The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-07-2016 09:33AM

Absolam wrote: »

I wouldn't say his hypothesis casts him in a particularly negative light though... it proposed that unbaptised infants might be "involved in the mildest condemnation of all". Which is a bit better than burning in the depths of hell for eternity, the fate of others who don't qualify for heaven.

Putting billions of parents through their own personal hell for decades after until the RCC decided that it didn't exist after all.

Absolam · 27-07-2016 09:48AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Putting billions of parents through their own personal hell for decades after until the RCC decided that it didn't exist after all.

Well no... not actually. The Church has never held the limbo of infants to be doctrine; it has always been a philosophical hypothesis.

Even so, I imagine it would be worse to think your unbaptised children are being tormented in hell than experiencing nothing in limbo...

Leroy42 · 27-07-2016 09:54AM

Absolam wrote: »

I wouldn't say his hypothesis casts him in a particularly negative light though... it proposed that unbaptised infants might be "involved in the mildest condemnation of all". Which is a bit better than burning in the depths of hell for eternity, the fate of others who don't qualify for heaven.

You don't think that someone who says that any baby that dies before the chance to baptise them results in being sent to Limbo, a place with no god and therefore effectively alone and wit no hope, is not a negative?

You had people more concerned in the final hours of a new-born's life with getting a priest in to baptise the baby then spending the precious moments alone with the baby and you don't think that is a serious impact on the thinking of people.

You don't think that making religious people feel guilty that their baby, since they didn't get it baptised, is now condemned to limbo would have no effect of their lives?

All based on no evidence but simply a way to try to fit the idea of heaven for confessors and hell for non believers and trying to fit innocent babies into this scheme.

looksee · 27-07-2016 09:55AM

Absolam wrote: »

I wouldn't say his hypothesis casts him in a particularly negative light though... it proposed that unbaptised infants might be "involved in the mildest condemnation of all". Which is a bit better than burning in the depths of hell for eternity, the fate of others who don't qualify for heaven.

Why would a baby, the precious soul whose life has to be preserved at all costs, even if it has an ffa, be condemned to any extent at all? How is this not negative? Why wouldn't a baby qualify for heaven?

Jesus said 'suffer little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'. He did not add, provided they are baptised. Of course, he was not concerned with the head count of the RC church.

Really, you couldn't make it up. Oh, wait...

Leroy42 · 27-07-2016 09:58AM

Absolam wrote: »

Well no... not actually. The Church has never held the limbo of infants to be doctrine; it has always been a philosophical hypothesis.

Even so, I imagine it would be worse to think your unbaptised children are being tormented in hell than experiencing nothing in limbo...

Or how about they simply say that since babies are innocent they went back to heaven to rejoin God? But of course that would then call into question the need for baptism and therefore entry to the church so it seems it was a means to an end.

Any religious parent, even if not doctrine but simply a philosophical hypothesis are not going to take the chance are they? They are going to baptise as to not do so runs the very clear risk (less so in modern western world) of the child dying and therefore being sent to limbo.

It is actually quite disgusting that such an ida was even allowed to be entertained and formed any discussion in a religion

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-07-2016 10:02AM

Absolam wrote: »

Well no... not actually. The Church has never held the limbo of infants to be doctrine; it has always been a philosophical hypothesis.

It was never official doctrine but it was also never rejected by the RCC, Better to have people believe in limbo, gotta keep that fear in the people.

Even so, I imagine it would be worse to think your unbaptised children are being tormented in hell than experiencing nothing in limbo...

Yeah 800 years of parents who went through the trauma of believing their child was stuck in limbo thank you for this :rolleyes:

Absolam · 27-07-2016 10:24AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You don't think that someone who says that any baby that dies before the chance to baptise them results in being sent to Limbo, a place with no god and therefore effectively alone and wit no hope, is not a negative?

