser or greater offense.

Nahar:

So it is not applicable to non-religious people.

Regardless of who any of us thinks we are, NO ONE is above the ONE who created everything that is.

can one say in another sense, that science isn’t accepted as an authority for any non scientific people?

Nahar:

Science can be PROVEN, religion cannot. It is not based on evidence, but faith.

Science can’t prove the big bang. Their explanation of how everything that is began, requires faith in science.

Do YOU not recognize any book of laws?

Of course. I can look them up.

Do you accept them?

If you are driving a car anywhere in the U.S. you are expected to be familiar with the driving laws. No excuses allowed. If one doesn’t know the laws, it is NOT a get outta jail free card if caught breaking them that have fines attached to them…

Nahar:

Since those laws are universal, they are known.

actually each state has their own laws on the books, and some might be the same as other states.

Now

God’s laws OTOH, are universal.

BTW, what belief system are you?

 

[Nahar]

When it comes to Church teachings they are NOT opinions. Christ established the Catholic Church and entrusted it with the Deposit of Faith and gave it authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. All teachings of the Church are fully supported by the authority of God.
Teachings of the Church are teachings of God.

Any evidence for that?

 

[al2o3]

So it is not applicable to non-religious people.

While I am dipping into this fascinating discussion just to offer a visitors opinion:
Truth is applicable to “all” people - religious, non-religious, catholic or non-catholic. All Truth is revealed. While it is not irrational, it is not confined nor constrained by human rationality. The Church infers and teaches truths revealed by Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. One can know what the Church teaches as Truth. One may or may not know “why” the Church teaches so - but can strive for this understanding. One - with free will - may reject what the Church teaches as Truth. But doing so on the basis of “not understanding why a sin is defined as sin” is fraught with danger - because Truth always wins
The question is are we willing to leave ourselves open to being grievously wrong.

While this may seem to be an argument to “fear” - it is not meant to be so. If we are diligent in our search for truth and our actions reflect an informed conscience - there is no room for fear.

 

[Maximus1]

Passage does not say hell. Few are strong enough is not hell.
Like most infernists hyperbole is taken literally and in this case you add something.
And yes Jesus would not contradict the fathers will.

 

[Dewey83]

If there were empirical, science-based proof of God’s existence and all the other underpinnings of Christianity, there would be no atheists, and there would be no need of faith.

Everything taught by the Catholic Church is consistent with what we know of the world around us and does hold together logically. I would suggest looking at the Nicene Creed, which is a pretty good distillation of the beliefs of Catholicism. If any of it is difficult to accept or understand, then that would the place to start digging deeper into the Biblical and Traditional background of that item or items.

 

[Crusader13]

And before you start again, the reference to the church, the bible, or even the pope (infallible in questions of faith and morals) are empty assertions. They are all meaningless for non-Catholics, or non-Christians.

Then you’ve created a situation where you ask about invincible ignorance, with regards to teachings and beliefs, that you don’t feel are valid anyway. Or at least you don’t see them as being legitimately from God, because there’s no evidence that God exists.

So ultimately it sounds like you’re saying someone has the right to invincible ignorance because God has done a poor job of proving His existence.

Which is an odd contradiction. Basically it means that one has the right to not believe in God and yet if there is a God and a heaven, then they also have the right to enter into Heaven as well.

 

[steve-b]

Passage does not say hell. Few are strong enough is not hell.

Re: The passage quoted

If one is saved,they go to heaven
If one is NOT saved, they go to hell

THAT is what saved ,means.

Few are saved = few go to heaven

BTW, those in purgatory are saved, they go to heaven. They are counted in with the few

 

[Maximus1]

That is the Infernoist position.

 

[blackforest]

That is the Infernoist position.

So that’s all our faith is? If so, that sounds more nihilistic than atheism.

 

[Nahar]

If there were empirical, science-based proof of God’s existence and all the other underpinnings of Christianity, there would be no atheists, and there would be no need of faith.

