VATICAN CITY (April 20) – Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were “serious” grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven. Theologians said the move was highly significant – both for what it says about Benedict’s willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church’s views on heaven, hell and original sin – the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with. Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,” said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. “Baptism does not exist to wipe away the “stain” of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church,” he said in an e-mailed response. Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of “pressing” pastoral needs – primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/catholic-church-reverses-teaching-on/20070420203609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001In other words, this is the infallible truth, unless lots of people don’t like it. Then the truth will change to a more popular infallible truth, and will take effect retroactively.I mean, really. How can people look at this and actually believe it to be true?
Why do I always feel that christians are less than genuine?*
*spanders excepted, of course.
What
I think it’s a semantic issue, really.
The word ‘believe’ is too often tied to a religious connotation, or the jump is made even if that is not intended.
If I weren’t so lazy, I’d be more careful about using the word, actually. On the other hand, i don’t think my vocabulary should be limited because of how others might choose to interpret it.
In the case of the example I quoted for Anne Marie, I could be quite satisfied with substituing the words ‘thinks” and “thoughts” for ‘believes” and “beliefs”. Or even “knows” and “knowledge” although I cannot prove what I “know”.
I think it was WC Fields who said “Everybody’s got to believe something. I believe I’ll have another drink.”
rna2dna
“garden of eat’in”
LOL
As a matter of fact, after we drove out to the school and dropped off the greenery, we stopped at the “french fry house” (Mickey D’s) and got the squirt a Happy Meal. But technically the garden of eatin’ was gone by then.
Thank the FSM. We saved the boy from sinning!
Ann Marie:
I know you said you were leaving the discussion, but just in case you stop by again…
A forum like this is a poor place to ascertain the philosophical justification for atheism. It would be impossible for any of us to write something really good in anything less than several pages, and in any case, there are probably as many different varieties of atheism represented here as there are varieties of Christianity. (well, maybe not quite that many…) My personal feeling is that some of them are logically justified and some of them are not. Even atheists will disagree among themselves on this matter.
If you are genuinely interested in learning about atheism (and you do seem to be; kudos to you), then I suggest Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith, a book which covers pretty much all the bases in one volume, and does so in a sound, logical way.
Of course other atheists here would recommend other books, but the diversity of atheist opinion should not be considered a liability of the atheist position itself.
Phreedm:
That recommendation goes for you too (Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith). If I can manage to get through Lee Strobel’s books, then you can surely manage to get through this one
What:
I think the religious co-opt too much of our language as is.
Witness how Anne Marie implied that my use of the term ‘Armageddon’ was an implicit declaration of belief.
Never mind that Iraq used to be Babylon (in their own mythology). Or the prophecies in Revelation (brrhhh!) tacitly state that it’ll happen in the ME.
It doesn’t take an xtian to put the pieces together.
I use language to convey a meaning: I dislike allegory, because lotsa believers drag some hidden context from a passing reference.
Usually, when I say a thing, it’s just that: no Freudian slips, Jungian bras, etc.
& let’s face it: no matter what terminology gets used, it’ll be open to semantical fiddle-faddling.
Krystalline and Karen
I agree that the religious co-opt much of our language. In addition there is much evidence to suggest that language shapes not only how we communicate but how we think as well. The semantic opening in the window of reason is what the rabid believer looks for when making their arguments. I say shut the windows and simply do not refer to atheism with words of “belief”.
Anne Marie
“I’m cleaning my basement today,”
You may want to dust the old “attic” up a bit too.
KA
“no matter what terminology gets used, it’ll be open to semantical fiddle-faddling.”
Fiddle-faddle? Are you referring
the mouth-watering popcorn treat the whole family will love? Available in two out-of-this-world flavors?
Or have I got the semantics wrong?
What,
I’m with you on the “belief” stuff. However, I also like this quote from karen:
It puts the christian belief system in the proper perspective.
What:
Nicely phrased, but there are those who will break the glass & claim special exemption.
