Would I go to hell if I die as an atheist?

[Vouthon]

Just to make it clear to those partaking in this thread your alternative opinion conflicts with Catholic Church dogma. The catechism and Bible clearly states there is a judgment and a heaven and a hell.

Catolico, where have I stated that there isn’t a judgement and that there isn’t a heaven and hell?

I believe them both, I simply diverge with you on what they actually constitute. These are realities beyond our comprehension. The church has not explicitly defined their nature except that they both exist. Not once does the catechism refer to heaven/hell as a place, not once does it claim that heaven/hell are not self-willed acceptance or rejection of God.

If you will check with the Catechism you will actually find this:

Catechism (section 1024), “This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity—this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed—is called ‘heaven.’ Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.”

Not “place” but “state”. Just like I said.

If you will check the Catechism again you will find this:

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves . . . To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice**. This state** of definitive* self-exclusion *from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” (CCC 1033)

If you check apologetics here on CAF you will find this:

Our Choice, Not God’s

But we must understand that hell is a choice. To experience hell, one must die in the freely chosen state of mortal sin. The Catechism explains that mortal sin is “sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC 1857). Such an act is contrary to the love we owe God so, in essence, the state of mortal sin is the freely chosen state of not loving God. If one dies in such a state, God honors that choice and allows such a soul to remain separated from him.

God did not create hell so much as he allowed for its possibility. By permitting us to love him freely—or not—he allows for the possibility that we will choose to separate ourselves from him. But God does not will this for anyone.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/hell-yes-part-i

So am I to understand then Catolico, that the Catechism and CAF are wrong?

In other words my understanding is echoed by the Catechism and CAF. Do not for one minute insinuate that I would ever deliberately utter something opposed to the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

I am no heretic. Your apparent lack of awareness of this dimension of theology does not presume any misinformation - deliberate or accidental - on my part, of that I can assure you

 

[Vouthon]

I should also add Catolico that when I stated earlier:

Spirits do not reside in “place” in a manner cognizable to us.

This comes not from me but from my reading of St. Thomas Aquinas, namely:

“…Incorporeal things [spirits] are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us…”

***- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), Summa Theologia, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1, Doctor of the Catholic Church ***

Blessed Pope John Paul II explained further in one his addresses:

“…Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life…The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy…“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state…The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom…”

- Blessed Pope John Paul II (General Audience, July 28, 1999)

So shoot not the messenger

 

[Catolico65]

Catolico, where have I stated that there isn’t a judgement and that there isn’t a heaven and hell?

I believe them both, I simply diverge with you on what they actually constitute. These are realities beyond our comprehension. The church has not explicitly defined their nature except that they both exist. Not once does the catechism refer to heaven/hell as a place, not once does it claim that heaven/hell are not self-willed acceptance or rejection of God.

If you will check with the Catechism you will actually find this:

Catechism (section 1024), “This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity—this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed—is called ‘heaven.’ Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.”

Not “place” but “state”. Just like I said.

If you will check the Catechism again you will find this:

If you check apologetics here on CAF you will find this:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/hell-yes-part-i

So am I to understand then Catolico, that the Catechism and CAF are wrong?

In other words my understanding is echoed by the Catechism and CAF. Do not for one minute insinuate that I would ever deliberately utter something opposed to the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

I am no heretic. Your apparent lack of awareness of this dimension of theology does not presume any misinformation - deliberate or accidental - on my part, of that I can assure you

While we can choose right from wrong and thus whether we have the chance to go to heaven or hell Jesus makes the decision. The catechism is clear people are sent to heaven or hell.

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna,” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather… all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”

Furthermore, Jesus speaks of people who desire to go to heaven but will instead will be sent to hell. On the contrary, if it were only up to people’s individual choices as you claim many would choose heaven (as well as hell) and would be able enter, but they won’t of course.

BTW, your opinion is not uncommon, and at one point in my journey as a Christian I believed such fables. Nonetheless, I was instructed to read the Bible and the catechism and it was made clear for me. I recommend you do the same and remember not our will be done but God’s.

 

[Vouthon]

While we can choose right from wrong and thus whether we have the chance to go to heaven or hell Jesus makes the decision the catechism is clear people are sent to heaven or hell.

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna,” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather… all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”

Furthermore, Jesus speaks of people who desire to go to heaven but will instead will be sent to hell. On the contrary, if it were only up to people’s individual choices as you claim many would choose heaven (as well as hell) and would be able enter, but they won’t of course.

