Rejoice! Dead (unbaptised) babies go to Heaven!

[SuAside]

Pope Benedict XVI has decided unbaptised babies will no longer get sent to burn in limbo (between Heaven and true Hell) with unbaptised adults who have led a good life (by Jesus' standards). So it is said, so it is done.

Now, being an atheist, this really hits me as extremely moronic. After nearly 20 centuries of the existance of the church, people are just going to swallow that since a Pope says it's so, it is so? Now, I do release people are stupid (no offense intended, but simple empiric fact), but will they yet again swallow this kind of nonsense? It has happened so many times before that the church starts pulling shit out of their ass and starts declaring it as facts, while they cant possibly know anything, except if god were to come down from Heaven and tell them so.

If Popes were able to talk to god, why wouldn't god have told them before there was no limbo for poor lil' unbaptised babies? Or is god some moody bastard that can't make up his mind (or is he trying to fill Heaven since Mother Theresa was getting damn lonely up there)?

(although I'm currently ranting about the Catholic Church, this applies to a gazillion other religions)

Anyhow, my theory is that religious people know that they are being fooled, but that they deny it to themselves and others. Kinda like Orwell's Doublethink.

But why would people allow them to be fooled like this? In my opinion most religions were once upon a time a way to give people moral guidelines and keep people in check. Keeping them working & passive, with the promise of reward after death. In modern countries however I fail to see how this is relevant anymore. So why do people still cling to this?

(Note that I have little against religion itself if it remains non-violent and doesn't interfere with other people's freedom, but I simply fail to see the use)

 

[Tagaziel]

I always say, that faith does not suspend your brains. If you are too stupid to understand that, then you should ask your mother for a retroactive abortion.

Seriously, it amazes me how many people can't think for themselves and need the Pope to tell them something that's obvious. Hell (pun intended), Jesus never said something along the line "Non-baptized will burn in hell for eternity!", since he loved everyone... if something contradicts this, then it simply means that the writer fucked up his work. Which is propable, as most of them were written after Jesus' death, and not on the spot.

 

[Serifan]

That is why Religion is a crock of shit!
WTF god came down and told the pope I have been thinking for the past 2000 years and yes I think all babies should go to heaven now sorry about all the others I will make it up with some coupons.

honestly I really don't know how other people think he is real. Really this should be in the world records as the biggest cult in the world.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Actually, according to the covenant Jesus made with Peter (IIRC, I'm probably wrong) everything that the Pope says, stands in matters such as this one.

Again, this is IIRC, so I'm probably wrong.

EDIT: Oh, and BTW, I'm not in any way saying it's not retarded either way.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

In all honesty I think he's just trying to make people feel better if they have a baby that dies before its baptized. I mean honestly who's fault is it? Certainly not the babies and neither the parents so....

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[SuAside]

ow yeah, it's only valid if the mother is a christian btw

but that's not really the point. just trying to understand modern day organised religion. however i guess i'll never understand it really...

 

[Roshambo]

Actually, according to the covenant Jesus made with Peter (IIRC, I'm probably wrong) everything that the Pope says, stands in matters such as this one.

Yes, it was the papal sanction given to Peter as the first Pope, and later given real power (on Earth) by Leo I.

Matt.16:18-19: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The name "Peter" (Πέτρος in Greek) here translates as rock. The reference to the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" here are the basis for the symbolic keys often found in Catholic Papal symbolism, such as in the Vatican Coat of Arms (see below).

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pope

But when he meant "you", he probably meant Peter, not every idiot who followed him, else you'd have mankind dictating a Crusade and Inquisitions in Heaven, and that's not a perfect plan in any form. Hell, even Jesus should have known that Peter's successors would have been a bit foolish or would have done things wrong, unless the Inquisitions were just his way of bringing more peace and love.

