Rejoice! Dead (unbaptised) babies go to Heaven!

[forddieselguy]

Whet really bugs me is that everyone cuts down Christians because of all the crap that goes on in the Catholic Church. I am a christian, but I goes to a Lutheran Church. It's seems that people seem to forget that there are other "groups" of christian faiths. I do agree that the Catholic Church is, on the majority, mostly to blame for the slow fall in believers of Christ.

I found this:http://www.christians.co.za/vers/babies.htm

It sums it all up. The Pope didn't actually make this happen, he just stated that which was already true, he was probably low in the polls and nneded to do something to get a ratings boost.

So it doesn't matter what we humans, including the Pope, say on the matter. It is not for us to decide. Baptism does not ensure your "ticket into heaven", Faith in Christ does. Baptism is just a way of pronouncing your faith to the world.

With that said, Heaven to me should be playing an NPC in a Fallout game. And I won't go to hell for saying that because I am saved from eternal damnation because I do believe in Christ our Savoir.

One more thing, This may be coincidence, but I think not: Catholic priests are not allowed to marry, therefore they can't enjoy the joys of marraige set forth by God. Other faiths lets thier priests/pastors marry. If the Catholic church allowed them to marry, they would have less time to try and interpret the Bible to the way that suits there needs, and there would be a whole lot less "issues" with the Catholic church

 

[Roshambo]

Whet really bugs me is that everyone cuts down Christians because of all the crap that goes on in the Catholic Church. I am a christian, but I goes to a Lutheran Church. It's seems that people seem to forget that there are other "groups" of christian faiths. I do agree that the Catholic Church is, on the majority, mostly to blame for the slow fall in believers of Christ.

The US' own continued Manifest Destiny, The Southern Baptist Church, the Mormons, the Church of England, the Crusades, the Inquisitions...well, damn, looks like history doesn't like the general Christian church doctrine of hypocrisy, and that has built up quite a bad reputation that isn't suddenly going to go away. All that in the name of the world's first hippie/rasta, depending upon what you believe.

One more thing, This may be coincidence, but I think not: Catholic priests are not allowed to marry, therefore they can't enjoy the joys of marraige set forth by God. Other faiths lets thier priests/pastors marry. If the Catholic church allowed them to marry, they would have less time to try and interpret the Bible to the way that suits there needs, and there would be a whole lot less "issues" with the Catholic church

And likely a LOT less choir boy rape...

 

[Orphismos]

Well, the only reasonable answer to religious riddles like these is... There is NO God. I mean, look around you people. There are evidences at every step, shouting that he doesn't exist (And even if he does he apparently don't give a fuck about his creation). Stop fooling yourself, this is the only way to achieve inner peace

But of course its only my opinion, and if anyone wants to waste time on religion thats their problem.

 

[Tagaziel]

Have you ever heard of "Pascal's Wager", Slaanesh?

 

[Sander]

Have you ever heard of "Pascal's Wager", Slaanesh?

Pascal's wager is bullshit.
It is based on the premise that either Christianity is right, or there is no God at all. Within that premise, it is correct. However, that premise is completely unproven, and with many, many more religions around the world it is probably false.

That said, believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is a god.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Yeah, but Pascal was trolling IRL when he said that.

He thought that if someone started believing because of his wager, it wouldn't be real faith and therefore it would be invalid.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, but Pascal was trolling IRL when he said that.

He thought that if someone started believing because of his wager, it wouldn't be real faith and therefore it would be invalid.

Yes, he tried to evoke thought about God's existence with the Wager and show people that they should at least consider God's existence.

Of course, that doesn't make it any less bullshit.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

Rejoice! Dead (unbaptised) babies go to Heaven!

So I should strap a bomb in my waist, and go to a hospital to the newborn wing and let the dead mans switch go of, so I can fly on top of the new born wings to heaven.

That said, believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is a god.

There is NO God.

What if Sander I think there was a god, but it isn't anymore: The God was an entity that made the world, but not as it is now, but as it was far more than trillions of years ago. It created the world that has it's own laws like gravity...etc. "For why, you ask, to great a computer that would determine the meaning of life", but there was a slight miscalculation in the masses; the trern(a mouse kind of creature) had the mass of 3.2 instead of pi or π with is close to 3,14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 5... with this in the equation the whole world stood in silence until the universe stopped to revolve around itself and collapsed. Which in turn would be called the Big Bang.

