1. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    30 Nov '05 11:48
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051130.wxlimbo30/BNStory/International/

    🙄

    What a waste of brain.
  2. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Nov '05 11:53
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051130.wxlimbo30/BNStory/International/

    🙄

    What a waste of brain.
    Good. As a non-Catholic, the idea of limbo always mystified me a bit. I never understood where the notion had come from.
  3. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    30 Nov '05 11:56
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Good. As a non-Catholic, the idea of limbo always mystified me a bit. I never understood where the notion had come from.
    It's proof positive that religion is baloney; they can change the "ultimate truth" on no other authority than an acute sense of embarrassment. They make it up as they go along. Absurd.
  4. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Nov '05 12:02
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    It's proof positive that religion is baloney; they can change the "ultimate truth" on no other authority than an acute sense of embarrassment. They make it up as they go along. Absurd.
    Well, given that a large number of Christians have a problem with Catholic doctrine being described as 'ultimate truth'...

    I'm not sure I agree with your logic entirely but I acknowledge the sentiment.
  5. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    30 Nov '05 12:061 edit
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Well, given that a large number of Christians have a problem with Catholic doctrine being described as 'ultimate truth'...

    I'm not sure I agree with your logic entirely but I acknowledge the sentiment.
    Surely something like this must give any religious person, Christian or otherwise, pause.

    EDIT: Man made religion after all.
  6. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    30 Nov '05 12:111 edit
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Good. As a non-Catholic, the idea of limbo always mystified me a bit. I never understood where the notion had come from.
    Essentially - the difference between mortal sin and original sin.

    I personally do not believe in the limbus infantium - but I wouldn't want to see the Church definitively rule it out. It has its positives.
  7. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Nov '05 12:17
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    It's proof positive that religion is baloney; they can change the "ultimate truth" on no other authority than an acute sense of embarrassment. They make it up as they go along. Absurd.
    How can I ever enjoy Dante again? In light of this debacle.
  8. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    30 Nov '05 12:18
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    It's proof positive that religion is baloney; they can change the "ultimate truth" on no other authority than an acute sense of embarrassment. They make it up as they go along. Absurd.
    You can't change the "ultimate truth" of Proposition X if you never claimed Proposition X was true in the first place.

    The RCC never defined limbus infantium as dogma, so there wouldn't be a "change" if it now defined against it.
  9. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Nov '05 12:20
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    Surely something like this must give any religious person, Christian or otherwise, pause.

    EDIT: Man made religion after all.
    Not really.

    As that article makes clear, limbo was never a concept from the Bible. It was invented in the Middle Ages in an attempt to explain something that troubled people. So a Christian who's quite fundamentalist about the Bible could pretty much ignore the whole doctrine without feeling any conflict about it.

    I think even if someone tried to change the Bible, how I felt about it would depend on context. Some people couldn't handle it - there were people who violently resisted translating the Bible into English rather than Latin because they thought it was wrong, there are people who think the King James version is handed down from on high and won't read any modern translation.

    But the fact is our knowledge and understanding of what was written is imperfect. There's always the possibility that someone will discover new copies, older than the ones we have, that indicate the copies we rely on may be incorrect. If that happens, I think people will have to seriously consider amending the Bible accordingly.

    I believe there is such a thing as 'ultimate truth'. I just don't believe I necessarily know it, and I get quite nervous around any person who claims that they do. There are certain basic things about Christianity that I think are fundamentally important to it, and if those were convincingly challenged it WOULD give me pause. But a lot of the rest is just details that people have been arguing over for centuries because there is no clear answer.

    Heck, even the things I regard as fundamental seem to be open to interpretation. I know of people who consider themselves Christian who don't take the crucifixion of Jesus literally, never mind the resurrection. I honestly struggle to understand how they do it, but they manage.
  10. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    30 Nov '05 12:20
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    You can't change the "ultimate truth" of Proposition X if you never claimed Proposition X was true in the first place.

    The RCC never defined limbus infantium as dogma, so there wouldn't be a "change" if it now defined against it.
    lol
    So, where are the unbaptized babies now?
    In Limbo?
  11. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    30 Nov '05 12:23
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Not really.

    As that article makes clear, limbo was never a concept from the Bible. It was invented in the Middle Ages in an attempt to explain something that troubled people. So a Christian who's quite fundamentalist about the Bible could pretty much ignore the whole doctrine without feeling any conflict about it.

    I think even if someone tried to chan ...[text shortened]... never mind the resurrection. I honestly struggle to understand how they do it, but they manage.
    Exactly and I'm glad you said that.
    Christianity as we know it was invented in the Middle Ages.
  12. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Nov '05 12:25
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    Exactly and I'm glad you said that.
    Christianity as we know it was invented in the Middle Ages.
    That's not what I said. LIMBO was invented in the Middle Ages.

    I base my Christian beliefs on the Bible as far as possible. Even though people dispute the authorship of some parts, the Bible as we know it has been around since at least 300-400AD.

    Personally, I have no reason to doubt that the Bible was completed before about 100AD.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Nov '05 12:27
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    I personally do not believe in the limbus infantium - but I wouldn't want to see the Church definitively rule it out. It has its positives.
    It's hard to understand you sometimes. What is the good of maintaining a belief you don't believe in?
  14. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    30 Nov '05 12:32
    Originally posted by orfeo
    That's not what I said. LIMBO was invented in the Middle Ages.

    I base my Christian beliefs on the Bible as far as possible. Even though people dispute the authorship of some parts, the Bible as we know it has been around since at least 300-400AD.

    Personally, I have no reason to doubt that the Bible was completed before about 100AD.
    I don't want to pick on Christians.
    They are just handier.
    Sorry.
    Anyways, religion was made by man, dreamed up by man to explain the unexplainable.
    If more ancient texts are discovered, how do you know they are more true than the ones we have now?
  15. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    30 Nov '05 12:33
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    lol
    So, where are the unbaptized babies now?
    In Limbo?
    There is no definitive dogma from the Church that says where they are now.

    The Church doesn't have a ready answer for every theological or soteriological question.
Back to Top