Not compared to someone who says that any baby that dies before the chance to baptise them results in being sent to hell, a place of everlasting torment, no. Relatively, it's quite positive.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You had people more concerned in the final hours of a new-born's life with getting a priest in to baptise the baby then spending the precious moments alone with the baby and you don't think that is a serious impact on the thinking of people.

I never said any such thing, did I?

Leroy42 wrote: »

You don't think that making religious people feel guilty that their baby, since they didn't get it baptised, is now condemned to limbo would have no effect of their lives?

Pretty sure I didn't say that either.

Leroy42 wrote: »

All based on no evidence but simply a way to try to fit the idea of heaven for confessors and hell for non believers and trying to fit innocent babies into this scheme.

Sure... I imagine that's why it's called a hypothesis.

Absolam · 27-07-2016 10:26AM

looksee wrote: »

Why would a baby, the precious soul whose life has to be preserved at all costs, even if it has an ffa, be condemned to any extent at all? How is this not negative? Why wouldn't a baby qualify for heaven? Jesus said 'suffer little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'. He did not add, provided they are baptised. Of course, he was not concerned with the head count of the RC church. Really, you couldn't make it up. Oh, wait...

I have a feeling you probably haven't studied the doctrine much, or you'd understand the answers to the questions you're asking. Augustine did study it, and came up with his hypothesis. A hypothesis which proposed that instead of hell, there could be an alternative for children who don't get into heaven, so, all in all, a positive thing.

Absolam · 27-07-2016 10:31AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or how about they simply say that since babies are innocent they went back to heaven to rejoin God? But of course that would then call into question the need for baptism and therefore entry to the church so it seems it was a means to an end.

Because it's not up to 'them' to simply say anything? I'm pretty sure the Church doesn't think doctrine is anything other divine instruction.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Any religious parent, even if not doctrine but simply a philosophical hypothesis are not going to take the chance are they? They are going to baptise as to not do so runs the very clear risk (less so in modern western world) of the child dying and therefore being sent to limbo. It is actually quite disgusting that such an ida was even allowed to be entertained and formed any discussion in a religion

Like I said, it seems preferable to the idea that children go to hell...

looksee · 27-07-2016 10:36AM

Absolam wrote: »

I have a feeling you probably haven't studied the doctrine much, or you'd understand the answers to the questions you're asking. Augustine did study it, and came up with his hypothesis. A hypothesis which proposed that instead of hell, there could be an alternative for children who don't get into heaven, so, all in all, a positive thing.

So Augustine studied doctrine but ignored the bible? Why did church doctrine contradict Jesus' specific instructions?

Absolam · 27-07-2016 10:39AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It was never official doctrine but it was also never rejected by the RCC, Better to have people believe in limbo, gotta keep that fear in the people.

If that's why they didn't reject it, then they would have endorsed it. But they didn't, so I suspect the reason was actually that the Church's position all along is that there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation, so it cannot do other than hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah 800 years of parents who went through the trauma of believing their child was stuck in limbo thank you for this :rolleyes:

Perhaps Augustine would be gratified to think they went through the trauma of believing their child was stuck in limbo rather than the trauma of knowing their child was consigned to hell?

Absolam · 27-07-2016 10:39AM

looksee wrote: »

So Augustine studied doctrine but ignored the bible? Why did church doctrine contradict Jesus' specific instructions?

How do you know he ignored the Bible?

looksee · 27-07-2016 10:55AM

Because it clearly says that Jesus said 'suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'. This has to be one of the clearest and unambiguous statements in the NT, yet the RC church proposes that children be separated from Jesus/god/heaven.

I am asking how the RC church got from that instruction of Jesus to deciding they knew better?

Absolam · 27-07-2016 11:08AM

looksee wrote: »

Because it clearly says that Jesus said 'suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'. This has to be one of the clearest and unambiguous statements in the NT, yet the RC church proposes that children be separated from Jesus/god/heaven.

I am asking how the RC church got from that instruction of Jesus to deciding they knew better?

