Talk:Fate of the unlearned

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholics[edit]

The catholic explanation of this is simply wrong. It does contain a mention of 1 document, which is not cited, but it is not a catholic understanding of salvation. I will try to make time to write an explanation of this. In short, the plan of salvation extends to all people. If you do not know the catholic church is necessary for salvation, you have no guilt, and therefore salvation is open to you even outside the physical confines of the church. Cialovesyou 05:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. This should be replaced with a brief summary of the view of the Catholic Church, as expressed in the Catechism. JChap 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i was really surprised to read this today. I was sure that the Catholic view was that the unbaptized go to hell. isn't that how the doctrine of limbo became so popular? Maybe my information is out of date. Weren't these doctrines revised in 1966, Vatican II?-ErinHowarth (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding also that the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that God may have opened other paths to Heaven, but that the Church cannot vouch for them. I would think that would be pertinent to this topic. BBarden 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.239.146 (talk)

If these things are known or understood, there ought to be sources for them. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Muslims[edit]

The Muslim guy whose article is linked to is completely wrong. Anyone who is at all familiar with Aquinas knows that Catholics do believe that God is Jesus. Also a quick glance at the wikipedia article will tell you that the Gospel of the Nazarenes is very like the Gospel of Matthew. The Quran says that people who worship something besides God will go to hell along with what they worship [Quran 21:98] (so Jesus is in hell by the way). What a joke. Arrow740 10:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it might appear to be inconsistent, I do not believe that the Muslims not view Christians as polytheists. Muhammed considered Jews and Christians to be in a class apart from the pagans of his days, and I think most Muslims continue in this vein. -ErinHowarth (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants[edit]

I found the section on Protestants completely incomprehensible. As it is written today, it seems to skirt the questions entirely. Maybe if you are a Protestant, it makes sense, but I hope someone can re-write it so that it clearer and to the point. -ErinHowarth (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Aren't these two things just different names fort he same thing? Destiny of the unevangelized, Fate of the unlearned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.132 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the merge. The flow might need tidying up, though I did my best not to just cut and paste the two articles together. Fences&Windows 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did a really good job. 208.27.111.132 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fate and Sin[edit]

What many forget when they speak of punishments in the afterlife, is that all of the sins are considered to be punishments in current life. If you do any sin you will have problems because of it. So the interpretation that God will punish you in the afterlife is probably erroneous because in all faiths God is forgiving. So the punishment of not knowing of such religious ways is to have a life devoid of religious meaning, unless the person is naturally religious/spiritual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.195.203 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that idea? And does it line up with what the Bible tells us? The interpretation that God will punish us in the afterlife isn't erroneous, because it's precisely what he said he would do if we refused to repent. Not sinning shouldn't be misconstrued as not knowing a religious way, and every person is naturally born religious/spiritual, but some of us have that part quelled by our environments or the people we're around at such a young age that they later come to believe they've always been non-religious or non-spiritual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.66.164 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Type of Problem of Evil[edit]

I'm pretty sure that this is a specific example of the Problem of evil, since it's arguing that there is evil in the fact that God would allow the unlearned to go to hell.

―67.180.86.254 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be construed that way, but the specificity of the question and it's history would lead me to think that this should be it's own article and not merged. It's not arguing that God allow the unlearned to go to hell, it's a topic for various answers to that question of 'would an unlearned person, or one who's never heard the words of God, be sentenced by God to hell or another similar place' from different religions and different denominations within said religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.66.164 (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the incompetently evangelized?[edit]

What about people who are evangelized, but receive a false interpretation of the faith? I'll give an example. Christianity generally deems Mormons to be doomed to Hell, because Mormons revere Joseph Smith as a prophet, which Christians reject as a false prophet, and because Mormons hold the Book of Mormon as higher authority than the Bible, which Christianity deems a blasphemous sin. But suppose some isolated tribe is first encountered by Mormons, who teach them in the same breath to worship Jesus, and to revere Joseph Smith; to follow the Bible, but to hold the Book of Mormon as superior to it. Are those tribespeople now damnably liable for their blasphemous reverence of Joseph Smith and failure to reject the Book of Mormon as a false revelation?

