Do babies who die go to heaven?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 6 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]266759[/snapback]</div>

That was my namesake. He didn't so much go in voluntarily, as he was tossed in unceremoniously for being an anarchist (refusing to obey the laws of the king). But he didn't provide any food for the lions because what the king didn't know is that cats never bite people named Daniel. The Bible says an angel closed the lions' mouths, but clearly the Bible has it wrong, because they could still have scratched him. But they didn't. They just curled up like pussycats and begged to have their ears scratched and their bellies rubbed, until the king relented and let Daniel out, to the great disappointment of the kittycats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Jun 6 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]266664[/snapback]</div>

wow. for all the defensiveness of Christianity you've shown, you're sure eager to make fun of fellow Christians who believe something different, eh?

----------------------------------------

anyway, back to topic-

so what about all the fertilized eggs that never implant? you know, the situations where the woman is not aware of the pregnancy or the miscarriage?

and, why is it that people who question Christian doctrine automatically deemed to be mocking? or is it just because of the climate on this board?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 6 2006, 08:51 AM) [snapback]266667[/snapback]</div>

My understanding of limbo was that it was temporary, a kind of holding place that helped you atone for transgressions by doing time.

Christian theology is constantly evolving because Christianity, from the beginning, had to use study, debate and reason to come to terms with the lack of a founding document written by the leader, or a long tradition. It was over 250 years before Christianity settled on the writings we call the New Testament, and the inclusion into the "canon" required that a writing earn its place by meeting certain criteria; it had to be reliable by tradition, it had to be written by an eyewitness to the events, etc.

From the time of canonization onward, theology kept evolving and changing as the knowledge gained from study of both the natural world and the spiritual things progressed. The birth of modern science, capitalistic democracy, the death of slavery, etc. were all associated with a culture that grew out of the Christian tradition of study and debate, compromise and reasoning together. There were (and are) spectacular exceptions to that model, with all the familiar horrors we hear about. But the birth of modern science, democracy and advanced learning all happened in the west, not in spite of Christianity, but, in my view, because of it.

Who is the Pope to reconsider limbo? The Pope is the leader of his church, and he is doing what has long been the tradition in Christianity; to question, to ponder, to study, to debate and to reason to a conclusion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 8 2006, 05:54 PM) [snapback]268354[/snapback]</div>

I suspect that, in heaven, I will be surprised at the people who make it through. And I suspect some of them will be surprised to see me there.

I'm a Calvinist, so my belief is that the people God wants in heaven are the people who will be in heaven. That's expressed in Calvinism by the idea that "Irresistable Grace" draws us to God, and nothing we can do overpowers his perogrative in deciding. It violates our sense of "free will", and that's where the conflict for most people comes in. But when you think about it, if God is "in control" he must be the one who decides who gets in. (The counter argument from non-Calvinist Protestants -- Armenians, if you will -- is that salvation is a gift and you must accept a gift to have it ... a point lost on my infant grandson as he swings in the cradle I gave him).

Most Protestant Christians today hold a form of Calvinism in that they believe God makes a "fair, just and moral decision" based on his nature as a loving God. So yes, babies go to heaven, most of us say. There are a few who believe differently.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 8 2006, 07:31 PM) [snapback]268402[/snapback]</div>

You're thinking of purgatory, a place of punishment for people whose sins are not bad enough to get them eternal punishment, but who are not "pure" enough to get into heaven yet. In purgatory, their sins are purged through torture, but only for a limited time. Once they've been tortured sufficiently they get into heaven.

It provides an insight into the christian mindset. In real life, torture breaks people. In the christian fantasy world, it cleanses them.

But mainly, purgatory is useful to the church because the priests can charge money for masses for the dead. These masses are sold with the promise of taking years off of someone's time in purgatory. So when your loved one dies, you have to pay money to the church to get them out of purgatory sooner.

