Think of the children

[hive_king]

What happens to the sould of the small children that die before baptism or being born again, or anything of the sort?

[Seiryu]

They go to heaven. According to the protestant faith, baptizing is more or less the symbol of faith, not the bringer of it. Such as a wedding ring doesn't make you married, it's a symbol of marriage. Baptizing babies in a Protestant church, though is like a promise that you will do everything in your power to bring your child to Christ.

So...since little children don't understand, they get to go to heaven for free, despite not truly being innocent. I guess it's kind of a "sorry you had to die so young," kind of thing. I mean imagine if you were a little kid and you got to heaven and they go, "Sorry you died so young. Have a nice eternity in hell." That adds insult to injury.

[VelvetElvis]

I wonder what the Bible says about this.

[Seiryu]

Iuno...I pulled this from the depths of my mind. Some mental box labeled "Religious Stuff."

[VelvetElvis]

I'm not disagreeing. Just wondering.

[Seiryu]

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that this is what I've heard and not read.

[hive_king]

So if I were to go on a baby-killing spree I'd be doing the babies a favor since they'd be on the fast train to heaven.

[VelvetElvis]

Please refrain.

[hive_king]

You've ruined my plans for christmas breaks.

[VelvetElvis]

don't hate me.

So does anyone have anything to say about the topic?

[eriador]

They go to limbo, according to the catholic church, but it's a huge debate.

I'll have to look up some references, so for now try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#The_ ... uerorum.29

[Seiryu]

Yeah...some random saint came up with that.

[hive_king]

Not "some random saint", Thomas Aquinas. He's the Babe Ruth of catholic theological philosophy.

[hive_king]

Not "some random saint", Thomas Aquinas. He's the Babe Ruth of catholic theological philosophy.

[VelvetElvis]

psh. Double poster.

[eriador]

Not "some random saint", Thomas Aquinas. He's the Babe Ruth of catholic theological philosophy.

...and he scares the s*** out of me.

The Catholic church is bad enough without all of the things that he did. Everything that scares me about the church has some connection to him, and that's most everything. I hate organized religion as a whole, but something about the Catholics is particularly scary, even without Aquinas' work to make it even more so.

[Seiryu]

Not "some random saint", Thomas Aquinas. He's the Babe Ruth of catholic theological philosophy.

Keyword there being "Catholic." Does nothing for us Protestants.

[Rei]

They go to limbo, according to the catholic church, but it's a huge debate.

I'll have to look up some references, so for now try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#The_ ... uerorum.29

That was never made official doctrine and has fallen into disuse in recent years. And just recently Pope Benedict XVI was working on getting rid of the idea altogether. Link

As for Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic theologians, the earlier you get, the more likely they'll still be considered acceptable by Protestant theologians.

[Slim]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doctorine concerning infant baptism comes from Moroni 8 in the Book of Mormon. The prophet Mormon heard about contentions within the church about this, so after asking God, he wrote an epistle to his son Moroni. We believe infants and children shouldn't be baptized until eight years old, the age being set in D&C 68:25

Moroni 8:8
Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

[hive_king]

So then what does happen, Slim, to those who die before 8?

So if Limbo was discredited, what do catholics believe?

Seiryu, if you look at your church's theology, there's a good chance you'll find Agustine's and Aquinas' grubby fingerprints all over it.

[Qing_Jao]

David says of his infant son, "He cannot come to me, but I will go to him." I take that to mean that he was in Heaven / whatever passed for TehHappyPlace at the time.

[Eaquae Legit]

Catholics believe they go to heaven.

There are three types of baptisms:
Baptism by water
Baptism by blood
Baptism by fire (desire)

The first is the most well known. The specifics of the ritual might vary, but there will always be at least a sprinkling with water and "I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

The second is the baptism of martyrdom. Especially in the early church, it was possible to be killed for being a Christian without having the chance to be baptised by water. If you die for your Christian faith, you are considered to have died a Christian, officially.

The third is the most nebulous. This is the baptism that covers catechumens - if you are in the process of becoming a Catholic (a process that usually takes 8 months or so here in North America, since they want to make very sure you know what you're doing and you actually want it), and you get hit by a car or otherwise die, you are considered a Catholic. I do believe this also covers people who through circumstances have never heard the gospel, or who have rejected it because of other circumstances. By that I mean (example) people who have heard only a twisted version of it, or who have been abused by its messengers to the extent that they cannot associate themselves with it. I believe only God knows if a person actually rejected him, or if they rejected something else. And I believe that God knows the desire of a person's heart, and if they would have accepted the gospel under different circumstances. I do not believe that this is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. For protestant denominations, your mileage may vary.