 

[Brother None]

But when he meant "you", he probably meant Peter, not every idiot who followed him, else you'd have mankind dictating a Crusade and Inquisitions in Heaven, and that's not a perfect plan in any form. Hell, even Jesus should have known that Peter's successors would have been a bit foolish or would have done things wrong, unless the Inquisitions were just his way of bringing more peace and love.

That's a matter of discussion, just like nobody but the Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is in the same position as Peter.

Roman Catholics believe this, though, and that explains the entire case. The moment the Pope (infallibe) states something it is true from now until eternity and from forever in the past, which means that currently dead babies are being vacuumed out of hell into heaven. Yay!

 

[Roshambo]

Roman Catholics believe this, though, and that explains the entire case. The moment the Pope (infallibe) states something it is true from now until eternity and from forever in the past, which means that currently dead babies are being vacuumed out of hell into heaven. Yay!

I wonder if it will be a "never happened" kind of thing and they will not remember the experience, or I guess sunshine and lollipops are supposed to make burnt babies feel all better now.

Yes, my theology professors HATED me.

Now consider if the Pope would suddenly say "no Jews are to be allowed in Heaven", does that kick Jesus to Hell?

 

[Lord 342]

Ah, yes, the "Difficult" questions that make the theology professor flinch, and, eventually convulse. After a year of asking the questions they never expected the Good Catholics to ask, as I walked out for the last time, I asked her "If God is all-powerful, could he make a rock so big that even he himself couldn't lift it?". She actually gave me the first sensible answer all year :"No. I mean, what would be the point?" Maybe she applied that answer to the rest of her faith. If she did she's an atheist now .

And to think my great-grandmother baptised a dying baby in the kitchen sink for nothing. (IIRC, in "emergency" cases, anybody can baptise someone)

Oddly enough, at the same catholic highschool, I had a remarkably intelligent professor who told me something I'm sure the administration did not want us to hear: "There are two ways to control your people: Say you are god or say you know god." The whole "infallibility of the Pope" stems from this concept. Even if it is just for "spiritual matters", what else matters once you have a bunch of die-hard believers? "Spiritual matters" are all you need.

 

[Bradylama]

Somebody told me the asnwer to that question, and it was "yes." Then he would know how to lift it. As an omnipotent being, God could create an impossible set of criteria for itself to accomplish, and then being omnipotent, know how to solve that criteria. I always figured this would be how an omniscient entity maintains its omniscience, by being ahead of the curve.

I wonder if it will be a "never happened" kind of thing and they will not remember the experience

Well, they wouldn't remember the experience because it never happened, though we've assumed it has for almost two millenia, and therefore the Pope has told us it's wrong. Benedict's basically played the proverbial Van Halen and worn the Rad suit to scare God.

Of course, if Benedict says that unbabtised babies don't go to Limbo, doesn't that mean that all other popes before him have been wrong, and therefore fallible?

 

[SuAside]

the only challenge for an allpowerful omnipotent imbawtfpwnage god would be to find a way to kill himself

 

[Jebus]

Since we are quoting influential religion professors, let me paraphrase what one of mine once told me: people need to mature in their faith.

It already made sense at the time, but as I grew older and discovered more of the world, it rang ever more true. Taking the scriptures of the bible literally might be considered to be the infantile sort of religion - to accept relatively blindly what greater minds, past and present, tell you, and to look up to the fatherfigure that the pope represents. Then, for people willing to put some thought into it, one arrives at the adolescent phase - the phase of the Freudian Patricide. You begin to doubt the full thruth of these dogmas taught to you, and psychologically murder the fatherfigure of the pope by rejecting him along with everything connected to him, and everything he represents.

Unfortunately, most people seem to remain stuck in this phase. SuaSide is a perfect example of this - he, with irony and bitterness, rejects everything the catholic church represents, and ridicules what he, correctly, percieves as unlogical and uncompatible with the world that surrounds him.
This phase is, however, an unfortunate phase to remain stuck in. Patricides are filled with, as I said, hate and bitterness, and as such this state is not a nice place to remain. It only leads to more hate and bitterness.