Pretty much the original pig in a poke, because nobody can ever ask for his money back on the grounds that it didn't work. Purgatory is a testament to the vile greed of the priestly class, and the stupidity of the faithful. Martin Luther, of course, rejected the idea, along with all the other imaginative ways that the church used to con superstitious people out of their money. Eventually, though, the church he founded figured out other imaginative ways to con people out of their money.

 

God decides. Despite what fundamentalists think, God didn't give Jerry Falwell or the Pope or this McArthur guy the knowledge of the universe (or of "good and evil" if you prefer.) If God wanted us to have complete knowledge, he'd give it to us.

Until then, I just accept there are many things God understands I never will.

 

Well here's a question:

Since there are very reasonable arguments that homosexuality is genetic, how do we know if a baby is, essentially, born gay or not? Think of the implications....

 

"Eventually, though, the church he founded figured out other imaginative ways to con people out of their money."

This is the essence of all religions. A con game where the hypocrites fleece the gullible. In the interests of equal time, it is not just Christianity (you mentioned medieval indulgences), but all religions. I was in China a while ago and my wife and I went into a beautiful Buddhist temple (in Dali, in Yunnan province). The temple was at least 1,000 years old and and a courtyard, gardens, etc. There were lots of Buddhist monks. In one room, some monks would give people "life advice" for free. Sounds very enlightened, I thought. My wife decided to go in for a little chat. Turns out that to receive more detailed 'advice" she was "advised" to go out to the candle room and buy some candles to burn. (Need I mention that the candles were not cheap). So she did (in spite of my admonitions) and returned for the detailed advice. Turns out it had no relevance whatsoever to her. But the monks made a fair bit off the candle racket.

Relgions are a racket, simple as that. When you die, you rot (or burn as the case may be). This doesn't bother animals at all, nor should it bother us. People seem to be highly suseptible to delusions, to being misled and to misleading themelves, even quite intelligent people. I think life is wonderful enough on this earth and in this universe without the metaphysical delusions. Enjoy it while you can.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 8 2006, 06:12 PM) [snapback]268362[/snapback]</div>

Maybe this article will help you understand. Have to read down a bit to get to the heart of the story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/10/24/81524/682

Wildkow

 

Eventually all men will be saved...for this is God's will. (1 Tim. 2:4)

http://www.savior-of-all.com

Ken

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 9 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]268594[/snapback]</div>

i read the article... what exactly were you trying to point out?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 8 2006, 08:54 PM) [snapback]268354[/snapback]</div>

No, not ALL Christians, as I stated above. Millions of us believe that death is the end, you rot in the grave, be you Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or non-religious. But, our prospects of future life, be it on earth or in heaven, lies with God. Revelation calls those chosen to rule with Christ in heaven "firstfruits", signifying that there were others, who are not chosen for this hope. My belief is that babies/young children, who have not reached an age where they can dedicate their life to God, and symbolize that by baptism, will await a resurrection to life on earth, where, most likely, they will be reunited with their loving parents.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 8 2006, 08:54 PM) [snapback]268354[/snapback]</div>

You forgot the word "false" Christian. No REAL Christian, or Christ himself, would consider torture a viable option, which is why I'm glad to see the Catholic Church finally abandoning Limbo, because I'm hoping Purgatory is next to go.

Without reading the article/website, I assume he is trying to say that ALL men will be saved, which is another mistaken concept. There are several verses in the KJ translation that basically say "all" or "everyone" will be saved, which could be used to imply that everyone, of every religion, or even age, will go to heaven.
The Greek expressions rendered “all†and “everyone†in these verses are inflected forms of the word pas. As shown in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962, Vol. I, p. 46), pas can also mean “every kind or variety.†So, in the above verses, instead of “all,†the expression “every kind of†could be used; or “all sorts of,†as is done in many translations. Which is correct—“all†or the thought conveyed by “all sorts of� Well, which rendering is also harmonious with the rest of the Bible? The latter one is. Consider Acts 10:34, 35; Revelation 7:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. (Note: Other translators also recognize this sense of the Greek word, as is shown by their renderings of it at Matthew 5:11—“all kinds of,†RS, TEV; “every kind of,†NE; “all manner of,†KJ.)
On the other hand though, there are many scriptures that prove that some will definitely NOT be saved:
2 Thessalonians 1:9, RS: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.â€