BTW, your opinion is not uncommon, and at one point in my journey as a Christian I believed such fables. Nonetheless, I was instructed to read the Bible and the catechism and it was made clear for me. I recommend you do the same and remember not our will be done but God’s.

The Catechism simply quotes freehand from the Bible in your quotation above. The Bible uses many images in relation to hell and other transcendental realities that can be interpreted properly only in the context of the Magisterium, with the insights of approved theologians contributing as well.

In my humble opinion, your understanding is perfectly acceptable in itself but your evidence to supposedly prove myself, Blessed Pope John Paul II, the clear quotations from the Catechism that I referenced above and CAF apologetics wrong has a very weak evidential basis thus far.

I am not dissuaded. Sorry, your case is most unconvincing.

The condemnation can be understood quite simply as, “You chose to reject me, I accept, you are in hell (which the catechism defines as a “definitive state of self-exclusion from God”, made so by death)”. Simples. Jesus said elsewhere in the Gospel:

“He who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” —Luke 10:16

Nothing at all in that quotation from the Catechism proves either the rest of the Catechism, Pope John Paul, CAF apologetics or myself wrong in the slightest. None of us, my friend, are rejecting the judgement of God merely your interpretation of it.

 

[ClearWater]

Jesus said all things are possible for God…

Yes, but God gave us all free will. He can override our free will, force us, but he won’t. An atheist would need to willingly accept grace. By definition, atheism is a rejection of belief in even the existence of God. For grace to take root, a person must be willing to receive it, cooperate with it. An atheist is closed off to that, rejecting it, and God.

Atheists seem to think they can find heaven…without God! That’s impossible.

So, they seek a place, without God, and it brings them to Satan and hell. Well, they want a place without God. That’s the place without God.

If an atheist converts, there would be some hope, but then again, that person is no longer an atheist. It’s my understanding if one waits till after death to convert, it’s too late, that judgement is generally set by then, too late to change the verdict. Why risk it? Why wait till death to become spiritual?

 

[andyklein]

What about my philosophy professors who have discerned for many years and have intellectually concluded that God does not exist?

They may be actually good people and might not be acting out of any spite for faith (ie not like the Dawkins and Hitchens type). They just have spent years finding what they believe to be truth but reach the wrong conclusion. Are they doomed?

 

[ready]

According to the teaching of the Church, if they know that the Catholic Church is the true Church established by Jesus Christ and leave it or refuse to enter into it, then they are doomed … unless they repent. God bless you.

 

[Catolico65]

What about my philosophy professors who have discerned for many years and have intellectually concluded that God does not exist?

They may be actually good people and might not be acting out of any spite for faith (ie not like the Dawkins and Hitchens type). They just have spent years finding what they believe to be truth but reach the wrong conclusion. Are they doomed?

I understand it revolves around whether they have received The Word adequately or not. Only God would know that.

At any rate, given that God is the author of all good a person that is aware of the Gospel and can follow it relatively easily there is no reason to not accept it. Anything else is rebellion and is from the evil one.

Persons that who could get into heaven w/o receiving the Word are people who never had the opportunity to hear it, for example like people born in countries where it hadn’t arrived before they died, people who were not Jews and who were born before Jesus, sacrificed children, and people born in countries where the Gospel is not allowed, like many Muslim countries.

 

[Vouthon]

What about my philosophy professors who have discerned for many years and have intellectually concluded that God does not exist?

They may be actually good people and might not be acting out of any spite for faith (ie not like the Dawkins and Hitchens type). They just have spent years finding what they believe to be truth but reach the wrong conclusion. Are they doomed?

Here is St. Edith Stein’s view on that account:

“…I am not at all worried about my dear Master. It has always been far from me to think that God’s mercy allows itself to be circumscribed by the visible church’s boundaries. God is truth. All who seek truth seek God, whether this is clear to them or not…”

***- Saint Edith Stein (1891 - 1942), Jewish Catholic mystic & Holocaust victim, speaking about her atheist/agnostic mentor Edmund Husserl ***

 

[Vouthon]

I understand it revolves around whether they have received The Word adequately or not. Only God would know that.

Yes, the Second Vatican Council noted:

“…For, 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…”

- Lumen Gentium (Part 1, Ch1. 19)

And the Catechism mentions this as a legitimate grounds for reducing an atheist’s culpability:

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 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."62

 

[ClearWater]

Love of God is not a feeling. Love of anyone is not really a feeling. It is a set of actions that you undertake because (for a human) you wish the person to be truly happy, or (for God) because (among other things) you realize He wishes you to be truly happy (while respecting your free will if you refuse that happiness).