Perhaps, whilst being clear and unambiguous, it still doesn't mean what you think it means? It obviously doesn't mean that unbaptised children go to heaven, for instance. Nor are the Church proposing that children be separated from Jesus, or God, or heaven. They definitely haven't ever said they know better than Jesus....

indioblack · 27-07-2016 11:20AM

Absolam wrote: »

Because it's not up to 'them' to simply say anything? I'm pretty sure the Church doesn't think doctrine is anything other divine instruction.
Like I said, it seems preferable to the idea that children go to hell...

Why should they go to hell? An infant cannot, of it's own volition, do good - equally, it cannot sin.
Why have the infant in hell rather than heaven?
Of course it can be argued, why have the infant in heaven and not hell?
It hasn't merited either state. It hasn't had the opportunity.
This thinking that an infant must merit something - either an imposition or a reward - when in fact it deserves neither - is illogical.

looksee · 27-07-2016 01:00PM

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps, whilst being clear and unambiguous, it still doesn't mean what you think it means?

So what does it mean?

It obviously doesn't mean that unbaptised children go to heaven, for instance.

Why is that obvious? Jesus did not make any provisos about whether they were baptised or not.

Nor are the Church proposing that children be separated from Jesus, or God, or heaven.

So why are they putting them in limbo? Is heaven and god in limbo? Not following that.

They definitely haven't ever said they know better than Jesus...

.

I never said that (there's an echo in here) they said that they know better, but in creating doctrine that contradicts what Jesus said they have reached that conclusion.

So its your turn. How about actually answering some questions instead of waffling round them?

Absolam · 27-07-2016 01:14PM

indioblack wrote: »

Why should they go to hell? An infant cannot, of it's own volition, do good - equally, it cannot sin. Why have the infant in hell rather than heaven? Of course it can be argued, why have the infant in heaven and not hell? It hasn't merited either state. It hasn't had the opportunity. This thinking that an infant must merit something - either an imposition or a reward - when in fact it deserves neither - is illogical.

I'd suggest the thinking would have been; they can't go to heaven, so there's only hell for them to go to. The limbo hypothesis introduced another possibility, more or less. Perhaps the thinking that an infant must merit something is illogocal, but I don't think the Church has said that the infant merits something, has it? I'm not sure anyone at all has, other than yourself. The Catechism teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and it also teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God.

Absolam · 27-07-2016 01:41PM

looksee wrote: »

So what does it mean?

It means that those who would come to the Kingdom of Heaven should come as children; innocent, simple, and humble, because such as these are to whom the Kingdom of Heaven belongs. In Matthew, he doesn't say these, he says such as these. Then if you read Mark, you find;
"But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein"
In both he speaks of people being as children. Not being children.

looksee wrote: »

Why is that obvious? Jesus did not make any provisos about whether they were baptised or not.

Well... he did, in fact. Just not in that particular instance, and some of the scripturalists hereabouts might warn you about taking pieces of scripture in isolation to justify a theological position. He did say "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit" as well as "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned", and these two statements together form the basis for the statement in the Catechism "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation".

looksee wrote: »

So why are they putting them in limbo? Is heaven and god in limbo? Not following that.

They're not putting them in limbo. Limbo is not part of Catholic doctrine. The Catechism says infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God.

looksee wrote: »

I never said that (there's an echo in here) they said that they know better, but in creating doctrine that contradicts what Jesus said they have reached that conclusion.

Actually you said "I am asking how the RC church got from that instruction of Jesus to deciding they knew better?", so you certainly have said they decided they know better. I don't believe that's their conclusion; it's yours.

looksee wrote: »

So its your turn. How about actually answering some questions instead of waffling round them?

And there was me thinking I was leading you to enlightenment. I guess the old saw is true.

looksee · 27-07-2016 01:51PM

Thank you for actually answering questions Absolam. Your arguments are more convincing than nit picking about sentence structure, and while I do not entirely accept what you are saying, you make sense.

