Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No. The fathers taught that anyone might be condemned, not that anyone will be. God willing there will be none.

---

How many hells [might be] be enough for such?

---

In my opinion, that is a rhetorical question. Not an absolute condemnation.

But you and I have different views of God's character.

Chrysostom denies that there is any judge but Christ. Making him out to condemn those at Sodom is making him a liar in his own teaching. And as I said - who was St John preaching to? Who was he warning in that homily? Those outside or those inside the church?

It seems in both homilies he's not warning anyone. Just encouraging believers that the sexually immoral in Paul's epistles will eventually be punished in hell. Earlier in the Rom. 1 homily he says they are experiencing a taste of that hell now.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No. The fathers taught that anyone might be condemned, not that anyone will be. God willing there will be none.

---

How many hells [might be] be enough for such?

---

In my opinion, that is a rhetorical question. Not an absolute condemnation.

But you and I have different views of God's character.

---

Yes, rhetorically answered that there's not enough hells for such a heinous sin as a man assuming the role of a woman during intercourse.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

It seems in both homilies he's not warning anyone. Just encouraging believers that the sexually immoral in Paul's epistles will eventually be punished in hell. Earlier in the Rom. 1 homily he says they are experiencing a taste of that hell now.

---

He uses the analogy of Sodom which is not ECT hell in my opinion.

Anyway - before the tangent - the original point I was making was addressing the implication that Christianity teaches that all non-Christians are condemned, which is not true. And further, it is not ours to condemn our fellow man. Christ will judge.

Zobel said:

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

But if you scoff at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present.

---

Homilies are not given in a vacuum. This homily is given to his flock as a warning and admonition - if you scoff, let it bring you to a right mind.

Nobody should be "encouraged" that some may be condemned. The whole purpose of the gospel is that nobody is condemned. Our God did not come to condemn the world but to save it, He takes no delight in the death of a sinner. This is a trustworthy saying "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."

Apparently you are encouraged by the idea. It should not be. We must pray for the salvation of all.

If any are experiencing a taste of hell in this life it is for their salvation, as St Paul says - "deliver such a one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

---

I have never understood the mindset of being encouraged by any person's condemnation. Or how it is our place to decide that.

I believe our job is to love, pray for, and hope for every person's salvation.

Zobel said:

---

Anyway - before the tangent - the original point I was making was addressing the implication that Christianity teaches that all non-Christians are condemned, which is not true. And further, it is not ours to condemn our fellow man. Christ will judge.

---

Amen.

Zobel said:

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

But if you scoff at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present.

---

Homilies are not given in a vacuum. This homily is given to his flock as a warning and admonition - if you scoff, let it bring you to a right mind.

Nobody should be "encouraged" that some may be condemned. The whole purpose of the gospel is that nobody is condemned. Our God did not come to condemn the world but to save it, He takes no delight in the death of a sinner. This is a trustworthy saying "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."

Apparently you are encouraged by the idea. It should not be. We must pray for the salvation of all.

If any are experiencing a taste of hell in this life it is for their salvation, as St Paul says - "deliver such a one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

---

I'm using encourage the same way Chrysostom uses console.

Zobel said:

---

Anyway - before the tangent - the original point I was making was addressing the implication that Christianity teaches that all non-Christians are condemned, which is not true. And further, it is not ours to condemn our fellow man. Christ will judge.

---

I took your original post to mean church fathers did not think anybody outside the church would be in hell. All warnings about are [solely] given to believers and as such it will be compromised of ONLY believers. If that's not what you meant, we're good.

Your last post explains a lot.

Thanks.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't know about questioning God. I am suggesting we question a church that claims to speak for God. Do Christian teachings serve God or do they serve Christianity?

---

'Serve' Christianity. What does that mean? What do you consider 'Christianity'? A man made religion created to exist in perpetuity to govern the passions? A system of control appropriated by emperors to pacify people? Is it a simulation running on its own in the wild thats gained sentience?

Second, how does any of that impact whether you are or can ever be in a place to have enough information that you can reasonably conclude God is unjust? You would have to exceed your existence to have enough knowledge and understanding of everything necessary to make that determination. You would need, dare I say, divine intervention or knowledge to reasonably and rationally make that conclusion because you are bounded by your humanity. So when one says, 'look at x injustice, surely that's wrong and Christianity can't be right' one is necessarily stepping way over the line*.

Edit: that is to say, for one who is agnostic or atheist. Obviously other faith traditions rely on similar claims and we'd be having a different discussion.

---

Addressing your questions in reverse order - I am in general agreement with your second paragraph. If we assume a God 'similar' to the Christian God, then concluding God is unjust seems a bit nonsensical. Which is what I meant when I said I don't know about questioning God.


