do athiests and agnostics go to heaven

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 04:01PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Christianity is founded on the basis that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Without knowing the truth, we cannot do God's will and it is doing God's will that leads to salvation. We need to know for instance whether contraception is morally acceptable to God or not. It's not something we can leave to chance and hope God won't notice.

That is all well and good, but I don't believe it is possible to use the Gospels to determine very specific moral instructions from as I do not believe the teachings of Jesus recorded in them are either close to verbatim or comprehensive. They are roughly along the lines of what Jesus may have said but with inaccuracies, misquotes and misinterpretations.

I see the Gospels as being the equivalent of the famous London Underground map. It is very good at giving a general message but for a Christian to try and find answers to very specific moral questions such as contraceptives in the Gospels is like a tourist trying to walk from Ealing Broadway to Victoria station using the London Underground map as their only reference, ridiculous.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 04:05PM

kelly1 wrote: »

I'd like to challenge you to find a document showing that it is an article of dogma that unbaptized infants are damned. Conviction and dogma are not the same thing.

From the Canons of Cartage XVI, approved by Pope St. Innocent and Pope St. Zosimus as a rule of faith and therefore infallible:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left"

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 04:15PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

That is all well and good, but I don't believe it is possible to use the Gospels to determine very specific moral instructions from as I do not believe the teachings of Jesus recorded in them are either close to verbatim or comprehensive. They are roughly along the lines of what Jesus may have said but with inaccuracies, misquotes and misinterpretations.

I see the Gospels as being the equivalent of the famous London Underground map. It is very good at giving a general message but for a Christian to try and find answers to very specific moral questions such as contraceptives in the Gospels is like a tourist trying to walk from Ealing Broadway to Victoria station using the London Underground map as their only reference, ridiculous.

That's why Jesus founded a Church with the authority to teach morality and He promised that the Church would be "guided into truth" by the Holy Spirit. You see, He has all the bases covered.

robindch · 20-02-2008 04:24PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

From the Canons of Cartage XVI, approved by Pope St. Innocent and Pope St. Zosimus as a rule of faith and therefore infallible:

Not, I believe, 'infallible' in the sense of the 19th century declaration that the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, was incapable of making an error. Rather, it became the official policy of the church, which is a slightly different thing.

Anyhow, interesting quote -- I wasn't aware of it.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 04:29PM

kelly1 wrote: »

That's why Jesus founded a Church with the authority to teach morality and He promised that the Church would be "guided into truth" by the Holy Spirit. You see, He has all the bases covered.

Well I don't think the Holy Spirit is pulling its weight because Christianity has been plagued by schisms, splits and heresies since its very beginning. It has kept splitting into small sects who believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and that all other sects are wrong. For someone outside the Church it is actually quite strange to hear someone claim that Christianity is being guided as it appears quite the opposite.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 04:37PM

robindch wrote: »

Not, I believe, 'infallible' in the sense of the 19th century declaration that the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, was incapable of making an error. Rather, it became the official policy of the church, which is a slightly different thing.

Anyhow, interesting quote -- I wasn't aware of it.

I think that Papal Infallability is seen as retroactive so a Papal statement on matters of faith would be considered infallible even if this statement was made prior to the concept of Papal Infallibility being made dogma. For example Pope Leo I in 449, in his "Tome to Flavian", dealt with the two natures of Christ. This is regarded as an infallibile statement by modern Catholic theologians.

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 04:44PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No lets thank ourselves.

You're way too literal minded for a supposedly non-religious person. :rolleyes:

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 04:55PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Christianity is founded on the basis that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Without knowing the truth, we cannot do God's will and it is doing God's will that leads to salvation. We need to know for instance whether contraception is morally acceptable to God or not. It's not something we can leave to chance and hope God won't notice.