 

[Ashmo]

Nononono...

The thing isn't that the Catholic Pope gets to decide, he gets to figure it out.

So far it was long-standing *opinion* that unbaptised babies go to Limbo, along with the rest of the infidels.

Only now has the Pope figured out that that doesn't make much sense because it's a bit unfair and that God actually meant for unbaptised babies to go to Heaven.

This means unbaptised babies have gone to Heaven all along, the Catholics only just figured it out.

Get your Catholics lore right, will you?

It's all like a big fantasy RPG (just a bit more boring and with less dice). The rules are already there, but they tend to be a bit unclear about things, so the Pope, the voice of the GM (GM = God) has to decide which interpretation is canon.

Yeah, it's all a bit moronic. There's a reason western religions attract less and less players these days.

Myself, I prefer Discordianism. At least you get to bend the rules whenever they get in your way.

 

[Lukus]

That said, believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is a god.

Yeah, if you actively believe that there is no god. Not if you just lack belief in one or more deities - which is just that; lack of belief - as opposed to a belief in the non-existence of deities. In my experience, many people fail to understand, or confuse this. As for me, I'm an atheist in that I am not a theist, and agnostic in that I don't believe we are capable of determining whether or not there is a god. (Is there a specific word for this particular stance? There really should be, since it's totally the best one ).

 

[Gekko]

If there is a heaven and if I would go there, I wouldn't mind if there weren't babies around. Hey pope, can you reverse it so that actually no babies get there?

 

[Nova]

Religion has become a large part of me. I answer the questions I can't answer. There is no truth but your own.

EDIT: My religion is my own. Know, Will, Dare and keep silence

 

[Audiostave]

That said, believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is a god.

Yeah, if you actively believe that there is no god. Not if you just lack belief in one or more deities - which is just that; lack of belief - as opposed to a belief in the non-existence of deities. In my experience, many people fail to understand, or confuse this. As for me, I'm an atheist in that I am not a theist, and agnostic in that I don't believe we are capable of determining whether or not there is a god. (Is there a specific word for this particular stance? There really should be, since it's totally the best one ).

I guess you fall under the category of the 'agnostic atheists' or perhaps even a 'weak atheist, in the sense that you lack belief in deities, as opposed to a 'strong atheist' who actively denies the existence of deities.

The weak atheists accuse the strong ones of being dogmatic, while the strong atheists reprimand the weak ones for their lack off balls, i.e. testicles.

But most specifically in your case, I'd think you're an agnostic atheist, because you lack belief in God because the question of whether or not he exists is inherently unknowable.

Saying that the question is an unanswerable one, makes you a strong agnostic person, as opposed to a weak agnostic, who just doesn't know if there are any deities.

Having analysed this, I can conclude you fall under the 'agnostic atheist' with a strong agnostic side and a weak atheistic side.

Note that agnosticism can be used as an adjective for both atheism and deism, in the sense that deists can also claim that the God question is unanswerable. The difference is, that deists, although they can be agnostic, still decide to believe in a God.

And I agree, your postion is the best.

 

[Lukus]

Yeah, well, weak agnostics are total pussies. "I just don't know anything! HLEP!".

To me, the only truth is that we can never be certain of what is true or not (in the real ultimate sense) with our subjective perception and all. (Including my 'only truth', and therein lies the paradox, omg). That, and that Ass n' Titties are hot.

 

[Gaskammer]

This is old news, but here's what I don't get...
If all un-baptized babies that die go to heaven, then WHY don't we just kill our children as soon as they're born??? We would be doing them a favor, wouldn't we? This way, we sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our children…. (I debated this with a priest, by the way, and he just turned around and walked the other way).

 

[Sander]

This is old news, but here's what I don't get...
If all un-baptized babies that die go to heaven, then WHY don't we just kill our children as soon as they're born??? We would be doing them a favor, wouldn't we? This way, we sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our children…. (I debated this with a priest, by the way, and he just turned around and walked the other way).

