B is correct as far as I know. Limbo is the supposed abode of infants dying without baptism and the 'just' who died before Christ. I didn't know Modern Catholicism had abandoned the idea.

I sometimes find these sought of things are curious to talk about in the sense that a historian may be curious or interested to look into the way people in the past viewed and attempted to understand the way of the world. However, very little of the forgoing discussion has been historically minded; rather it is a continuation a very antiquated discourse.  
         Personally, I never found this sort of speculation and theologising at all important to one's spiritual well-being and growth. I must confess to being perplexed as to why so many writing in this thread continue to feel the 'need' to conceive of the way of the world in such speculative and medieval fashion. It seems to me positively occult. I'd like to know, if your interest is not merely historical, that is, what people thought at a particular point in time, what do you find personally fascinating about these very old and manifestly dubious views of the way of world. Other than the way people of old used to think, what do such views reveal to you?

Respectfully, FS.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Actually, I read your posts Susan. Perhaps, I should've indicated that the question doesn't apply to you; unless you can explain the issue for me.

Let me say I'm not trying to offend anybody or be a smart arse. That said, I am challenging people who have an interest in this subject that is more than historical, that is, who consider the subject to be an important concern within their personal theology or beliefs, to explain why ..? How so ..? I don't get it?

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

If someone could answer this for me:

What does whether or not I convert have to do with the fact that either animals and people do or do not both have an afterlife?   

... Why do animals not have souls?     

I just found out my font is cheating on me.

Maybe I should just accept that it's time to leave the Terminal and head back to Georgia...

"'just' who died before Christ"

Ah, now I know what "limbo" means - it's Abraham's Bosom that Jesus talked about in the NT. I've not heard that called "limbo" before.

"Personally, I never found this sort of speculation and theologising at all important to one's spiritual well-being and growth. I must confess to being perplexed as to why so many writing in this thread continue to feel the 'need' to conceive of the way of the world in such speculative and medieval fashion....Let me say I'm not trying to offend anybody or be a smart arse. That said, I am challenging people who have an interest in this subject that is more than historical, that is, who consider the subject to be an important concern within their personal theology or beliefs, to explain why ..? How so ..? I don't get it? "

No, Susan I think this might be referring to my novels. :)

Freshly Squeezed - I'm simply answering a theological question the way I see it with hopefully some Biblical context. If someone follow Wicca or Buddha or whatever, they can chime in with their own beliefs. This thread (nor should ever thread) have to contain responses to the type of questions you pose. Yes, there's a time and place for that, and I'm more than open to go down that road for a serious discussion. But not every belief, thread, etc needs to have a "challenge." That sort of ruins the point of talking about religion and theology and just becomes a discussion of "is religion real or not?"

Jordan .

Erwin, you forgot the {{{PAUSE}}}.

Delivery.

It's all in the delivery.

Angel, I can't answer that question except to say there are few beings I'd more want to spend an eternity with than the essence of Lola the Lab.  She completely denies being "soulless." 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

No, Lola is not my first and not even my only animal I clean up after! I've never been pet-less and currently there's Lola, Oreo (aka Jack Bauer) a gray and white domestic cat of no specific breed and Fluffy, the Norwegian Forest cat. At our maximum zoo-level, we had 5 cats, 2 dogs, 1 bird and a 50-gallon fish tank full of big-fish-eat-little-fishies. Lola, however, is an ANGEL and the best dog we've ever had. Pablo (Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, St. Bernard mix) was a wonderful dog too, but he had his tragic flaws.

Which brings up another issue. I believe biological waste production in Heaven has been dealt with in certain religious tracts though I can't remember which, but as I recall, there is no need for toilet paper in the Great Beyond. I would expect the same is true for our four-legged friends, should any of them have souls.

Which brings up another good speculative discussion -- How can Heaven be heavenly without food??? Since you wouldn't need food for sustenance, I would imagine it to be superfluous.  Well, at least that would explain why we wouldn't need a digestive tract.  Hey, we wouldn't need a cardio-vascular system either when you think about it.  Neurons?  Brain cells?  What for?  Sweat glands?

Oh so many imponderables. Little wonder I find it preferable to just rely on the inner sense that these details have all been worked out and not try to add my 2 cents to the after-life event planning committee. This is why I prefer the amorphous quality of the Jewish afterlife to Islam's definitive gardens, fountains and 72 virgins or raisins, depending on the interpretation of the Glorious Koran. The Jews don't discuss Heaven or afterlife much.  Yeah, sure, we've got one. Just don't ask; we won't tell. Trust me; you won't be disappointed! Like David Lynch says about his films or Bob Dylan about his music, if you have to explain it, the beautiful mystery is zapped away. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing...

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Thanks for your responses guys - especially Jordan and Susan - much appreciated.

