Prosperity gospel is even worse than Calvinism. There's some overlap between them, but prosperity gospel seems to me to be even more blatant and tasteless and basically ugly.
What is the arguments for 'what if it's impossible for someone to learn about Christ' scenario? I was basically told that if it was a baby, it's cool they go to heaven. If they're an adult, they're SOL and going to hell. I was also told why it's important to spread the word and expand the kingdom of heaven and generally bug the hell out of me about it.
It depends on who you ask, at least in my experience. Some will tell you that adults who haven't been introduced to Christ are fucked, and that's why they have to spread the news. Others will tell you that if it was simply a matter of them not having been told they will be viewed as children by God and thus raised to heaven.
Which has to pose an interesting internal quandary for anyone who holds the second view, as in the majority of cases that means telling someone about Christ is actually going to damn them in the end.
Readings I have done on Catholic belief cite Romans 2.
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
Are they for reals?
See, it's stuff like this that just bugs me.
I mean, my life would be so much easier if I go around and pretend to be Christian.
Women? Man for some reason I attract religious women who, figuratively, runs away screaming once they find out I'm atheist.
Family? Oh man, family get togethers are pure awkwardness. The room will become dead silent whenever one of my little cousins ask me something about religion.
Meeting people? Man, nothing sucks more when people finds out that I'm an atheist. In most circles, it's a freaking social suicide.
I mean, it just boils down to going to church, knowing a few prayers, and owning a bible. I don't even need to read the bible because watching a few season of veggie tales will get me up to speed.
There is also the kind notion that if you haven't heard of Christ you'll just end up in nothing for eternity unless you get prayed for enough.
Nah. That only works for purgatory. Limbo is where virtuous pagans and infants go go.
I thought the pope decided that purgatory didn't exist and every other infalable pope before him was wrong on the subject? I wonder how many catholics are aware of that?
There is also the kind notion that if you haven't heard of Christ you'll just end up in nothing for eternity unless you get prayed for enough.
Nah. That only works for purgatory. Limbo is where virtuous pagans and infants go go.
I thought the pope decided that purgatory didn't exist and every other infalable pope before him was wrong on the subject? I wonder how many catholics are aware of that?
He never said that.
After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:
Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[22] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[23]
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that it is considered consonant with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.[24] Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[24] These theories are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members.
I love it when large religious issues become multiple choice things.
Basically, saying they get into heaven means you don't have to accept Jesus which screws up shit. Saying they go to regular hell looks really, really bad. So Limbo it is!
What is the arguments for 'what if it's impossible for someone to learn about Christ' scenario? I was basically told that if it was a baby, it's cool they go to heaven. If they're an adult, they're SOL and going to hell. I was also told why it's important to spread the word and expand the kingdom of heaven and generally bug the hell out of me about it.
It depends on who you ask, at least in my experience. Some will tell you that adults who haven't been introduced to Christ are fucked, and that's why they have to spread the news. Others will tell you that if it was simply a matter of them not having been told they will be viewed as children by God and thus raised to heaven.
Which has to pose an interesting internal quandary for anyone who holds the second view, as in the majority of cases that means telling someone about Christ is actually going to damn them in the end.
Judaism has something similar to this, where people who do not know the 613 commandments are not held liable to them. Even though there's no hell to worry bout there, I always found it amusing that teaching some one the commandments was really just a way of screwing them over, by handing them a whole heap of responsibility.
Then again, being burdened is the entire point of Judaism, so it fits.
Evander on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Oy. I know the Ten and I have a hard time on keeping those. I don't know how I would handle if I knew all 613.
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
To be fair, there is an interpretation endorsed by Aquinas that runs - it is the inner nature of the bread and wine which becomes that of the body and blood of Christ. In which "the inner nature" refers to it's essential essence ( sort of like it's Platonic ideal/form).
This has the benefits of sidestepping the blatant idiocy, but the disadvantages of making no fucking sense.
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
Are they for reals?
See, it's stuff like this that just bugs me.
I mean, my life would be so much easier if I go around and pretend to be Christian.
Women? Man for some reason I attract religious women who, figuratively, runs away screaming once they find out I'm atheist.
Family? Oh man, family get togethers are pure awkwardness. The room will become dead silent whenever one of my little cousins ask me something about religion.
Meeting people? Man, nothing sucks more when people finds out that I'm an atheist. In most circles, it's a freaking social suicide.
I mean, it just boils down to going to church, knowing a few prayers, and owning a bible. I don't even need to read the bible because watching a few season of veggie tales will get me up to speed.
