The fate of limbo

[Griffin NoName]

Looks like the wait goes on...

http://tinyurl.com/m3ojr

Taking a quote from that article

"This pope does not like leaks," a source said.

Maybe that is partly why this issue of limbo is so difficult. If it was abolished would the inhabitants leak out? 

(apologies for irreverance - underlying it is a serious consideration. abolishing anything in the physical realm, even something that is an idea rather than a physical entity, leaves trails behind. What would be the actual result of abolishing something in a spiritual sphere?).

[beagle]

Tricky one. Seeing as you can't destroy information without increasing entropy, I'm guessing Hell will get slightly hotter.
On the other hand, if Limbo was both created and destroyed by humans, then a Divine raised eyebrow may be the only consequence in the spiritual plane.

[Opsa]

Ooh, I applaud you there, beagle.

One way to look at things is to say that God created the world and man created the beliefs and laws.

I stand with NoName. If it makes sense, as in keeping the peace by not killing, then it seems to be God's making.

If it doesn't make sense, as in baby boys not circumsized on the 8th day go to Hell, then to me it is a man law, and therefore not binding to a religious pirate sibling such as myself. Homey don't play laws that aren't fair.

[Sibling Qwertyuiopasd]

my overall opinion on the baby to hell thing is.... what kind of a religion sends babies to hell?

and don't some people say Hell isn't as much of burning lakes of fire as a seperation from god? and Limbo would be like, without god.

unless he made like, weekly visits  or something.

I don't see why the afterlife has to be a binary situation anyway. why can't everyone go to the same place, but God, being as omnipotent as I've heard he is, just make it as good for others as he deems.

the word limbo, to me, means either the game, or the greek limbo in hades. where nothing much happens....

I honestly don't care what the Pope says... but from the first article, I must point out this great quote:


"An article in the UK's Times newspaper this week suggested that the "Pope - an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic - is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to heaven"."

yes, the Pope is such an acknowledge authority on all thigns Islamic....

~Quetzy

[Sibling Chatty]

Ahhh, Sibling Al, I think I have it.

I'm pretty much of the "You show me 'zakly WHERE in the Bible it says that" school of theology. That eliminates centuries of posturing and positing and...bull excretion used to curry favor.

Limbo, harrowing, etc are all constructs built by Man to further some agenda. (And I sez 'the hell with THAT'.) From the git-go, people been puttin' their politics, their agenda, their "I want" before the words that were originally written on inspiration from God. THAT's where the whole mess-up comes from.

Like I said, the hell with it. Of course, that's pretty much what the Bible says about it, too...

Oh, well, if somebody wants to 'add on' or 'translate' in their agenda, there's not a lot most folks can do about it, except ask What the HELL was THAT??

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I don't see why the afterlife has to be a binary situation anyway.

I always wondered about that, myself.

The world, with it's myriad cultures, languages and diverse people seems, well diverse.

If, you suppose that the Creator intended all this diversity to take place ... can you just imagine the chaos that will ensue if all folk are relegated to an "Either-Or" situation?

Wherefore MUST it be an "either-or"? Why not an afterlife JUST as diverse (if not more-so) as the during-life?

Why not many, many different outcomes?

And, where is it written in giant burning letters in the sky, that once you're in one place or the other, you're stuck there forever after?

I mean, the Creator seemed to take SUCH pains to preserve free will, to only snatch it away again during the afterlife? Because THAT is what it is, really, if a soul is stuck in one place for all eternity ... no more free will.

As for me, I don't really know what it will be (if anything at all).  But, I'm not worried about it, either:  if even 1/10 of the propaganda about God is true, then likely it will turn out okay for everyone.

Even the Hitler's of the world ...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't see why the afterlife has to be a binary situation anyway.

Given that the previous step is actually binary (either you are alive or you aren't)...

Seriously speaking (or not?), the abolishment of limbo wouldn't affect the RR message of "all aborted babies go to hell"?

[The Black Spot]

Tricky one. Seeing as you can't destroy information without increasing entropy, I'm guessing Hell will get slightly hotter.

