I will post more on this thread later when I have more time, but I thought you might find this link interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis
Printable View
I will post more on this thread later when I have more time, but I thought you might find this link interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
i believe that the western churches abandoned this style of thought because: if Jesus was entirely god, the sacrifice of his death was meaningless. he did not experience what it meant to be a man in fear of death, which is the main reason why death in the name of something is a sacrifice. eleminate the humanity from a sacrifice, what is the sacrifice?
Ahem. Any takers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
That is interesting. I think John Paul II and Benedict XVI (who were in complete sink theologically) are shifting away from the Tradition which has referenced limbo in everything from Dante (and other Papal approved literary works) to direct quotes from other Pope's and theologians for millennia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
What is telling is the new language:
"expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament,"
and
"Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis."which turns on hope and personal sentiment is basically pulling back and saying they do not know.
The stance is flawed as has been explained. It does not represent the purported subject. It is rhetorically akin to putting forward Christianity asserts only 144,000 will inherit the highest order of salvation. You have confused a part for the whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
And that may be in eastern christianity, as you have explained. But western christiaity takes a different point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
But consider the questions anyway, without the component you disagree with. Is the story of Adam and Eve to be taken literally? And what bearing would their actions have on the rest of humantiy that was alive at the same time?
Well, I give you my thoughts on the matter DA. But then I've never been much of a literalist, especially with regards to the Pentatauch.
I heard on NPR at lunch that Benedict is actually considering issuing a papal bull to formally denounce the concept of limbo. As he'll have to do it in such a way that contradicts no preceeding papal bulls on original sin and the need for baptism, I'm eagerly anticipating the wordsmithing required to pull this one off....
Ahh, but my friend your focus of the thread is Christianity not simply an aspect of it. In post #1 you state:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
"Christianity: Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil"
you also stated in post # 47:
"Which of the following concepts are generally accepted as foundations in the Christian faith? Please address one at a time, if you would be so kind as to humor me...(1)Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil "
Both statements are quite wrong as I explained.
Even were we to restrict discussion to Latin Christian Thought the view man is inherently evil is problematic. Augustine can be argued as the source of this idea (with many scholars believing this is traceable to his earlier having been a Manichean), but that still leaves out Western Mediterranean Christians prior to the 5th Century. Moreover, this view was not adopted by Roman Catholicism. As you probably noted from the aside on limbo: Catholic teaching has veered away from such a position: not only because it is logically problematic, but because even Augustine was not consistent in his own writings.* The portion of Christian belief that really embraced the inherent evil of man was Reformed Protestantism. Luther** had been an Augustinian monk prior to his excommunication. Calvin built on Luther's ideas and systematized them in his "Institutes". Calvin's work infused and became the most identifiable character of Reformed Protestantism The inherent evil of man is a theoretical touchstone for sola fide and sola gratia.
To put things simply: if one holds man is capable of performing good, even in an unredeemed state, (which Roman Catholicism admits) then one cannot argue man is inherently evil. To place the discussion firmly in the "man is inherently evil" camp one would really need to restrict discussion to Reformed Protestantism.***
* A study of the rhetoric of the Reformation is in many ways a battle within Latin Christianity between different readings (different stresses) of Augustine's work.
**Later Lutheran (Augsburg) scholars i.e. Melancthon etc. rejected these ideas due to the deterministic framework it necessitated.
***This means not only excluding Lutheran and Anglican Thought, but also all sects that rejected the Synod of Dort (1618) i.e. Methodists etc.
The answer is sect specific. Allegorical or metaphorical readings are not the traditional response. Traditional Christian teaching does not admit humans not traced back to Adam. If one did admit such (humans independent of Adam) and one accepts death as a judgment on Adam and his seed then either the other humans are immortal (Highlander?) or also judged but with no explanation.Quote:
But consider the questions anyway, without the component you disagree with. Is the story of Adam and Eve to be taken literally? And what bearing would their actions have on the rest of humantiy that was alive at the same time?
Very Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
It is not so much the sacrifice of death, but death on Earth. The sacrifice is him feeling pain, and living like a human, but not so much as a human. A human cannot do what he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
True, but a God cannot die. Demi-god?Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
But what was the sacrifice if he simply was "resurrected"?Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
It has happened by the billions (trillions even?) for thousands of years.Quote:
A human cannot do what he did.
I used to ponder whether it was our mortality that made us matter or our mortality that made us not matter.
I think what he is saying is; nobody could do what Christ did as pertaining to the Atonement and giving his life willingly and then take it back again.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
The LDS doctrine of the Atonement, which is Christ taking all sins in the world and puts it upon his shoulders and pays the penalty as demanded from justice, is beautiful and so deep that you would probably need to be a life time member from said church to fully understand it. The very idea that one person have been in a worse state than you, no matter how low you’ll ever get or how much guilt you’ll ever feel is quite entertaining. The whole concept of saviour, mediator or brother lies in this. That someone already made amends with God and justice for all evil or wrong deeds you’ll ever commit.