I also agree with your sentiments that different discussions are on different levels.  I start this one with the acceptance that there is a God, and ask the question as 1 christian to others.  I wasn't trying to justify, promote or otherwise represent christianity to non-believers - I'm just looking into this 1 issue from a christian perspective.

freshly squeezed

I'd like to know, if your interest is not merely historical, that is, what people thought at a particular point in time, what do you find personally fascinating about these very old and manifestly dubious views of the way of world. Other than the way people of old used to think, what do such views reveal to you?

I believe there are timeless truths in the Bible that can help guide our lives.  I believe it's the divinely inspired word of God, and therefore not something to be trivialised or carelessly discarded.  It can be, but it's just not a wise choice imho.  So therefore I find it interesting to explore the different beliefs of particular ideas in the Bible.

This particular issue is one that troubles many christians - particularly new ones.  From what I've heard, some just form an emotional answer to the question to comfort themselves.  I'd rather research into it a little, and then share some intelligent discussion on the topic amongst fellow friends and believers.  What can I say - learning is fun for me...

I see, thanks for your response. Perhaps though, I should have substituted the word 'challenge' simply with the less emotive term, 'ask'. I was just keen to read peoples responses.

I should point out that I have not been uninterested to read your's, and others' as well, comments and elucidation of the the history of ideas on this and related topics. But I can't, personally, make the jump from mere curiosity and wonderment at the human cause of such ideas arising, to personal belief as many others, including, apparently, yourself seem able to do (I have also noticed an impulse to become quite sophisticated in the structuring of your beliefs). The whole system of ideas seem very alien to me and kind of fantastical (if there be such a word).

Anyway, I can see now that this is a thread has been created for believers and my questioning may seem uninvited, like a wet blanket for those who have moved beyond mere curiosity and an interest in the history of ideas. Sincerely sorry for interfering in the revery. Regards to all.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Re: above. I take your latter point, namely that this particular issue troubles many Christians and your observation that there seems to be an emotional need driving discussion of the issue. That's interesting.

I suppose that need, you might say is timeless. However, some of the ideas about whether babies go to heaven is seriously antiquated and rooted in the thinking of an unscientific age. Can you deny that?

The 'need' might be timeless but the ideas are dated.

Hey .. I'm almost 100 posts whoopee.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Most Christians would argue that the ideas are not dated. That the Bible is also timeless. Granted, some aspects of the Bible are dated but many of the principles are not.

"But I can't, personally, make the jump from mere curiosity and wonderment at the human cause of such ideas arising, to personal belief as many others, including, apparently, yourself seem able to do..."

But we have to begin somewhere else to make that jump. That would be the existance of a God. Without the existance of a God, then all discussion about religion and beliefs (except from a historical POV) is moot.

Jordan .

I suppose for me discussion about religion etc is moot. That doesn't prevent two or more people agreeing. The mere fact two or more people can agree doesn't mean religous subjects aren't debatable.

I understand what your driving at though. Basically, it's a thread for those who agree to examine within the parameters of their agreement differences or variations in the form or expression of their opinion or belief.

All the same, as you have said, it would be more appropriate for me to raise such matters in another thread for another day.

Fun mooting with you Jordan.    

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

freshly squeezed

 I take your latter point, namely that this particular issue troubles many Christians and your observation that there seems to be an emotional need driving discussion of the issue.

The emotional aspect kicks in not with their questioning, but with some of the answers and responses.  eg. babies and animals must go to Heaven because that particular individual feels that they should.  In reality their personal views or emotions are irrelevant because they don't decide.  I'd rather reach a more considered opinion, and that can only come from finding out what the decision maker says.

I must say that so far my view is really softening based on what I've read.  Before I wasn't entirely sure about the destiny of some odd cases such as young babies or mentally handicapped people, but it seems from my reading so far that they would in fact be saved.  So apparently it's better to be born profoundly mentally retarded and die young, rather than live a perfectly healthy, long life but never know God.

A simple Yes or No would have sufficed.

Seeing as how I'm in no mood to entangle myself in a scientific debate at this time (even though I have much to say with regards to evolution and Darwin), I'll just go on record as not believing babies go to heaven because I don't believe in a heaven. But at one point in time, when I was a wee lass still playing the part of the good little Catholic, I believed that everyone went to heaven (pets included) except for the "bad men"...people who murdered or stole things. A six-year old's mind works in strange ways sometimes.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

Razorblade

Interesting post - thanks for that.  I guess most Christians (and most people in general) go along with the idea of Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection.  No argument there.  And to most folks on the street this is their understanding of evolution.  It's when that's linked to the concept that organisms magically morph into other completely different species over time that the land of fantasy has been entered...

Last night I did the presentation "Do Babies Go to Heaven", and we had a good discussion about it.  We also looked at mentally disabled people, people in remote jungles who will never hear of Christ and so on.  We reached a few conclusions:

- If you hear about Christ, accept his forgiveness for sin, then you go to Heaven by Grace.