Sorry in advance. . . I can be long winded.

Imagine a politician that states that voting for them will result in betterment and voting for the 'other guy' will result in disaster? We accept that the politician does not have a crystal ball that shows them the future. Rather, they are attempting to sell certain values and ideas to convince voters to act a certain way. The argument for why the politician would enact certain policies is presented in a manner that shows the politician to be interested in serving the public. But, of course, we recognize that politicians often do things which serve themselves or serve their party or their organizations or their friends as priorities above the public. Whenever a politician takes an action, we accept it is reasonable to question if the politician is serving themselves or those they are supposed to be serving.

Or imagine a manufacturer that states that their equipment is superior and that using a competitor's equipment will result in a lesser end product. I expect that anyone else that deals sometimes with salespersons, manufacturer reps., and vendors understands that this can be done with motivation toward making a sale rather than helping a client deliver a better end product.

The politician and the salesperson have a potential self serving motivation in convincing you to act or think a certain way. And there is often not concrete objective evidence to prove their claims. That doesn't mean ALL of their motivations are self serving. . . . it jus means that we have reason to be skeptical of their motivations.

An important question to ask is whether or not religions and religious organizations have potential self serving motivations. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't mean that those self serving motivations explain all of their actions, but it gives us justification for skepticism. Possible self serving motivations can include wealth, property, influence, political power, or simply the survival of the religion.

Is there a possible self serving motivation in the teaching that salvation can only be achieved through Jesus Christ? Or that rejection of Jesus or the Christian God will result in punishment? Is this God's view or is this a politician telling us to vote for them and things will be great / vote for the other guy and things will be terrible? Is it God's rule or is this a salesperson telling you that their equipment is superior and the other equipment will ruin the end product? We don't have to agree on the answer to these questions in order to agree that we could be skeptical of the motivations of human words written in the scriptures, interpreted by human experts, canonized by human leaders, and then organized, selected, packaged, distributed, marketed, and sold by religious organizations for humans? Those scriptures are not God. Neither is the pope, or those experts, or those leaders, or Paul, or anyone else. They present ideas which they claim to be truth and to be in line with God's wishes. And the result of accepting and embracing those ideas often leads to wealth, power, and influence for those making those claims.

If I asked you to invent a religion which would be designed specifically to propagate through the world and result in the maximum number of followers, wealth, and power - how many elements from your own religion would go into this dubious and invented religion? Promises of Heaven. Threats of Hell. Emboldening by the idea that if God is with you, who could be against you? Assurances that you are called to believe without seeing proof?

I didn't write all of this to convince you of anything. . . . . Rather I just mean to explain why I feel that an organization making claims about the nature of an afterlife raises all manner of skeptical red flags for me.

No, that's not what I meant.

I do think it is important the warnings we have are almost entirely given to believers. Very few writings of the church fathers are directed toward nonbelievers - Contra Celsum comes to mind as an exception. People really want to turn warnings of condemnation towards those outside, which is generally the opposite of how they were given.

I don't know who will be condemned, and neither does anyone else. Only Christ knows, because He is the only judge. We must pray for the salvation of all.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't know about questioning God. I am suggesting we question a church that claims to speak for God. Do Christian teachings serve God or do they serve Christianity?

---

'Serve' Christianity. What does that mean? What do you consider 'Christianity'? A man made religion created to exist in perpetuity to govern the passions? A system of control appropriated by emperors to pacify people? Is it a simulation running on its own in the wild thats gained sentience?

Second, how does any of that impact whether you are or can ever be in a place to have enough information that you can reasonably conclude God is unjust? You would have to exceed your existence to have enough knowledge and understanding of everything necessary to make that determination. You would need, dare I say, divine intervention or knowledge to reasonably and rationally make that conclusion because you are bounded by your humanity. So when one says, 'look at x injustice, surely that's wrong and Christianity can't be right' one is necessarily stepping way over the line*.

Edit: that is to say, for one who is agnostic or atheist. Obviously other faith traditions rely on similar claims and we'd be having a different discussion.

---

Addressing your questions in reverse order - I am in general agreement with your second paragraph. If we assume a God 'similar' to the Christian God, then concluding God is unjust seems a bit nonsensical. Which is what I meant when I said I don't know about questioning God.


Sorry in advance. . . I can be long winded.

Imagine a politician that states that voting for them will result in betterment and voting for the 'other guy' will result in disaster? We accept that the politician does not have a crystal ball that shows them the future. Rather, they are attempting to sell certain values and ideas to convince voters to act a certain way. The argument for why the politician would enact certain policies is presented in a manner that shows the politician to be interested in serving the public. But, of course, we recognize that politicians often do things which serve themselves or serve their party or their organizations or their friends as priorities above the public. Whenever a politician takes an action, we accept it is reasonable to question if the politician is serving themselves or those they are supposed to be serving.