Reading stuff like that makes me super happy I live where I live. Most of my friends are atheists or agnostics, almost everyone I meet and talk religion with are sane, reasonable people willing to listen to reason. All my coworkers are Muslim and we often discuss religion and while they don't believe what I believe they do have respect for my knowledge on the subject and my stance.
Last time I took a train I ended up discussing religion with a creationist who while he started out with the whole "Evolution is religion and Darwin is your god" bullshit, he ended up respecting me and my opinion so much then when we got off the train he told me I was intelligent and I should study science because I was clearly good at it and we walked off the train wishing each other well, the entire discussion was a civil exchange of ideas.
What is the arguments for 'what if it's impossible for someone to learn about Christ' scenario? I was basically told that if it was a baby, it's cool they go to heaven. If they're an adult, they're SOL and going to hell. I was also told why it's important to spread the word and expand the kingdom of heaven and generally bug the hell out of me about it.
It depends on who you ask, at least in my experience. Some will tell you that adults who haven't been introduced to Christ are fucked, and that's why they have to spread the news. Others will tell you that if it was simply a matter of them not having been told they will be viewed as children by God and thus raised to heaven.
Which has to pose an interesting internal quandary for anyone who holds the second view, as in the majority of cases that means telling someone about Christ is actually going to damn them in the end.
There's also the claim that everyone on the planet has been given a fair chance to accept Jesus as savior. Doesn't matter if you're born in the jungle, raised by monkeys, and die without ever having met another human being - God gave you a chance at some point, and you were just too much of a sinner to accept his divine gift.
And then there's Calvinism, which basically asserts that everything's already decided, and some people just don't get a chance to go to Heaven because God says so, so fuck 'em.
Calvanism gets an extra gold star because their entire premise is that if your life sucks it's because God wants it to, and if your life is awesome it's because God loves you more.
It's probably the least Christlike interpretation of scripture available.
I'm pretty sure some modern religions do this to justify why some people are born into wealth and others are not.
Oh, absolutely. Lots of evangelical preachers, like Joel Osteen, really take up the Puritan mantle and preach this. This idea has been in the country so long, it's even transcended it's religious roots and is part of our culture.
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
Are they for reals?
See, it's stuff like this that just bugs me.
I mean, my life would be so much easier if I go around and pretend to be Christian.
Women? Man for some reason I attract religious women who, figuratively, runs away screaming once they find out I'm atheist.
Family? Oh man, family get togethers are pure awkwardness. The room will become dead silent whenever one of my little cousins ask me something about religion.
Meeting people? Man, nothing sucks more when people finds out that I'm an atheist. In most circles, it's a freaking social suicide.
I mean, it just boils down to going to church, knowing a few prayers, and owning a bible. I don't even need to read the bible because watching a few season of veggie tales will get me up to speed.
How often does religion come up in general conversation? I don't know what any of my co-workers believe, and in my last job I only knew about a few of them because one guy kept on trying to provoke us into conversation so he could show how edgy and hardcore he was.
I find it easiest to just keep stuff like that to myself, like my sexual past and choice of underwear.
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
Are they for reals?
See, it's stuff like this that just bugs me.
I mean, my life would be so much easier if I go around and pretend to be Christian.
Women? Man for some reason I attract religious women who, figuratively, runs away screaming once they find out I'm atheist.
Family? Oh man, family get togethers are pure awkwardness. The room will become dead silent whenever one of my little cousins ask me something about religion.
Meeting people? Man, nothing sucks more when people finds out that I'm an atheist. In most circles, it's a freaking social suicide.
I mean, it just boils down to going to church, knowing a few prayers, and owning a bible. I don't even need to read the bible because watching a few season of veggie tales will get me up to speed.
How often does religion come up in general conversation? I don't know what any of my co-workers believe, and in my last job I only knew about a few of them because one guy kept on trying to provoke us into conversation so he could show how edgy and hardcore he was.
I find it easiest to just keep stuff like that to myself, like my sexual past and choice of underwear.
Oy. I know the Ten and I have a hard time on keeping those. I don't know how I would handle if I knew all 613.
Growing up in a fairly secular household, smetimes I wonder if my parents sending me to a relisious school was actually a kind of a joke that they were playing on me.
An uncircumsized male is not allowed to eat from the flesh of a temple sacrifice. That's one of the 613. Why is that knowledge taking up space in my head?
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
To be fair, there is an interpretation endorsed by Aquinas that runs - it is the inner nature of the bread and wine which becomes that of the body and blood of Christ. In which "the inner nature" refers to it's essential essence ( sort of like it's Platonic ideal/form).
