The backbreaker

[athrock]

Infinity in heaven + 80 years on earth = Infinite Happiness
Infinity in heaven - seven days of suffering on earth = Infinite Happiness

Where's it say the baby went to heaven?

Where's it say that infants who die go to hell?

What does the Catholic Church teach regarding what happens to infants when they die?

I thought Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one could come to the father but by him.

Correct. It would not be possible for anyone to be saved if not for the cross of Jesus.

Or are you of the opinion that people who are ignorant of Jesus are somehow judged differently?

We are judged on the basis of what we know - not on the basis of what we do not know.

[Nihilist Virus]

Where's it say that infants who die go to hell?


What does the Catholic Church teach regarding what happens to infants when they die?

I don't know what Catholics say about it. I don't even know why Catholics still exist. How many rapist priests does it take to force a Catholic into a different version of Christianity ?  What we know for sure is:

Correct. It would not be possible for anyone to be saved if not for the cross of Jesus.

Right, as I thought, but now we go back to the original point of this thread and see that God is above the law so we are left asking why exactly God couldn't just do whatever he wants... such as forgiving us without killing his son.

We are judged on the basis of what we know - not on the basis of what we do not know.

So then missionary work is pointless at best...?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You INTERPRET the events of the story through your own lenses, Rocket. You are pissed off at God (and your mom), so of course you see God as doing something to the child in order to punish the father. Well, have you read the rest of the story? Does David seem punished to you? In point of fact, after the child's death, David took a bath, had sex with Bathsheba and God blessed them with a second son. So, where is the punishment that you desperately try to read into the story?  

Wooooooooooowwwwww. So wrong. My mom and I have a great relationship, even if it has taken a mutual agreement not to discuss the age of the earth, evolutionary biology, or politics. Your attempt at amateur psychoanalysis needs some work. Sounds to me like you're desperate to find alternate motivations for our conclusions about your favorite fairytale.

Oh, and the punishment was GOD FUCKING KILLED A BABY TO GET BACK AT DAVID FOR MURDERING URIAH BY PROXY.

What happened after the punishment is irrelevant. The hell is wrong with you, dude?

Right. Because your presupposition is that God is a moral monster and this is one of your favorite examples. But if you were able to be OBJECTIVE, you might be able to say, "Gee, I hadn't ever considered that God was actually sparing the child a life of misery."

You're not as open-minded as you atheists want everyone to believe.

A life of misery? As a prince? Are you high?

Silly Rocket. Now I know you have stopped thinking and are simply typing off the cuff. If YOU take a life that does not belong to you, that is called murder. If you take your own life, that is called suicide. Either way, you may not do so without culpability because all life belongs to God, and you may not end it without incurring His judgment.  

Now, in point of fact, you probably WOULD be doing each of the aborted babies a favor...after all, they will face much hardship in this life, and some of them will grow up to be hell-bound, godless heathens.    But you would not be doing their PARENTS any favors (assuming the parents are not consenting to these abortions), and even with the approval of the mother (and father), abortion is not acceptable to God.

So when God kills a live child to get revenge on its parent, that's cool and not at all psychopathic, because God. Got it!

And it's really not one of my favorite examples... I really tend to focus more on the genocide and misogyny parts.

I simply go by what I see you post, and as you pointed out, your mom is a fundamentalist and not a practicing Catholic.

My mom became a fundamentalist. She went all 12 years to Catholic school, and all her five siblings are still Catholic, as are all my cousins, etc. South Louisiana, from whence I hail originally, is almost entirely Catholic.

I did not say it was an overnight thing. And Catholic theology (which you claim to know) is not built on "Young-Earth Creationism". Consequently, what you should have found - if your study of Catholic doctrine was thorough - would be a very comprehensive world-view that is intellectually satisfying. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas...(those are just the A's)...some of the brightest minds in all of human history have been Catholics. Our doctrines have been pretty thoroughly vetted and tested. We're still here.

I did know that Catholics aren't YECs. In fact, most Catholics I know have zero problem with evolution or any other part of modern science.

And I've read all those guys, during several classes I've taken on religion. Also Eusibius, Jerome, etc.

