Talk:Fate of the unlearned

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  Maybe my information is out of date.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)

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

message: 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  (so Jesus is in hell by the way). What a joke. Arrow740 10:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Muslims

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title: Protestants

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You did a really good job. 208.27.111.132 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fate and Sin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Type of Problem of Evil 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  And what of the incompetently evangelized? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. I appreciate the help. Arpaksad42 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Jehovah's witnesses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why does this page have an atheism side heading? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210056/http://renaissance.com.pk/juntitl2y1.html to http://renaissance.com.pk/juntitl2y1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728145319/http://www.urduyouthforum.org/biography_Mirza_Mazhar.php to http://www.urduyouthforum.org/biography_Mirza_Mazhar.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reformed