Baptism by water, for Catholics, does not save. It removes the guilt of original sin, and of any sin committed up to that point (this is mostly relevant for adult baptisms). It confers a special and irrevocable grace of the Holy Spirit. It is a very, very good thing to do. It is highly encouraged to do in infancy, as grace is a good thing. But a baby does not go to hell.

Baptism (all Baptisms), in the Catholic understanding, are more than mere symbols. Most protestant denominations view the human being as the active agent in a Baptism, but Catholics believe that the active participant is God himself. God makes the Baptism, not the human, and there is an actual grace/blessing that happens. The sense-perceptible symbol, the washing with water, effects what it symbolises, the cleansing from sin.

Personally, I find the Catholic view the most well-thought-out and the most realistic, in this matter. (Makes sense, seeing as I'm Catholic.) It accounts for the "borderline" cases, such as desire and blood. It welcomes everyone, regardless of age, knowledge, or mental ability. No one is excluded from receiving God's blessing. On a very personal level, this means a LOT to me, as I've watched people who have been rejected elsewhere because their mental disability "disqualified" them be Baptised.

And that's a very long answer to a short question, but I hope it helps.

[Eaquae Legit]

As for Augustine and Aquinas, they were human beings struggling to understand the transcendant.

And despite their influence, you'll notice we have no such thing as "The Gospel According to Aquinas." Aquinas, especially, was descriptive, not prescriptive. That is to say, he's quoted often because we think he did a fairly good job describing things. But he didn't invent Truth. He didn't create Christianity. He's a well-known figure, a brilliant philosopher. But he's just a theologian. He's not infallible.

Cut him some slack, and Augustine, too. Of course they sound funny, weird, antiquated. They wrote in a world and in circumstances radically different from our own. I promise, they make a lot more sense when you really dive deeply into the context for their writings.

(How much have you read, eriador? Not a lot, I know, since you hadn't read any of the Summa as of a few weeks ago. And you're making some pretty sweeping statements regarding something you don't know jack about.)

[Seiryu]

Seiryu, if you look at your church's theology, there's a good chance you'll find Agustine's and Aquinas' grubby fingerprints all over it.

Maybe, but I know we don't believe children go to limbo. (At least not that I've ever heard of.)

[hive_king]

So then if I were to kill peoplewho didn't truly understand the church teachings or small infants, it would be good to them (my own soul not withstanding) because it'd make sure they go to heaven, right?

[AnthonyByakko]

So then if I were to kill peoplewho didn't truly understand the church teachings or small infants, it would be good to them (my own soul not withstanding) because it'd make sure they go to heaven, right?

Right! In fact, everyone should just kill themselves right now. It would save the trouble of all the hardship and pain in life, and no one would risk going to hell.

[suminonA]

Right! In fact, everyone should just kill themselves right now. It would save the trouble of all the hardship and pain in life, and no one would risk going to hell.

Except, there are some strict rules about the suicides going "up" or "down"

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

Right! In fact, everyone should just kill themselves right now. It would save the trouble of all the hardship and pain in life, and no one would risk going to hell.

Except, there are some strict rules about the suicides going "up" or "down"

A.

Well, they'd be for a great cause. Instead of the vast majority of people going to hell, we just kill ourselves after killing all young people (who get a free pass "up"), thus ending human existance, and stopping the swelling ranks of hell from getting any larger.

[hive_king]

Now I hate to say this, but Anthony has a point. Sometimes you (and by you I mean SummonA) has to take one for the team.

[suminonA]

Now I hate to say this, but Anthony has a point. Sometimes you (and by you I mean SummonA) has to take one for the team.

What team are we talking about?

As for AnthonyByakko, I was just observing that "everyone should just kill themselves" is not the same as "we just kill ourselves after killing all young people".

I see both "plans" as morally repugnant, but that is besides the point.

A.

[hive_king]

Morally repugnant for the killer, but great for the killed. I mean, don't most parents want to know their kids'll go to heaven?

[AnthonyByakko]

That's because you're (anonimous) a do-goody two-shoes.

The plan is rock solid. It's fool-proof. All people have to do is snuff themselves and we'll take care of all the children. That way, all the children are saved and this planet can finally be devoid of the human parasitic virus.

[hive_king]

Except Cher. She's more machine than man, now. Twisted and evil.

[AnthonyByakko]

Except Cher. She's more machine than man, now. Twisted and evil.

Well, she's already made a deal with the devil so her place in hell is secure.

[hive_king]

Dang it. I won't even be rid of her when I die and go to hell.