I know we already talked about this, but...
I find it absolutely abhorrent that babies who weren't baptized still went to hell. I know it's what Dante believed in, but it's not a baby's fault she or he died before being "saved." Why couldn't somebody beg on behalf of these babies for God's grace? Why is Dante more deserving than they?
Normally I don't pull out Hamilton, but I think this Lin-Manuel Miranda quote from the musical is relevant: “Death doesn't discriminate between the sinners and the saints, it takes and it takes and it takes, and we keep living anyway....”
I'll stop here before I venture into what-kind-of-God questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I personally agree, and think that any time is a good time for a Hamilton reference. While I understand the concept of the unbaptized not being entered into heaven, I don't understand why they should be sent to hell, and especially babies. I think that this idea counters the idea that virtue is something to be upheld despite your circumstances. Babies are not guilty of anything, and therefore are probably the most worthy of anyone to go to heaven. And "virtuous pagans" are still virtuous despite the fact that christianity wasn't around to help them out or whatnot, and I think that shows an incredibly strength in character that should be merited by paradise.
I think another part of the unbaptized children's punishment is that in some ways it breaks the pattern of contrapasso. Just to review, contrapasso refers to how the punishment for sinners' in the Inferno fits their sin. This makes sense for most of the sinners we see as we have discussed in class. Even for the virtuous pagans, who seem to have hardly committed any sin, their punishment fits this. In hell, just as in their lives, they have decent lives but they have to live without God. This situation is made worse by the fact that after death they know about God and know what they're missing out on. For unbaptized children, you could make a similar argument about how they just live innocently without God, but I don't think this works as well as it does with the virtuous pagans. The unbaptized infants who die could not really live without God before they could even have a concept of God or religion, so the punishment does not fit the sin as well.
Agree! (And yeah, any time is a good time for a Hamilton reference!) Can we also talk about the fact that Dante is, like, way worse than unbaptized babies anyway, yet he predicts that he’s eventually going to wind up in Heaven? I mean, come on! He would totally wind up in Hell for Pride, right? And he (the poet) also kind of embodies Fraudulence in some ways. He pretends to be all humble in the poem when he really has ulterior motives—to make himself look good!
I just think that the concept of babies winding up in Hell is super weird. Like…why? Okay, unbaptized babies “don’t know the true love of Christ.” BUT BABIES DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ANYWAY! They don’t even know what baptism means!!! I mean, I’m not against babies getting baptized, but that whole argument just seems strange. I just can’t comprehend that people who believe in an all-loving God would also believe that God would punish BABIES (or, for a matter of fact, that He would punish people just for not receiving this sacrament—I mean, it’s not like babies can control whether or not they get baptized!). Babies are just so cute and adorable and innocent! Sure, they cry a lot, but still…that doesn’t make them sinners! Plus, being a baptized Christian doesn’t automatically make you a good person, anyway, as Dante himself points out when he refers to various popes. I guess the theology behind this whole argument is tricky, since you can’t just assume that unbaptized babies would turn out to be good people? But you also can’t assume that baptized babies would turn out good! I mean, just look at all those popes…
Post a Comment