Affection is a feeling. Lust is a feeling. Romanticism is a feeling.** None of these are Love.
**
If you find it difficult or impossible to feel affection for God, that’s not unusual. It does not mean you end up in Hell. It also doesn’t let you off doing what Jesus said you should do if you love Him–keep His commandments.

The idea that love is a feeling is behind the really high divorce rates. You can’t keep up any feeling constantly for 50 years.

–Jen

Correct! Well, a lot of people don’t understand what love is, not to say I do, completely. I know some things it’s not, though. I know it’s really not a feeling, so much, not to rely on these fleeting feelings.

Somebody was asking Christ what love was. He gave an example of love towards one’s neighbor, and used the example of someone who had been beaten, robbed, left and people who ignored him. The one who tended to him showed love of neighbor.

Also, he said the one who obeys the commandments is, likewise, showing love. If you love me, keep my commandments, was more or less the idea.

I like to use the example of how people think they are “in love” with a significant other. They will use these feelings as the basis. However, later, the person will fall out of love just as easily, a few months, a few years later. So, to me, that wasn’t love, because love is more like the marriage vows…thick or thin…rich or poor…sickness and health…unconditional love.

I’ve seen people fall “in love”, marry the “one”, only to divorce, fall “out of love”. Some fall back “in love”, this time with somebody else’s spouse, saying that person is actually really “the one”, not the first one! So, to me, we can’t always rely on feelings to tell us everything.

Some people expect the same with communion and confession. Some say that when they receive communion, or confession, they may not feel anything! I would say you don’t actually have to! It’s there whether we feel something or not!

So, as to feeling “love” for God, there might be days, even a believer, may not feel the emotions we normally think of as “love”. We may pray with a feeling of spiritual dryness, but those prayers are, if anything, MORE valuable than ones with devotion.

In a marriage, there’ll probably be days when one, or both, ask themselves, “Why did I ever get married?” Still, it’s in these times a marriage solidifies.

What I’ve learned is that “love” is not at all what I thought. It’s NOT so much feelings. Well, it can be included in them. I mean, a mother can be loving with a child, being awakened at 3 am for a feeding or to change a diaper. It probably will not feel like “love”, but it is!

So, with God, we probably won’t feel the feeling of being of love, be it with a significant other, or God, indefinitely. It’s our persistence, inspite of the lack of feeling which helps determine this as love.

 

[Catolico65]

The Catechism simply quotes freehand from the Bible in your quotation above. The Bible uses many images in relation to hell and other transcendental realities that can be interpreted properly only in the context of the Magisterium, with the insights of approved theologians contributing as well.

In my humble opinion, your understanding is perfectly acceptable in itself but your evidence to supposedly prove myself, Blessed Pope John Paul II, the clear quotations from the Catechism that I referenced above and CAF apologetics wrong has a very weak evidential basis thus far.

I am not dissuaded. Sorry, your case is most unconvincing.

The condemnation can be understood quite simply as, “You chose to reject me, I accept, you are in hell (which the catechism defines as a “definitive state of self-exclusion from God”, made so by death)”. Simples. Jesus said elsewhere in the Gospel:

“He who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” —Luke 10:16

Nothing at all in that quotation from the Catechism proves either the rest of the Catechism, Pope John Paul, CAF apologetics or myself wrong in the slightest. None of us, my friend, are rejecting the judgement of God merely your interpretation of it.

You are beating around the bush. Here, repeat after me: there is a final judgment and Jesus decides who goes to heaven and hell.

 

[Vouthon]

You are beating around the bush. Here, repeat after me: there is a final judgment and Jesus decides who goes to heaven and hell.

:tsktsk:

No, I say: There is a final judgement and Jesus accepts our definitive self-rejection of his saving grace through our dying in a state of mortal sin.

I will not shift an inch on this line

You have conspicuously avoided Pope John Paul II’s remarks and the CAF apologetics article which you can find on this website. Do they not agree with me? If so, what in my understanding - and theirs - do you find so objectionable?

Yes, Jesus decides but to what exactly? For me it is the decision to accept our freewill, our decision to commit mortal sin and die in that state - which is hell, definitive self-exclusion from God.

The judgement brings to light our hidden depths and reveals what we truly are and in what state of being we exist. It endorses our freewill which was set for heaven/hell as soon as we died either in a state of mortal sin or not. Only God knows who is or isn’t in a state of actual mortal sin, hence the need for a “judgement” to reveal the hidden secrets of each person’s heart.

