Deos Timmy Go To Hell?

[CplFerro]

Thank you.

But that is robbing the child of its (future) free will as regards salvation. In a way, it is playing God, because it would be taking it upon oneself to decide the fate of other souls.

Now that's just being greedy. Heaven is already by definition the Maximum Benefit. The murderer would be robbing the child of one grain of sand on the beach, in exchange for taking him to the beach.

 

[AmateurScientist]

One thing I can say with confidence is that, in my experience, there is very little hypocrisy with respect to alcohol. This prohibition is deeply ingrained in Baptist culture in the Southern U.S., and the notion of moderate, much less "casual" consumption is as alien as hot tea. My parents and in-laws will never accept that my wife and I drink occasionally (and very, very modestly). I'm quite sure more than one prayer has been offered on our behalf after we were observed splitting a single bottle of beer. This attitude is so prevalent that it's rarely even brought up. I was 30 yrs old before I ever attended a wedding where alcohol was served. Christmas and New Years always passed without so much as a thought for brandy or champaigne.

You went to a very different church in a very different culture then.

That joke rings very true in my circle. Very true. Some of the biggest drinkers I knew in high school went to that church regularly. Dancing was never prohibited or even mentioned in our churchs here, except for in the Church of Christ. Even then, the people I knew in the Baptist church thought they were silly for seeing dancing as a sin.

I suppose it depends very much on where in the South you attended a Baptist church. My former church is extraordinarily large, and it's in a medium sized city. It's not a small town culture at all.

AS

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

What about dancing?

When I was in the sixth grade, we went to camp. The camp itself was owned by a Baptist group and on the final night there, we wanted to have a dance. But because the camp was owned by Baptists we weren't allowed to. So we had a burping contest instead. I didn't win.

Dancing and swimming were generally proscribed, particularly by the more fundamentalist churches, but Southern Baptists (i.e., churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention) tended to be rather more moderate. I certainly attended more than one church-sponsored swim party.

Now, as far as sex goes, I'd be suprised if any religious denomination has ever achieved total mastery of the libido. I can assure you that I didn't go to that Baptist summer camp three years in a row for the evening sing-alongs!

 

[supercorgi]

I wondered about this very question when we were watching the 'Religious Icons' episode of Bullsh!t. For those of you who didn't see it, at one point they talk about Little Audrey. She nearly drowned to death as a young child and is now profoundly retarded. Statues of Jesus now weep oil (vegetable oil and chicken fat "Jesus tastes like chicken!"). People come from all around to see the little zoo animal...I mean miracle.

Ah Audry Santos, my own little local tale of exploitation. It's a sad situation but sadder still is the level of grief and desperation that makes the family continue this farce. CSICOP's Joe Nickell did a report on the situation back in 2001 - http://www.csicop.org/si/9909/santo.html

 

[jan]

Isn't it both Catholic and Protestant church doctrine that we are all born in a state of sin?

Yes, that's the doctrine.

No, it isn't. At least it's not the Catholic doctrine (since there is no such thing as a common Protestant doctrine, I will leave that out).

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993, Paragraph 405

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

This means that original sin is an inherited defect that makes all of us sin. Any newborn child will inevitably sin sooner or later, but is, at the moment of birth, without personal fault.

(It makes me wonder, though — since Adam didn't inherit the original sin from his father, since he had none, how was he able to sin?)

Augustine tells the story how he had stolen pears as a child — which shows that even children are not free of sin. But it says nothing about newborns.

Whether or not this means that the newborn child (or a retarded person so handicapped that personal responsibility is impossible) will go to hell is undecided, as far as I know; at least the catechism doesn't seem to answer that. But it seems more plausible that the newborn will go to heaven. To be baptized is not required to be a member of the church or to be saved (see provided link, Catechism Paragraphs 836, 846–848). Furthermore:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993, Paragraph 1037

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance".

