AAAAHHHHHHH!!! MY PROTESTANT PARENTS DIDN’T BAPTIZE ME RIGHT AFTER I WAS BORN!!!!! HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT UNBAPTIZED BABIES DON’T GO TO HEAVEN!!!
He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.
Not the teaching of the Catholic Church but nice try I guess?
>>18704767The doctrine of original sin would logically entail the damnation of babies. If you are a Classical Protestant or Catholic, you believe that baptism is the new birth that allows for salvation. And if you are a restorationist/Baptist, you have to believe in the damnation of anyone who can't cognitively believe in Jesus. Unless if you're a semi-pelagian (which most Baptists are); in which case you have to deny original sin.
>>18704777St. Augustine of Hippo certainly believed unbaptized infants went to Hell
>>18704837So he thought Moses was in hell?
>>18704841He believed righteous Old Testament figures rest safely in a peaceful, hidden compartment of the underworld known as Abraham’s bosom (sinus Abrahae) but for some reason unbaptized infants don't get that same grace (in his view)
>>18704843The copes these religious retards come up with lmao
>>18704790The concept of original sin sounds very gnsotic or scientology coded.
Love that this is the quality of threads on this board now
>>18704767> MY PROTESTANT PARENTS DIDN’T BAPTIZE ME RIGHT AFTER I WAS BORNThey must not be very good Protestants
>>18704837They'll enjoy hell
>>18704837Church fathers arent infallible. None of you understand how anything works but you love to run your mouth.
>>18705139>gnosticism: all matter bad always no matter what >christianity: matter is good, some things are in disorder, and humans are condemned but there is salvation to regenerate yourself into something good>actual idiot on /his/: theyre both the same.
>>18705139Preexistent divine sparks falling into the material world in the aftermath of a primordial mistake is gnostic-coded. Everyone deserving eternal torment by default because grandpa adam disobeyed God by eating a fruit is thoroughly demuirge bootlicker-coded
>>18704767Gods will is done.
>>18705182Gnostic texts typically associate matter with darkness, ignorance, and illusion, which I wouldn't call "bad" in an absolute sense, but they aren't exactly good either, and can be bad to the extent that you're stuck with them.One way I've come to understand the lisy of associations is that it's a way of describing how matter is basically unconscious stuff that follows its rules mercilessly, with no obvious regard for what happens as a result. If the unconscious matter making up your body fritzes out in a way that makes you sick, you're not likely to accomplish much by arguing with it or pleading with it to act differently. You just have to figure out what mindless process is happening to cause the problem and hope you can you can redirect it. And you can't investigate what unconscious matter is doing by sending your awareness into it directly. Instead you have to infer what it's doing from behind the machinery of your senses, which you had better hope doesn't become damaged.So, in this sense, it's as if we're all sparks of awareness immersed in a sea of mindless unconsciousness, and maybe it would be better if it were less like that, if the world were more dreamlike, responsive, and accessible to awareness, rather than being to a great extent like a dead machine we're stuck in.I imagine the difference between the pleroma (fullness) and the kenoma (emptiness) as being at least partly along the same axis described above, though admittedly making the whole world to make it more conscious and capable of deviating from its rules in isolation might not be too desirable either, in certain respects and depending on how far you go with it.
>>18705181>Church fathers arent infallible.so who is? your pastor jim? it's such a high-stakes game and yet no one knows anything for sure?
>>18705234(picrel is from the gospel of philip)
>>18705217Love this lil nigga spamming Calvin everywhere.You go man.
>>18705234>>18705246nonsense. show me a single gnostic witnessing or committing a healing miracle.
>>18705245You think Catholic ecclesiology requires individual 4th-century bishops to be personally infallible.The Catholic Church is infallible in her Magisterium and in the moral consensus of the Fathers (consensus patrum) when proposing what is contained in divine revelation. Individual Church Fathers are explicitly fallible and can hold private theological errors:St. Cyprian erred on heretical baptism. St. Augustine explicitly rejected his opinion: "I do not accept what the blessed Cyprian thought, for the Church does not accept this."St. Augustine held that unbaptized infants suffer active torment in Hell (poena sensus). The Catholic Church never dogmatized this; St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics rejected Augustine's private thesis in favor of Limbo (poena damni without sensory torment).St. Thomas Aquinas: "Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever." (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 12).St. Vincent of Lérins: "Whatsoever a teacher holds other than all or contrary to all... let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own."Treating an isolated Father as an infallible Pope is literally Protestant caricature. Log off, pick up Ott or Melchior Cano, and learn what Catholics actually believe.
How do you think God tortures babies in hell? Is it flash incineration at 3000 degrees or a slow broil at only 300 degrees?
>>18705263>You think Catholic ecclesiology requires individual 4th-century bishops to be personally infallible.no. I think christians are awfully wishy-washy about everything but the immaterial generalities. just read your own post: "The Catholic Church is infallible in her Magisterium and in the moral consensus of the Fathers (consensus patrum) when proposing what is contained in divine revelation". how do you judge whether something is or is not "contained in divine revelation"?and yes, church fathers disagree with each other and with current church dogma. it takes a lot of mental gymnastics not to see that as evidence that they are all just making shit up as contemporary political necessity requires, then try to deal with the consequences when those necessities depart.
>>18705294>how do you judge whether something is or is not "contained in divine revelation"?The same way an appellate court rules on constitutional law: public apostolic provenance, liturgical reception (lex orandi, lex credendi), and universal consensus (the Vincentian canon: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). The Church receives no new revelation; the deposit of faith closed with the Apostles. The Magisterium does not invent new material, it defines boundaries when controversies arise. Church Fathers are called "Fathers" because of their paternity in transmitting that apostolic deposit (testes fidei), not because an individual bishop is an oracle. Where they testify with one voice, they speak for the Church; where an individual Father speculates privately on unsettled points (Augustine on infant punishment, Cyprian on rebaptism), the Church discards the excess.Cont;
>>18705294>they are all just making shit up as contemporary political necessity requiresIf doctrine were shaped by political necessity:- Arianism would be dogma today. Emperors Constantius II and Valens backed it; Athanasius spent 17 years in exile in the desert fighting the state.- Monothelitism would be dogma today. Emperor Constans II enforced it by decree (the Typos); Pope Martin I was dragged in chains to die in a Crimean penal colony, and Maximus the Confessor had his tongue cut out and right hand chopped off for refusing to sign the imperial compromise.- Iconoclasm would be dogma today, because the Byzantine military emperors purged anyone who kept icons.Men do not get their tongues cut out in Roman dungeons for political convenience.The Church Fathers explicitly directed that when arguing with pagans who reject revelation, you must argue from foundational philosophy and natural reason (Justin Martyr's Apologies, Clement of Alexandria's Stromata, and Aquinas in SCG 1.2: "Against pagans we have recourse to natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent"). Pagan Rome ran on utilitarian cruelty exposing unwanted infants on rocks to die and sacrificing to the state. The Fathers used philosophy to expose that moral bankruptcy, and backed it with lived witness: Christians rescued those exposed babies, nursed plague victims while pagan families abandoned their own dying kin, and faced the lions rather than worship Caesar. You reduce men dying for transcendent truth to state bureaucrats because your materialism cannot conceive of anyone holding conviction above survival.