This has the benefits of sidestepping the blatant idiocy, but the disadvantages of making no fucking sense.
Just like the trinity. I wonder how many believe in the orthodox trinity. That would make an interesting poll.
Generally, the more batshit-crazy a religious belief is, the stronger the ecumenical response to non-faith usually is. It's why you don't see too many Buddhist martyrs.
I don't think that's actually true. Self-immolation, as in Viet Nam, is a buddhist martyring practice, for instance. I think that in the west we tend to think of Buddhism as more sane simply because we have less exposure to the full catalog and cultural history of it's insanity.
Yeah, hunger strikes and self-immolation are both pretty common Buddhist martyr techniques. And the 2007 anti-government protests in Myanmar were led by Buddhist monks, who in turn became martyrs (because martyrdom exists relationally; if someone kills herself for her faith, she's only a martyr if people later regard her as a martyr). And those are just recent examples. I'm not well versed in the history of Buddhism, but I don't think the Buddhist martyr tradition began in 1963.
Sorry to dredge up a conversation from 5 pages ago (before the what-if-aliens-met-Jesus-bit) but to be fair, Buddhists don't have a history of martyrdom that involves taking other people out with them. As Ross said it's generally a response to rights abuses, rather than nonbelief.
Between the trinity and the Devil, I really don't understand how christianity counts as monotheistic
moreso the devil, honestly. if you have an omnipotent benevolent deity, either the devil is impossible, or else the devil is powerful enough to be considered a second deity, thereby cutting out the "mono"
Not the current subject, but I was arguing with some Catholics at work just last week that transubstantiation meant they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and they laughed at me and told me that because I was an atheist, I didn't know what I was talking about.
To be fair, there is an interpretation endorsed by Aquinas that runs - it is the inner nature of the bread and wine which becomes that of the body and blood of Christ. In which "the inner nature" refers to it's essential essence ( sort of like it's Platonic ideal/form).
This has the benefits of sidestepping the blatant idiocy, but the disadvantages of making no fucking sense.
Just like the trinity. I wonder how many believe in the orthodox trinity. That would make an interesting poll.
Come now Couscous! That's unfair.
Nothing about the Trinity makes sidesteps any idiocy!
I wonder how many religions have a theological core that, rather than simply being confusing and mushy and circular, is actually ridiculous to the point that the knowing elite try to keep it under wraps.
Like Scientology, I mean.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Well, there's still just the one omnipotent being. The Devil is just a fallen angel with a lot of power, not an actual deity.
Of course, the fallen angel crap is never really in the bible so whatever.
The devil himself really doesn't get that much attention either, though.
Most of the christian concept of hell and the devil was put together from non-biblical texts and interpretations.
Makes for a pretty good story at least.
Just not one you should probably base your worldview around.
From what I'm gathering, Hell is getting pretty tamed. I guess the whole 'eternal torture with rusty spiked dildos' started to sound childish and now they're going with a more mature 'eternal existence outside of God presence', which translates into 'you'll be unhappy and unloved forever'.
I wonder how many religions have a theological core that, rather than simply being confusing and mushy and circular, is actually ridiculous to the point that the knowing elite try to keep it under wraps.
Like Scientology, I mean.
You only say such hurtful things because of trauma experienced by your space-ghosts while they were possessing clams, buddy.
Well, there's still just the one omnipotent being. The Devil is just a fallen angel with a lot of power, not an actual deity.
Of course, the fallen angel crap is never really in the bible so whatever.
The devil himself really doesn't get that much attention either, though.
Most of the christian concept of hell and the devil was put together from non-biblical texts and interpretations.
Makes for a pretty good story at least.
Just not one you should probably base your worldview around.
From what I'm gathering, Hell is getting pretty tamed. I guess the whole 'eternal torture with rusty spiked dildos' started to sound childish and now they're going with a more mature 'eternal existence outside of God presence', which translates into 'you'll be unhappy and unloved forever'.
From what I'm gathering, Hell is getting pretty tamed. I guess the whole 'eternal torture with rusty spiked dildos' started to sound childish and now they're going with a more mature 'eternal existence outside of God presence', which translates into 'you'll be unhappy and unloved forever'.
I don't think that's really so much the new standard definition yet, but more of a fallback position after an argument turns against the spiked dildo interpretation.
The problems with the concept of an omnipotent benevolent deity go way beyond the existence of Satan.
St. Augustine had a good answer. I think just about the only one possible if someone really wants to think through the implications of the Christian deity.
It's just one that is really unpleasant to a modern viewpoint and so people just don't think about the Theodicy problem.