I used ‘fiddle-faddle’ in place of FUBAR I suppose.
Luckily, I can control the sudden mysterious desire I’ve just experienced for that calorically empty snack.
You know, the single most annoying and unpersuasive thing that religious people do is to blithely misstate what atheists believe. Kind of like what this post does with Catholic theology.
The article itself says that the Church has never had any formal doctrine on the matter of limbo. In other words, the church has never declared it to be an “infallible truth”.
Basically, the church is struggling with a basic problem underlying its theology and has acknowledged that it really doesn’t pretend to know. This actually enhances whatever credibility they might have.
This is an example to be emulated.
Now wait a minute, a god idea can whip up a universe complete with a seductress in six days flat but can’t figure out how to retrieve a mythical soul without the help of a poop.
And you are going to admonish an atheist for not being able to sort out that logic?
“Basically, the church is struggling with a basic problem underlying its theology and has acknowledged that it really doesn’t pretend to know.”
The church is spending more time trying to figure out how to hide boy-buggering clergy.
There is nothng about the church, catholic or otherwise, that is worth emulating.
Rampling is right, the title is not accurate. I suspect too much enthusiasm and an excessive application of hyperbole.
The curious thing is that change is a noteworthy event in a religion. Once a particular faith has identified what is believed to be the Truth and what is heresy, it is propagated to the flock who must take it, pretend to take it, or leave.
Science is always tentative and can never finally determine Truth. New discoveries refine understanding or fill in known blanks. Occasionally the old idea is simply abandoned. This is always based on evidence and the power to predict data from new experiments.
No evidence was collected to allow a determination that limbo doesn’t exist. All they seem to have done was taken a poll. People are going to find it easier to believe if they don’t have to pretend limbo exists.
What is interesting about Anne Marie is how she carries over so much from her religious thinking and projects it onto the subject of her inquiry.
There would have been no confusion if she had asked the followers of some other religion what their beliefs were. She might have heard about tree spirits or an elephant holding the earth on its back. These would not likely have persuaded her, but she would have been satisfied that an answer had been made to the question.
One argument of mine against religion that I seldom see others mention is the incredible waste of time that it is responsible for. Millions of person-years, surely.
All the time that people have dedicated to rationalising away doubts and praying could have been so much more usefully spent. Insert reference to St. Mattress here.
Memorising the Kor’an or the Bible may train one’s memory in a way that proves useful elsewhere in life, but why not start with something useful to begin with?
DD
Anne Marie was a Phreedum sock puppet. It’s a bit obvious.
No, Anne Marie wasn’t phreddy. IP addresses are way different.
Phreddy’s not up on that sorta thing.
Phreedy’s on vacation then. Using his mothers machine in Crawford, Texas. Jeeeehad!
Phreedumb, evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory. It is a theory that has been tested thousands of times and found to correspond to facts in the real world.
No religious tenet, doctrine, or dogma has been tested, indeed they cannot be because they are just entirely arbitrary statements based on nothing in the real world.
They are just the delirious statements of deluded men who think that their wishing it makes it so.
The ponzi scheme that is religion is a complex and ages old one where those at the top realize that it is a scam while those at the bottom are convinced that they will get “salvation” for little more than believing.
Sounds just like the housing-bubble ponzi scheme that started in 2003 and is winding down to a perilous end this year.
I do have one final quick question. Ok, make it two.
Who is Phreddy?
Are any of you ever happy?
Happiness is being rid of all the false guilt-inducing mechanisms of religion.
Happiness is not struggling to believe sixty impossible things in the Bible, just so I can cling to warm and fuzzy thoughts of eternal life.
Happiness is being able to accept science and specifically evolution without worrying that it contradicts That Which Must Not Be Questioned.
Phreedm is a long term fixture here who pushes an anti-atheist philosophy every chance he gets. He often repeats old saws like ‘there is nothing preventing an atheist from murdering you for your possessions’.
Some suspect him of being an atheist who acts as an agent-provocateur to keep the posting volume high.