 

[jan]

Given the presumption that those who die in childhood automatically "go to heaven" under these dogmas, hasn't it ever occured to anyone that the ideal Christian is one who proceeds to execute as many innocent children as possible, thus sparing them the infinitely dangerous possibility of going to hell? Said mass murderer can, of course, later repent for his sins, so everybody wins.

I just wonder why there hasn't ever been a philosophical Christian murderer operating on that premise. It seems watertight to me.

I doubt that he could so easily "repent". That would require that he regrets what he has done; but if he is convinced that what he has done was the best that could have been done for those children, then he doesn't regret.

I believe to remember that the conquistadors occasionally baptized and immediately afterwards killed native children, but don't remember a link, so perhaps it's just atheist propaganda.

 

[BPSCG]

No, it isn't. At least it's not the Catholic doctrine (since there is no such thing as a common Protestant doctrine, I will leave that out).

Aw, jeeze, this is too confusing. Even the religions that worship Christ can't agree.

Back to South Park:

Hell Director: (on a stage near the entrance. on a microphone.) Hello, new-commers! Welcome! Can everybody hear me?! Hello! (taps his mic.) Can everybo...okay! Uh, I'm the Hell Director! Uh, It looks like we have about eight-thousand, six-hundred, and fifteen of you newbees today, and for those of you who were a little confused, uh, you ARE dead and this is Hell! So, abandon all hope and, uh, yadayadayada! Uh, we're now going to start the orientation process which will last about...

New Hellion #5: Hey, wait a minute! I shouldn't be here! I was a totally strict and devout Protestant! I thought we went to Heaven!

Hell Director: Yes, well, I'm afraid you were wrong!

New Hellion #6: I was a practicing Jehova's Witness!

Hell Director: Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well!

New Hellion #7: Well, who was right?! Who gets into Heaven?!

Hell Director: I'm afraid it was the Mormons! Yes! The Mormons were the correct answer!

New Hellions: AWW!

 

[Palimpsest]

This means that original sin is an inherited defect that makes all of us sin. Any newborn child will inevitably sin sooner or later, but is, at the moment of birth, without personal fault.

(Oh, wow, nitpicking the weird dogma of my old religion. Fun!)

Didn't unbaptized newborns use to go to Limbo? I seem to recall that they were still tainted by original sin and so didn't qualify for heaven, but I guess people felt bad believing they went straight to hell. And didn't they eliminate Limbo recently?

I always used to believe the doctrine was that you baptized children as early as possible so they'd have a shot at heaven if they died young. Otherwise, what's the point of infant baptism?

(It makes me wonder, though — since Adam didn't inherit the original sin from his father, since he had none, how was he able to sin?)

Oh, easy. Eve lured him into it, and he was too much of a schmuck to resist. Then they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, Jehovah cursed them, and all bets were off.

 

[BPSCG]

Oh, easy. Eve lured him into it, and he was too much of a schmuck to resist. Then they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, Jehovah cursed them, and all bets were off.

It's that damned free will. God gave it to Adam and Eve, but he didn't give it to the other animals. Until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they were ignorant of good and evil, as well as sex. After they ate from the tree, they knew good from evil, and were thus now able to do evil and go to Hell. They could also do sex, which, when improperly done, can also get you to Hell.

Meanwhile, the other animals, lacking free will and not having eaten from the tree, knew nothing of good and evil, so could not do good or evil (when a cat kills a bird, it's not evil; it's just doing as the Divine Plan directs). So cats don't go to Heaven, which I guess is a shame, but at least they don't go to Hell.

Oh, and the other animals learned to do sex by watching Adam and Eve, so they gotthe benefit of the Tree without risking Hell.

The whole thing seems really unfair to me...

 

[jan]

Didn't unbaptized newborns use to go to Limbo? I seem to recall that they were still tainted by original sin and so didn't qualify for heaven, but I guess people felt bad believing they went straight to hell. And didn't they eliminate Limbo recently?

Yes, isn't it marvelous how the doctrine advances and progresses?