Or imagine a manufacturer that states that their equipment is superior and that using a competitor's equipment will result in a lesser end product. I expect that anyone else that deals sometimes with salespersons, manufacturer reps., and vendors understands that this can be done with motivation toward making a sale rather than helping a client deliver a better end product.

The politician and the salesperson have a potential self serving motivation in convincing you to act or think a certain way. And there is often not concrete objective evidence to prove their claims. That doesn't mean ALL of their motivations are self serving. . . . it jus means that we have reason to be skeptical of their motivations.

An important question to ask is whether or not religions and religious organizations have potential self serving motivations. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't mean that those self serving motivations explain all of their actions, but it gives us justification for skepticism. Possible self serving motivations can include wealth, property, influence, political power, or simply the survival of the religion.

Is there a possible self serving motivation in the teaching that salvation can only be achieved through Jesus Christ? Or that rejection of Jesus or the Christian God will result in punishment? Is this God's view or is this a politician telling us to vote for them and things will be great / vote for the other guy and things will be terrible? Is it God's rule or is this a salesperson telling you that their equipment is superior and the other equipment will ruin the end product? We don't have to agree on the answer to these questions in order to agree that we could be skeptical of the motivations of human words written in the scriptures, interpreted by human experts, canonized by human leaders, and then organized, selected, packaged, distributed, marketed, and sold by religious organizations for humans? Those scriptures are not God. Neither is the pope, or those experts, or those leaders, or Paul, or anyone else. They present ideas which they claim to be truth and to be in line with God's wishes. And the result of accepting and embracing those ideas often leads to wealth, power, and influence for those making those claims.

If I asked you to invent a religion which would be designed specifically to propagate through the world and result in the maximum number of followers, wealth, and power - how many elements from your own religion would go into this dubious and invented religion? Promises of Heaven. Threats of Hell. Emboldening by the idea that if God is with you, who could be against you? Assurances that you are called to believe without seeing proof?

I didn't write all of this to convince you of anything. . . . . Rather I just mean to explain why I feel that an organization making claims about the nature of an afterlife raises all manner of skeptical red flags for me.

---

Ok. That's a good start. Who do they 'serve'? Who is served by caring for the poor and marginalized? Who is served by me laying down my life for others? Who is served when I turn the other cheek? Who is served when I am a faithful husband in my marriage? Who is served when I go the extra mile? Who is served when a sinner repents and turns from their ways?

This could really derail into another interesting topic though. There were Judaisms much the way there are denominations in Christianity. You'll do us all a disservice if you lump us together because we are vastly different.

AGC said:

---

Ok. That's a good start. Who do they 'serve'? Who is served by caring for the poor and marginalized? Who is served by me laying down my life for others? Who is served when I turn the other cheek? Who is served when I am a faithful husband in my marriage? Who is served when I go the extra mile? Who is served when a sinner repents and turns from their ways?

This could really derail into another interesting topic though. There were Judaisms much the way there are denominations in Christianity. You'll do us all a disservice if you lump us together because we are vastly different.

---

Promotion of social rules which promote stability, cooperation, and loyalty is not incompatible with a self serving religion. Its difficult to imagine how a religion could be successful in spreading without these elements being a requirement among its own followers as a bare minimum.

Who are you personally serving when you perform 'x' action is a different question from who is being served when a church adopts promoting 'x' action. For my point here, I don't like using your examples of general altruism, because these are fairly universally agreed upon standards of 'moral' behavior. I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

Zobel said:

---

No, that's not what I meant.

I do think it is important the warnings we have are almost entirely given to believers. Very few writings of the church fathers are directed toward nonbelievers - Contra Celsum comes to mind as an exception. People really want to turn warnings of condemnation towards those outside, which is generally the opposite of how they were given.

I don't know who will be condemned, and neither does anyone else. Only Christ knows, because He is the only judge. We must pray for the salvation of all.

---

Another amen.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Ok. That's a good start. Who do they 'serve'? Who is served by caring for the poor and marginalized? Who is served by me laying down my life for others? Who is served when I turn the other cheek? Who is served when I am a faithful husband in my marriage? Who is served when I go the extra mile? Who is served when a sinner repents and turns from their ways?

This could really derail into another interesting topic though. There were Judaisms much the way there are denominations in Christianity. You'll do us all a disservice if you lump us together because we are vastly different.

---

Promotion of social rules which promote stability, cooperation, and loyalty is not incompatible with a self serving religion. Its difficult to imagine how a religion could be successful in spreading without these elements being a requirement among its own followers as a bare minimum.