The adulth phase is, then, when you manage to achieve some kind of hegelian synthesis of religious dogma's and your world. When you accept religion for what it is, what it does for some people and what it, ultimately, can do for you. I, personally, do not consider myself a religious man - not by far - but I can find enjoyment in reading the bible from time to time, or even sporadically to visit a church or to discuss religion with true 'believers'. The New Testaments actually offer beautiful values, values I for the most part would like to stand by, and as such accept and appreciate what christianity has done for Western culture and the role the church plays even in today's world.

So while outburst like these are often seen, and might have their use in personal development, understand that they are ultimatly a sympton of puerility and won't go a long way in creating inner peace.

Just sayin'.

 

[Lukus]

Jeebs, in rejecting everything affiliated with the catholic church for instance, one must not be possessed by biterness or hatred. It can be done in the name of humor, with a touch of disrespect. I don't 'hate' catholics in any way (though I do think they qualify as idiots), and when I crack wise remarks about their faith I do it with humor.

Sure, "accepting religion for what it is, what it does for some people and what it ultemately can do for you" is a peaceful notion and all. While I'm forced to accept that things are as things are, as all of us are, I don't respect everything. Namely, I don't respect some aspects of religion, including but not limited to:

1. Depriving children of freedom of religion, or rather freedom from religion, by indoctrinating them in a faith. Sure, parents should have, and always will have, influence over how their offspring is formed. However, I think that the parents rights to form their offspring should be lesser than each individuals right to freedom of/from religion. This is not the case today. I'm especially thinking of putting children in confessional schools, since it would be a bit hard to control what is said and practiced in the home of every child. Every child should have an as objective education as possible. (At least in the rich countries. )

2. Allowing children to confirm their faith before they are capable of understanding what they're subscribing to. At least when I was around 15 and had some pals that went through confirmation, we hadn't had religion in school as a subject of its own. The only account they got of christianity was the one offered by the church, which is of course biased. It's much like being allowed to sign a business contract before you can read, and without someone objective to read it to you. "Yeeah, sure, you'll get a moped! Just sign here! Heh.. Hehe.. MUAHAHAHAH!"

3. Using violence when you run out of ideas for how to force your beliefs on others. Like the idiots that were violently rioting over the Danish muhammad cartoons. Accepting that this is an aspect of religion is just not acceptable to me. The whole ordeal was really funny though, in a very tragicomic way. I feel no respect what so ever for those in the towel-lands wanting to silence the free voices in Denmark.

In referring to towelheads or catholics as idiots instead of going "We should all just get along!", I don't think I'm demonstrating symptoms of puerility. I don't find it immature to not accept or respect all aspects of religion, like honor killings and what not - some things just shouldn't be tolerated (though my list is perhaps a bit longer than yours). I don't find it childish to have values such as those I presented above, and exercise humorous free speech in giving religious faiths, or crippled people, or fat american men, or *insert w/e* a verbal kick in the nuts. Come on Jeebs - do you? I mean, do you really?

 

[Roshambo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(film)

The perfect explanation of almost everything wrong with Catholicism. They didn't get into the whole "priests who carry torches for boys who hold candles" thing...

(Goddammit...how many revisions and the morons programming phpBB STILL haven't fixed their URL parsing?)

 

[Makenshi]

Has anyone tried Allan Kardec's Spiritism? Lots of answers (way better than those of Catolicism) for a lot of questions. Besides, it tries to be side to side with science, and recognizes defeat ASAP, unlike the Vatican, which delays centuries to give up.

 

[SuAside]

SuaSide is a perfect example of this

while the attempt is valiant, you're utterly wrong, my dear Jeebz.

i'm an unbaptised 'hellspawn' from atheist parents. i've never had any religious classes, only 'moral' classes for the non-believers.
hence: Patricide? how can one murder a father he never had?