Now try, try really hard, to stop projecting false versions of me and telling me what I think, d'accord?

[athrock]

What does the Catholic Church teach regarding what happens to infants when they die?

I don't know what Catholics say about it. I don't even know why Catholics still exist. How many rapist priests does it take to force a Catholic into a different version of Christianity ?

First, since the percentage of homosexual priests who have committed these aggressive crimes against young men is LOWER than the percentage of teachers, coaches and Protestant ministers who have done the same things, it's not actually a uniquely CATHOLIC problem.

Second, if a priest commits these sins, how does this change the truth of the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Or the fact that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Jesus Christ personally? The only Church still led by the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?

Correct. It would not be possible for anyone to be saved if not for the cross of Jesus.

Right, as I thought, but now we go back to the original point of this thread and see that God is above the law so we are left asking why exactly God couldn't just do whatever he wants... such as forgiving us without killing his son.

You can ask Him that question, if you like, but my response would be to ask you: Is God not free to solve the problem WE created as HE sees fit? We are the recipients of this merciful gift of redemption. He paid the price...do we really need to second-guess the means by which He did so?

Jesus chose to die for us willingly:

John 10
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

We are judged on the basis of what we know - not on the basis of what we do not know.

So then missionary work is pointless at best...?

If knowing the truth is pointless, I suppose.

[Minimalist]

Where's it say the baby went to heaven?

Where's it say that infants who die go to hell?

What does the Catholic Church teach regarding what happens to infants when they die?

Catholicks do seem to struggle with this issue.  Its what happens when you let fairy tales run your lives.

http://catholicherald.com/stories/Straig...eaven,6744

Before addressing the question at hand, we must first be clear on two points. First, the idea of limbo is a theological speculation, not a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church. Remember we must uphold what our Lord taught concerning the necessity of Baptism: He said, "I solemnly assure you, no one can enter God's kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). Therefore, the Catechism rightly asserts, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" (#1257). Limbo, consequently, was a speculation as to what happened to the souls of children in particular who died and who through no fault of their own were not baptized. They did nothing to warrant eternal damnation in Hell, but because of Original Sin and the lack of Baptism they could not enter Heaven. Consequently, theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, posited there was a limbo, a place of benign existence. Nevertheless, the teaching of limbo still remains undefined and speculative.

Yes...when faced with a problem they invent bullshit.

[athrock]

You INTERPRET the events of the story through your own lenses, Rocket. You are pissed off at God (and your mom), so of course you see God as doing something to the child in order to punish the father. Well, have you read the rest of the story? Does David seem punished to you? In point of fact, after the child's death, David took a bath, had sex with Bathsheba and God blessed them with a second son. So, where is the punishment that you desperately try to read into the story?  

Wooooooooooowwwwww. So wrong. My mom and I have a great relationship, even if it has taken a mutual agreement not to discuss the age of the earth, evolutionary biology, or politics. Your attempt at amateur psychoanalysis needs some work. Sounds to me like you're desperate to find alternate motivations for our conclusions about your favorite fairytale.

lol. Nope. It's wonderful that you have a good relationship with your mom, but it's pretty obvious from the post above that there are some issues that you're just not comfortable talking about with her. (Apparently, you and I can discuss them because if (when!) you get pissed at me, who gives a rip? But that sort of proves my point...if you discussed them with her, you'd get angry at her. And I suspect you have resentments for having been forced to undergo all that brainwashing she put you through as a child. But look, you and your mom are not the issue at hand. I'm happy to drop this line of discussion.)  

Oh, and the punishment was GOD FUCKING KILLED A BABY TO GET BACK AT DAVID FOR MURDERING URIAH BY PROXY.

What happened after the punishment is irrelevant. The hell is wrong with you, dude?

Why is it one or the other, Rocket? Why can't it be that God both punished David and spared the child? If you weren't so wedded to the necessity that God is a moral monster, you might be able to consider the plausibility of my position.

Right. Because your presupposition is that God is a moral monster and this is one of your favorite examples. But if you were able to be OBJECTIVE, you might be able to say, "Gee, I hadn't ever considered that God was actually sparing the child a life of misery."