The very deed in the garden of Gethsemane is in need of someone not able to perish for the mere burden of a fraction of the world’s sins. Yet he chooses to die with the words: “It is finished” He breaks the bonds of death, not as the very first person (there are some incidents in the canon of reviving the dead), but probably the first to resurrect, meaning, never to die again.
I think I have the gist here.
He did not die like not exist anymore, rather he left our world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
DA, I did not mean a Human cannot die. A human cannot cure the blind and heal the lepers and give the paralised the ability to move. A human cannot give back life (except for Elijah who was God's 'emmisary' at one time).
DA: there are several issue that make the Adam and Eve tale, or Genesis in general "wrong" in my eyes.
1) Sin is considered to be disobedience to God. A&E didn't know sin before eating the apple. However in Eve was in her mind already disobedient when the serpent convinced her to eat, and Adam when Eve did the same.
It also seems at odd with the idea that God wants us to have free will.
2) Genesis states that Eve was created from Adam. There's no problem with that if you denounce (theistical) evolution, but genetic science holds that the Y chromosome (the "male chromosome") was originally a shootoff from an X like chromosome.
3) Plenty of stuff in Genesis seems written only to put women in a second rate place. The part that states that Eve was the first to eat and convinced Adam to eat too has caused or at least justified misogyny before and particulary in the middle ages (and in some parts of the world, even today)
4) (a minor point) Genesis states that God created wild animals and cattle at the same time. Yet it's verified (and quite obvious even) that cattle came from domesticizing wild animals.
I'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He gets carried away, but boy does he make thiests look like fools.
There is no highest order of salvation. We are all equal in gods eyes:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
But some are more equal than others.:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
I am not going to argue with your belifs here, but you do realise that the Apostles did just that after Christ had left them.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
[edit] Don't I seem like a believer here? ... this is according to what is written in the NT.
The 144,000 inheriting a higher order of salvation references Jehovah's Witness theology where there is a marked distinction. Regardless, the point remains one cannot substitute a part for the whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
oh ok. Justanother veiw on christianity there are allot of themQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
You've never read Animal Farm by George Orwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
Maybe that'll help
Quote:
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
I haven't read the book yet, but if you think that, you are probably reading it with the same bias it was written. You need to wait until the so-called "fools" have chance to reply. I know he has been voted a leading intellectual by some magazine or other, but if he was really bright he would be working on the cutting edge of science and not writing as an evagelist for materialist humanism. On the other hand those "fools" you refer to are at the top of their field. I will let you know what I think once I have read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
The latter quote comes first and therefore reads logically. That is the fact that the Lord himself affirms the necessity of baptism for salvation poses a problem regarding ubbatized infants, and the mordern Catholic approach leaves the problem to the mercy of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The Catholic Encyclopedia was written at the begining of the 20th Century. The church has moved on a lot since then, so it is not now, if indeed it ever was an authoratative source for Catholic teaching.Quote:
From Xiaho's citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church.
This was not an ex-cathedra statement, so should not be taken as "infallible" . However, it is clear from both sources that Limbo was part of standard Catholic teaching before the Second Vatican Council. (I note however that Pius X agrees with my assertion that Limbo was not considered part of hell).Quote:
Other comments: Pope Lius X (1905)
"Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory."
It is clear that Limbo no longer features in Catholic teaching from close reading of the Catechism and the link I provided:
"the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. "
"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved"
In other words, the liturgy of the chuch already recognises hope for the salvation of unbaptized children. Liturgy is central to the Catholic church - it's a sacramental religion, it is just that the theologians have not caught up yet.
As regards the thread as a whole, it has certainly provoked some interesting discussion, but I think the project is doomed to failure. It will be impossible to come up with a general statement of what Christians believe without excluding some group or other. Thus we are reduced to extremely vague statements, which is pointless, or excluding groups that we consider "not really Christian" which is presumptious.
If we had to make a statement about what Christians believe, I think we are reduced to "Christians claim to follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. Amongst them, there is a wide difference in theology, liturgy and authority." This removes all precision in the interests of inclusion.
Yes you did. It was only through Jesus that such miracles coudl be performed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
What is the reliability of the new testament anyway? I understand that there are some extra-biblical sources that supposedly corraborate the "eyewitness" testimony of the Gospels.
Saying that the bible is true "because it says so" is a little nuts. Faith is believing something you know cannot possibly be true.
Incorrect - faith is believing in something that you can not prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Fair enough. What about the rest of my question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I assume that they're supposed to be the 144,000 of Israel mentioned in Revelation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
(6) In order for an individual to be eligible for this exemption from suffering, the individual must simply believe everything written above.
Hi everyone. I finally have found a little time to look back in on this discussion and was amazed at all of the interesting posts. I should like to add to this response from Navaros that it is not merely enough to believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, but also his resurrection. Repentance of one's sins is also a requirement.Quote:
Originally posted by Navaros
That is only partially correct. It is incomplete hence your summary as stated does not paint a full picture.
In having had to dig out a Biblical quote I noticed another direct quote from Jesus that underscores what I was saying early that simple belief in the above does not exempt one from suffering. One must believe and not be a worker of iniquity (ie: living a debauched life). For your summary to be accurate & complete, you must add something that states this.
Cordially,