<p>“Not true…Pope Benedict has stated that unbaptized babies will go to heaven.”</p>
<p>Also, who defines the age of a baby? The church would have to reach an accord upon a certain age. What if the church insisted that those who are less than two years old and who have not been baptized will not perish in hell, but those who breach the pious protocol will. Accordingly, a baby of two years and one minute would be tortured by “hell fire”. It seems rather nonsensical. What if there was no age limit? Than a man would be free to commit whatever crimes appeals to him during his lifetime and then become baptized on his deathbed to ensure his position in heaven.</p>
<p>Well, I think theologically there’s a difference between original sin (which you’re born with) and sins you choose to commit and don’t repent of.</p>
<p>Baptism in the Catholic theology is mainly used to remove original sin and welcome a person into the family of God. Though baptism probably removes other sins as well, there is another sacrament (confession) intended for sins of commission and omission that a person undertakes voluntarily. A person who dies with an unrepented mortal sin on his or her soul doesn’t go to heaven, even if baptized, at least not straightaway. </p>
<p>So the real question of “who defines the age of a baby?” is, I think, at what age does the Church think God holds a person responsible for his or her own actions? I don’t think the Church has an arbitrary number for this, any more than they have a McNaughton rule to determine mental competency. My understanding is that they trust God to know each person well enough to know if he should be held responsible or not.</p>
<p>But I agree, that the teaching has changed a lot, even if my lifetime. As a child in CCD, we were taught that if we saw a person by the side of the road dying from a car accident, we should baptize them with water from the ditch or wherever, just in case they needed it to get into heaven. Though normally only priests could administer the sacraments, we had a special emergency authorization for that. </p>
<p>I like the current thinking better, although I kind of miss the childhood feeling of having that kind of power and obligation.</p>
<p>“A child should be shown the entire spectrum and then allowed to reach his/her own conclusion. If a child still subscribes to a religion, so be it. A child, however, should not be subject to indoctrination and its irreparable affects.”</p>
<p>I agree, and that is exactly how we raised our son. We exposed him to different religions. We’d take him to a Christian church one week, then do Buddhist chanting the next…a Pagan ceremony the next…</p>
<p>“we were taught that if we saw a person by the side of the road dying from a car accident, we should baptize them with water from the ditch or wherever, just in case they needed it to get into heaven.”</p>
<p>Yeah, I was brought up Catholic and remember being taught that. It seems so simplistic to me now. Now I can’t fathom a Being capable of creating the universe being so trite as to decide a soul’s entire eternity based on which religion (if any) he chose, much less the chance that someone poured water over his head.</p>
<p>“Baptism in the Catholic theology is mainly used to remove original sin and welcome a person into the family of God.”</p>
<p>I’m aware. I was baptized and indoctrinated by catholics (surprising considering where I lived in England). I have witnessed a number of adults though, whom have been baptized before near death to remove their sin. </p>
<p>“My understanding is that they trust God to know each person well enough to know if he should be held responsible or not.”</p>
<p>They shouldn’t feign to make judgments of those who will suffer in hell then.</p>
<p>“But I agree, that the teaching has changed a lot, even if my lifetime.”</p>
<p>You are absolutely right. Its vicissitude contests its infallibility.</p>
<p>“I agree, and that is exactly how we raised our son. We exposed him to different religions. We’d take him to a Christian church one week, then do Buddhist chanting the next…a Pagan ceremony the next…”</p>
<p>That was extremely unbigoted and upright of you.</p>
<p>qwilde, were the current teachings on baptism issued as infallible pronouncements? I don’t think they were. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were these people converting to Catholicism on their deathbeds? Otherwise I think you mean extreme uncton; they wouldn’t have been rebaptized into the faith.</p>
<p>“But I agree, that the teaching has changed a lot, even if my lifetime.”</p>
<p>“Its vicissitude contests its infallibility.”</p>