Safehands · 27-07-2016 08:03PM

Absolam wrote: »

Limbo is not part of Catholic doctrine.

You know, as a child of the sixties, I find it is a little arrogant of people to simply dismiss a belief in Limbo. Limbo was part of Catholic teaching, whether we like it or not. They taught us that it existed and that our children would end up there if they weren't baptised when they died. Millions of people believed it and some still do. So basically, it was a very bad medieval teaching brought into our modern world. It caused unbelievable angst among good living, nice Catholic mothers and fathers whose children died in infancy. Now it is gone. 'It was never Catholic doctrine,' we are told. Should we have believed it? Or should we have done what most sensible people do today, disregard the church's nonsensical teachings and wait for an apology for causing all that angst by perpertrating a monstrous lie.

Giacomo McGubbin · 27-07-2016 08:23PM

Safehands wrote: »

You know, as a child of the sixties, I find it is a little arrogant of people to simply dismiss a belief in Limbo. Limbo was part of Catholic teaching, whether we like it or not. They taught us that it existed and that our children would end up there if they weren't baptised when they died. Millions of people believed it and some still do. So basically, it was a very bad medieval teaching brought into our modern world. It caused unbelievable angst among good living, nice Catholic mothers and fathers whose children died in infancy. Now it is gone. 'It was never Catholic doctrine,' we are told. Should we have believed it? Or should we have done what most sensible people do today, disregard the church's nonsensical teachings and wait for an apology for causing all that angst by perpertrating a monstrous lie.

Absolam is correct, it was never a Church doctrine. Limbo is not "a place" and never has been. It's a theological speculative term used in speculative theology for "we don't know yet". The fact that some people taught otherwise, either in pure ignorance, or deliberate malice (along with a lot of other rubbish) what was in fact not Catholic teaching at all, might be quote common (especially in good old warped Ireland), but it doesn't make it Church teaching. In fact it goes against it. You only have to take a cursory glance at these forums to see the amount of false rubbish still peddled about Catholicism and Christianity.

Leroy42 · 27-07-2016 08:32PM

Safehands wrote: »

You know, as a child of the sixties, I find it is a little arrogant of people to simply dismiss a belief in Limbo. Limbo was part of Catholic teaching, whether we like it or not. They taught us that it existed and that our children would end up there if they weren't baptised when they died. Millions of people believed it and some still do. So basically, it was a very bad medieval teaching brought into our modern world. It caused unbelievable angst among good living, nice Catholic mothers and fathers whose children died in infancy. Now it is gone. 'It was never Catholic doctrine,' we are told. Should we have believed it? Or should we have done what most sensible people do today, disregard the church's nonsensical teachings and wait for an apology for causing all that angst by perpertrating a monstrous lie.

You just misunderstood it. Augustine, whose idea was never actually accepted by Doctrine but apparently not exactly ruled out, looked at the position of their being Heaven and Hell. Heaven was for good people who repented and believed in Jesus, hell was for everyone else.

So where does a baby who dies before being baptised go. Well, it has sin and not repented so hell. But wait, Augustine study the bible and decided that Jesus meant to say that Limbo exists as God sent the babies down as sinners and then took them back without giving anybody a chance to absolve the sin and hell seems a bit much for that so lets pick a non state instead.

And we should all be really grateful that instead of condemning the parents of the babies, who are already struck with grieve and heartbreak, with thinking their babies now resided in hell for all eternity now resided in a special 'non' place. Since they were born sinners they were far from innocent and therefore must pay a price and could not be let into heaven, so really so should be pretty glad!

Leroy42 · 27-07-2016 08:37PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Absolam is correct, it was never a Church doctrine. Limbo is not "a place" and never has been. It's a theological speculative term used in speculative theology for "we don't know yet". The fact that some people taught otherwise, either in pure ignorance, or deliberate malice (along with a lot of other rubbish) what was in fact not Catholic teaching at all, might be quote common (especially in good old warped Ireland), but it doesn't make it Church teaching. In fact it goes against it. You only have to take a cursory glance at these forums to see the amount of false rubbish still peddled about Catholicism and Christianity.