Who are you personally serving when you perform 'x' action is a different question from who is being served when a church adopts promoting 'x' action. For my point here, I don't like using your examples of general altruism, because these are fairly universally agreed upon standards of 'moral' behavior. I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

---

This may sound harsh but I can't dance around it. Your response is that if my selflessness can be reframed as selfishness then it's not selflessness. That's begging the question. If you assume I'm a liar then I must be, obviously, or I wouldn't be lying. How can I debate if you don't take my answers or those of other Christians at face value?

How are you meaningfully distinguishing between church and individual? Are you asking about specific congregations and denominations? What church?

And no, these are not universally agreed upon morals nor have they ever been. I've mentioned the Yanomamo in the rainforest many times who don't behave this way at all. We could also discuss the Assyrians, Vikings, and many other ancient tribes. The reason you think they are is because Christianity established a foundation in the west which you have inherited. Why not look to Cambodia or Mao to see if these values are universal? Or the hindus discussed earlier who ignore the Dalits in the belief that they have to suffer to atone for an earlier life (to the point where maximizing suffering is beneficial to them). It's disingenuous to keep asserting that they are when in the scope of human history they aren't.

Quote:

---

I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

---

Maybe not many modern religions. But as has been noted, modern religions are greatly influenced by Christian ideals. The religious system of the Aztecs involved mass human sacrifice. The cult of Sol Invictus in ancient Rome was all about conquering, raping, looting and pillaging. The Soviets weren't religious, but their system highly encouraged selfishness and dishonesty to the point that at times only selfish and dishonest people survived. AGC already mentioned the Hindu beliefs regarding lower castes. We have had real problems in our rural hospital with Indian doctors treating poor patients like crap while treating wealthy patients very well. So it's not like all cultures and all religions encourage Christian ideals. OTOH, I think you can find people who live out Christian ideals in any culture, because God has always been right there for anyone who looks.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Promotion of social rules which promote stability, cooperation, and loyalty is not incompatible with a self serving religion. Its difficult to imagine how a religion could be successful in spreading without these elements being a requirement among its own followers as a bare minimum.

Who are you personally serving when you perform 'x' action is a different question from who is being served when a church adopts promoting 'x' action. For my point here, I don't like using your examples of general altruism, because these are fairly universally agreed upon standards of 'moral' behavior. I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

---

This may sound harsh but I can't dance around it. Your response is that if my selflessness can be reframed as selfishness then it's not selflessness. That's begging the question. If you assume I'm a liar then I must be, obviously, or I wouldn't be lying. How can I debate if you don't take my answers or those of other Christians at face value?

How are you meaningfully distinguishing between church and individual? Are you asking about specific congregations and denominations? What church?

And no, these are not universally agreed upon morals nor have they ever been. I've mentioned the Yanomamo in the rainforest many times who don't behave this way at all. We could also discuss the Assyrians, Vikings, and many other ancient tribes. The reason you think they are is because Christianity established a foundation in the west which you have inherited. Why not look to Cambodia or Mao to see if these values are universal? Or the hindus discussed earlier who ignore the Dalits in the belief that they have to suffer to atone for an earlier life (to the point where maximizing suffering is beneficial to them). It's disingenuous to keep asserting that they are when in the scope of human history they aren't.

---

I think you have misread. I have no problem taking your personal action as an act of selflessness. Why would distinguishing between the church and the individual be difficult?

Lets take an example of setting up Christian missionaries or of "working to bring others into the Christian faith" as an example. You may reach out to a non-Christian to share your religion in an attempt to bring them into the faith. And you may do this with totally selfless and pure intentions. However, the result of missionary work often results in the expansion of power, wealth, and influence of the religious group doing the missionary work. For this reason, I think its worth questioning the motivation of the religious organization promoting and funding the missionary work.

From a 10,000 foot view, missionary work for much of the last several centuries is inseparable from the forming and seeking of political alliances and expansion of economic goals. The individual missionary participant often wishes to do good and to act with altruism. The organization often seeks to gain power and does very little to conceal this motivation.

I think you have a greatly distorted view of world morality outside of Christianity. Highlighting some social rules in other societies that we would consider to be backwards does next to nothing to undermine the fact that any successful society has had basic rules of cooperation in place. Every one of those peoples you mention above had basic rules of cooperation for people within their group. Your post reads as though Christianity invented the rules to not murder, steal, or rape and that niceness didn't exist before Jesus taught us what it meant.

And lets not pretend that Christian morality is some monolith of kindness, love, and acceptance. Christians have their fair share of raping and pillaging of their neighbors, killing undesirables, and subjugating 'others'. It doesn't mean that I think Christian morality is 'bad'. It means that it is something that has evolved.

Christians used to have no problem with burning witches, killing heretics, starting religious wars, owning slaves, and committing genocide against barbarian peoples. Today, any of these actions would be condemned vehemently by Christians all of the world. Why?

