Good news for babies everywhere!
From Discovery News - History;
Limbo, the state between heaven and hell where almost eight centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching consigned the virtuous but unbaptized, is expected to be abandoned soon by Pope Benedict XVI.
The only one entitled to sanction the limbo’s abolition, the Pope has blessed a 41-page report of the International Theological Commission, titled, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized."
An advisory body to the Vatican, the 30-member commission concluded that the concept of limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."
"There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones," the report, posted on the Catholic News Service Web site, said.
Augustine’s view was based on the assumption that only baptism removes the stain of original sin — which all children are born with. Thus, unbaptized babies would simply go to hell, though their punishment would be the mildest of all.
I'm sorry but the quote "...Christ’s special love for the little ones" is kind of creepy. It's interesting though how the Pope can all of a sudden get rid of something that the Church has been preaching about for centuries. Who runs this show anyway?!
Do not question the Pope, the Pope is infallible*.
*In matters of Christian Doctrine only.
I should take a moment to champion the Dawkinsian approach on this matter, which is to say, and I paraphrase: "There are no such things as 'Christian children' and 'Muslim children', but instead 'children of Christian parents' and 'children of Muslim parents'. Dawkins argues that because children cannot make the rational decisions required to choose a faith, and are so easily influenced, that it is not fair to attribute a religion to them at such a tender age.
Babies, particularly, have trouble expressing their religious views.
Mark this day down, I actually agree with something at Dawkins said. I feel so dirty and ashamed.
Oh shush, there is nothing wrong with Richard Dawkins.
In fact, there is a lot of things right with him. Like his adamant disbelief in God, for example. He got that one right. He also wrote some interesting books on evolution.
I'm sorry to say this Andrew, but although I agree with you about God and Dawkins, I don't think you can say that Dawkins was/is right about God. A belief in God or a lack of is just that, a belief and just because we may not believe, doesn't mean we are necessarily right or vice versa. I don't think there will ever be proof for either side to make someone "right".
I would argue, Sarah, that given the lack of evidence for God's existence, and by Occam's Razor, the greatest likelihood is indeed for the non-existence of God.
By way of example, some people may 'believe' that there are no such things as methanogens, but since the evidence clearly shows that they exist, those beliefs carry no truck with you. The flip side of that argument would be that belief in something for which there is no proof (i.e. leprechauns) should also carry no truck with you. It doesn't with me.
Therefore, I think that Dawkins is right about this one.
Well, that's my humble opinion, anyway.
You can't compare methanogens to God. Nobody knew what methanogens were 300 years ago (the advent of modern empiricism), yet I'm sure they existed. Empiricism is as flawed as its investigator. Flawed, indeed.
"Because of our innate egotism, we assume that human intelligence is the highest principle in nature [...] This is an unproven assumption".
According to your argument, Andrew, we cannot believe in something that has no proof. Therefore, if human intelligence isn't the highest principle in nature (because there's no proof that it is), what is? God would the general blanket-term. So you actually do believe in God, Andrew, you just don't know it yet.
I wasn't talking about methanogens 300 years ago, I was talking about them now. You are implying that there COULD be some future date in which we would discover God, or in which proof of His existence would come about. Well and good, but more evidence of nothing. If there isn't proof for something, or at least some evidence for it, what is the point for believing in it? I am not suggesting that there is no point in looking for it.
I do not accept blanket terms to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. Just because there is no proof that human intelligence is the highest principle in nature, doesn't mean that it isn't. Or is. The point is that we can't go making up things to fill in the gaps, especially those which do not need filling (such as intelligence ceilings).
Indeed, we know that God is immune from empirical investigation (while prayer, for example, is not). In this case, it is not Empiricism that is flawed, unless you believe that we merely lack the tools to investigate God properly. From what I understand, humans cannot ever truly know God in all His perfection, which would make empirical investigation of Him an impossibility. And back we are to square-one.
I hate trying to learn philosophical terminology on the fly. And making cogent arguments.