Obviously. However that does not mean that everyone would “love” or “worship” God. There still would be many, who would reject God. But at least that would be conscious rejection, KNOWING what you reject.

So ultimately it sounds like you’re saying someone has the right to invincible ignorance because God has done a poor job of proving His existence.

Yes, indeed.

Which is an odd contradiction. Basically it means that one has the right to not believe in God and yet if there is a God and a heaven, then they also have the right to enter into Heaven as well.

Where is a contradiction here? I cannot accept the concept that one can only “earn” salvation through faith and works. Without works, faith is and empty concept. Without faith, the works are still valid. A loaf of bread still has the same nutritional value to a hungry person, regardless of my beliefs. (Of course I am aware that no one can “earn” salvation on her own.)

 

[Maximus1]

I cannot help what it sounds to you. I can of course cite to Saints and great Theolologians in the Church to support my position. So it is insulting, at least to them, that you cast aspersions.

 

[blackforest]

I think they can posthumously handle any observations about their position.

 

[steve-b]

That is the Infernoist position.

Nope! It’s following Jesus statement in scripture,

AND

thoughtless optimism is a prevalent error today.

 

[Maximus1]

I have to say this idea of limited salvation is one I am particularly troubled by for many reasons. Otherwise I would likely leave you to your ideas.
I understand it helps foster terrible fear. How can it not? The prospect of a few judged to eternal damnation should already cause any rational being terrible fear. After all if we are honest, we are all sinners. And we don’t know exactly what, if any threshold God might apply in such a notion of reality. Change the dynamic that few will be saved, and my own Christian humility informs me that I am not really " better" that others. ( And I take note that every harsh word Jesus issues in the Gospel is reserved for those who espouse a position that they are more worthy or Pius that the next guy.
Then there is eternal damnation and what it is as a punishment. I would like to describe it, but as finite creatures, our minds are not capable of plumbing the depths of such a fate.
I sometimes use a measuring idea to maintain perspective. If someone ascribed a more disproportional and cruel act to my God of perfect love, that my own parents could not concieve of with their own kids, I reevaluate.
I remember old Bible accounts of the Sermon where Jesus said, if you , who are evil, can give good things to your children, imagine what good things the Heavenly Father will give to those who ask him. ( The exact word is actually not evil, but it is comperable to support my point).
You envision an idea about God that I believes hopelessly places the Gospel into conflict.
You envision a God so frightening that it is difficult for most to envision an intimate relationship and eventual Divine Union.
You envision Christ’s incarnation as substantially a failure. And God’s own will thwarted by a stronger superseding will of men.

 

[blackforest]

I have to say this idea of limited salvation is one I am particularly troubled by for many reasons. Otherwise I would likely leave you to your ideas.

These aren’t just “my ideas.” They are and have been hotly debated among theologians within the Catholic Church itself. My own priest would disagree with your position. So there’s that.

I’ll get into this more when I have more time. Or maybe not. We should all take lay opinions on CAF, including my own, with a grain of Morton salt.

 

[Maximus1]

They are opinions, I agree.

 

[Crusader13]

Without faith, the works are still valid. A loaf of bread still has the same nutritional value to a hungry person, regardless of my beliefs.

The value of the works are not in question as they pertain to the here and now.

The contraction relates to one’s desire to believe in something based on faith and what God has shown them. You’re saying that the evidence is lacking, therefore you don’t believe in what’s been handed down.

However, you still expect to be given the gift of said salvation, even though you don’t believe in it.

The problem is that there is no example or minimum set of standards that you can look to that will give you “peace of mind”, for choosing not to believe.

Either you believe based upon what God has shown or you don’t. But the Church doesn’t hand out “invincible ignorance cards” that you can hand to God upon your death. If you feel secure in your understanding, much like Bertrand Russell, then you can settle up with God when you meet Him.

It’s just odd that you seem to be so certain and secure in your beliefs, yet you still want something, the golden parachute if you will, just in case you’re wrong. That contradicts the entire understanding of what it means to have faith.