Fiar enough, but the Devil is in the details as they say. The people who try to interpret what Jesus did and did not say, or mean, are all too human. Very often we are left trying to figure out, in relation to some new social issue or problem, what the moral course of action is. Social ideas have generally evolved and become more sophisticated since the time of Jesus so we are left trying to figure things out for ourselves. We're usually better off not looking for some specific utterance in the Bible but rather using the power of moral judgement we have created in ourselves through our spiritual practice to decide for ourselves what God or Jesus would want or do.

Leaving this to a Church to do for us is no longer necessary or acceptable now that the general level of education has risen so far and society is evolving so quickly. I believe the Catholic Church only recently acknowledged Galileo's rightness, for example. A time lag of centuries is not acceptable for a rapidly evolving society that constantly encounters entirely new situations requiring moral decisions. Should we allow cloning? Genetic enhancement? Artificial intelligence? By the time any Church gets around to truly considering these questions we will all be long dead. They try to get around this by saying a blanket "NO" to everything new :-D thereby guaranteeing the alienation of most of the new generation for whom these problems will be a reality demanding intelligent debate rather than unthinking rejection.

BrianCalgary · 20-02-2008 04:55PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well I don't think the Holy Spirit is pulling its weight because Christianity has been plagued by schisms, splits and heresies since its very beginning. It has kept splitting into small sects who believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and that all other sects are wrong. For someone outside the Church it is actually quite strange to hear someone claim that Christianity is being guided as it appears quite the opposite.

Those splits and schisms have happened because man has listened to his own heart as opposed to the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

Soul Winner · 20-02-2008 04:56PM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

The Gospels are not full of Jesus going around telling people to arm themselves for the fight against the devil, but adjurations to love and self-sacrifice. If you find me one of the former I will find you ten of the latter.

You don't know your New testament very well do you?

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Ephesians 6:11
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil

Ephesians 6:16
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Luke 22:31-32
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not...

Luke 11:21-26
When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.

Luke22:3
Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve

The importance of keeping faith:

Matthew 9:22
But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Matthew 15:28
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Mark 5:34
And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

Mark 10:52
And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

Luke 8:48
And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

Luke 17:19
And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Romans 1:17
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Hebrews 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Hebrews 11
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore. All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. PPeople who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 1f they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future. By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph's sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff. By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones. By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel. By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days. By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient. And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Luke18:8
...Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 04:58PM

Soul Winner wrote:

blah blah blah

/delete spam please :rolleyes:

I should have know better to challenge someone with a massive religious ego to a scripture-quoting contest. Better off arm wrestling the Incredible Hulk.

Soul Winner · 20-02-2008 04:58PM

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not claiming to be christian though, Soul Winner.

And I'm certainly not claiming to know what god wants. I leave that kind of arrogance to others. (not directed at anyone in particular)

To know what God wants you don't need to read my posts, just read His Word.

Zulu · 20-02-2008 05:07PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You assume that you were an intended product of the chain of evolution.

No, no, I was just commenting on the likely hood of where we are now happening.

however it is much, much more likely that somebody would be born

Agreed, but really i meant someone being born - it's still a massive chance.

This also is assuming that there is only one universe. There are very plausable theories in physics which suggest the possibility of an infinite set of universes which would make the your existance not only possible but inevitable, in fact there are may well be an infinite number of "you".

Yea, you're dead right here, and it's very interesting. Personally I've spent time considering that we are in fact the product of our infinite selves across universes. That if there was a god, (s)he would judge us (if there was a judgement - which I don't really buy into too much either) on the overall sum of all of our selves. ...or even, that if the correct choices are made by all of our selves, a growing majority of our selves would survive in universes we wanted to survive in... (and thus heaven, hell or what have you...)
...interesting stuff (for me at least).

Anyways even if this universe... to get the ball rolling.

That's ok, I take your point. Really, as asked, I was just trying to highlight a reason why someone could believe in a god. It doesn't much convince me either.

Zulu · 20-02-2008 05:10PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

To know what God wants you don't need to read my posts, just read His Word.

That's the thing though isn't it. I don't believe the Bible is anything other than a book written by men. Men who can lie, exaggerate, misinterpret, and make mistakes. And it was written an awfully long time ago to boot!