As an aside, I notice that TOP has deleted the original "Last Post" thread. Makes Beagle's observation strangely poignant.

Anyway, Limbo. I'm not a theologian, but as a lapsed catholic I can recognise that this problem goes to the very roots of catholicism.

We were / are taught that everyone is born with "Original Sin". This dates back to the expulsion from the garden of Eden, and all men/women are born with it. The point was that original sin was permanent - it was a stain on the soul that could never be erased. If you had original sin on your soul, you went to hell for it, no questions asked.

Enter Jesus. He died for our sins, and because of him, original sin was erased from your soul, but only when you were baptised into the church. Everyone else burned.

Limbo was to deal with the awkward question of why should innocent babies burn in hell forever.

Abolishing Limbo would mean the catholic church admitting that the concept of Original Sin was false. They can't do that - it was the reason given for Jesus dieing on the cross.

Limbo might be a daft idea, but don't underestimate how difficult this question is for the Pope.

[beagle]

Tricky one. Seeing as you can't destroy information without increasing entropy, I'm guessing Hell will get slightly hotter.

As an aside, I notice that TOP has deleted the original "Last Post" thread. Makes Beagle's observation strangely poignant.

Of course they could easily restore it from a backup. If it was an accident. Which I'm sure it was.

[Swatopluk]

I think the first one to blame is St.Augustine for actually stating that unbaptized children (including those dying in the womb) go to hell forever. The idea of purgatory would probably have looked as wishy-washy to him too. I also consider him as the main culprit for several other inhuman doctrines. Given his personal behaviour to certain human beings (esp. his de facto wife he "lived in sin with") I never could stand the guy (but some of his contemporay "fathers of the church" are not far behind).

Even Limbo does not solve the problem of those that lived between the resurrection and the time the missionaries reached their region of the world.
One of the great medieval mystics (either Tauler or Seuse) had a much better idea (though never officially accepted). If someone dies unbaptized without it being his own fault (e.g. no missionary reached his country yet) God himself may come to him in the  moment of death and baptize him and thereby save him (or her).
This is of course an infringement on the church monopoly (some dogmatists even claim(ed) that God himself could not reverse a papal dictum) and therefore unacceptable.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Out of curiosity, what's the theological foundation for salvation of catechumens (i.e. those who have expressed a desire for baptism and are studying in preparation for it) and "baptism of blood" (i.e. an unbaptised person receiving the benefits of baptism by dying for the church)?  Both of these examples are listed in the Catechism as means of salvation, but neither involves a ritualized sacrament of baptism.  If the Catholic church already acknowledges enough theological wiggle-room to let these things in, how difficult would it be to come up with something that allows unbaptised babies in?

Also, consider this (though I doubt that the Catholic church will be taking my suggestions): one justification I've heard for infant baptism (as opposed to "believer's baptism" practised in some other denominations) is that the parents agree (and, one assumes, have faith) on the baby's behalf; there desire for the baby's baptism is taken as a proxy for the baby's desire.  If this rational works for baptism, why not use it in combination with the existing doctrine that catechumens are saved?

The Catholic church already teaches that:
- the unbaptised faithful who wish for baptism are saved
- the faith of a parent and his or her desire for baptism of their baby are sufficient to allow the baby to be baptised.

Why not combine those two ideas and say that if faithful parents are working toward baptism for their baby, their baby is considered a catechumen for purposes of salvation without baptism?

Everyone "wins" - the Church doesn't have to come up with new theology, babies don't go to Hell (not Catholic babies, at least), and people will still feel compelled to baptise their infants.

[The Meromorph]

This whole discussion is redolent of my own reasons for walking away from the Catholic Church (and later all organized religion) in the first place.
Generalising, the 'Rule of Law' is, I think, a necessary modality of human justice, but, on it's own, has a strong tendency to degenerate into picayune disputation of interpretations. It needs to be tempered by the 'Rule of Justice', and most successful human legal systems do this by a careful selection and review of judges.
This 'argument' seems, to me, to be pervaded by the desire to impose Justice on the 'Rule of Law', and that doesn't seem to sit well with 'dogma'.