Did you notice that your comments generated a great number of replies?
I’ll mention again how interesting it was to see you struggle with the concept of square pegs when all you were familiar with was round pegs that fit well with their round holes.
Anne:
AKA phreedm. He’s been on this blog a LOOONNNGGG time. He hangs out here, harps about every right-wing talking point as if each 1 is the absolute truth, & is our all-around gadfly.
Actually, I am. Anyone else? Probably.
I’m probably 1 of the funnest people (if I do say so myself, hehehehe) you’d ever want to meet. Children adore me, people want to tell me their life-stories, & I’m almost ALWAYS laughing all the time.
Did you see where I refuted your ‘Armageddon=god’ brief analysis of me?
Anne Marie
I’m happy. Quite happy. How ’bout you?
Anne Marie:
I’m very happy, and I think atheists are just as happy and unhappy as anyone else. Atheists do tend to get pretty fired up in theological discussions with theists, and I think maybe people see that and assume that atheists are always bitter and miserable. There are things in the world worth being bitter about… but speaking for myself, I’ve honestly never been so happy as I have been the past few years.
Am I right that your impression is that atheists are unhappy? If so, why do you feel this way?
Anne Marie,
Honestly, when I became an atheist I became a much happier person. Being free of religion made me feel free, and thus happy. I actually got asked the strangest question today. After announcing that I didn’t believe in an after-life, another student then asked me what I believed happens after death. When I said nothing, he said, “So then you’re afraid of death?” To which I replied, “No, much the opposite.” He found it all to be very interesting, but I think in a condescending way. In any case, condescending or not, maybe, just maybe, the wheels in his head will turn just a little bit around that idea.
Apple-Christmas:
I get the impression of unhappiness based upon the often (although not exclusively) attacking and rather hostile tone of many of the posts. Post such as something to the effect of ?She?s cleaning out the basement, gee she better clean out the attic.? Among others.
Hostile and attacking are not generally the positions of happy people. As a Catholic Christian I am accustomed to hostile and attacking in theological discussions, ever read anything by (insert name of any fundamentalist/protestant i.e. Jimmy Swaggart etc.)? Not a pretty picture, but also generally not the picture in the case of the fundys of a well considered viewpoint. I?m not claiming that to be the case here, again, all of the Atheists I know and that equals two, are extremely intelligent. Not so much the case with the fundys I know. However, I can definitively state that your take on Catholicism is not a well educated viewpoint. Just claiming a change in infallible truth points to a lack of understanding of the Church?s teaching. Not a statement intended to rile ya?ll up, just a statement of fact. It?s what brought me to your site to begin with.
I really would like to know what Atheists believe. I?m a curious person in general and what?s on folks minds is always of interest to me. Atheists in particular right now because I know two of them, and I like them, and they won?t talk about what they believe. I respect that and so I?m looking for information from other sources. That?s all there is to it.
Yeah, I’m happy. I’m happy when I’m with my family, with my girlfriend, with my cats. I’m also sad. I was sad when my cat had a tumor. I was happy, though, when he recovered.
I’d hazard a guess that we all are both happy and sad, and that atheist’s emotions aren’t that different from theist’s. If you prick us, do we not bleed?
Though, I do have to point out I’m measurably happier then when I was a Catholic. For one, I can engage in sex with my girlfriend without the burden and guilt of sin.
Anne Marie,
I don’t want to run you off because it seems that many enjoy attempting to answer your questions even though you never seem satisfied with the responses.
Please, Please, Please, just read Dawkins book, The God Delusion, or, if you have little time try, A Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It’s short. You could even read it at the Big Box Book Store in your neck of the woods without having to support a godless heathen.
Anne Marie,
Sometimes I’m happy, sometimes I’m not. Most times I’m somewhere in between. Such I think is the normal human condition regardless of theistic position.
With regard to what atheists believe – well there is no adequate answer. Other than that we do not hold a belief in the reality of supernatural gods, atheists can and do believe many and varied eclectic mixes of positions.