Soul Winner · 20-02-2008 05:15PM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I really get the impression you're much more of an Old Testament kind of guy than I am! We should be very clear about the fact that I do not believe in your kind of God and do not admit your belief to be more valid than mine.

If I were an Old Testament kind of guy then I would be admonishing you to keep the Law and that's not just the Ten commandments, rather it is the whole Old Testament. The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and that by observing the Law is no longer the means by which you get eternal life. Which said Law by the way nobody ever kept including the most righteous priest serving in the Tabernacle and the Temple. Faith in God is a truly pre Law justification method and post Law justification method accepted by God and revealed in His Word. I have no idea what kind of God you serve but if you're faith is in anything other than God's Word then you are in trouble. Not because I say so but because Jesus (the hippy as you call Him) says so.

Luke6:46-49
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

Soul Winner · 20-02-2008 05:16PM

Zulu wrote: »

That's the thing though isn't it. I don't believe the Bible is anything other than a book written by men. Men who can lie, exaggerate, misinterpret, and make mistakes. And it was written an awfully long time ago to boot!

Well then don't read it then jeeze???

Soul Winner · 20-02-2008 05:23PM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

/delete spam please :rolleyes:

I should have know better to challenge someone with a massive religious ego to a scripture-quoting contest. Better off arm wrestling the Incredible Hulk.

Well you did ask!!!

CaptainNemo wrote:

If you find me one of the former I will find you ten of the latter..

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 05:33PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

From the Canons of Cartage XVI, approved by Pope St. Innocent and Pope St. Zosimus as a rule of faith and therefore infallible:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left"

Thanks, I've learnt something new today. In defense of the Church all I can say is that there is no contradictory dogma on Limbo. Having said that theologians seem to have forgotten about this dogma (if it is dogma).

Run_to_da_hills · 20-02-2008 05:43PM

The Vatican is now deciding to reject their centuries old teaching of "limbo." In a recent meeting of theologians, the absurdity of their own invention of limbo was so obvious that even the Catholic theologians tried to avoid using the word limbo. It seems that their own conscience convicted them of this spurious teaching.

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 05:48PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Vatican is now deciding to reject their centuries old teaching of "limbo." In a recent meeting of theologians, the absurdity of their own invention of limbo was so obvious that even the Catholic theologians tried to avoid using the word limbo. It seems that their own conscience convicted them of this spurious teaching.

In your opinion, what is the fate of dead unbaptized infants?

philologos · 20-02-2008 05:52PM

Interestingly, in relation to baptism, the robber on the cross beside Jesus was permitted to paradise without baptism, what does this say about the mercy of Christ. I think we need to look further in some respects of salvation. I for one do not feel I have the authority to banish most of the worlds population to hell. The decision is up to the Lord and the Lord alone.

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 06:19PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly, in relation to baptism, the robber on the cross beside Jesus was permitted to paradise without baptism, what does this say about the mercy of Christ.

Could have been a "baptism by desire"?

Soul Winner · 20-02-2008 06:37PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

From the Canons of Cartage XVI, approved by Pope St. Innocent and Pope St. Zosimus as a rule of faith and therefore infallible:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left"

Well Pope St. Innocent and Pope St. Zosimus can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Why didn't they consider the verses quoted below and not just John 3:5?

Mark 10:14
People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:4
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Why didn’t they read all of John 3 and read how Jesus interprets what born again means? Jesus was speaking to one the leading Jewish Leaders (Nicodemus) a respected teacher of Israel of that time and even he didn't know what born again meant. He thought it meant to go back onto his mother's womb again. Jesus says that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit. The New Testaments points out time and again that you cannot get God's spirit in you by fleshly effort but only by faith in God's Word of promise.

