23 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerVery good. Before Christ's death, children deserved to not go to heaven. Christ's death cannot affect their dessert, so even after his death they still do not deserve to go to heaven.
Of course.
If a soul does not go to heaven, isn't it eternally condemned? Isn't that what the Catechism says condemnation consists of - eternal separation from God?
If children deserve to not go to heaven, don't they deserve to be eternally condemned?
23 Feb 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCome on, Doctor. I expected you to see the resolution about 10 posts ago.
Very good. Before Christ's death, children deserved to not go to heaven. Christ's death cannot affect their dessert, so even after his death they still do not deserve to go to heaven.
Clue: Excluded Middle
If a soul does not go to heaven, isn't it eternally condemned?
Not necessarily.
Isn't that what the Catechism says condemnation consists of - eternal separation from God?
Yes.
If children deserve to not go to heaven, don't they deserve to be eternally condemned?
No.
23 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow? Either you attain eventual communion with God, which is heaven, or you remain eternally separated. There is no middle.
Clue: Excluded Middle
[b]If a soul does not go to heaven, isn't it eternally condemned?
Not necessarily.[/b]
It is not logically possible to never attain communion and to not remain eternally separated.
23 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes it is. What do you think 'limbo' is?
How? Either you attain eventual communion with God, which is heaven, or you remain eternally separated. There is no middle.
It is not logically possible to never attain communion and to not remain eternally separated.
The defining feature of heaven is the beatific vision - the complete union and intimacy with God.
The defining feature of hell, as you pointed out, is eternal separation from God.
However, just because you cannot attain the beatific vision does not imply you are separated from God.
Just because two people cannot be lovers does not mean they have to be enemies.
23 Feb 06
Originally posted by kirksey957I take it your particular church does not practise infant baptism; or does not believe it is sacramental?
I tend to see infant baptism as a communal ritual about the responsibility of the parents and the church in participating in the child's spiritual growth and well-being. That's all.
23 Feb 06
Originally posted by kirksey957I've never heard of anyone baptising infants who are already dead. Some people might do it just to comfort themselves and the parents, but it has no sacramental effect.
Does the Catholic church have a position on baptizing infants who are already dead? I think there is a tradition in Catholic hospitals for nuns/nurses to do this.
23 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerSomething funny that Catholics just made up.
What do you think 'limbo' is?
It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion, regardless of whether it exits. Such a fate is logically impossible. Some people in limbo eventually achieve communion; those that don't forever remain separated. These two cases account for all people. There is no middle ground remaining.
23 Feb 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou know better than to throw terms like "logically impossible" around without thinking about it.
Something funny that Catholics just made up.
It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion, regardless of whether it exits. Such a fate is logically impossible. Some people in limbo eventually achieve communion; those that don't rest forever remain separated. These two cases account for all people. There is no middle ground remaining.
It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion
What's "eventual communion"? Where does the Church teach "eventual communion"*? I certainly didn't use that term in this thread. I said "beatific vision" and "complete union" (or communion).
If you're going to make up your own soteriology, Scribbles, don't attribute it to the Church.
These two cases account for all people.
Really? Where does the Church teach that? Once again, are you making your own soteriology up?
---
* I suppose one could use the term 'eventual communion' with reference to Purgatory, but that's irrelevant to our discussion because we are talking about eternal fates.
23 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerHe's just claiming that either one is eternally damned, or eventually one will be saved. Doesn't that exhaust logical space?
You know better than to throw terms like "logically impossible" around without thinking about it.
[b]It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion
What's "eventual communion"? Where does the Church teach "eventual communion"*? I certainly didn't use that term in this thread. I said "beatific visio ...[text shortened]... that's irrelevant to our discussion because we are talking about eternal fates.[/b]
23 Feb 06
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThe term 'saved' is ambiguous here. Saved - from what? If it refers to being saved from eternal damnation, then yes, the logical space is exhausted. But being saved from eternal damnation does not automatically mean heaven.
He's just claiming that either one is eternally damned, or eventually one will be saved. Doesn't that exhaust logical space?
It is true that 'salvation' is also used to refer to heaven itself, as a positive state. But then the complement of the set of people who are saved (in the second sense) is not people who are damned (which is unambiguously used for Hell).
EDIT: The whole reason 'limbo' was posited was because of the middle space between these two senses of 'saved'.
EDIT2: The use of 'eventual' is also confusing because of purgatory (where, yes, it is eventual heaven).