Religions and outer space

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulDupre said:
You are using the secular meaning of the word.

Here are the theological definitions:

Paul
Click to expand...
This is the Wikipedia definition of Limbo (emphasis mine):

In Roman Catholic theology, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the “edge” of Hell) is a hypothetical afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the damned (gehenna). Medieval theologians described the underworld (“hell”, “hades”, “infernum”) as divided into four distinct underworlds: hell of the damned (which some call gehenna), purgatory, limbo of the fathers, and limbo of infants.
The Limbo of Infants refers to a hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since baptism is understood to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, the fate of unbaptized innocents has been debated, since the time of Augustine at least, by theologians, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.

The latter doctrine is the Catholic Church’s alternative explanation for the condition of the unbaptized infants. It is either that or Limbo. It it is not Limbo, than it is total damnation.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
This is the Wikipedia definition of Limbo (emphasis mine):

In Roman Catholic theology, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the “edge” of Hell) is a hypothetical afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the damned (gehenna). Medieval theologians described the underworld (“hell”, “hades”, “infernum”) as divided into four distinct underworlds: hell of the damned (which some call gehenna), purgatory, limbo of the fathers, and limbo of infants.
The Limbo of Infants refers to a hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since baptism is understood to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, the fate of unbaptized innocents has been debated, since the time of Augustine at least, by theologians, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.

The latter doctrine is the Catholic Church’s alternative explanation for the condition of the unbaptized infants. It is either that or Limbo. It it is not Limbo, than it is total damnation.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Straight from your quote, Z.
This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church.
Click to expand...
So, like what was said, this is not official Church teaching.

Also, Wiki got it wrong on Purgatory, but since there is quite enough info on Purgatory on this site alone, I’ll refrain from copying and pasting anything here.
 
MHalsey said:
So, like what was said, this is not official Church teaching.
Click to expand...
If this is not the official teaching, then the alternative must be, which is total damnation. It is either one or the other. A third alternative does not exist. Either kids are damned or they go to Limbo. If it is not Limbo, then it is damnation.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
If this is not the official teaching, then the alternative must be, which is total damnation. It is either one or the other. A third alternative does not exist. Either kids are damned or they go to Limbo. If it is not Limbo, then it is damnation.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Third option: left to mercy of God. Simply put, we do not know, but we know that God is both merciful and just in ways beyond human understanding
 
ralphinal said:
Third option: left to mercy of God. Simply put, we do not know, but we know that God is both merciful and just in ways beyond human understanding
Click to expand...
But that is not the “official,” historical teaching of the Catholic Church. The historical teaching has been total damnation.

zerinus
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
My favorite Twilight Zone show was called “To Serve Man”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone

If you think about it, if an advanced species placed man on earth, then it makes sense that mankind was planted as a fulture food source for them.
Click to expand...
Oh that sounds like a good one! Reminds me of a Red Dwarf (British TV show) moment, these guys have left their ship visiting a guy on a planet:

*RIMMER: In all our travels, we have met precisely
thirty-one individuals: three one. And we have never felt moved to
invite a single one to join our crew. True, most of them wanted in
some way to suck out our brains, or erase us from history altogether.
Nevertheless, they still weren’t what we would consider The Right
Stuff. We feel that you are different. We feel that you, like us,
have the courage and the dignity it takes to make it as a Dwarfer.

Satisfied with his speech, RIMMER sits back

LEGION: Mr Rimmer, I am moved by the eloquence of your invitation, but it is quite impossible for me to leave the confines of the institute.
RIMMER: It was Lister, wasn’t it? He put you off.
KRYTEN: Is there nothing we can do to change your mind?
LEGION: Absolutely.
KRYTEN: Then I’m afraid we must bid you farewell. We have a long journey ahead of us.
LEGION: Nonsense. You have no journey at all, my friends. I insist you stay here with me. You will be my honoured guests - from now until the day you die.

RIMMER wipes the food from his face, and sighs.

RIMMER: Thirty-two.*

Hope that makes sense 🙂

Funny enough the angle of food stuff and man being destroyed, captured etc also has a fit with aliens. There are those believers who get themselves in too deep with the whole deal. Allow themselves to be controlled by the whole situation in their quest for finding to fill that God shaped hole in their hearts. And it ends up being filled with the wrong side.
 
zerinus said:
But that is not the “official,” historical teaching of the Catholic Church. The historical teaching has been total damnation.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Oh, really? That’s a pretty bold statement to be making without citing any evidence. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to do so?
 
cyberjacques said:
Oh, really? That’s a pretty bold statement to be making without citing any evidence. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to do so?
Click to expand...
Yes, that was the teaching of Augustine and other Catholic luminaries. Try this for luck:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

Here is an extract from that passage (words in square brackets and emphasis added):

Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin which includes infants], are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

zerinus

PS. Here is an additional quote from the Wikipedia:

Against the Pelagians Augustine also strongly stressed the importance of infant baptism. He believed that no one would be saved unless he or she had received baptism in order to be cleansed from original sin. He also maintained that unbaptized children would go to hell. It was not until the 12th century that pope Innocent III accepted the doctrine of limbo as promulgated by Peter Abelard. It was the place where the unbaptized went and suffered no pain but, as the Church maintained, being still in a state of original sin, they did not deserve Paradise, therefore they did not know happiness either. Source.
 
zerinus said:
Yes, that was the teaching of Augustine and other Catholic luminaries. Try this for luck:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

Here is an extract from that passage (words in square brackets and emphasis added):

Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin which includes infants], are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Again, this does not prove your claim of “total damnation”. Strike two.
 
