GoodLittleAtheist

I was too tired to comment fully yesterday. So here goes.

You don't mention the ones who don't make it. I didn't mean he was a dictator in heaven. I meant when he plays his role as gatekeeper and judge.


And I think we are. I have more to say on this, but need to know first, what are your views on hell? Simply separation from God or a place for punishing the damned?

I'm not questioning the reasons individual believers have for keeping the commandments. I am questioning "God"'s, i.e. Roman Catholic dogma's, tactics of inspiring fear of damnation.

You do realize that people can make the same claims about every other religion, astrology, tarot, etc, etc. You are going to have to give a solid example.

Second Post..


A sixty minute ceremony is the only difference between baby A and baby B. The babies have no choice in the matter. So what moral basis does He use for granting one child the gift and not the other? Forget whether God has to give the gift. You think he's the ultimate authority, i.e. he doesn't have to do anything. But what reasons does he have? Any reasons he has have nothing to do with the child. They are both his creation. One would think he'd love both equally. The only difference between them was beyond their control. What makes more sense to me isn't that God distinguishes between these two completely innocent babies and brings only one to heaven, but that the Church wants to motivate people to baptize their babies.

*emphasis mine

What has the baby done to not deserve it? Nothing. Baby A and B have done nothing, so how can they deserve different things?

Also, I can't find an official position on the matter according to the Church. Though there seems to have been quite a bit of conflict over it. (Which is interesting, because God's position hasn't change, one would think. But the interpretation of what God does to these babies goes back and forth according to the definition of 'just' of the men speaking.) When I read about Limbo (limbus infantium) they won't come out and say it will be happy, but "it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness". Yet toward the end of this page they then go on to say that, "Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty." Yet, though they have this penalty, they can have 'perfect subjective happiness'. So to me that says, objectively, according to God, they are punished. The babies are just kept ignorant of it.

Also, it is confusing then, when on the definition of Hell, limbo of infants is defined as, "where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment". I assume they are using the objective view. Baby A punished. Baby B in heaven.

Awmte

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee...
I don't think you worded that remark emphatically enough. Religion is diametrically opposed to science. You can't reconcile religious faith (and dogma) with the very means by which it is brought into question.

jonesg

Sometimes guilt is not irrational.
Getting free of rational guilt, especially when it sinks into the subconscious mind is rarely acheived on man power alone, thats why christianity is popular, it shows the way out.
Lacking a way out, you might end up diagnosed with a character disorder and shrinks have very little success with those conditions.
But the specific directions are in the Lords Prayer.
The timing of the precise freedom is also defined in the Lords Prayer by the word "as".

As we forgive those who sinned against us, not before or after but as.

For example, if you found yourself with a self consuming hatred against a person who harmed you( real or imagined) , you make a list of everything you want in your life and pray every day that the person you hate will get that list instead of you. The hate will disappear and you will be relieved of the self destructive hatred. In fact you will completely forget what you were praying for in the first place and probably remember at a later date, then is the time you realize what God can do and that whatever God is, God is. Scoffers can scoff but I know this works.

ManM

Ack, sorry I missed this one before.

If you have dealt with kids before, you know that preventing the kid from doing something will only make the kid want to do it more. There is nothing sadistic about letting the kid touch the stove. You don't delight in the fact that the kid burns himself, but you grieve over it and bandage him up. On top of that, the kid learns a few important lessons. He learns that the stove really is hot. He learns that you were right when you warned him, and that maybe he should trust you next time. As you bandage his wound, the kid learns that you care about both his pain and his growth into maturity. Sadism has nothing to do with it.

Compare this to the alternatives. Do you always slap the kid's hand when he reaches out for the stove? What does the kid learn? Obey me or you are punished? I'm sure you know that this strategy breeds resentment and turns into rebelliousness. Or would you just never let the kid in the kitchen? No stove, no burn. But now the kid doesn't know how to boil water.

John A. Broussard

Quote from ManM
"There is nothing sadistic about letting the kid touch the stove."

Given an all-powerful parent, it does seem there must be some way to teach the kid without her/his getting burnt.

Couldn't god teach humans without allowing suffering? If he can't, then he's either sadistic or not all powerful?

That's the crux of the problem when using human behavior/motives to explain a godlike action.

Evoken

Me too, I needed to take a break. I still got two post to reply to apart from this one.

Yes, God is ultimately the one who judges each soul and is the "gatekeeper" like you said.