This is what happens when you quote scripture in isolation to other scripture to support a position of power. Even Peter the Catholic Church’s supposed first Pope says it:

2 Peter 1:20
“…that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

How could these Popes condemn all unbaptised infants to eternal damnation based solely on one isolated verse of scripture? Shows you how infallible they really were even when they did speak in council.

robindch · 20-02-2008 06:50PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I think that Papal Infallability is seen as retroactive so a Papal statement on matters of faith would be considered infallible even if this statement was made prior to the concept of Papal Infallibility being made dogma. For example Pope Leo I in 449, in his "Tome to Flavian", dealt with the two natures of Christ. This is regarded as an infallibile statement by modern Catholic theologians.

Hmmm... I didn't know that the declaration of self-perfection was retrospective too. One must assume that the guy who came up with this had never cracked the spine of a book on the history of his own organization.

Anyhow, are you aware of any Vatican documents which assert this general retrospective claim, or conversely, which limit the claim to certain items of dogma?

Run_to_da_hills · 20-02-2008 09:28PM

kelly1 wrote: »

In your opinion, what is the fate of dead unbaptized infants?

I believe the Word of God is clear regarding the matter of salvation. Infant babies are unable to reason for themselves and cannot make their own choice on salvation. I believe all infants are in Gods hands if they die. I take baptism as a symbolic gesture.

Jesus said, "He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:18, 36).

Basically this tells us that there are two groups of people in the world today those who believe on the Son and those who do not. Those who believe are not condemned; they have everlasting life (and this would include all infant babies that have not reached the age of reason.) Those who believe not on the Son are condemned already, and they shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on them.

Akrasia · 20-02-2008 09:43PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Those splits and schisms have happened because man has listened to his own heart as opposed to the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

I'm afraid I missed that audio book.

I thought the holy spirit was supposed to guide people's hearts?

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 11:52PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

How could these Popes condemn all unbaptised infants to eternal damnation based solely on one isolated verse of scripture? Shows you how infallible they really were even when they did speak in council.

I'm sure they didn't make their decision on just one Gospel passage. After it was not just the issue of the destination of dead babies that was at stake, the fundamental importance of Christian baptism was on the line. If they decided that the unbaptised could in fact go to Heaven then this would make a mockery of the sacrament of baptism. It would mean that a soul being tainted with original sin would not be a hindrance to entering Heaven, in other words the entire ministry and death of Jesus was pretty much worthless and meaningless.

At the end of the day Catholic teaching is uncompromising. All who die in original sin are condemned. If they made an exception for unborn babies then the whole principle begins to crumble. What about a baby that dies 30 seconds after childbirth, is that saved? How about a baby that dies unbaptised after a month? 6 months? The Church had to make a stand and it drew the line at having anyone who dies unbaptised is damned.

As for your quotes from Jesus about children, I think it is pretty obvious that Jesus was not specifically talking about children, rather he was using them as an analogy for innocence.

robindch wrote: »

Hmmm... I didn't know that the declaration of self-perfection was retrospective too. One must assume that the guy who came up with this had never cracked the spine of a book on the history of his own organization.

Anyhow, are you aware of any Vatican documents which assert this general retrospective claim, or conversely, which limit the claim to certain items of dogma?

As far as I am aware it was retrospective, the alternative being that the Holy Spirit only offered the Popes inerrant guidance after 1870, which would be a pretty bizarre teaching. Certainly they regard the canonization of every saint by every Pope to be infallible.

A statement by John Paul II in 1993 seems to support the idea of Papal Infallability dating back to Peter:

"Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people."

Soul Winner · 21-02-2008 01:00AM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm sure they didn't make their decision on just one Gospel passage. After it was not just the issue of the destination of dead babies that was at stake, the fundamental importance of Christian baptism was on the line. If they decided that the unbaptised could in fact go to Heaven then this would make a mockery of the sacrament of baptism. It would mean that a soul being tainted with original sin would not be a hindrance to entering Heaven, in other words the entire ministry and death of Jesus was pretty much worthless and meaningless.