Zerinus,
In typical Mormon fashion you have taken the quote out of context, leaving out the part that would tell the whole truth.

Here’s what you left out (emphasis mine):
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.
Click to expand...
The baptism of desire is interpreted such that those who would have accepted baptism if they had the opportunity while alive are considered in God’s eyes to be baptised. God knows the heart and mind of each person He created. He knows who would have accepted baptism, given the opportunity.

God is all-merciful and all-knowing.

Paul

P.S.: Augustine, as brilliant and influential as he was, was not the Pope nor a member of the magisterium. Everything he wrote was his own opinion. He was a theologian, whose job it is to speculate and question.
 
zerinus said:
I have added another quote to my original post. Take a look.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Umm, nope. Still doesn’t prove total damnation. I think you’re now grasping at straws.

As Paul pointed out, Augustine was a theologian, he did not define doctrine.

Strike three. Time to admit you don’t know what the church teaches about limbo or purgatory. Let’s move on and get back on topic.
 
MHalsey said:
Umm, nope. Still doesn’t prove total damnation. I think you’re now grasping at straws.
Click to expand...
So hell does not mean total damnation? What kind of damnation does it mean then?
As Paul pointed out, Augustine was a theologian, he did not define doctrine.
Click to expand...
Paul thinks everyone is stupid but himself. Didn’t you read the quote? That was Catholic doctrine until the 12th century, when Pope Innocent III accepted Limbo proposed by Peter Abelard.
Strike three. Time to admit you don’t know what the church teaches about limbo or purgatory. Let’s move on and get back on topic.
Click to expand...
Is that supposed to be clever? :whistle: :rolleyes:

zerinus
 
from before,
  1. Clemens Alexandrinus, Eclog. 48. For instance, Peter in the Apocalypse says that the children who are born out of due time shall be of the better part: and that these are delivered over to a care-taking angel that they may attain a share of knowledge and gain the better abode [after suffering what they would have suffered if they had been in the body: but the others shall merely obtain salvation as injured beings to whom mercy is shown, and remain without punishment, receiving this as a reward].
Click to expand...
  1. Clem. Alex. Eclog. 49. But the milk of the women running down from their breasts and congealing shall engender small flesh eating beasts: and these run up upon them and devour them.
Click to expand...
  1. Macarius Magnes, Apocritica iv., 6 cf. 16. The earth, it (sc. the Apoc. of Peter) says, “shall present all men before God at the day of judgment, being itself also to be judged, with the heaven also which encompasses it.”
Click to expand...
  1. Clem. Alex. Eclog. 41. The scripture says that infants that have been exposed are delivered to a care-taking angel, by whom they are educated and so grow up, and they will be, it says, as the faithful of a hundred years old are here.
Click to expand...
  1. Methodius, Conviv. ii., 6. Whence also we have received in divinely-inspired scriptures that untimely births are delivered to care-taking angels, even if they are the offspring of adultery.
Click to expand...
David clearly expected to go where his dead baby went (2 Samuel 12:23); God took the life of King Jeroboam’s child because only in him was any good found (1 Kings 14:12, 13), and Jesus declared that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:15).

2 Samuel 12:23 (New International Version)

But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Does anyone have any idea what scriptures Clem. Alex. Eclog. 41 refers to?
 
zerinus said:
So hell does not mean total damnation? What kind of damnation does it mean then?

Paul thinks everyone is stupid but himself. Didn’t you read the quote? That was Catholic doctrine until the 12th century, when Pope Innocent III accepted Limbo proposed by Peter Abelard.

Is that supposed to be clever? :whistle: :rolleyes:

zerinus
Click to expand...
Careful, personal attacks are not charitable. You seem to have a problem with Paul because he correctly pointed out that you **conveniently **did not quote the beginning of the paragraph. I’ll paste here for you again.
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.
Click to expand...
Clear enough for you??
 
zerinus said:
Clear enough for you?

zerinus
Click to expand...
And what are you quoting here? The Catholic Encyclopedia or Wikipedia?? So no, not clear.

Besides, just because a theologian says it, does not make it official church teaching. Nor does a Pope issuing a decree on the subject make it official Church doctrine.

However, the following is the only official teaching on this subject by the Church:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states(1261): As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top