'You will burn in hell!'

America is still puritan at heart and the overbearing puritanical mentality breeds obsessiveness. The more one tries to hide something, the more it will find a way to get out. Often in more unhealthy ways than otherwise.
 
I was going to try to get back on track on this thread, only, after much scrolling thru previous pages, the subject of this thread still alludes me! That being said, this is as close as I can come to the original subject.

Overzealous Christian groups here in the U.S. believe in a literal Hell, and believe that unless one accepts religion the way they do, you are going to Hell. That and that they relish the prospect of all nonbelievers spending and eternity of suffering for daring to believe other than they do.

Carrying on from that mentality. This is one of the aspects of religion that gives me pause. That in most religions, and especially Abrahamic religions, there tends to be a my way or the highway mentality.

Watching the battle of philosophies between Thomas and Jane in another thread, I perceive the same sort of thinking process. Nothing as crude as born agains of course. On an intellectual level just as obstinate in their belief that their way is RIGHT and the other person is WRONG.

Am I perceiving this incorrectly? I'd like to believe that I am, but I can not see the difference. What is it about religion that demands there be but one path? Is there never a possibility of reconciliation?
 
Gordian Knot said:
Watching the battle of philosophies between Thomas and Jane in another thread, I perceive the same sort of thinking process. Nothing as crude as born agains of course. On an intellectual level just as obstinate in their belief that their way is RIGHT and the other person is WRONG.
Click to expand...

In their care I see a great difference from the moral judgements you compared them too. Theirs is, as I see it, the actual analysands of text/history/culture. I think they are both fine with the how either of them live their lives, their battle is of academia. And I don't agree with your opinion that their discussion was played out, I thought they were still getting somewhere. Somewhere good even!
 
GK,

Your perception is correct. Christianity teaches that it is Jesus' way or the highway. It also teaches closed-mindedness and being control-freaks. Take a look at the preacher in the movie Inherit the Wind for a good example. He does terrible things in the name of Jesus, and almost no one stands up to him and points this out.

I think there are two important factors here.

One is that most people have a normal amount of fears and insecurities. (Some people have an abnormal amount.) One way that some people deal with their fears and insecurities is to be belittling and controlling. Christianity definitely encourages such behavior.

Another is that Christianity has been used for centuries as a way for governmental authorities to control the population. Just look at God's condemnations upon Adam and Eve. This form of religion-as-social-control goes back a long way. Individual Christians pick up on this philosophy and adapt it into their own personal philosophies.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Overzealous Christian groups here in the U.S. believe in a literal Hell
Click to expand...
Every single bible-believing Christian believes in hell. No exceptions.


and believe that unless one accepts religion the way they do, you are going to Hell.
Click to expand...
That is a strange way to describe the Christian plea to others, to have faith in Jesus Christ.

That and that they relish the prospect of all nonbelievers spending and eternity of suffering for daring to believe other than they do.
Click to expand...
Fallacious. You are projecting and appealing to emotion here.


Nothing as crude as born agains of course. On an intellectual level just as obstinate in their belief that their way is RIGHT and the other person is WRONG.
Click to expand...
Every single bible-believing Christian is a born-again Christian. No exceptions. Why the ad hominem attack, calling all of us "crude?" And, are you not implying that--by not being a crude, overzealous, born-again'er--you are right and they are wrong?

Am I perceiving this incorrectly? I'd like to believe that I am, but I can not see the difference. What is it about religion that demands there be but one path? Is there never a possibility of reconciliation?
Click to expand...
Just because there are many religions that make many false claims, it doesn't necessarily follow that all of them are wrong. As far as the possibility of reconciliation... Christ teaches us that there are infinite opportunities to reconcile ourselves with Him. The only point at which those possibilities end, is when one crosses over from Earthly existence to spiritual existence.
 
I said:
I always notice how people who post about things are very selective about what they criticise about governments.

No big outcry about war and torture?

No, instead it's an obsession with sex. :D
Click to expand...
The old "war and torture" red herring, I see. I don't remember war and torture being part of the argument. Let's stay on topic.