My view on Hell is the same as The Church:
-The souls of those who enter in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell (De Fide)
-The punishment of Hell last for all eternity (De Fide)

We could talk about the details, but that is basically it. Also those in Hell are deprived of the Beatific Vision but unlike the babies in Limbo, they are also punished.

But they are not "tactics" made by The Church in order to inspire fear of damnation. The nature and reality of Hell is very clear in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Church is the ultimate authority over these matters, so when she speaks infallibly about an issue under theological debate or speculation, all contrary opinions and/or interpretations should cease.


Second Post..



You could be walking on the street and a block falls in your head and you die, you had no choice on it but it was but a very short instant. The length of the ceremony of baptism is not what matters, it is it's effect upon the baptized that matters.

That much we do not know. God has his reasons and his moral basis for granting one child entry to Limbo (and even Heaven) or for not granting entry to Heaven and leaving the child in Limbo. What The Church does knows is that she has the sacred duty of baptizing infants as soon as possible and of making the Gospel message and the means of salvation (the sacraments) available to them as well as to everyone else. Like I said, The Church has no official doctrine concerning Limbo or an objective destiny for unbaptized infants.

God loves everyone and dams no one to hell, we damn ourselves. But like I pointed out in a previous post, the only ordinary means of reaching Heaven is thru The Church. There are many who thru no fault of their own remain ignorant of this and may be able to reach Heaven by ways know only to God. In here we can include unbaptized babies and aborted babies.

Jesus said: "Unless a man be born of again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven" And in relation to infants he said: "“Let the little children come to me. Don’t stop them, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like these children.�

The Church is only following the commands of her Lord and as such desires to put no obstacle between the infants and God, so this is why she baptizes the infants at such an early age (and also why she must preach the Gospel). Since she knows that without baptism and the other sacraments they have no ordinary means of entering Heaven.

I think that "deserve" was not an appropriate word to use. Rather, that everyone has a different destiny depending of their state at the moment of their death. When it comes to unbaptized infants, I will try and remind you, that what we are discussing about them and Limbo, is not official Church doctrine but actually falls into the realm of Speculative Theology. What the Church does says as the Catechism points out, is that:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"(* as I pointed out above) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

* comment and bold are my own.

There are two rites of Catholic funerals for children, one for the baptized and one for the unbaptized in which The Church prays to God (along with the intention of the parents) to have mercy of the children soul so that it may reach Heaven. Just like we pray for the souls in Purgatory, to help them thru their trials.

The Church has made no official stance about Limbo or the fate of unbaptized children as I pointed out above, she entrusts them to the mercy of God. As for your comments about going back and forth, it is not the teaching of The Church that goes back and fort but the opinion of theologians. Once The Church defines a doctrine it is no longer open to debate.

Yes, there is a distinction as regard those who go to Hell in state of mortal sin and the unbaptized infants:

In the punishment of Hell, theologians distinguish between the "poena damni", which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and the "poena sensus", which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 114)

Some theologians like St. Augustine held to the opinion that the unbaptized children went thru both the "poena damni" and the "poena sensus", even if in a very mild manner. This view was rejected by Pope Innocent III and was also rejected by many other doctors of The Church. In Limbo is only attributed the exclusion from the Beatific Vision or "poena damni".

ManM

Well, that's an interesting observation. Isn't it obvious that our free will puts limitations on God? That just begs the question: Could an all-powerful God create beings that could deny His will? The instant such a being exists, God is no longer all-powerful. He is forced to work with that being, rather than simply snap His fingers and have His will done.

Evoken

Yes, you got it right. That is what I have been saying all along. But unlike Calvinism says, we are not totally depraved and void of free will. We only lack sanctifying grace which is what Original Sin is.

That is the problem you have, you seem to think that God has to do something to please you or that he has to satisfy your needs and demands. Sorry, but the truth will not bend to our emotions and desires, it is us who need to adjust to it.

God does not has insecurity issues, he simply expects what any creator would expect from His creatures, obedience.

How the missionaries portray Christianity and what Christianity actually is are two completely different things. The actions of the missionaries are to be judged by Christianity not the other way around.

I used to make the same mistake, I used to judge The Church by the scandal of the pedophiles, the cries of the protestants, the papal "conspiracy" etc, etc. But I realized that I had to make the distinction between The Church and the churchmen and between Christianity and those who call themselves Christians.

There is a great amount of testimony and tradition which serve to prove this. If you do not trust the line of Popes, and The Bible, you can look at the testimony of the fathers of the early church, church documents, councils, etc.