Has objective morality changed over the years in the eyes of Christians? Or do you accept the premise that the motivations of Christian leaders and their teachings are not immune to self-service and that they can and should be questioned?

Again - I think we should look through the core beliefs of any religion and any rule that has has potential for serving the religion instead of God, I feel should be questioned. I'm not pointing at 'love thy neighbor'. I'm pointing at 'the faithless . . . . shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur'. A religion that threatens punishment for non-compliance is one that is using fear to manipulate people into obedience.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

---

Maybe not many modern religions. But as has been noted, modern religions are greatly influenced by Christian ideals. The religious system of the Aztecs involved mass human sacrifice. The cult of Sol Invictus in ancient Rome was all about conquering, raping, looting and pillaging. The Soviets weren't religious, but their system highly encouraged selfishness and dishonesty to the point that at times only selfish and dishonest people survived. AGC already mentioned the Hindu beliefs regarding lower castes. We have had real problems in our rural hospital with Indian doctors treating poor patients like crap while treating wealthy patients very well. So it's not like all cultures and all religions encourage Christian ideals. OTOH, I think you can find people who live out Christian ideals in any culture, because God has always been right there for anyone who looks.

---

I read a book recently on the Aztecs. The picture of them as bloody thirsty savages spilling rivers of blood on alters is absurd. I am by no means defending the practice, but I think its massively ignorant caricature of an fascinating civilization.

Also - most of the historical numbers I've found for number of human sacrifices carried out by the Aztecs is somewhere around 2.5 percent the number of Africans killed in the Congo by Catholics from Belgium . . . just for reference.

Yes, not all cultures encouraged Christian ideals. Hell, I can't find any Christian cultures that have encouraged what you think of as Christian ideals.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Promotion of social rules which promote stability, cooperation, and loyalty is not incompatible with a self serving religion. Its difficult to imagine how a religion could be successful in spreading without these elements being a requirement among its own followers as a bare minimum.

Who are you personally serving when you perform 'x' action is a different question from who is being served when a church adopts promoting 'x' action. For my point here, I don't like using your examples of general altruism, because these are fairly universally agreed upon standards of 'moral' behavior. I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

---

This may sound harsh but I can't dance around it. Your response is that if my selflessness can be reframed as selfishness then it's not selflessness. That's begging the question. If you assume I'm a liar then I must be, obviously, or I wouldn't be lying. How can I debate if you don't take my answers or those of other Christians at face value?

How are you meaningfully distinguishing between church and individual? Are you asking about specific congregations and denominations? What church?

And no, these are not universally agreed upon morals nor have they ever been. I've mentioned the Yanomamo in the rainforest many times who don't behave this way at all. We could also discuss the Assyrians, Vikings, and many other ancient tribes. The reason you think they are is because Christianity established a foundation in the west which you have inherited. Why not look to Cambodia or Mao to see if these values are universal? Or the hindus discussed earlier who ignore the Dalits in the belief that they have to suffer to atone for an earlier life (to the point where maximizing suffering is beneficial to them). It's disingenuous to keep asserting that they are when in the scope of human history they aren't.

---

I think you have misread. I have no problem taking your personal action as an act of selflessness. Why would distinguishing between the church and the individual be difficult?

Lets take an example of setting up Christian missionaries or of "working to bring others into the Christian faith" as an example. You may reach out to a non-Christian to share your religion in an attempt to bring them into the faith. And you may do this with totally selfless and pure intentions. However, the result of missionary work often results in the expansion of power, wealth, and influence of the religious group doing the missionary work. For this reason, I think its worth questioning the motivation of the religious organization promoting and funding the missionary work.

From a 10,000 foot view, missionary work for much of the last several centuries is inseparable from the forming and seeking of political alliances and expansion of economic goals. The individual missionary participant often wishes to do good and to act with altruism. The organization often seeks to gain power and does very little to conceal this motivation.

I think you have a greatly distorted view of world morality outside of Christianity. Highlighting some social rules in other societies that we would consider to be backwards does next to nothing to undermine the fact that any successful society has had basic rules of cooperation in place. Every one of those peoples you mention above had basic rules of cooperation for people within their group. Your post reads as though Christianity invented the rules to not murder, steal, or rape and that niceness didn't exist before Jesus taught us what it meant.

And lets not pretend that Christian morality is some monolith of kindness, love, and acceptance. Christians have their fair share of raping and pillaging of their neighbors, killing undesirables, and subjugating 'others'. It doesn't mean that I think Christian morality is 'bad'. It means that it is something that has evolved.

Christians used to have no problem with burning witches, killing heretics, starting religious wars, owning slaves, and committing genocide against barbarian peoples. Today, any of these actions would be condemned vehemently by Christians all of the world. Why?