I always used to believe the doctrine was that you baptized children as early as possible so they'd have a shot at heaven if they died young. Otherwise, what's the point of infant baptism?

*looks around himself* Are you asking me? I'm also no longer a Catholic, I'm just a mere and humble messenger.

If I understand the Catechism correctly, those people that have never heard about the word of God are excused, but you are nevertheless obliged to bring them the word of God. Seems as if you would be doing people a favor if you don't teach them the word of God, but, alas, you are not allowed to not to teach them.

Perhaps it's something similar with infant baptism. If you can baptize, you also have to. If it's just impossible, you are excused. Or something like that.

Oh, easy. Eve lured him into it, and he was too much of a schmuck to resist.

But being a schmuck isn't, um, exactely what I would call perfect. And the imperfection of human nature is supposed to have started with the original sin.

By the way — why is the original sin always attributed to Adam? Are women per se irresponsible?

 

[Renfield]

Playing devil's advocate (har!) here: Isn't it both Catholic and Protestant church doctrine that we are all born in a state of sin? And that acceptance of Jesus is the only way to wash that sin clean? If that's the case, then either 1) people whose sins have not been cleansed are getting into Heaven, or 2) there's some other way of getting in besides through Jesus.

Again, just playing devil's advocate, and sharpening up the knives for the next time the fundies come knocking.

Anything can be forgiven as long as you believe in the savior, I think. In the Christian view, a murderer who believes could be considered more worthy then the most selfless, noble non-Christian.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Now that's just being greedy. Heaven is already by definition the Maximum Benefit. The murderer would be robbing the child of one grain of sand on the beach, in exchange for taking him to the beach.

But that's not the problem. The problem is the murderer not having the right to take the child to the beach. God gets to do that. By making himself the arbiter of the chlild's eternal destination, the murderer commits the sin of pride, thinking his plan for the child's life supersedes God's plan.

Of course, maybe God's plan is to have the child offed, who can tell. Goddamned ineffability.

jan,

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Palimpsest]

*looks around himself* Are you asking me? I'm also no longer a Catholic, I'm just a mere and humble messenger.

If I understand the Catechism correctly, those people that have never heard about the word of God are excused, but you are nevertheless obliged to bring them the word of God. Seems as if you would be doing people a favor if you don't teach them the word of God, but, alas, you are not allowed to not to teach them.

Perhaps it's something similar with infant baptism. If you can baptize, you also have to. If it's just impossible, you are excused. Or something like that.

No, don't worry, I was just asking the forum at large, not singling anybody out.

Hm. See, I didn't know people who'd never heard the word of God were excused under Catholicism. Interesting. I'm not sure the analogy works, though. When you're baptizing, you're washing away original sin. Or something. I think. Or used to think, but now I'm not so sure.

But being a schmuck isn't, um, exactely what I would call perfect. And the imperfection of human nature is supposed to have started with the original sin.

Well, call it imperfection of an animal nature. Neither Adam nor Eve could make moral decisions so they were just led by their impulses.

Eve: but God said we shouldn't eat from that tree. It'll kill us.
Serpent: God's lying. It's magic fruit, it'll make you smart.
Eve: Mmm. Smells good, too. Okay *munch*

(later)

Eve: try it.
Adam: But God said we shouldn't--Ooo, tasty! *munch*

Which of course begs the question: why didn't God put a fence around the tree or something?

By the way — why is the original sin always attributed to Adam? Are women per se irresponsible?

Was it? I thought a lot of the RCC's misogyny was justified by the Eden story, Eve cursed to suffer through childbirth and so on.

 

[Palimpsest]

Oh, and the other animals learned to do sex by watching Adam and Eve, so they got the benefit of the Tree without risking Hell.

They... they what? Seriously? No, seriously? I've never heard that one before.

 

[Renfield]

You went to a very different church in a very different culture then.

That joke rings very true in my circle. Very true. Some of the biggest drinkers I knew in high school went to that church regularly. Dancing was never prohibited or even mentioned in our churchs here, except for in the Church of Christ. Even then, the people I knew in the Baptist church thought they were silly for seeing dancing as a sin.