I wasn't being selective. I cited the only examples off the top of my head, where I am being forced, as a taxpayer, to fund abortion and encourage promiscuous sex. It's only been very recently that abortion and contraceptives were introduces as basic human rights that the government should supply free of charge.

I notice you skipped right over the part where I gave a perfectly fine example of the same treatment toward you and how I think you have every reason to stand against it. I said you wouldn't like it if the government took your money to fund and build churches. And I said I would agree with you in your stance against it. So rather than use red herrings, drive by ad hominems, smoke and mirrors and other diversions... lets address that point. Would you have a problem funding churches with your tax dollars or not?
 
Quirkybird, did you overlook my request an explanation of your non-sequitur comments?
 
Quirkybird said:
I am happy with my comments, thanks!:D
Click to expand...

So,
Quirkybird said:
The idea of heaven and hell is not very credible especially in the form that some Christians believe it to be, imo.
Click to expand...

When I asked why you believe that you replied

Quirkybird said:
Well does it sound credible to you? A hell which burns people forever and ever is certainly not credible, as fire doesn't take long to render a body, or anything else, to ash. A heaven where you sing the deity's praises forever is my idea of mega boredom and hell!
Click to expand...

To which I explained why a person need not be in hell for ever and that some of the language is metaphorical. To which you oddly responded

That you inauthentically '.,,gave your heart to Jesus" but that nothing happened

Hardly a cogent response, indeed so off topic that it seems just something you choose to say to try and attack?
 
Tea said"In their care I see a great difference from the moral judgements you compared them too. Theirs is, as I see it, the actual analysands of text/history/culture. I think they are both fine with the how either of them live their lives, their battle is of academia. And I don't agree with your opinion that their discussion was played out, I thought they were still getting somewhere. Somewhere good even!"

I said it poorly as I did mean to say that Thomas and Jane were analyzing from an academic pov, not the moral judgements of the others. Apologies for not making that more clear.

Neither did I mean to say that their debate was played out; I did say that it should be in its own thread as it didn't belong in this one.

What I meant by my summation is that be it on the moral level of Born Agains or the intellectual level of academics, one point I did perceive as the same was the concept that one side was right and one side was wrong.

For both groups it does seem to be an absolute. Which was why my final question:

Am I perceiving this incorrectly? I'd like to believe that I am, but I can not see the difference. What is it about religion that demands there be but one path? Is there never a possibility of reconciliation?

Specifically I was asking Thomas and Jane was there no way for them to bridge the gap between their differences in belief.
 
VoiceofWood, save your breath. Quirky has no intention, nor willingness to venture any deeper into debate. Her only interest is in put downs and attacks. Sad, but it is what it is.
 
voiceofwood said:
So,


When I asked why you believe that you replied



To which I explained why a person need not be in hell for ever and that some of the language is metaphorical. To which you oddly responded

That you inauthentically '.,,gave your heart to Jesus" but that nothing happened

Hardly a cogent response, indeed so off topic that it seems just something you choose to say to try and attack?
Click to expand...

I was replying to your post!
 
Gordian Knot said:
VoiceofWood, save your breath. Quirky has no intention, nor willingness to venture any deeper into debate. Her only interest is in put downs and attacks. Sad, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I have been trying to explain how the Christian faith was for me when I was a believer, but obviously we are not on the same wavelength.:rolleyes:
 
Gordian Knot said:
Specifically I was asking Thomas and Jane was there no way for them to bridge the gap between their differences in belief
Click to expand...
Yes, there is, and thanks for bringing that question to the fore.

I was about to go into a long discussion (typically me) but a phone call interrupted, so I'll keep it short.

For a start, I think we both have an experience of Christ which should be something we mutually celebrate — good grief, there's enough malice on display around here!

Probably the better conversation is about (if I read you correctly Jane-Q) the 'psychological moment' of the meeting with Christ, as Jane seems to refer to it, whereas I might say 'the spiritual event'. We might well be talking about the same thing, with contextual differences. Nor is it necessarily right to say it is one or t'other. I would insist, for example, that something happened to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, and it seems to tick both boxes.

So I'll sing off with an apologia to Jane-Q.