You're not as open-minded as you atheists want everyone to believe.

A life of misery? As a prince? Are you high?

Deuteronomy 23:2
2"No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

Now, would you like to re-think your position about the joys of being a bastard son of the king?

Silly Rocket. Now I know you have stopped thinking and are simply typing off the cuff. If YOU take a life that does not belong to you, that is called murder. If you take your own life, that is called suicide. Either way, you may not do so without culpability because all life belongs to God, and you may not end it without incurring His judgment.  

Now, in point of fact, you probably WOULD be doing each of the aborted babies a favor...after all, they will face much hardship in this life, and some of them will grow up to be hell-bound, godless heathens.    But you would not be doing their PARENTS any favors (assuming the parents are not consenting to these abortions), and even with the approval of the mother (and father), abortion is not acceptable to God.

So when God kills a live child to get revenge on its parent, that's cool and not at all psychopathic, because God. Got it!

Given that God loves the child more than its own parents do, no, it's not psychopathic. This is just an emotional blind spot for you.

And it's really not one of my favorite examples... I really tend to focus more on the genocide and misogyny parts.

We could review these passages if you like. You're gonna have to be willing to think, however.

I simply go by what I see you post, and as you pointed out, your mom is a fundamentalist and not a practicing Catholic.

My mom became a fundamentalist. She went all 12 years to Catholic school, and all her five siblings are still Catholic, as are all my cousins, etc. South Louisiana, from whence I hail originally, is almost entirely Catholic.

See, it's the "became a fundamentalist" part that is telling. I'd be interested in chatting with her to understand just how thoroughly she understood Catholicism. It's the equivalent of leaving an aircraft carrier in order to climb into a rubber dinghy.

I did not say it was an overnight thing. And Catholic theology (which you claim to know) is not built on "Young-Earth Creationism". Consequently, what you should have found - if your study of Catholic doctrine was thorough - would be a very comprehensive world-view that is intellectually satisfying. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas...(those are just the A's)...some of the brightest minds in all of human history have been Catholics. Our doctrines have been pretty thoroughly vetted and tested. We're still here.

I did know that Catholics aren't YECs. In fact, most Catholics I know have zero problem with evolution or any other part of modern science.

And I've read all those guys, during several classes I've taken on religion. Also Eusibius, Jerome, etc.

Now try, try really hard, to stop projecting false versions of me and telling me what I think, d'accord?

But that was not my point which was/is: Catholic doctrine is a comprehensive world-view that is intellectually satisfying as evidenced by the fact that many of the brightest minds in history have been Catholic. My suspicion (and here I will acknowledge that I'm speculating) is that the reason you reject God is because you haven't been taught sound Christian doctrine, and the reason you haven't been taught sound Christian doctrine is because you haven't been taught orthodox Catholic doctrine.

I could be wrong.  

[Nihilist Virus]

First, since the percentage of homosexual priests who have committed these aggressive crimes against young men is LOWER than the percentage of teachers, coaches and Protestant ministers who have done the same things, it's not actually a uniquely CATHOLIC problem.

This is an extremely disgusting thing to say and I expect you to apologize to the group of people you offended.

By that I mean that the standard of decency that I hold normal people would compel you to apologize, but I have no illusions that you will do so because you are so arrogant and you do not believe you can ever be wrong.

Because you see, I am very much into women and yet I have no desire to violate an 8 year old girl.  Yet you imply that it is the homosexual priests that are raping these boys, as if homosexuality and pedophilia are linked.  The reality is that they are just as linked as heterosexuality is linked to "heterosexual" pedophilia.  You are a bigot.  You seem to be unaware that many young girls were molested by priests also, and even if that wasn't the case, there is no reasonable connection between the sexual appreciation of a masculine, mature male body and the sexual appreciation of a pre-pubescent little boy.  You are sick.


Lastly you say coaches and teachers engage in this more often than priests?   SOURCE????

Second, if a priest commits these sins, how does this change the truth of the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Or the fact that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Jesus Christ personally? The only Church still led by the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?