(and you'll also be glad to hear i'm far beyond adolescence.)

The adulth phase is, then, when you manage to achieve some kind of hegelian synthesis of religious dogma's and your world. When you accept religion for what it is

in my book i recognise what religion is: on one hand a set of useful moral guidelines (values crafted in a time where those were severly lacking) and on the other hand a tool to keep the powerful in power & justifying conflicts and hatred.

sure, moderate religion isn't a problem, but look around you... a lot of our problems nowadays are simply powerstruggles coated in religious camouflage.

won't go a long way in creating inner peace.

Just sayin'.

funny. you expect everyone to just turn over when they perceive something in the world that is outdated and wrong? often used as a tool to create power or hang on to it? something currently used to deceive people?

all in the name of reaching a state of inner peace?

that is indeed funny, since in that sense you are saying all opposition leaders of political parties should just quit, accept the world as it is and 'find inner peace'. as far as i can see, your 'finding inner peace' is a way of saying the world has won & that you've given up on it.

*you're a whiny kid*

if not accepting the world and the abuses in it makes me a kid, i don't really mind.


PS: trying to using 'difficult' words for simple terms doesnt make you smart, mature or does not sell your points for you, Jeebz. it simply makes you a pompous ass.

 

[Jebus]

Sure, "accepting religion for what it is, what it does for some people and what it ultemately can do for you" is a peaceful notion and all. While I'm forced to accept that things are as things are, as all of us are, I don't respect everything. Namely, I don't respect some aspects of religion, including but not limited to:

Yes, I agree.
This is my point: by rejecting the papal institutions, or not taking certain religious dogma's or practices as pars pro toto for the entire school of thought, you're able to see the wood between the trees and, as it were, 'filter' it from the 'noise' it picked up throughout the centuries.

Everything dogmatises after a while - wether it is a school of thought, poltics, music, popular culture, etc. They do so, mainly, to facilitate passing on this knowledge to younger generations or to school the lesser of mind in these things. It's far easier, for instance, to teach a man studying to become a furniture crafter that socialism means 'posession is theft' than to read him the assorted works of Blanc. Accepting this, and looking beyond it, is what makes any school of thought valuable for a person in the long run.

I have to leave now, but I'll write some more later.

 

[monsharen]

A close friend of mines mother is dying in cancer. First it got all comfy in the lungs, then it spread to the heart... now she's taking drugs to prolong her existence and tell her kids the magic of life.

The family has always been atheists, but now she told them that the situation feels so much harder just because she has nothing to believe in.

(that was a little off topic but felt relevant)

Now, of course babies won't feel this way, but their parents might. I have always seen the bible, or christianity or any other religion, as guidelines rather than the truth so for me it feels natural that the pope would do as he did. Some times it helps to live in a lie, some times it don't. When there are hard times and it doesn't really matter, it might be a good choice to reconsider that lie.

 

[Paladin Solo]

And then, after a lifetime of deceit, nothing says 'surprise cockfag' like a divine, uncircumcised penis slapping on your forehead.

I don't know what to expect after I die. I wouldn't mind just not existing after that; being in a state of eternal solitude even though in a manner of speaking, it won't be a solitude since I won't have any recognition of it since I won't exist. I don't think Heaven can offer me what I want, and I know Hell doesn't give a damn, so being in a state of oblivion doesn't sound so bad.

Back on topic, I never understood the idea of how a person not born the spawn of God can be infallible. Pope or not, I wouldn't trust anyone with absolute certainty that their word will hold as true as God's. I just wish the Popes would acknowledge what they are; political figures and nothing more. Sure, some may have benevolent ideals, but I guess I've never been trusting of too many people.

I suppose the world doesn't need anymore opinions, though. I can't say what the big plan is; I just don't think the Pope knows anymore than I do. But then again, I refuse to align myself with any sect and instead prefer to be just a Christian.