RiemannLives on
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
From what I'm gathering, Hell is getting pretty tamed. I guess the whole 'eternal torture with rusty spiked dildos' started to sound childish and now they're going with a more mature 'eternal existence outside of God presence', which translates into 'you'll be unhappy and unloved forever'.
That is even more childish. "You'll be sorry!"
Eh, not really.
Emotional and spiritual fulfillment (and the lack there of) is a much more mature and intellectual concept than corporal reprisal for disobedience. But still at the end of the day, the interpretations vary little from either "You're pissing God off" or "You're breaking God's heart."
Which is why Hell is such a bullshit concept. Even under the widest of considerations, it still makes God into a whiny and insecure parental figure.
The problems with the concept of an omnipotent benevolent deity go way beyond the existence of Satan.
St. Augustine had a good answer. I think just about the only one possible if someone really wants to think through the implications of the Christian deity.
It's just one that is really unpleasant to a modern viewpoint and so people just don't think about the Theodicy problem.
Wasn't St. Augustine's position just that man and Satan created evil by eating the apple/tempting man into eating the apple? How does that solve the problem when God created both man and Satan?
An omniscient deity would certainly have knowledge of the potential for evil in his creations. It's equivalent to saying that if I made a bomb with a trigger that gave it a random chance of exploding, I wouldn't be responsible for any casualties it caused because I didn't technically choose whether it exploded, the trigger did.
Well, there's still just the one omnipotent being. The Devil is just a fallen angel with a lot of power, not an actual deity.
Of course, the fallen angel crap is never really in the bible so whatever.
The devil himself really doesn't get that much attention either, though.
Most of the christian concept of hell and the devil was put together from non-biblical texts and interpretations.
Makes for a pretty good story at least.
Just not one you should probably base your worldview around.
From what I'm gathering, Hell is getting pretty tamed. I guess the whole 'eternal torture with rusty spiked dildos' started to sound childish and now they're going with a more mature 'eternal existence outside of God presence', which translates into 'you'll be unhappy and unloved forever'.
The irony is that what they are describing is actually what is considered the ultimate punishment in Judaism (it is not deemed Hell, though, it is just nothing at all)
The problems with the concept of an omnipotent benevolent deity go way beyond the existence of Satan.
St. Augustine had a good answer. I think just about the only one possible if someone really wants to think through the implications of the Christian deity.
It's just one that is really unpleasant to a modern viewpoint and so people just don't think about the Theodicy problem.
Wasn't St. Augustine's position just that man and Satan created evil by eating the apple/tempting man into eating the apple? How does that solve the problem when God created both man and Satan?
An omniscient deity would certainly have knowledge of the potential for evil in his creations. It's equivalent to saying that if I made a bomb with a trigger that gave it a random chance of exploding, I wouldn't be responsible for any casualties it caused because I didn't technically choose whether it exploded, the trigger did.
Posts
Calvinism is much more depressing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Comparison_among_Protestants
Readings I have done on Catholic belief cite Romans 2.
I always loved that bit.
Edit:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QtAUsjbSAiMC&lpg=PA31&dq=infant%20hell%20protestant&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false
Man, early Protestant Americans were fucked up. Read the last paragraph on the page.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Are they for reals?
See, it's stuff like this that just bugs me.
I mean, my life would be so much easier if I go around and pretend to be Christian.
Women? Man for some reason I attract religious women who, figuratively, runs away screaming once they find out I'm atheist.
Family? Oh man, family get togethers are pure awkwardness. The room will become dead silent whenever one of my little cousins ask me something about religion.
Meeting people? Man, nothing sucks more when people finds out that I'm an atheist. In most circles, it's a freaking social suicide.
I mean, it just boils down to going to church, knowing a few prayers, and owning a bible. I don't even need to read the bible because watching a few season of veggie tales will get me up to speed.
I thought the pope decided that purgatory didn't exist and every other infalable pope before him was wrong on the subject? I wonder how many catholics are aware of that?
He never said that. I love it when large religious issues become multiple choice things.
Basically, saying they get into heaven means you don't have to accept Jesus which screws up shit. Saying they go to regular hell looks really, really bad. So Limbo it is!
Judaism has something similar to this, where people who do not know the 613 commandments are not held liable to them. Even though there's no hell to worry bout there, I always found it amusing that teaching some one the commandments was really just a way of screwing them over, by handing them a whole heap of responsibility.
Then again, being burdened is the entire point of Judaism, so it fits.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
To be fair, there is an interpretation endorsed by Aquinas that runs - it is the inner nature of the bread and wine which becomes that of the body and blood of Christ. In which "the inner nature" refers to it's essential essence ( sort of like it's Platonic ideal/form).