Also with reard to the teachings of Cathol. We certainly do not claim to be experts regarding the nuances of many if any religious sect. We do however feel that some of the more public (and fanciful) stereotypes warrant being pilloried. It’s my understanding that the pope’s pronouncements under some very specific conditions are considered infallible. I trust you can see why, from the point of an atheist this pontifical perfection even in it’s limited circumstance effectively stands up and begs to be ridiculed.
Regardless of perceived offense, if something is prima facie ridiculous, it deserves to be ridiculed.
Anne Marie:
Let me answer your question about what I believe, but understand that I am only speaking for myself, and there is no set of beliefs that all atheists subscribe to. Also, what I’m writing here is an off the cuff sort of thing, and I would write something more nuanced given enough time and reason to do so (I’m sure you’re not interested in reading a treatise). And it’s not intended to be an exhaustive list of what I believe.
First let me say that I try as best I can to be as skeptical as possible about literally everything that I believe, or think I know. I believe that skepticism is always the best way to ascertain truth.
I believe that truth is paramount, and whatever else I believe, it must be compliant with how the world actually is (as best as I can determine, anyway).
I believe that truth exists, and that it is independent of of what I believe and perceive.
I believe that faith is useless in learning and understanding truth. Faith is logically vacuous, and can therefore be used to justify literally anything. Therefore, it can’t be justifiably used to establish anything.
I believe that while reason and rationality have their limits, they are still the only ways we can get closer to the truth and understanding reality.
I believe there are no gods. After considering reasons for belief in a deity (and after actually believing for many years), I’ve come to realize that a cogent, realistic world view has no need for a god, and that reasons people come up with for believing are based on a lack of understanding of how the world really works. Of course, I would never say that I know exactly how the world does work, but I know enough to understand that God is an ad hoc hypothesis that has no basis in reality.
I don’t know if this small list is quite what you’re looking for since these sorts of beliefs are quite different from what a theist would say… but that’s kind of the point. Atheism is ultimately characterized by a lack of a certain belief, and there are many, many world views that are compatible with atheism.
The best you can say from reading this post is that you have an idea of how one atheist thinks.
Anne Marie:
& still no answer on the armageddon=god question.
I don’t believe in either: are we clear on this?
Krystalline Apostate:
Sorry about not answering the Armageddon=God question. I have not given your posts a really careful read, and so I will wait until I do so to comment. Maybe I’ll go back and look at them, but in the short term, I got it, no Armageddon and no God.
Apple_Christmas:
Thanks for the considered response.
remy:
Not a matter of not being satisfied with the responses. Some of them have not been all together well thought out. Hard to have to sift through the blow hard to get to the meat and potatoes. Not speaking about yours specifically, just in general.
HeatheNZ:
Ridiculous can be a matter of opinion.
st.lucifer:
Guilt free sex is the driving force you say. I know none of you even want me to go there, so I won’t.
anne marie i’m happy and a conservative leaning atheist.what karen posted from american atheists site is what i believe.
Oh come on people. It is freaking obvious Anne Marie is Phreedy. Same stupid “probing” questions to trying to pretend he is sincere while attempting some lame set-up for his next comment. Come on folks. My IP changes regularly.
Anne Marie,
Very happy thank you.
I don’t have much tolerance for christians that wear their god idea as if it were a trophy.
I believe most christians are christian by default not through an examination of truth and facts. That is, they are what their parents are and they all think their brand contains the true god idea.
Absolute nonsense.
You have to admit the pope does look scary. This limbo stuff is just stupid (I think that is what Dave’s point is too).
You makeup a god idea that creates you and then needs to get permission from its creation to save a mythical soul. Wow, thats just amazing isn’t it? Why aren’t the cath-a-licks just asking their god ideas what the answer is? You see it is just stupid.
What,
I must admit, I really can’t tell. They all seem to have the same style of brainwashing to me.
What:
No, I don’t think phreddy’s good enough to change his style or voice.