But the core point made was that his hypothesis should not be seen in a negative light when in fact, if I understand what you are saying, if that it is totally against church teaching and so from a position where we are discussing his apparent willingness to take on the role of explaining scriptures to those christians wh0 didn't fully understand he then just started marking stuff up!

Why could he not have just said that kids probably do go to heaven? WHy even bother with the notion? And why did the church not just dismiss it totally out of hand and condemn and of its members who taught it?

Safehands · 27-07-2016 10:26PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You just misunderstood it.

No I didn't! I understood exactly what these clergy were telling me. What I misunderstood was their honesty

Leroy42 wrote: »

So where does a baby who dies before being baptised go. Well, it has sin and not repented so hell.

Nonsense! A new baby has NO sin. It is pure, and any misguided, twisted individual who thinks it has, needs help.

Leroy42 wrote: »

we should all be really grateful that instead of condemning the parents of the babies, who are already struck with grieve and heartbreak, with thinking their babies now resided in hell for all eternity now resided in a special 'non' place. Since they were born sinners they were far from innocent and therefore must pay a price and could not be let into heaven, so really so should be pretty glad!

Wow! I hope there are very few people with that sad way of thinking. I know there are loads currently residing in the Middle East.
Babies far from innocent??? How can any decent human post such rubbish!! All of the babies born in my family were pure and innocent, how dare you suggest otherwise!

Absolam · 28-07-2016 12:58AM

Safehands wrote: »

You know, as a child of the sixties, I find it is a little arrogant of people to simply dismiss a belief in Limbo. Limbo was part of Catholic teaching, whether we like it or not. They taught us that it existed and that our children would end up there if they weren't baptised when they died. Millions of people believed it and some still do. So basically, it was a very bad medieval teaching brought into our modern world. It caused unbelievable angst among good living, nice Catholic mothers and fathers whose children died in infancy. Now it is gone. 'It was never Catholic doctrine,' we are told. Should we have believed it? Or should we have done what most sensible people do today, disregard the church's nonsensical teachings and wait for an apology for causing all that angst by perpertrating a monstrous lie.

I'm not dismissing a belief in Limbo; if someone wants to believe in it, like anything else it's up to them. That some Catholics taught about limbo, or that people believe in it, doesn't make it part of Catholic teaching, whether we like it or not. Actual Catholic teaching is canon, and what is not canon is apocryphal; limbo is apocryphal. If you feel it was a very bad medieval teaching fair enough; you obviously also don't agree with the Church's teachings anyway so it seems a little redundant to get upset about one particular hypothesis? I think if you're really waiting for an apology for the small comfort that hypothesis may have offered some people you may be waiting some time.

Absolam · 28-07-2016 01:06AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You just misunderstood it. Augustine, whose idea was never actually accepted by Doctrine but apparently not exactly ruled out, looked at the position of their being Heaven and Hell. Heaven was for good people who repented and believed in Jesus, hell was for everyone else.

From what you're saying, you also misunderstand it though. Even wikipedia would give you a better idea than what you're putting forward.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So where does a baby who dies before being baptised go. Well, it has sin and not repented so hell. But wait, Augustine study the bible and decided that Jesus meant to say that Limbo exists as God sent the babies down as sinners and then took them back without giving anybody a chance to absolve the sin and hell seems a bit much for that so lets pick a non state instead.

That's not true though. If you're literally making stuff up why bother engaging with the subject at all?

Leroy42 wrote: »

And we should all be really grateful that instead of condemning the parents of the babies, who are already struck with grieve and heartbreak, with thinking their babies now resided in hell for all eternity now resided in a special 'non' place. Since they were born sinners they were far from innocent and therefore must pay a price and could not be let into heaven, so really so should be pretty glad!