At the end of the day Catholic teaching is uncompromising. All who die in original sin are condemned. If they made an exception for unborn babies then the whole principle begins to crumble. What about a baby that dies 30 seconds after childbirth, is that saved? How about a baby that dies unbaptised after a month? 6 months? The Church had to make a stand and it drew the line at having anyone who dies unbaptised is damned.

As for your quotes from Jesus about children, I think it is pretty obvious that Jesus was not specifically talking about children, rather he was using them as an analogy for innocence.

God loves children and never required that they be baptized with water. And even when you are baptised with water that is not enough, you still need the spirit in you by faith. As it has been pointed out before, did the thief on the cross get baptised before entering paradise with the Lord? The baptism of water is for those who never knew God and have been turned around in their life by a genuine tugging of the Holy Spirit to after seek God. “No man cometh to the father save the spirit draw him.” They are to be baptised as a symbolic gesture of dying with Christ (under the water) and rising in new life (coming up out of the water) all symbolic of death with Christ and resurrection with Christ. The sprinkling infants get in catholic christenings hardly qualifies.

Baptism is just a starting point in the walk of faith and should be done as a free will act of faith on the part of the baptisee but it is by no means to be forced on anyone and certainly not on infants. You might believe the passages quoted above are but analogies to innocence but I believe Jesus meant what He said about children belonging to the kingdom of God and as such they are ok with God but there will come a point in their lives when they will doubt and fall into a non faith in God way of life, and like everyone else at that stage of their development will need to strive in faith in order to maintain God's spirit in them. Ever notice that kids just believe in God without a problem? There is nothing you can say to a kid that would convince them that there is no God unless you abuse and bully them into it. Ever meet many atheist kids? I mean serious about their atheism type kids? The aforementioned Popes where not infallible and did not speak for God when they puked forth that bile and they did just use one isolated verse of scripture to support their position if what you quote about them was correct. The Catholic Church knows quite well that the first six years of a child’s life are his or her most impressionable years. They know if a child grows up Catholic then there is a very high possibility that the child will remain catholic for their rest of their lives not so if they come to Catholicism later on in life. That’s why they want you to raise them as Catholics from a very early age. It has nothing to do with water baptism it has to do with controlling the minds of the masses as much as possible.

Pompey Magnus · 21-02-2008 02:45AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ever notice that kids just believe in God without a problem? There is nothing you can say to a kid that would convince them that there is no God unless you abuse and bully them into it. Ever meet many atheist kids? I mean serious about their atheism type kids?

They also believe in Santa without a problem. I have never met a kid who is serious about not believing in Santa. This doesn't give Santa a shred of credibility. Children are naturally easily fooled and tricked by adults, it is an evolutionary measure which has been highly successful in allowing young children survive in a hostile environment. This feature of children is exploited by religion for its own sake. It reminds me of that horrible Jesuit saying, "If you give me the child I will give you the man".

They know if a child grows up Catholic then there is a very high possibility that the child will remain catholic for their rest of their lives not so if they come to Catholicism later on in life. That’s why they want you to raise them as Catholics from a very early age. It has nothing to do with water baptism it has to do with controlling the minds of the masses as much as possible.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Bduffman · 21-02-2008 09:15AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I believe the Word of God is clear regarding the matter of salvation. Infant babies are unable to reason for themselves and cannot make their own choice on salvation. I believe all infants are in Gods hands if they die. I take baptism as a symbolic gesture.

Jesus said, "He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:18, 36).

Basically this tells us that there are two groups of people in the world today those who believe on the Son and those who do not. Those who believe are not condemned; they have everlasting life (and this would include all infant babies that have not reached the age of reason.) Those who believe not on the Son are condemned already, and they shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on them.

This is an interesting question & its easy to understand why most christians run from it. However I have a problem with whatever answer is given. If unbaptised babies go to heaven then isn't that unfair on the rest of us who have to live through life & the temptations that life brings? If the opposite is true & they are damned, then isn't that a bit unfair on them for not getting the chance to live a good life?

do athiests and agnostics go to heaven

Comments