- If you hear about Christ, and reject his sacrifice that was made for you, then you don't.

- WRT the babies etc, there is a passage in Romans that outlines how God will measure all people based upon their character, intent and good works.  It's also outlined that Christ died for the whole world - not just Christians.  These passages, in conjunction with our understanding of God just characteras discovered through the OT and NT indicates that in fact those unable to accept Christ's forgiveness will be treated fairly.

- There is a lot of debate about whether people are born as sinful beings or not.  Also whether non-christians can go to Heaven at all, or only people who hear about Christ.  So we can accept that there is some grey area here - or at least an area we weren't able to clarify based on our limited theological knowledge.

- It was an interesting discussion anyway, and just about everyone learned some things and maybe adjusted their ideas on the topic.

* Chuckle *

Most religous folk want to answer this question in the affirmative. Nobody want's to see a defenceless little bub fall into limbo or worse. That would be terrible, unthinkable, it would be a serious inequity bringing into question God's good governance.

However, in the past and even now, the Christian Churches of the world benefit from maintaining some abiguity about the question. Not saying for sure that babies go to heaven makes sure that anxious parents don't put off the task of having their baby baptised thus swelling the ranks of membership. It's a recruiting strategy - as too is some Churches opposition to contraception.

That aside, what raised the chuckle was this consideration. Many religous folk don't seem to grow out of or be able to let go of their 6-year-old optimistic vision of life-after-death. However, naevity in adulthood is not generally considered a virtue, so we get these increasingly elaborate discourses on the issue. It's like trying to hide the six-year-old in adults clothing. Those funny dress-ups kids play seem like training practice not just fun and games.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Freshly Squeezed

I'm sorry Baldrick, but there's just one teensy-tiny flaw in your cunning plan...

Churches aren't out to "recruit" babies.  They aren't out trying to keep the fate of babies mysterious so that they or their parents attend church...because there's nothing either could do to help. 

Babies aren't impressed with fear or guilt campaigns, they just want their next breast feed and nappy change.  So I'm sorry, you'll have to go back to the drawing board with your conspiracy theory/random slander/cunning plans!

Adults however, are given the choice - they hear about Christ and then can choose to recognise and accept God, or reject him - and get the appropriate outcome that results.

Nice try though!   ;-)

1. It's not my cunning plan.

2. Who decides whether babies are baptised or children go to church?

3. There was no random slandour etc, my comments were serious. Recruitment (sometimes called evangelism) is a major preoccupation of all of the various religous faiths of the world and they don't always adopt a clean and transparent, take it or leave it approach to doing it.

4. You missed the point as comprehensively as Noah's critics missed the boat.

But cybercaT, I'd have you in my corner any day. That may not mean what you think it means.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

LOL ... churches aren't out to recruit babies. Hahahahaha. You've got to be kidding  You've swallowed the kitchen-sink then.
 

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Freshly Squeezed

Who decides whether babies are baptised or children go to church?

Baptism of babies achieves nothing - just makes parents feel better, but doesn't change their ultimate fate.  Kids going to church has equal irrelevance to the kids' eternal prospects.  In short, there's nothing to be gained by any ambiguity about the eternal destination of babies who die early...

Recruitment (sometimes called evangelism) is a major preoccupation of all of the various religous faiths of the world and they don't always adopt a clean and transparent, take it or leave it approach to doing it.

For starters, there are plenty of major religions with no interest whatsoever in "recruiting" - take Judaism for example.  Secondly, those that do "recruit", usually do so completely openly - and proudly!!  Usually they believe they are doing so for the benefit of the individual - so this person gets to hear about another way of life, then they can choose for themselves to consider it, or reject it.  Nothing sinister or underhanded until you start talking cults like scientology... 

4. You missed the point as comprehensively as Noah's critics missed the boat.

Wouldn't be the first time....

But cybercaT, I'd have you in my corner any day.

Right back at ya - us Aussies need to stick together...especially when there's an Ashes series about to start!!  I can feel a new thread starting soon...

"However, in the past and even now, the Christian Churches of the world benefit from maintaining some abiguity about the question. Not saying for sure that babies go to heaven makes sure that anxious parents don't put off the task of having their baby baptised thus swelling the ranks of membership. It's a recruiting strategy - as too is some Churches opposition to contraception."

I don't know of a single Protestant Church that has any doubts where babies go when they die. No one is maintaing some ambiguity about the question in an effort to "recruit." That's a total lack of any basic understanding of religious theology when it comes to this question. You might be able to say that about the Catholic Church to some extent, but not Protestant Churches. There's no need for baptising a baby to remove original sin. God is a just God, and will "judge" people based on their spiritual knowledge and rejection (or not) of Jesus, according to the Protestant Christian theology.

That's not ambiguity in an effort to recruit.

Be careful when you start saying that someone is falling for something. Often times, the person saying that must also look in their own mirror.

Jordan .