In a very interesting BBC News article, we learn that the Catholic church is considering abolishing the concept of 'limbo'.
Limbo is a place kinda between heaven and hell, where people do not suffer in hell but to not get to enjoy heaven either. The concept was introduced in the 13th Century by a french philosopher, Abelard, who criticised the idea that babies who die before they are baptised ended in hell, where all non-baptised people (which would include me, too) are supposed to be going.
First, I think it is amusing - a little sad, too - that we as humans are supposed to decide to add or abolish a country in the afterworld. Let's come up with new ideas, choose the best, and ask God to implement them!
Even better, let's create a 'Religion Development Marketplace' (name taken from the World Bank's Development Marketplace, for those who know what it is about) and have a 'call for ideas' around the world! I mean, people, seriously...
Second, it is interesting that they noted the religious marketing; to quote the article, "Some argue that the question of limbo has taken on fresh urgency because it could be hindering the Church's conversion of Africa and Asia, where infant mortality rates are high". Hmm. So it isnt about doing what's right - it's about selling a religion.
Third, my favourite bit of the whole article: "An article in the UK's Times newspaper this week suggested that the "Pope - an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic - is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to heaven".
Dear God. Is it a game? Are religions 'competing' and amending their political programmes to lure people into joining them? This is quite shameful. Am not sure if He is feeling too good about that...
Rather than finding out that we all believe in the inherently same metaphysical concept - God - we go on attracting each other's 'market'.
Pffffffffffff....
Limbo is a place kinda between heaven and hell, where people do not suffer in hell but to not get to enjoy heaven either. The concept was introduced in the 13th Century by a french philosopher, Abelard, who criticised the idea that babies who die before they are baptised ended in hell, where all non-baptised people (which would include me, too) are supposed to be going.
First, I think it is amusing - a little sad, too - that we as humans are supposed to decide to add or abolish a country in the afterworld. Let's come up with new ideas, choose the best, and ask God to implement them!
Even better, let's create a 'Religion Development Marketplace' (name taken from the World Bank's Development Marketplace, for those who know what it is about) and have a 'call for ideas' around the world! I mean, people, seriously...
Second, it is interesting that they noted the religious marketing; to quote the article, "Some argue that the question of limbo has taken on fresh urgency because it could be hindering the Church's conversion of Africa and Asia, where infant mortality rates are high". Hmm. So it isnt about doing what's right - it's about selling a religion.
Third, my favourite bit of the whole article: "An article in the UK's Times newspaper this week suggested that the "Pope - an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic - is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to heaven".
Dear God. Is it a game? Are religions 'competing' and amending their political programmes to lure people into joining them? This is quite shameful. Am not sure if He is feeling too good about that...
Rather than finding out that we all believe in the inherently same metaphysical concept - God - we go on attracting each other's 'market'.
Pffffffffffff....
12 comments:
Hmmm that's a strange article... if limbo were no longer considered by the Church, then, according to at least Catholicism, babies who havent been baptised would go to hell, because of the belief in Original Sin. Therefore if they wanted to appeal to more people theyd have to change that concept as well. And that, habibi, is highly unlikely.
Nice blog, BTW. I heart blogs--so glad I found yours ;) Hope to also find the time to read the rest soon, and ofcourse, comment.
-Paula
If i understood correctly, this is precisely why they introduced 'limbo'in the first place, no?
Too much suffering for the parents who lost their toddlers and were not forced to live with the idea that they're in hell...
Quite unlikely to change the concept of original sin, i agree. So what's the way out?
I'd vote for something like 'those who don't know what the heck Original Sin is should be allowed in heaven', that should solve the issue, no?
I'll surely be waiting for the next episodes...
Thanks for stopping by :)
I would not be surprised if limbo did not arise from that.
To recap my previous point: I disagree that the Church is playing the market cap game.
But I also see your other point. Well to put it simply: people used to think the world was the center of the universe and after thinking about it for a long time, they started thinking that it wasnt. It does not mean that the world used to be the center of the universe and now its not.
One of the most important aspects of the Catholic Church is its emphasis on rationalizing faith and getting to a greater truth. So expect lots of brainstorming on whether limbo exists, as well as what is good and evil, what is hope, is there a personal God or is He detached from us, etc.
The issue with the Church in my opinion, is what they choose as "true" sometimes conflicts with the conclusions that are reached through rationalization, even within their own house.
Part of the definition of 'faith' has to do with 'shut you brain off for a while, would ya?'.
Not that it's particularly bad, because it creates an interesting sense of 'trust' in Him. Well, kinda like this trust-building exercie where you're supposed to let yourself fall and your partner is supposed to catch you!
I think that brainstorming over the religion is a good thing to do, because I thank that if He gave us a brain, he'd want us to use it, no? :)
What i find amazing though is not that we're debating things like the nature of God, of Hope, or the like -- but we're discussing whether we, Humans, will abolish 'limbo', which some kind of a sovereign state in the Sky. It's not the content of the talk i find funny, it's the existence of the discussion itself!
Ok, ok. I see your points, but only because you thought mine through :p
Same here!
Now why does something tell me that you're going to keep returning to this page even if our conversation here is over?
;)
I had the feeling a witty little comment was in store. Just for me.
:p
Good one. You score a point! :)
I have to admit: it has taken quite a while to come up with a reply to that.
Then I figured out that whatever I write pleases my fans...
;)
check mate
Oh come on! You're not giving up so easily, are you?
Amaze me.
Well, ok then. Before saying checkmate I was going to say that so far I've taken the role of critic. A veeery kind critic none the less.
Unkind criticism is okay, too.
In a topic such as religion, i often wonder how kind we should be in our criticism: should we be as harsh as we'd normally be, considering religion to be just another frame of thought that can be deconstructed just like any other?
Or should we be nice and kind, which would in itself be an admission that religion holds some inherent truth which shouldnt be criticised (too much)?
(or did you mean that you were a kind critic of ME? :)
Post a Comment