Has objective morality changed over the years in the eyes of Christians? Or do you accept the premise that the motivations of Christian leaders and their teachings are not immune to self-service and that they can and should be questioned?

Again - I think we should look through the core beliefs of any religion and any rule that has has potential for serving the religion instead of God, I feel should be questioned. I'm not pointing at 'love thy neighbor'. I'm pointing at 'the faithless . . . . shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur'. A religion that threatens punishment for non-compliance is one that is using fear to manipulate people into obedience.

---

Edit: need to say a lot of my response is filled with colloquialisms and expressions. They're meant for emphasis, not condescension or hostility.

So let's back up to your question: do Christian teachings serve God or serve [some] 'christianity'?

We waded into Christian teachings and you didn't want to discuss them. Christ himself says if we love Him to follow His commandments (there are ten of those of course and a host of teachings). That's pretty transparent, it's all laid out, it's not really debatable. Honor your father and mother isn't a church thing, it's a person things.

The theology of hell you're upset with is a pretty specific theological idea that doesn't represent all of Christianity (which is why I asked you specifically which one you're objecting to!!). Zobel himself has been laying this out, as did I.

I do not feel that this response is a reasonable response for many reasons:

1) Accumulation of power is not inherently bad. Nor is wealth or influence. These are neutral things. What is the consequence of those things? And is it consistent with teaching?

2) You've shifted from teachings to individuals and started saying that individuals who act contrary to teaching invalidate the teaching. If I miss a math problem it doesn't mean math is immoral or bad, it means I got it wrong. And I may have gotten it wrong for one of many reasons.

3) You've shifted from asserting basic shared human morality to applying it only to the society it governs rather than externally. There's a different between 'rape and pillage is fine for those outside our society' (Vikings, Assyrians, etc.) and the teachings of Christ. Christ doesn't say 'do unto others unless they're not part of Christendom'. That's a huge freaking deal that you're skipping over.

4) You misunderstand even the basic rules of those societies. The yanomamo children play rape games at 10 and 11 where boys will drag a girl into the forest and have their way with her against her will. That's not the basic shared mortality that you asserted everyone has. Xi is forcing abortions and slavery on members of his society (Uighurs) - is that ok because it's an 'in group'? No!

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Promotion of social rules which promote stability, cooperation, and loyalty is not incompatible with a self serving religion. Its difficult to imagine how a religion could be successful in spreading without these elements being a requirement among its own followers as a bare minimum.

Who are you personally serving when you perform 'x' action is a different question from who is being served when a church adopts promoting 'x' action. For my point here, I don't like using your examples of general altruism, because these are fairly universally agreed upon standards of 'moral' behavior. I'm not aware of many religions that openly teach hating the poor, selfishness, hatred, aggression, and lying.

---

This may sound harsh but I can't dance around it. Your response is that if my selflessness can be reframed as selfishness then it's not selflessness. That's begging the question. If you assume I'm a liar then I must be, obviously, or I wouldn't be lying. How can I debate if you don't take my answers or those of other Christians at face value?

How are you meaningfully distinguishing between church and individual? Are you asking about specific congregations and denominations? What church?

And no, these are not universally agreed upon morals nor have they ever been. I've mentioned the Yanomamo in the rainforest many times who don't behave this way at all. We could also discuss the Assyrians, Vikings, and many other ancient tribes. The reason you think they are is because Christianity established a foundation in the west which you have inherited. Why not look to Cambodia or Mao to see if these values are universal? Or the hindus discussed earlier who ignore the Dalits in the belief that they have to suffer to atone for an earlier life (to the point where maximizing suffering is beneficial to them). It's disingenuous to keep asserting that they are when in the scope of human history they aren't.

---

I think you have misread. I have no problem taking your personal action as an act of selflessness. Why would distinguishing between the church and the individual be difficult?

Lets take an example of setting up Christian missionaries or of "working to bring others into the Christian faith" as an example. You may reach out to a non-Christian to share your religion in an attempt to bring them into the faith. And you may do this with totally selfless and pure intentions. However, the result of missionary work often results in the expansion of power, wealth, and influence of the religious group doing the missionary work. For this reason, I think its worth questioning the motivation of the religious organization promoting and funding the missionary work.

From a 10,000 foot view, missionary work for much of the last several centuries is inseparable from the forming and seeking of political alliances and expansion of economic goals. The individual missionary participant often wishes to do good and to act with altruism. The organization often seeks to gain power and does very little to conceal this motivation.