I was poking around, caught this from Ms. Marie:
Pretty hilarious, ain’t it?
Anyways, I fancy my eye’s sharp enough to catch context.
KA
Yes that is hilarious. What kind of central nervous system lesion would allow one to string together sentences like that yet still be able to chew ones meals.
.
But his “style or voice” is that of someone trying to change their “style or voice”. The posts are those of someone searching for a persona. And this:
This is exactly Phreedy’s style. Imagine a … here and … there and voila! – Phreeky Phreedy
My wife calls me the human lie detector. It’s Phreeky Phreedy.
rna2dna
And his curious absense?
What:
No, phreddy’s grammar & spelling is awful.
Besides, a christian wouldn’t lie, would they?
Wait, what am I thinking?
Anyways, no, phreddy’s too proud & full of himself.
& we’re giving him way too much credit (not to mention props: he’s even dominating this discussion).
I’ve been battling phreddy for 2 years now, so I’m calling in my seniority card.
KA
OK but …
KA,
I think I’ll have to agree with you. I’ve noticed that phreedm has a mysterious (or not) way of disappearing forever from a thread when he attempts to engage someone in a debate and loses horribly. He then shows up either not at all for a while or moves to another thread. It really is annoying since I have two or three arguments going with him that he has failed to respond to, especially when I provide evidence of him being wrong. I can only conclude it is his defeat and I have won. Whatever winning is with this anyways.
Anne Marie:
Please, where did I say that guilt free sex is any kind of driving force? I merely said that I find myself happier having “guilt free sex”.
To make it clearer, I have no more and no less sex then I had as a Catholic. Only now I don’t imagine there is a big pimp sky v0yeur watching over me and my gf and considering an intimate physical relationship between two people in love metaphisically tantamount to murder.
I’m not talking about promiscuity here, nor infidelity, nor “contraception by abortion”. I’m talking about two people in love engaging in consentual physical intimacy, which is considered a metaphisical evil. And I’m glad I got rid of that stupidity.
KA:
What’s so wrong with what Anne Marie is saying here? Given the Christian dominance in our culture at this time, I think it would behoove all atheists to actually read the bible and try to listen to different Christian points of view regarding their faith.
What and others:
I for one don’t see any reason to think that Anne Marie is Phreedm.
Man some of you all are so full of rage. Don?t have the time or desire to sort out the particulars, but I am so sorry that you are living with such pain. I?m not going to name names, but I can see that like my two Atheist friends many of you are extremely smart. This anger amongst you can?t possibly have passed your notice.
Back off the conspiracy theory folks. I?m not Phreedy, I don?t know Phreedy, I haven?t really read Phreedy?s stuff, although I believe I did notice his name earlier in this post.
I am a Catholic Christian who became aware of your site via the Pope commentary. I noticed that although the commentary does not represent the comments of one well versed in Catholicism, the poster is of a viewpoint that is of current interest to me. I decided to overlook the lack of knowledge of the Catholic Church?s teaching in consideration of the context assuming that the source of the posts would in fact be a better resource for the information on Atheists which I seek.
And finally, yes the Pope is not really a particularly photogenic guy, I?ll go there with you. A bit unfortunate, however, he is not Pope in order to compete in the sound bites and cheesy grins proffered by American mass media. Have any of you ever read any of his writings? Not what someone else writes about him, but what he himself has written.
Also, thank you for the book references. I will seek them out at my local library and give them a look over.
Apple:
I personally found it amusing, since many of us ARE actually very up on the bible. Moreso than most xtians.
Maybe I’m just projecting. Hmmm…
hahahahahah…
when ever I check back here and notice that a post has inspired more than a hundred comments, you can bet it means we’ve been introduced to yet another curious theist.
And really, why is it that newcomers are so often suspected of being phreedm avatars? This is like the fifth time I can remember, and it’s always just as silly. It also endows phreedm with more power than he deserves (as far as his involuntary ability to poison our collective psyche) and makes us look like a bunch of paranoid, insecure buffoons.
jus’ sayin’