This has the benefits of sidestepping the blatant idiocy, but the disadvantages of making no fucking sense.
Reading stuff like that makes me super happy I live where I live. Most of my friends are atheists or agnostics, almost everyone I meet and talk religion with are sane, reasonable people willing to listen to reason. All my coworkers are Muslim and we often discuss religion and while they don't believe what I believe they do have respect for my knowledge on the subject and my stance.
Last time I took a train I ended up discussing religion with a creationist who while he started out with the whole "Evolution is religion and Darwin is your god" bullshit, he ended up respecting me and my opinion so much then when we got off the train he told me I was intelligent and I should study science because I was clearly good at it and we walked off the train wishing each other well, the entire discussion was a civil exchange of ideas.
Oh, absolutely. Lots of evangelical preachers, like Joel Osteen, really take up the Puritan mantle and preach this. This idea has been in the country so long, it's even transcended it's religious roots and is part of our culture.
Steam: pazython
How often does religion come up in general conversation? I don't know what any of my co-workers believe, and in my last job I only knew about a few of them because one guy kept on trying to provoke us into conversation so he could show how edgy and hardcore he was.
I find it easiest to just keep stuff like that to myself, like my sexual past and choice of underwear.
Everyone should know the glory of boxer-briefs.
Growing up in a fairly secular household, smetimes I wonder if my parents sending me to a relisious school was actually a kind of a joke that they were playing on me.
An uncircumsized male is not allowed to eat from the flesh of a temple sacrifice. That's one of the 613. Why is that knowledge taking up space in my head?
Just like the trinity. I wonder how many believe in the orthodox trinity. That would make an interesting poll.
Sorry to dredge up a conversation from 5 pages ago (before the what-if-aliens-met-Jesus-bit) but to be fair, Buddhists don't have a history of martyrdom that involves taking other people out with them. As Ross said it's generally a response to rights abuses, rather than nonbelief.
Despite what the perception of it in the west may be, though, that doesn't mean Buddhism doesn't have its own special brand of crazy sectarian shit!
(Tibetian Buddhism gets kind of weird sometimes. Like the Dalai Lama declaring Steven Seagal the reincarnation of a Lama)
moreso the devil, honestly. if you have an omnipotent benevolent deity, either the devil is impossible, or else the devil is powerful enough to be considered a second deity, thereby cutting out the "mono"
And the trinity is technically one being, just split into three parts.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Most of the christian concept of hell and the devil was put together from non-biblical texts and interpretations.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Makes for a pretty good story at least.
Just not one you should probably base your worldview around.
Come now Couscous! That's unfair.
Nothing about the Trinity makes sidesteps any idiocy!
Like Scientology, I mean.
From what I'm gathering, Hell is getting pretty tamed. I guess the whole 'eternal torture with rusty spiked dildos' started to sound childish and now they're going with a more mature 'eternal existence outside of God presence', which translates into 'you'll be unhappy and unloved forever'.
You only say such hurtful things because of trauma experienced by your space-ghosts while they were possessing clams, buddy.
I don't think that's really so much the new standard definition yet, but more of a fallback position after an argument turns against the spiked dildo interpretation.
St. Augustine had a good answer. I think just about the only one possible if someone really wants to think through the implications of the Christian deity.
It's just one that is really unpleasant to a modern viewpoint and so people just don't think about the Theodicy problem.
Eh, not really.
Emotional and spiritual fulfillment (and the lack there of) is a much more mature and intellectual concept than corporal reprisal for disobedience. But still at the end of the day, the interpretations vary little from either "You're pissing God off" or "You're breaking God's heart."
Which is why Hell is such a bullshit concept. Even under the widest of considerations, it still makes God into a whiny and insecure parental figure.
Wasn't St. Augustine's position just that man and Satan created evil by eating the apple/tempting man into eating the apple? How does that solve the problem when God created both man and Satan?
An omniscient deity would certainly have knowledge of the potential for evil in his creations. It's equivalent to saying that if I made a bomb with a trigger that gave it a random chance of exploding, I wouldn't be responsible for any casualties it caused because I didn't technically choose whether it exploded, the trigger did.
That one's always good for mindfucking a Sunday Christian.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
And God can't smite an angel?
I mean, why doesn't their god just get rid of the devil?
The irony is that what they are describing is actually what is considered the ultimate punishment in Judaism (it is not deemed Hell, though, it is just nothing at all)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoolhouse_Blizzard