Again not true. But I think you're probably less interested in the subject than you are in simply making stuff up... would that be fair to say?

Absolam · 28-07-2016 01:23AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the core point made was that his hypothesis should not be seen in a negative light when in fact, if I understand what you are saying, if that it is totally against church teaching and so from a position where we are discussing his apparent willingness to take on the role of explaining scriptures to those christians wh0 didn't fully understand he then just started marking stuff up!

Actually, the core point was that given the choice between your children being consigned to eternal torment in hell, and being consigned to limbo, limbo would seem to be more palatable. No one has said that limbo is totally against Church teaching, those are your words not Giacomo McGubbins. He said it goes against Church teaching, and that's only true insofar as Church teaching takes no position regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, other than the hope of their salvation. Augustine wasn't (in this particular instance) taking on the role of explaining Scripture to those Christians who didn't fully understand; limbo wasn't an explanation of Scripture it was a hypothesis based on the fact of original sin, which can only be expunged by baptism.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why could he not have just said that kids probably do go to heaven? WHy even bother with the notion? And why did the church not just dismiss it totally out of hand and condemn and of its members who taught it?

Because there is no reason to believe that unbaptised infants go to heaven, and there are (Scriptural) reasons to believe they do not. And whilst Augustines hypothesis lacks a Scriptural basis, there is no Scriptural refutation of it either; the Church can't say it's definitely not true, or it definitely is. It can only say what it does say, that there is hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism, and that the Church can only entrust those children who have died without Baptism to the mercy of God.
So limbo remains a viable option, as does hell. If I were in a position of having to choose to believe my child was in one or the other, I think I'd go for limbo rather than hell myself, and be thankful to Augustine for the notion.

Absolam · 28-07-2016 01:29AM

Safehands wrote: »

No I didn't! I understood exactly what these clergy were telling me. What I misunderstood was their honesty

Maybe not. They may very well have honestly believed that Augustine was right and unbaptised infants go to limbo rather than hell.

Safehands wrote: »

Nonsense! A new baby has NO sin. It is pure, and any misguided, twisted individual who thinks it has, needs help.

That would be a matter of opinion; the Catholic Church says that we are all born with original sin. If you argue that a new baby has NO sin, then you're stepping outside the discussion of Catholic theology.

Safehands wrote: »

Wow! I hope there are very few people with that sad way of thinking. I know there are loads currently residing in the Middle East. Babies far from innocent??? How can any decent human post such rubbish!! All of the babies born in my family were pure and innocent, how dare you suggest otherwise!

There probably are very few people with that sad way of thinking. But Leroy42 wasn't suggesting anything about the babies in your family, he was trying to be sarcastic about his perception of Christian theology.

Leroy42 · 28-07-2016 09:23AM

I'm getting very confused on this.

This part of the discussion started with a quote attributed to St Augustine which was then followed by someone saying he also said unbaptised babies go to Limbo, that started the discussion about limbo and whether Augustine's statement on it should be seen in a negative light.

Absolam stated that it was better than saying that unbaptised babies go to hell and as such was a positive.

It has gone back and forth a bit on whether Limbo itself is an accepted doctrine or simply a hypothesis. Some seem to think it was actively taught by the CC whilst others have said that anybody who did teach it was actually wrong.

Have I summarised that right? I think so.

So, my reading of this is that Augustine simply made up Limbo in order to make parents of dead babies feel better. There is no actual evidence within scriptures of this, the CC don't accept it and anybody who taught it was wrong. So Augustine should be seen as being good for that.

But if CC didn't ever agree with Limbo, then it's only position was that dead babies went to hell.

What part am I making up?

Safehands · 28-07-2016 09:27AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Some seem to think it was actively taught by the CC whilst others have said that anybody who did teach it was actually wrong.

I don't THINK it was taught by the Catholic church, I KNOW it was!

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments