My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#19
(03-16-2017, 11:25 AM)Gregory I Wrote: But nobody ever taught this for infants.

For example, St Augustine- up to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, theologians taught unbaptized infants go to Hell and are in fire.

For a short time some taught infants are spiritually tormented by the loss of the beatific vision. Then there was taught that they are in a painless state, and finally until modern times that they enjoy natural happiness in Limbo.

But what's the common thread? They all taught they were in hell. Limbo is part of hell. So the binding tradition is really one of infant damnation, that's not the issue. The issue is this question l: "What is the nature of their damnation?"

Here is my answer- the nature of their eternal damnation corresponds to God's just punishment of them on this life, because the justice of God is consistent. He destroyed the whole of Sodom and Gomorrah in fire from heaven, infants included. He destroyed the earth in a flood, infants included. He sent his angel to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He ordered the entire destruction Canaanite people's, infants included.

If these are all acts of Gids justice, and acts of divine punishment, then that which is in them is worthy of such punishment precisely because he is NOT unjust.

And Limbo supporters, ask yourself:

Are the souls of unbaptized infants sheep or goats? Are their names written in the book of life? Do they undergo the second death? In their particular judgment, does Christ say "Well done" or "depart from me?"

It's really stacked against positive natural happiness, this is why it was unchallenged 800 years.

If all of this is true - let's just say for the sake of argument that we could objectively prove that what you are saying is in fact true, and the early Church has been right all along.  You're saying God's justice is not the same as man's justice - which is certainly not an idea alien to Jewish and Christian scriptures.  But you are also saying that our system of justice, where we do not hold innocent parties guilty of crimes they did not commit and unjustly punish them for something someone else did wrong, is actually unjust itself, and that true justice is to punish them for things they did not do.  When you arrive at that position, how do you still find yourself able to love God?  I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't say it would be a good or just idea if, in our courts, if a man robbed a bank, we then took his children out to the public square and burned them at the stake, right?  And yet, this is what the Bible records God doing, as you've mentioned with Sodom and Gomorrah, the first-born of Egypt, etc.

So, at this point, anyone considering the situation rationally is faced with a dilemma.  Do they choose to believe that God does not actually do this?  Or do they accept that he does?  If you choose to accept that he does, is there no inkling in your conscience, even if it's just your fleshly conscience, that makes you think, even if just for a second, "Hmm, this is kind of cruel.  God is supposed to be loving, especially to children.  Something doesn't feel right here."  If you feel that, do you quash it?  If you don't feel that, why?  I really want to understand how people are confronted with a God like this, and choose to believe that it is accurate, rather than believe that either this God is just a myth like every other pagan god, or is real, but a sadistic monster that you cannot bring yourself to love, because you find his actions abhorrent.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants. - by Melkite - 03-16-2017, 11:47 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)