Rev. 21:8, RS: “As for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.â€

Matt. 7:13, 14, RS: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.â€

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Jun 9 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]268670[/snapback]</div>

thanks for the explanation, keydiver.

i was actually referring to wildkow's link, when i read it i was left wondering what relevance it had to the topic at hand, since it doesn't discuss babies going to heaven, death, miscarriage, questioning of christianity being labeled as mockery, or the climate on this board... :huh:

 

I thought that your unforgiven sins send you to hell.

Babies are innocent and not capable of sinning...?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 9 2006, 06:16 AM) [snapback]268530[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, I did have those two confused. Limbo has never really been an official doctrine of the RCC, even though it is taught by some priests (according to my catholic friend and some quick internet sources I googled.) The RCC does teach purgatory for those that are bad-but-not-so-bad, but that is still debated. I guess that's a natural outcome of the path to salvation that the RCC teaches (faith and works, with scripture and the teaching magisterium of the church being the believer's guides). Hope I haven't mangled Catholic theology too much ... we need an expert in it who can set us straight.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 9 2006, 06:47 AM) [snapback]268546[/snapback]</div>

Not sure why that is a problem. Being gay isn't a sin, even by conservative Christian standards. Sins are generally actions taken, so a gay person who is celebate ... as all babies are who die at birth ... certainly hasn't sinned as a result of their homosexuality.

We certainly understand that some people we may have thought were "posessed" in earlier times were really just crazy, and not accountable for the actions. Christian theology is able to reason through those things as new facts come to the fore. In the case of homosexuality, the problem will be what to do with human sexuality and expression if, as my sister in law tells me, "God made 'em that way!" If that's true, then it seems to me that committed permanent relationships are better than temporary ones.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Jun 9 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]269061[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. I think the original poster had the concept of inborn or "original sin", where we are all tainted by sin and therefore all in need of salvation (Paul's treatment of this is in the book of Romans). Many of the Protestant denominations, and probably all of the conservative, fundamentalist or evangelical denominations hold to the concept of original sin, as far as I know.

As someone else has said, it is God who decides. We can form a theology based on our knowledge of God, his nature, and the sense of fairness we believe he has. The newborn that dies is the easy one ... nearly all Christians believe they are saved.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 9 2006, 09:10 AM) [snapback]268628[/snapback]</div>

I was alluding to that particular link because you asked why people who question Christian doctrine were automatically deemed mocking. The author was a liberal Christian who was upset over the tones that non-believing liberals took when talking about religion or God. She felt that other liberal/democratic non-believers were disrespecting and hurtful. Therefore it is not just this board but a common tone set by secular liberals without regard for their believing liberals brothers and sisters. One day I will have to comment upon this trend(?) which alienates a portion of the liberal voting block. Do you really want to do something like this with a close election at hand?

I hope that clears it up for you.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kente777 @ Jun 9 2006, 08:30 AM) [snapback]268600[/snapback]</div>

Universalism, which the Catholic Church calls the Originistic Heresy, dates back to the very early Christian period. Sadly, the early Universalists lost out and were killed by their fellow Christians. In modern times, the Universalist Church was a liberal Christian church in America, which merged in the 1960's with the Unitarians to form the Unitarian Universalist Association, which is the church I belong to. You no longer have to believe in god to belong to the UU. (Unitarians were also losers in the early Christian period, and were killed by the Trinitarians.) Seems that for most of Christian history, minor differences in dogma were generally fatal.

The hypothesis that some people will go to hell is inconsistent with the hypothesis that god loves us.

But the hypothesis that everyone will be saved is inconsistent with the church's primary purpose, which is to con gullible and superstitious people out of their money.