...
You tried to 'debate' this with a priest? This is a ridiculous point, for a multitude of reasons.
For one, god does not like it when you kill your children. Secondly, this point assumes that everyone somehow values their children to the point of sacrificing salvation for them (which is not described anywhere in Christian faith), thirdly the value of this action is greatly diminished when you realise that you can teach your children how to get to heaven, hence not making the choice a 50-50 choice.

 

[Gaskammer]

I've seen some thoughtful posts from you, Sander... which leads me to believe that you were tired because no thought went into this last one.

For one, god does not like it when you kill your children.

Hence we would sacrifice ourselves.

Secondly, this point assumes that everyone somehow values their children to the point of sacrificing salvation for them (which is not described anywhere in Christian faith)

True, but why would “everyone” be in this category? We could have a handful of people, perhaps those who are already doomed to hell, who will assume the roles of killing our little ones. (this way the majority of us could go to “heaven”)

thirdly the value of this action is greatly diminished when you realize that you can teach your children how to get to heaven

Teaching our children how to get to heaven… hasn’t this failed? I mean, nowadays the number of people actually qualified to go to heaven are about parallel to those who win the lottery.

hence not making the choice a 50-50 choice.

This 50-50 choice can be GREATLY reduced with the help of “sinners.”

Of course, we could probably just shell out that magical monetary good, O' that rectifier of all wrong-doings, and wash ourselves of our own sins.

 

[Sander]

I've seen some thoughtful posts from you, Sander... which leads me to believe that you were tired because no thought went into this last one.

And I think that your trolling Christianity is rather childish, really. You dislike religion? Fine. How does trolling the priests and throwing blood-stained bibles at them help at all?

Hence we would sacrifice ourselves.

Yes, I got that point of logic. However, you apparently do not understand faith. Christian religion is about serving God's will, supposedly. How would defying god's will then ever be construed as a positive thing?

True, but why would “everyone” be in this category? We could have a handful of people, perhaps those who are already doomed to hell, who will assume the roles of killing our little ones. (this way the majority of us could go to “heaven”)

...
Are you really this bent on trying to annoy religious offices by coming up with this retardedness?
In any case, it doesn't work like this. According to religion you are supposed to serve God and the reward for this (and hence the ultimate goal is to get into heaven). Serving God does not include killing every being he puts on earth and this most *certainly* goes against any Christian faith (see, oh I don't know, the 10 commandments) and hence cannot be condoned by any churchor faithful follower.

Teaching our children how to get to heaven… hasn’t this failed? I mean, nowadays the number of people actually qualified to go to heaven are about parallel to those who win the lottery.

Yet this could be much higher, according to religion, if, gee, people choose to live their lives according to god.

Of course, we could probably just shell out that magical monetary good, O' that rectifier of all wrong-doings, and wash ourselves of our own sins.

Ooh, nice straw man. Try to stick to the point, okay?

 

[Gaskammer]

Yes, I got that point of logic. However, you apparently do not understand faith. Christian religion is about serving God's will, supposedly. How would defying god's will then ever be construed as a positive thing?

Obviously you haven't, Sander, because you're plugging in words that do not exist. Not once did I say this was a "good" action, although it definitely would have a positive, manifest function (people going to heaven).

In any case, it doesn't work like this. According to religion you are supposed to serve God and the reward for this (and hence the ultimate goal is to get into heaven). Serving God does not include killing every being he puts on earth and this most *certainly* goes against any Christian faith (see, oh I don't know, the 10 commandments) and hence cannot be condoned by any church or faithful follower.

Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough... this would further emphasize the sacrifice. The goal is heaven, but sinners have already blown their chances; therefore, they help others attain that which is unachievable for themselves. Besides, what about the holy wars? Didn't they go against the ten commandments? ...so the only way to deem such an action okay, would be to do it in the *name* of religion?

Yet this could be much higher, according to religion, if, gee, people choose to live their lives according to god.

But the fact, which consequently stares us all in the face, is that people do not live their lives according to god. This results in VERY few people going to heaven.

Ooh, nice straw man. Try to stick to the point, okay?

Kinda' like your reference at the top, which is in a different thread? You see, that's partly why I spaced it from the other, relevant information and italicized it. (but hey... if you want to attack me, then expect a response)

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough... this would further emphasize the sacrifice. The goal is heaven, but sinners have already blown their chances; therefore, they help others attain that which is unachievable for themselves.

Why would a sinner be interested in helping someone go to Heaven?