And suppose a Christian evangelist goes forth and teaches people to be bigoted and judgmental against sexual minorities, in contravention of the true tenets of Christianity. Are the people who are misled into blasphemously believing that Christianity is correctly accorded such bigotry doomed to Hell? And, further, are the evangelists who allow such an impression to be derived similarly damnable? DeistCosmos (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I see that this subject has little or no relevancy to the improvement of the article. Secondly, I am LDS, and as such, I can tell you that you are mistaken. We esteem and revere Smith as a prophet, but we worship Jesus Christ and His Father. While mainstream Christianity may claim we are not christian, the very name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As to your other points, they are highly speculative at best and I still fail to see what any of this has to do with the matter at hand, which is the discussion of improvements that should be made to this article. With that said, therefore, let's get back on topic. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, that those baptized into Mormonism are not baptized into the true church, and so are unsaved -- but if somebody is raised as a Mormon and never hears about Catholicism, are they 'unlearned?' 'unevangelized?' Or is it enough that they've heard of Jesus through Mormonism, and so are now (in the view of Catholicism) liable for rejecting the 'true' church of Jesus? To put forth an even clearer example, what if the only evangelism a person had received was through a member of the Branch Davidian cult, which taught that David Koresh was Jesus reincarnated? Now, as a matter of faith, we can not definitively state that he was or was not, but surely somebody whose sole exposure to Christianity was being taught this specific version of it could not be liable for rejecting Christianity or for rejecting Jesus. The point is that it would seem that somebody incompetently taunt about a faith ought to still be considered as somebody who has never been taught about that faith at all -- and I wish to know, where do religions cross the line before they determine somebody has been taught enough to be liable for eternal damnation or the like for having rejected what they've been taught? DeistCosmos (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that all will be judged according to the light and knowledge they have received. For the purposes of this article, the "unlearned" are any who knowingly reject the light and knowledge they have recieved. These inherit the reward they are willing to receive because they are unwilling to enjoy that which they might have received. And who will separate the unlearned from the learned? God, of course. Our Father and perfect judge. I hope that answers your question. I believe all this is covered in the article. If it is not, I would suggest including it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this is not the place for this discussion, it's already taking place, so forget all that. To answer the questions at hand, I would say that from a Christian perspective, the people who have received these other teachings, such as there is no salvation outside such and such organization, have received another teaching. Galatians 1:6-9 says "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." So basically he's condemning those who have preached the other gospel without doing the same to those people who received it. If you go from one faith to another to another to another, and all those religions are not of God, and you never heard the word of God, you're only held accountable for what you know, not everything you could possibly know. Where the line is drawn is up for God himself to decide, but those who knowingly spread false doctrines will received the punishments of the relevant sins of those they spread the false doctrines to, if that makes sense. The tribespeople you mentioned would not be held accountable for their false understanding, but at some point they will find contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What then? What side they chose will be of the utmost importance. I laughed when I saw the mormon above said "I am LDS." What's some weird grammar. Those who say "we don't worship, we revere" don't know what really goes on inside the Mormon Temples behind closed doors. What becomes of people who are taught a specific version of Christianity and none other depends on their acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ, and whether they have been baptized into Christ as he commanded us to do. Almost all mainstream Christian denominations will still point people to the Bible. The big question is this: when someone finds a contradiction between the doctrine of their specific church and the Bible, which to they believe is correct? If they, against the teachings of the Bible, exalt their church above the word of God as good Catholics are told to do, knowing the Bible's teachings on such things, they will be held accountable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.66.164 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here, the Mormon Church does not dispute the biblicalness of the Bible, it simply asserts another book as being an equal addition to it. Pandeist (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know what "really goes on in LDS temples" because in addition to being endowed in and married there, I worked for six years as a temple worker. So I don't know what is meant by "what really goes on inside LDS temples". What happens in the temple is sacred, not secret, and anyone who qualifies as worthy to enter can find out "what really goes on inside LDS temples." It is perfectly correct to say "I am LDS." I agree that those who stray or cause others to stray from the true light and truth of the gospel will one day stand accountable before the Lord, but I recognize that we may have differing definitions of what constitutes "the true gospel." It has truly been an enlightening discussion. Thanks to all who have commented on this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and original research[edit]

Please see Primary sources

"Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

Jehovah's witnesses[edit]