You are of course right that the sacred scribe added his own gloss to the testimony. How we interpret that is a more nuanced thing. Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics. Perhaps, if the Man turned up, He'd say, "OK, you two, cut it. Just be nice to each other, capisce? Be cool."
 
Thank you for that summation, Thomas. I often wonder if humanity has a much stronger natural tendency to seek out our differences rather than finding where we have common ground.

You cracked my up with the GODfather finish. There is now this vision in my head of Marlon Brando coming down from On High with a "Make us an offer we can't refuse."
 
Gordian Knot said:
Tea said"In their care I see a great difference from the moral judgements you compared them too. Theirs is, as I see it, the actual analysands of text/history/culture. I think they are both fine with the how either of them live their lives, their battle is of academia. And I don't agree with your opinion that their discussion was played out, I thought they were still getting somewhere. Somewhere good even!"

I said it poorly as I did mean to say that Thomas and Jane were analyzing from an academic pov, not the moral judgements of the others. Apologies for not making that more clear.

Neither did I mean to say that their debate was played out; I did say that it should be in its own thread as it didn't belong in this one.

What I meant by my summation is that be it on the moral level of Born Agains or the intellectual level of academics, one point I did perceive as the same was the concept that one side was right and one side was wrong.

For both groups it does seem to be an absolute. Which was why my final question:

Am I perceiving this incorrectly? I'd like to believe that I am, but I can not see the difference. What is it about religion that demands there be but one path? Is there never a possibility of reconciliation?

Specifically I was asking Thomas and Jane was there no way for them to bridge the gap between their differences in belief.
Click to expand...

I fully grok you now I think!
I see Thomas have responded, I would have said that they both seemed interested in a sort of truth and actually understanding each other, so I would think that there is indeed hope!
 
Frrost I was not giving my personal opinions in that post. I was attempting to distill the overall theme of the entire thread into a brief overview. Now you may think I did a poor job of it, and that is okay.

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot
Quote:
Overzealous Christian groups here in the U.S. believe in a literal Hell
Frrost: Every single bible-believing Christian believes in hell. No exceptions.

I would respond that every single Christian that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible believes in Hell. There are many, many Christians that see the Bible more as metaphor, and of the ones I have met, most do not believe in a literal Hell.

Quote:
and believe that unless one accepts religion the way they do, you are going to Hell.
Frrost: That is a strange way to describe the Christian plea to others, to have faith in Jesus Christ.

This was a comment the OP made about the overzealous type of Christians. That that group believes their way is the only way.


Quote:
That and that they relish the prospect of all nonbelievers spending and eternity of suffering for daring to believe other than they do.
Frrost: Fallacious. You are projecting and appealing to emotion here.

Again, I was but repeating the experience the OP said they received on questioning their beliefs.


Quote:
Nothing as crude as born agains of course. On an intellectual level just as obstinate in their belief that their way is RIGHT and the other person is WRONG.

Frrost: Every single bible-believing Christian is a born-again Christian. No exceptions. Why the ad hominem attack, calling all of us "crude?" And, are you not implying that--by not being a crude, overzealous, born-again'er--you are right and they are wrong?

Your definition of Born Again may be that it includes every single Christian. That is not the standard accepted definition, however. Born Again Christians is usually defined as that group who have had a powerful conversion from another faith:

Cultural Dictionary
born-again Christian definition
A Christian who has experienced a distinct, dramatic conversion to faith in Jesus, especially a member of certain Protestant groups that stress this experience. The expression recalls words of Jesus in the Gospels: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

As far as the use of the word 'crude', that was inappropriate on my part. Let me replace that with overzealous, which is the actual meaning I was going for.

Quote:
Am I perceiving this incorrectly? I'd like to believe that I am, but I can not see the difference. What is it about religion that demands there be but one path? Is there never a possibility of reconciliation?

Frrost: Just because there are many religions that make many false claims, it doesn't necessarily follow that all of them are wrong. As far as the possibility of reconciliation... Christ teaches us that there are infinite opportunities to reconcile ourselves with Him. The only point at which those possibilities end, is when one crosses over from Earthly existence to spiritual existence.

I agree with your first sentence. The sticky in the wicket is who gets to decide the right claims from the false ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top