Originally posted by orfeoIt'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.
Good. As a non-Catholic, the idea of limbo always mystified me a bit. I never understood where the notion had come from.
Originally posted by KneverKnightWell, given that a large number of Christians have a problem with Catholic doctrine being described as 'ultimate truth'...
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.
I'm not sure I agree with your logic entirely but I acknowledge the sentiment.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoSurely something like this must give any religious person, Christian or otherwise, pause.
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.
EDIT: Man made religion after all.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoEssentially - the difference between mortal sin and original sin.
Good. As a non-Catholic, the idea of limbo always mystified me a bit. I never understood where the notion had come from.
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.
Originally posted by KneverKnightYou can't change the "ultimate truth" of Proposition X if you never claimed Proposition X was true in the first place.
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.
The RCC never defined limbus infantium as dogma, so there wouldn't be a "change" if it now defined against it.
Originally posted by KneverKnightNot really.
Surely something like this must give any religious person, Christian or otherwise, pause.
EDIT: Man made religion after all.
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.
Originally posted by lucifershammerlol
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.
So, where are the unbaptized babies now?
In Limbo?
Originally posted by orfeoExactly and I'm glad you said that.
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.
Christianity as we know it was invented in the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by KneverKnightThat's not what I said. LIMBO was invented in the Middle Ages.
Exactly and I'm glad you said that.
Christianity as we know it 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.
Originally posted by orfeoI don't want to pick on Christians.
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.
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?