I think you have a greatly distorted view of world morality outside of Christianity. Highlighting some social rules in other societies that we would consider to be backwards does next to nothing to undermine the fact that any successful society has had basic rules of cooperation in place. Every one of those peoples you mention above had basic rules of cooperation for people within their group. Your post reads as though Christianity invented the rules to not murder, steal, or rape and that niceness didn't exist before Jesus taught us what it meant.

And lets not pretend that Christian morality is some monolith of kindness, love, and acceptance. Christians have their fair share of raping and pillaging of their neighbors, killing undesirables, and subjugating 'others'. It doesn't mean that I think Christian morality is 'bad'. It means that it is something that has evolved.

Christians used to have no problem with burning witches, killing heretics, starting religious wars, owning slaves, and committing genocide against barbarian peoples. Today, any of these actions would be condemned vehemently by Christians all of the world. Why?

Has objective morality changed over the years in the eyes of Christians? Or do you accept the premise that the motivations of Christian leaders and their teachings are not immune to self-service and that they can and should be questioned?

Again - I think we should look through the core beliefs of any religion and any rule that has has potential for serving the religion instead of God, I feel should be questioned. I'm not pointing at 'love thy neighbor'. I'm pointing at 'the faithless . . . . shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur'. A religion that threatens punishment for non-compliance is one that is using fear to manipulate people into obedience.

---

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

As you know, I do not believe in traditional hell and think any "punishment" is rehabilitative and not punitive.

As far as "fear", Proverbs 9:10 comes to mind "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

I interpret fear there as respect.

And without respect, how do you get obedience to anything. Whether it is your parents, your teachers, your coaches, the military, your boss, your spouse, etc.

In fact, I think lack of respect for God or outright rejection of Him leads to a lot of what we see in society today. If you respect God and try to be obedient to Him, I think you naturally respect other people.

As a Christian, I believe man has a flawed nature due to original sin.

Because of that, we need respect so we are obedient to God, our parents, the police, etc.

AGC said:

---

Edit: need to say a lot of my response is filled with colloquialisms and expressions. They're meant for emphasis, not condescension or hostility.

So let's back up to your question: do Christian teachings serve God or serve [some] 'christianity'?

We waded into Christian teachings and you didn't want to discuss them. Christ himself says if we love Him to follow His commandments (there are ten of those of course and a host of teachings). That's pretty transparent, it's all laid out, it's not really debatable. Honor your father and mother isn't a church thing, it's a person things.

The theology of hell you're upset with is a pretty specific theological idea that doesn't represent all of Christianity (which is why I asked you specifically which one you're objecting to!!). Zobel himself has been laying this out, as did I.

I do not feel that this response is a reasonable response for many reasons:

1) Accumulation of power is not inherently bad. Nor is wealth or influence. These are neutral things. What is the consequence of those things? And is it consistent with teaching?

2) You've shifted from teachings to individuals and started saying that individuals who act contrary to teaching invalidate the teaching. If I miss a math problem it doesn't mean math is immoral or bad, it means I got it wrong. And I may have gotten it wrong for one of many reasons.

3) You've shifted from asserting basic shared human morality to applying it only to the society it governs rather than externally. There's a different between 'rape and pillage is fine for those outside our society' (Vikings, Assyrians, etc.) and the teachings of Christ. Christ doesn't say 'do unto others unless they're not part of Christendom'. That's a huge freaking deal that you're skipping over.

4) You misunderstand even the basic rules of those societies. The yanomamo children play rape games at 10 and 11 where boys will drag a girl into the forest and have their way with her against her will. That's not the basic shared mortality that you asserted everyone has. Xi is forcing abortions and slavery on members of his society (Uighurs) - is that ok because it's an 'in group'? No!

---

I'm not avoiding discussing certain teachings from Jesus. My position is that much of what appears in religious texts and church teachings could be viewed as being designed to promote the well being of the religious institution. Some texts and teachings can be argued into that position better than others.

The theology of hell is an example. The idea of Heaven is an equally potent example. Regardless of what you think about the motivation behind the teachings of the salvation, it can be seen as and is often used as a carrot and stick. Making a virtue out of belief without evidence is another great one. If you are creating a religion for self serving purposes, why not make it one that offers rewards and punishments in a non-verifiable afterlife. If the religion has no evidence, then calling belief without evidence a virtue makes sense. For mass appeal, make no person beyond redemption - that would be inefficient. The Bible and the words we are told Jesus said comfort us that we are right, they are wrong, we'll get a reward, God always loves us, and anything bad that ever happens will be made right. Its impossible for me to look at the promises of Christianity without thinking of snake oil salesmanship. Buy this elixir, it'll fix you up, make you handsome, bring you wealth, cure your illnesses.

1. That misses my point. An action motivated by wealth, power, and influence and an action motivated by altruism may be the same action. But, the motivations are still different. No?