I'd be careful about making these accusations, there is a lot of misinformation around both from those who accuse The Church and those who defend it. And many things are blown out of proportion. Also, you have to make the distinction between The Church and Churchmen, laity and other followers (if ti be right to call them such). Two different things, the latter is protected by the Holy Spirit, the other isn't.

So, the mere fact that there are many people claiming that their religion is true means that all are false? Or does it means that the truth can't be found? How does that follows? Since there are over 30,000 Christian denominations, does that means that they are all false? I don't see how or why this should be the case.

Last time I checked, the doctrines that are officially declared by The Church as to be held by all faithful have not changed because they cannot change. There may be dissenters and people who complain about them, but The Church is not divided in matter of doctrine. The Church can further explain a doctrine and make it more explicit, but never make it mean something that contradicts the meaning it already had.

Since you already said that you will not trust anyone who claims to speak for God, then I don't think you leave yourself much room for options to find the truth.

But like I pointed above, you can always check the evidence for yourself, there is no conspiracy or hidden agenda. You can go and read everything you want, councils, encyclicals, canons, church documents, writings of the early fathers, etc. All the debates, agreements, disagreements and controversies are all there in the open for anyone to see.

Like I said above, these claims are many times blown out of proportion and often unfair(and even false) accusations are made. This is quite a broad topic which demands quite a lot of research and it is also beyond the scope of this thread. Also, like I pointed out to you in another post you must make the distinction from Christianity and those who label themselves as Christians but do their own thing anyway.

You can certainly ask questions and "demand" answers. But don't say that because you don't like the answers that they are false.

Like I pointed above, God has the right to demand what he wants from his creatures. it is our duty, as his creatures, to obey Him as best we can. Like I have said, God has made his demands known, he will not force you to satisfy them, you are a free willed human being and as such you can do what you want.

Avatar

You'll excuse me if I'm not convinced.

I would have to say that exactly the same arguement applies to your beliefs. The truth will not bend to what you expect of it either.

I see. So he is a control freak and slaver then.

An ideal is best judged by the actions of those who claim to follow and spread that ideal. One would expect only the best representation of the ideology from those who preach it. The near-total lack of effort of those who make it their work to "spread the word" to behave as if they actually believed what they preached speaks volumes about the quality of the ideology.

I don't subscribe to the Protestan "conspiracy" idiocy anymore than I beleive in the accusations of conspiracy behind the death of JFK. I do think, however, that the deliberate actions of the members of the rank and file of the church speak loudly about the quality of their organization.

Right. None of whom had any kind of interest in maintaining the claim of the Church as the heir of Jesus.

The problem of course is that both things claim to be protected by the "Holy Spirit". There is no objective way to determine the truth of this claim--unless you've invented some kind of "spirit detector".

It sure lengthens the odds of finding the truth...if such a truth even exists.

Pretty much be definition, only one among the 30,000 can possibly be true. Is there an objective way of finding the gold among the chaff? No, because all their claims are based on exactly the same kind of evidence--anecdotal, unverifiable, and frequently completely made-up.

It used to be part of the doctrine of the Church that you couldn't eat ham of a certain day of the week. Then one day it wasn't. It used to be a "mortal sin" to translate the Bible into any language other than Latin (Wyclif was burned for exactly that offense).

I have my own eyes and ears and an ability to weigh evidence. Guess how much verifiable evidence beyond "it's this way because I say so"

As I said, I don't believe in hidden agendas. The agenda of the Catholic Church is pretty much out in the open...no one can get to Heaven unless they go through the Church.

As far as I am concerned, if someone calls themselves a Christian, then I should consider them one. There really isn;t any fiar, objective way to determine otherwise. Ever hear of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

I leave that to the YECs. So far, though, I haven't heard any answers. Just claims that are unprovable.

You have the last part correct...I will do what I think is right. That includes demanding answers and calling anyone to the mat who I think is doing something that is morally wrong. Even it it's God. I refuse to give God a free pass just because he's God.

Awmte

All guilt is, obviously, not irrational. However, we were talking within the context of Original Sin, which is manifestly irrational (ie. lacking justification)

If this guilt exists in the subconscious, how could you properly call it rational? Rational thought, by definition, would exist only within the domain of the conscious mind.

We are not disputing the psychosomatic effects of prayer, or transcendental meditation or astrology, for that matter. I fail to see how this has any relevance to the topic at hand.