T1B

Felix wrote:primarily because the "word of god" seems to be evolving....how can the word of god evolve

Tom In VA wrote:

Felix wrote:primarily because the "word of god" seems to be evolving....how can the word of god evolve

Does the "word" itself evolve our does our understanding of it evolve - as we do ?

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Felix wrote:primarily because the "word of god" seems to be evolving....how can the word of god evolve

Does the "word" itself evolve our does our understanding of it evolve - as we do ?

The Theology Forum is no place for talk about evolution.

Tom In VA wrote:

Felix wrote:primarily because the "word of god" seems to be evolving....how can the word of god evolve

Does the "word" itself evolve our does our understanding of it evolve - as we do ?

Felix wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Felix wrote:primarily because the "word of god" seems to be evolving....how can the word of god evolve

Does the "word" itself evolve our does our understanding of it evolve - as we do ?

well, take for example the concept of "limbo" as espoused by catholics....I attended catholic schools throughout my formative years, and in fact graduated from a catholic high school-sorry Dio, but the concept of limbo WAS taught as catholic doctrine....while it might be official church doctrine, it was taught as if it were

n Catholic theology, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the "edge" of Hell) is a speculative idea about the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the damned. Limbo is not an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or any other. Medieval theologians described the underworld ("hell", "hades", "infernum") as divided into four distinct parts: hell of the damned (which some call gehenna), purgatory, limbo of the fathers, and limbo of infants.


* The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the 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 at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, 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.[3]

On April 22, 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."[21]

After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[22] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[23]

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that it is considered consonant with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.[24] Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[24] These theories are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members.

Diogenes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

it was taught to us in grade school....catholic curriculum established by the archdiocese (e.g. the catholic church)

it may not be official doctrine, but it was taught like it was.... the catholic's seem bent on scaring young impressionable children with this sort of non-sense and it should be considered a form of mental abuse...parents that allow this to go unchecked are as culpable as those perpetrating these horror stories

Martyred wrote:Thanks for completely missing my funnay.

Felix wrote:then what exactly would you call it when the representative body of the catholic church designates that it be taught to seven and eight year olds at grade school level?

Diogenes wrote: In this case...

Not official Catholic doctrine.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: In this case...

Not official Catholic doctrine.

that's the eqivalent of saying that teaching mathematics is "not teaching history"

I'm not really interested in what it's not, but more interested in what you would call it? Surely there must be a name for it....

Diogenes wrote: Not Catholic.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Not Catholic.

that's why you can find the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia, because it's not catholic

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/l/limbo.html

Diogenes wrote: Not catholic or not Catholic?

mvscal wrote: Nice misanthropic shitpile of a psycho cult you've got going on there.

2 Corinthians 4:3,4
3: But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Felix wrote: well, take for example the concept of "limbo" as espoused by catholics....I attended catholic schools throughout my formative years, and in fact graduated from a catholic high school-sorry Dio, but the concept of limbo WAS taught as catholic doctrine....while it might be official church doctrine, it was taught as if it were (back in the day, the church seemed to enjoy frightening small children...I can't say where they stand today, but my gut feeling tells me they still roll that way)

for years, practicing catholics have been told by the church their prematurely deceased infants, who were born with original sin were relegated to "limbo" (which is essentially the edge of hell) and would have to wait for final judgment before their eternal fate was decided (apparently, god was just a little confused about what to do with these innocent souls)

so now, according to church doctrine, this place no longer exists and there are many in the church that believe that because these unbaptized children died with original sin, they've been condemned to hell....that's fucking sick....

that's not an evolving understanding of "god's word", that's terrorism plain and simple

Felix wrote:so apparently there is some "god" here on earth, that is more powerful than the "god" that made the entire universe! either that or he ordered these poor wretches to have freedom of thought, so that they could choose whether to believe in "him" or not....of course this person called "god" being the omnipotent meglomaniac that he obviously is (who writes the ten most important "laws" with the first four being devoted to nothing more than worshiping him), of course, being omnipotent, knowing everything that would occur, knew these people would deny him, so he has no choice but to cast them into the fires of eternal torture....of course, if you opt to believe, you'll (allegedly) spend the rest of eternity worshipping and praising his almightyness....of course as I've said before, the first couple trillion years would probably be a real hoot, but after that...eh, not so much

Rootbeer wrote:
Children reach the age of accountability at 8 years old.

War Wagon wrote:
Limbo = Purgatory, btw.

poptart wrote:

I can't really begin to untangle it all.


Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Could you believe this?

Felix wrote: evolutionary theory (which is pretty much a scientific fact)

poptart wrote: All I asked is if you could believe this -

- In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. -

Have you really ruled out God creating everything in the beginning?

Is there a reason you ruled it out?

If not God, who do you say did create everything, and was it not ... in the beginning??

Python wrote:
I absolutely love this. "Pretty much a scientific fact." It either is a fact or it isn't. Awesome.

Felix wrote:which "god" are we speaking about....the "god" of christianity, the "god" of islam, or the "god" of judaism....because they can't be the same.......

poptart wrote:
Felix, all I asked was if you could believe that God created everything in the beginning.

If someone created everything, let's just call that someone GOD -- and understand that He would be the GOD of EVERYONE.

But you've ruled out the possibility that God created everything in the beginning.

Next time you ramble on about Christians being closed-minded, you might remember this discussion.

poptart wrote:Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Could you believe this?

Felix wrote:I'm not saying that it's impossible for this entity to exist

Felix wrote:well if he's the god of everyone, then why does he insist on threatening people that don't hold the specific beliefs of christianity

poptart wrote:Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Could you believe this?


Your answer is then yes?

If there is a God who created everything, He IS the God of everyone.

but according to your book, not everyone will receive their reward