<p>“qwilde, were the current teachings on baptism issued as infallible pronouncements? I don’t think they were.”</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have elaborated as you evidently misconstrued my statement, as I did yours. I was referring to religious doctrines in general. Limbo for un-baptized children has been contestable for quite sometime.</p>
<p>“Were these people converting to Catholicism on their deathbeds? Otherwise I think you mean extreme uncton;”</p>
<p>I would have to admit I wouldn’t know, which I am not afraid to admit. I was young, but the few instances definitely seemed like baptisms. The point I was attempting to convey earlier is that a person could eschew faith, commit atrocious acts, and then be baptized before death.</p>
<p>qwilde,
You are not willing to accept belief systems based on faith. You reject the “trivialities” of religion. In that category, you seem to include the myths, rites, rituals, and dogma of specific religions. What is left?</p>
<p>You seem to be searching for some enlightenment based on pure reason or scientific investigation. Reason and logic will not lead you to God. Many religions define God to be the prime mover. With that type of definition, we cannot ask where God came from or what came before God. Our definition of God ends the discussion. We learn nothing except for mind games and deductions which follow from our definitions and axioms. Science can look into the atom and we see smaller and smaller layers of order and complexity. We can look into the cosmos and see larger and larger layers. As hard as we look, we will not see God. You might as well be an ancient Greek trying to reach the edge of the world so you can peak over and see Atlas.</p>
<p>I was thinking about this today and I think another reason the human heart yearns toward a belief in a supreme being is GRATITUDE. Maybe you have a perfect day: you’ve spent it with your sweetheart in a field of clover eating strawberry shortcake. The sun is shining and the white clouds in the blue sky are beautiful. It’s so quiet you can hear the bees buzzing. Your heart LEAPS to give thanks. To whom? Your mom and dad? Your boss? Your plumber? </p>
<p>All right- end of discussion. There is a god. I had spent time composing my post last night, was going to preview it one last time and then submit it when the website acted up and wouldn’t let me do anything.</p>
<p>No one is going to change anyone’s mind here…the believers won’t question what they’re taught… My favorite question is WHY? Have never had any religion answer my questions satisfactorily, how man defines god isn’t good enough. Tradition isn’t good enough. Any prophets, priests, ministers quoting any writings et al are not good enough. Also “he” ??? Reserving the term god for that which is unexplainable has more merit than making god fit our purposes- every religion has an agenda- too many contradictions within them. How does one pick and choose-relative merits versus absolutes? I dislike the way religions try to mold societies.</p>
<p>This isn’t quite accurate. My understanding of modern Catholic theology is that the sacraments don’t get you into heaven unless you sincerely repent of you sins. (It’s a far cry from the days when a person could simply buy a papal indulgence). </p>
<p>But yes, the Church teaches that repentence, if sincere, will grant salvation, regardless of the length or depravity of the prior sin.</p>
<p>Why can’t we question god? Why isn’t god beyond our attempts to define the concept, are we the gods who place the limits? Is the concept of god a human conceit? Why not allow pure reasoning? Where do other living things come in? I reject the notion of “faith”, it can be an excuse for not thinking, for not extending the boundaries of understanding. I especially object to being told by some other person what I should believe without proof. I want nothing to do with a god who plays favorites- all the chosen ones- or otherwise has limitations. It doesn’t matter how many other people are believers, that’s not a good enough reason to do so. It would be a lot easier in some respects to compromise my honesty and beliefs and join one of the Sunday social clubs…lucky for them I don’t and challenge them. Etc.</p>
<p>One problem I had with Judeo-Christian mythology and finally resolved was the need to be saved. Only Jewish mythology has the garden of eden et al- we need a better reason to be nice to each other than heaven or hell…</p>
<p>Belief in God and religions help define ideal human behavior. Without a God or a religion, what reason do you have “to be nice to each other”? What pure reason defines your concept of good and evil? Could it be that you do indeed have beliefs you accept without proof - on faith?</p>
<p>I guess some of us don’t need a “reason” to be nice to each other. It is just so glaringly obvious and natural to treat others the way we would like to be treated.</p>