Because the popes were apparently appointed by God himself and they were all aware of the abominable worldwide coverup.  In fact it is statistically unfeasible to suggest that there has never been a pope that was a child rapist as a priest.

You can ask Him that question, if you like, but my response would be to ask you: Is God not free to solve the problem WE created as HE sees fit? We are the recipients of this merciful gift of redemption. He paid the price...do we really need to second-guess the means by which He did so?

An utter lie.  Jesus prayed that God would take the cup of suffering from him.  Jesus begged and said if there was any other way that he would prefer that.  Since there was no other way, it follows that God is subject to the law.  Yet as you saw with the story of how he contradicted his own Torah to torture and killed David's son for his own amusement, we also conclude that God is above the law.

If you believe in something that not only lacks empirical evidence but also is not even internally consistent, then you are utterly irrational.

Jesus chose to die for us willingly:

Well... yes and no.

John 10
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Yes he did so willingly but only because there was no other way.

So then missionary work is pointless at best...?

If knowing the truth is pointless, I suppose.

It sure is in the case of missionary work.  It's sort of like a bank robber wearing a mask.  Wouldn't you prefer that he wears a mask, so there's a chance he lets you go?  Or do you prefer to "know the truth" and die?


You have shown that you are a bigot and that you give half-assed answers which do not stand up to even casual scrutiny.  I expected a whole lot more from a guy taking it to atheists at their own forums.  I'll be sure to amend my expectations appropriately.  If you can put together one damn sentence that makes a lick of sense, I'll consider it to be progress.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Wow... you really have a listening problem, don't you? I told you to stop trying to project motivations onto me in order to satisfy your bizarre idea (no doubt imparted to you by leaders/mentors within your religious social circles) that atheists think the way we do because we're emotionally traumatized.

Secondly, my mother has a PhD, is a professor at LSU, and is one of the most well-read persons I know, except on subjects of science and any historical facts that might potentially contradict the Biblical Literalism that is the hallmark of her fundamentalist faith. The reason I left my faith actually was because of her grudge against the Catholic church for her perceived crimes against True Christianity™, which ironically sound just like yours. When I was still a Christian, I was trained in apologetics...with a particular bent toward understanding the claims of Catholics, and how to refute them. I became an atheist after my realization about the church's mistakes about science led me to apply the same scrutiny to the Protestants, and then to other religions. I continued studying throughout the decade or so that followed my departure from that home, and to some degree continue to do so, though I care a lot less about your cult now than I did when being a member of it (and finding my freedom from it) was still fresh.

I don't do what I do because I'm angry, or resentful. I do it to protect HER feelings, and to not be a jerk of a son. After realizing that I couldn't talk to her about the problems of her position without her getting emotionally invested and hurt/offended, I stopped talking with her about it... it's along the lines of trying to tell a football fan that his team/club sucks by pointing at statistics. They just don't want to hear it, and it's not worth the argument if you care about the person.

Finally, I'm not the one with the emotional blind spot. You see your god through rose-colored glasses, after years of conditioning (the repetitive nature of Catholic masses should be a red flag to you that it's a brainwashing technique), but if you were evaluating the actions of Lord Shiva in the Bahagavad Gita, say, it would be clear as day to you. The difference between us is that I see no difference between Adonai (Lord) Yahweh and Lord Shiva.

[Pat Mustard]

Where's it say that infants who die go to hell?

What does the Catholic Church teach regarding what happens to infants when they die?

Catholicks do seem to struggle with this issue.  Its what happens when you let fairy tales run your lives.

http://catholicherald.com/stories/Straig...eaven,6744

Before addressing the question at hand, we must first be clear on two points. First, the idea of limbo is a theological speculation, not a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church. Remember we must uphold what our Lord taught concerning the necessity of Baptism: He said, "I solemnly assure you, no one can enter God's kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). Therefore, the Catechism rightly asserts, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" (#1257). Limbo, consequently, was a speculation as to what happened to the souls of children in particular who died and who through no fault of their own were not baptized. They did nothing to warrant eternal damnation in Hell, but because of Original Sin and the lack of Baptism they could not enter Heaven. Consequently, theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, posited there was a limbo, a place of benign existence. Nevertheless, the teaching of limbo still remains undefined and speculative.