I suppose it depends very much on where in the South you attended a Baptist church. My former church is extraordinarily large, and it's in a medium sized city. It's not a small town culture at all.

AS

Some of the biggest hellraisers i knew in college and hs were part of the die hard Christian crowd. When they sinned, they really liked to get the most out of it. I'm talking biblical, soddam and gommmorah (sic) type stuff. I guess one of the advantages of the whole Jesus Saves doctrine is you can do that. No wonder Christianity has thrived over the centuries.

 

[jan]

When you're baptizing, you're washing away original sin. Or something. I think. Or used to think, but now I'm not so sure.

As I understand it, without baptism, we are born defective. After baptism, we are still defective (and therefor will inevitably continue to sin), but we are somehow a bit less defective, which might perhaps result in fewer sins or something. But I'm not sure either. Perhaps we should allow for the possibility that the Catholic doctrine is not logically consistent.

 

[BPSCG]

They... they what? Seriously? No, seriously? I've never heard that one before.

You must understand that when Adam ate the apple in the Garden and learned how to multiply and replenish, the other animals learned the Art, too, by watching Adam. It was cunning of them, it was neat; for they got all that was worth having out of the apple without tasting it and afflicting themselves with the disastrous Moral Sense, the parent of all immoralities.

Letter From The Earth, No. IV, from Letters From the Earth, by Mark Twain.

The letters are from Satan, written (very privately) to his archangel friends Michael and Gabriel.

You're not going to argue with Mark Twain and Satan, are you?

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

Some of the biggest hellraisers i knew in college and hs were part of the die hard Christian crowd. When they sinned, they really liked to get the most out of it. I'm talking biblical, soddam and gommmorah (sic) type stuff. I guess one of the advantages of the whole Jesus Saves doctrine is you can do that. No wonder Christianity has thrived over the centuries.

Oh, that's certainly been my experience as well. But in some ways, it's another aspect of the same "absolutist" mentality. In this tradition, one either abstains completely, or gives oneself over to sin completely. Since alcohol=sin, a single drink is morally indistinguishable from reckless and destructive alcoholism. It's not suprising that many of us, upon reaching our "adventurous" years, tended to just "go wild," as they say around here.

Personal testimony is a huge part of the Baptist tradition I grew up in, and these testimonials often adhere to a standard formula:

• Born to honest, faithful, Christian parents,
• "Saved", i.e. baptised, at eight years old, or so,
• "Strayed" as a teen, or perhaps in college,
• Renewed, following marriage or upon becoming a parent

Since church attendance is often as much a social imperative as an honest expression of faith, it is certainly not uncommon for people to keep putting in the "pew time" even during their "lost" years. What does seem to be uncommon, however, is for these experiences to result in a more mature attitude, particularly toward alcohol consumption. You either don't drink at all, or you're a drunk.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

One who is incapable of grasping the concept of "I've sinned, sin bad, Jesus saves" will not be held accountable and gets a free ticket to Heaven. Thus, small children (who are said to have not yet reached the "age of accountability") and the mentally handicapped escape Hellfire. [/B]

Hmmm, I'm long past the "age of accountability" and never been classified as mentally handicapped and I've still never been able to grasp the concept of "I've sinned, sin bad, Jesus saves". (Oh, I definitely get the "I've been bad part", it is the "Jesus saves" part I am incapable of grasping.) Do I qualify for a free ticket, or am I gonna have to cash in frequent fryer miles?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hmmm, I'm long past the "age of accountability" and never been classified as mentally handicapped and I've still never been able to grasp the concept of "I've sinned, sin bad, Jesus saves". (Oh, I definitely get the "I've been bad part", it is the "Jesus saves" part I am incapable of grasping.) Do I qualify for a free ticket, or am I gonna have to cash in frequent fryer miles?

In what way do you not grasp the concept?

And welcome.