 

[Catolico65]

:tsktsk:

No, I say: There is a final judgement and Jesus accepts our definitive self-rejection of his saving grace through our dying in a state of mortal sin.

I will not shift an inch on this line

You have conspicuously avoided Pope John Paul II’s remarks and the CAF apologetics article which you can find on this website. Do they not agree with me? If so, what in my understanding - and theirs - do you find so objectionable?

Yes, Jesus decides but to what exactly? For me it is the decision to accept our freewill, our decision to commit mortal sin and die in that state - which is hell, definitive self-exclusion from God.

The judgement brings to light our hidden depths and reveals what we truly are and in what state of being we exist. It endorses our freewill which was set for heaven/hell as soon as we died either in a state of mortal sin or not. Only God knows who is or isn’t in a state of actual mortal sin, hence the need for a “judgement” to reveal the hidden secrets of each person’s heart.

Notwithstanding the former Pope’s remarks the Bible and the catechism are crystal clear my friend.

 

[Vouthon]

The Catechism states:

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC 1035)

So, as soon as a person dies in a state of actual mortal sin they have “definitively self-excluded” themselves from God and are therefore in hell. Mortal sin = hell.

The judgement of God alone is capable of discerning who is or is not in mortal sin, that is, “this state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed [that] is called hell” (catechism).

The judgement determines the nature of the person’s heart and “reveals” it.

 

[Vouthon]

Notwithstanding the former Pope’s remarks the Bible and the catechism are crystal clear my friend.

Not so, Catolico. Your interpretation of the Bible and consistent avoidance of what the Catechism actually says apart from one direct quote from the Bible, is what is going on here.

The bible is interpreted by the church, in the context of the magisterium and sacred tradition.

In my opinion, you have interpreted the bible as you see it and then looked to the catechism to confirm this personal interpretation.

I have instead looked first to the catechism and the magisterium, as well as theologians, and then read the bible with them as my guide.

Therein is the difference and this I think (in all humility and apologies sincerely if I am wrong) constitutes the void in understanding between us.

The bible must be read through the eyes of the church.

I notice that you have gone straight to the bible on most occasions in our discussion as if it were somehow self-explanatory in meaning, whereas I have consulted the church and theological sources first, then looked at the bible through them.

 

[Catolico65]

Not so, Catolico. Your interpretation of the Bible and consistent avoidance of what the Catechism actually says apart from one direct quote from the Bible, is what is going on here.

The bible is interpreted by the church, in the context of the magisterium and sacred tradition.

In my opinion, you have interpreted the bible as you see it and then looked to the catechism to confirm this personal interpretation.

I have instead looked first to the catechism and the magisterium, as well as theologians, and then read the bible with them as my guide.

Therein is the difference and this I think (in all humility and apologies sincerely if I am wrong) constitutes the void in understanding between us.

The bible must be read through the eyes of the church.

I notice that you have gone straight to the bible on most occasions in our discussion as if it were somehow self-explanatory in meaning, whereas I have consulted the church and theological sources first, then looked at the bible through them.

With all due respect I have been speaking English and going to Catholic church for 48 years and I don’t need any New Age redefinitions of the Catholic dogma thank you. I’m sure a moderator can set you straight if you ask them.

 

[Vouthon]

With all due respect I have been speaking English and going to Catholic church for 48 years and I don’t need any New Age redefinitions of the Catholic dogma thank you. I’m sure a moderator can set you straight if you ask them.

Go in peace my friend. I am not preaching “New Age redefinitions”, I can assure you. How you can say such when I am merely restating what BJPII, an apologist working for CAF and many other Catholic theologians have stated is weird from my perspective but I will leave it there.

I will remind you that it was an insinuation by you that I was going against the magisterium that started this debacle between us.

If you ever feel open to it, I would be more than happy to give you references to other magisterial documents, patristic quotations and perspectives from theologians ancient and modern within the Church which confirm that they viewed hell and heaven as “states”, not places; and that they stressed the fact that hell is a definitive state of self-exclusion from God, confirmed and revealed by God after our death to be the case. These are not heretical positions, merely one orthodox understanding of these dogmas.

Anyhow, let us allow bygones to be bygones. I have my understanding, you have yours.

God Bless you.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Ex- Catholic.

You’re taking a hell of a risk, pun intended.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Why don’t we just die?

You’ll have to ask God when you meet Him. He gave you life in the first place.