Yes...when faced with a problem they invent bullshit.

Until the '80's at least limbo was a central rcc doctrine, haing the seal of papal infallibility and all. Stillborn infants couldn't be buried on "consecrated" ground because of it. The main reason it is now relegated to speculation is because it was deemed to be losing the church adherents and also peripheral enough to drop without controversy or notice.

[athrock]

First, since the percentage of homosexual priests who have committed these aggressive crimes against young men is LOWER than the percentage of teachers, coaches and Protestant ministers who have done the same things, it's not actually a uniquely CATHOLIC problem.

This is an extremely disgusting thing to say and I expect you to apologize to the group of people you offended.

By that I mean that the standard of decency that I hold normal people would compel you to apologize, but I have no illusions that you will do so because you are so arrogant and you do not believe you can ever be wrong.

Because you see, I am very much into women and yet I have no desire to violate an 8 year old girl.  Yet you imply that it is the homosexual priests that are raping these boys, as if homosexuality and pedophilia are linked.  The reality is that they are just as linked as heterosexuality is linked to "heterosexual" pedophilia.  You are a bigot.  You seem to be unaware that many young girls were molested by priests also, and even if that wasn't the case, there is no reasonable connection between the sexual appreciation of a masculine, mature male body and the sexual appreciation of a pre-pubescent little boy.  You are sick.

No, I'm simply more knowledgeable about the facts than you are. Look into the matter for yourself, and you will learn that the overwhelming majority of the incidents involved post-pubescent males and not pre-pubescent children. Therefore, this was not true pedophilia, it was homosexuality.

Which is not what liberals want to hear, is it?

Lastly you say coaches and teachers engage in this more often than priests?   SOURCE????

You have Google. Do your own research.

Second, if a priest commits these sins, how does this change the truth of the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Or the fact that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Jesus Christ personally? The only Church still led by the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?

Because the popes were apparently appointed by God himself and they were all aware of the abominable worldwide coverup.  In fact it is statistically unfeasible to suggest that there has never been a pope that was a child rapist as a priest.

They were all aware? You have proof? SOURCE?????

Which popes? When? What did they know?

And you probably don't want to hear this, but the Church has been implementing many safeguards to ensure that these things don't continue.

You can ask Him that question, if you like, but my response would be to ask you: Is God not free to solve the problem WE created as HE sees fit? We are the recipients of this merciful gift of redemption. He paid the price...do we really need to second-guess the means by which He did so?

An utter lie.  Jesus prayed that God would take the cup of suffering from him.  Jesus begged and said if there was any other way that he would prefer that.  Since there was no other way, it follows that God is subject to the law.  Yet as you saw with the story of how he contradicted his own Torah to torture and killed David's son for his own amusement, we also conclude that God is above the law.

Well, since you are not a Christian, I can't expect you to know the nuances of Scripture, so let's walk through this. You may recall that Jesus was fully God and fully man. In His humanity, he was as fearful of dying as you and I would be. So, His prayer to have the cup pass him by is completely understandable. But what Jesus actually said was:

Matthew 26
39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

As you can see, Jesus aquiesced to the will of His Father. Then when soldiers came from the Sanhedrin to arrest Jesus, some of His followers moved to defend Him. Here is that account:

Matthew 26
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

If you believe in something that not only lacks empirical evidence but also is not even internally consistent, then you are utterly irrational.

Christianity does not lack empirical evidence nor is it internally inconsistent. Feel free to attempt an argument opposing this, if you wish.  

Jesus chose to die for us willingly:

Well... yes and no.

Yes he did so willingly but only because there was no other way.

Just "yes", no "no".

John 10:17-18
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 10
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

You have shown that you are a bigot and that you give half-assed answers which do not stand up to even casual scrutiny.  I expected a whole lot more from a guy taking it to atheists at their own forums.  I'll be sure to amend my expectations appropriately.  If you can put together one damn sentence that makes a lick of sense, I'll consider it to be progress.

I look forward to seeing how well you can respond to my "half-assed answers".