I am adding this section only because Jgstokes wants to delete the section I added regarding Jehovah's witnesses viewpoint on this issue. I don't know what he wants. But, if need be I can provide plenty of sources for what I have stated. I'll try to to do so here. (By the way, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, so please bear with me as I learn how it all works.) Arpaksad42 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Understanding regarding Romans 5:12 Watchtower 2011 6/15 p. 12[reply]

JWs Undersanding of John 3:16: Watchtower 2014 3/1 pp. 3-6

JWs undersanding of Romans 3:25, 26: Insight on the Scriptures volume 1 p. 606 Declare Righteous

JWs undersanding of Mathew 24:14: Watchtower 2009 3/15 pp. 16-18 “Be Vigilant”

JWs undersanding of evelation 7:14, 16, 17 Watchtower 2002 5/1 p. 30

JWs undersanding of Revelation 14:1, 3 Watchtower 1988 12/15 p. 20 par. 4

JWs undersanding of regarding Luke 12:32 Watchtower 1995 2/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 1-2

JWs undersanding of 1Cor 15:51, 52 Watchtower 2015 7/ p19 pars, 14, 15

JWs undersanding of Rev 20:6 Revalation Climax chap. 40 pp. 290-291 pars. 17-18

JWs undersanding of Psalm 37:10, 11, 29 Watchtower 1986 1/1 p. 31

JWs undersanding of John 5:28, 29 The Watchtower 2010 3/15 p. 25 par. 7 The Watchtower 2009 3/15 p. 12 pars. 8-9

JWs undersanding of John 3:13 The Watchtower 2006 6/15 p. 30

JWs undersanding of Acts 24:15 The Watchtower 2014 6/1 pp. 10-11 The Watchtower 1985 12/1 pp. 15-16 pars. 11-12

JWs undersanding of Romans 6:23 and Eccl 9:5,6 The Watchtower 2009 11/1 p. 5 The Watchtower 1982 5/15 pp. 8-9

JWs undersanding of Rev 20:12, 13 The Watchtower 2005 5/1 p. 19 par. 7

JWs undersanding of Rev 20:7-10, 14 The Watchtower 2008 11/1 p. 5

2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:3, 4 are self explanatory.

Most of those references are available online at www.jw.org. If there are any more questions, please let me know. Arpaksad42 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what I posted in that article can be explained by just about any one of Jehovah's witnesses. I am not providing my own interpretation or understanding. I simply tried to explain what Jehovah's witnesses believe about this topic as succinctly as I could. Arpaksad42 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main problems with your previous edits were the fact that you didn't bother explaining the changes you were making in the edit summary or on the talk page. You just made the edits without an explanation of any kind. Also, you didn't include sources to verify what you were adding. Wikipedia policy requires that any major edit be explained either before or as it is being made, and that sources should be cited for all new content. So if you can cite the sources that led you to make these changes, I would have no problem in having them in the article. Hope this helps explain why I reverted you. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Jgstokes (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. I am totally new to this. I hope things are fine now. Arpaksad42 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have left on your talk page some tools and information that I hope will be helpful to you as you commence your Wikipedia editorship. Thanks for joining Wikipedia. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I'm glad you understand what I was trying to say. Everything's just fine now. Happy editing! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate the help. Arpaksad42 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I merely did for you what other users did for me when I was getting started as a Wikipedia editor 8 years ago. (Has it really been that long? Wow!) I hope what I shared will be helpful to you. If at any point in your Wikipedia experience, you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page. It is better to keep comments like the ones shared since my comment above on your talk page or mine so that we can free up this talk page to discuss relevant issues pertaining to the article. So, if you want to reply to this comment, unless it has something to do with the topic started above by you, you can do so on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page have an atheism side heading?[edit]

Apart from a brief mention in the introduction, this page is exclusively about religious views of the subject. I'm going to remove it. 137.205.112.68 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fate of the unlearned. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fate of the unlearned. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed[edit]

The section on "Reformed" is full of cherry-picked quotes without context. There is a whole paragraph of quotes saying things Like "someone cannot have God without the church". But almost always when a theologian writes this they are opposing the idea that a person can go off and make "their own church". It's not about people who don't know the Gospel. The interpretation that "everybody outside the church is damned" is given the lie in Calvin's own writings elsewhere. I'm going to remove this paragraph unless citations can be found showing that the sentence means what the section is trying to claim it means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fate_of_the_unlearned&oldid=1217919831"