Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What was the change?The follow on question has to be about babies (who obviously didn't know) why did they go to Limbo? I know this was changed about 20 years ago
In what denomination?The follow on question has to be about babies (who obviously didn't know) why did they go to Limbo? I know this was changed about 20 years ago
All "normal" people have an automated understanding of sin - or "wrong" if you like. So the basis of the OP is wrong. But you all know that of course.
Should there be a theological position to something so insubstantial? I doubt it's relevance. If one wants to dig holes to ideologies there are more intelligent ways of doing it.This has been an actual discussion point in Christian theology at times throughout its history, and the Catholic Church assessed it's own position on this, releasing a document changing its position on this around a decade ago, working from memory.
Painting that as obvious in the way you are is unhelpful.
Are you disagreeing with the OP from a theological position, or do you doubt the veracity of the Eskimo story?
Should there be a theological position to something so insubstantial? I doubt it's relevance. If one wants to dig holes to ideologies there are more intelligent ways of doing it.
Should there be a theological position to something so insubstantial? I doubt it's relevance. If one wants to dig holes to ideologies there are more intelligent ways of doing it.
I'm not a Christian myself. I don't see why this need be about Christianity.It seems to me that it's pretty much universal doctrine of christianity that one needs to believe to be saved and that one is or might be exempt from such if one is completely ignorant of this message of christianity.
Or at least: I have never encountered a christian who said that one does not need to be a christian in order be "saved".
So, I take it you disagree with that position?
All "normal" people have an automated understanding of sin - or "wrong" if you like. So the basis of the OP is wrong. But you all know that of course.
The question can be made in seriousness. That alone is reason enough to question the adequacy of current mainstream Christian doctrine.So, Why?
.
"Sin" is a highly artificial concept.All "normal" people have an automated understanding of sin - or "wrong" if you like. So the basis of the OP is wrong. But you all know that of course.
I'm not a Christian myself. I don't see why this need be about Christianity.
So, Why?
.
All "normal" people have an automated understanding of sin - or "wrong" if you like. So the basis of the OP is wrong. But you all know that of course.
But the two things are not equivalent. Everyone knows what wrongdoing exists: no society believes that it's acceptable to murder your parents for their money. But "sin" is the concept of a specific type of wrongdoing — ignoring divine commands — which only applies in systems like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.All "normal" people have an automated understanding of sin - or "wrong" if you like.