2. That is not true. I explicitly said otherwise.

3. A society that promotes tribal attitudes, fair rules for the in group, and aggression to the outsiders, is well suited for a time and place in human history. Its less well suited for modern times. If you ignore the whole of the Old Testament and just look at the New Testament, then you have a philosophy more well suited to a more diverse, mixed, and global society. I am thankful for Christianity and I do applaud much of what Jesus said, but I attribute some fair amount of its success over the past few centuries to a focus on the half of the Bible that doesn't promote all of the very things you accuse other societies of.

4. If I ask you about how Christians should treat a person that practices whichcraft, will you quote Jesus or will you give me a Leviticus passage about killing them? If I asked a Christian 400 years ago, what would they say? If I asked you why we don't murder witches today, would you provide the ironic reply that it is because Christianity has taught us not to?

Even if I concede that Christian morality is superior in its promotion of a larger scale cooperation, peace, acceptance, etc., it does not solve the question about motivation. Jesus's teaching has given the tools that Christianity needed to evolve and modernize. A feature of a long term successful religion would need to include an ability to adapt. For a religion to be successful during a period of globalization, it would require it to be more open to a larger scale cooperation.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The entire area of modern Mexico was filled with incredibly blood-thirsty and cruel cultures, and the Aztecs were considered over the top by all of them.

---

History is filled with cultures where violence was a part of the culture. And we really only study the ones that were over the top, because the others don't last very long. Would it be a relevant question to ask if think Christians have ever been the most over the top blood thirsty group within a region?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Edit: need to say a lot of my response is filled with colloquialisms and expressions. They're meant for emphasis, not condescension or hostility.

So let's back up to your question: do Christian teachings serve God or serve [some] 'christianity'?

We waded into Christian teachings and you didn't want to discuss them. Christ himself says if we love Him to follow His commandments (there are ten of those of course and a host of teachings). That's pretty transparent, it's all laid out, it's not really debatable. Honor your father and mother isn't a church thing, it's a person things.

The theology of hell you're upset with is a pretty specific theological idea that doesn't represent all of Christianity (which is why I asked you specifically which one you're objecting to!!). Zobel himself has been laying this out, as did I.

I do not feel that this response is a reasonable response for many reasons:

1) Accumulation of power is not inherently bad. Nor is wealth or influence. These are neutral things. What is the consequence of those things? And is it consistent with teaching?

2) You've shifted from teachings to individuals and started saying that individuals who act contrary to teaching invalidate the teaching. If I miss a math problem it doesn't mean math is immoral or bad, it means I got it wrong. And I may have gotten it wrong for one of many reasons.

3) You've shifted from asserting basic shared human morality to applying it only to the society it governs rather than externally. There's a different between 'rape and pillage is fine for those outside our society' (Vikings, Assyrians, etc.) and the teachings of Christ. Christ doesn't say 'do unto others unless they're not part of Christendom'. That's a huge freaking deal that you're skipping over.

4) You misunderstand even the basic rules of those societies. The yanomamo children play rape games at 10 and 11 where boys will drag a girl into the forest and have their way with her against her will. That's not the basic shared mortality that you asserted everyone has. Xi is forcing abortions and slavery on members of his society (Uighurs) - is that ok because it's an 'in group'? No!

---

I'm not avoiding discussing certain teachings from Jesus. My position is that much of what appears in religious texts and church teachings could be viewed as being designed to promote the well being of the religious institution. Some texts and teachings can be argued into that position better than others.

The theology of hell is an example. The idea of Heaven is an equally potent example. Regardless of what you think about the motivation behind the teachings of the salvation, it can be seen as and is often used as a carrot and stick. Making a virtue out of belief without evidence is another great one. If you are creating a religion for self serving purposes, why not make it one that offers rewards and punishments in a non-verifiable afterlife. If the religion has no evidence, then calling belief without evidence a virtue makes sense. For mass appeal, make no person beyond redemption - that would be inefficient. The Bible and the words we are told Jesus said comfort us that we are right, they are wrong, we'll get a reward, God always loves us, and anything bad that ever happens will be made right. Its impossible for me to look at the promises of Christianity without thinking of snake oil salesmanship. Buy this elixir, it'll fix you up, make you handsome, bring you wealth, cure your illnesses.

1. That misses my point. An action motivated by wealth, power, and influence and an action motivated by altruism may be the same action. But, the motivations are still different. No?

2. That is not true. I explicitly said otherwise.

3. A society that promotes tribal attitudes, fair rules for the in group, and aggression to the outsiders, is well suited for a time and place in human history. Its less well suited for modern times. If you ignore the whole of the Old Testament and just look at the New Testament, then you have a philosophy more well suited to a more diverse, mixed, and global society. I am thankful for Christianity and I do applaud much of what Jesus said, but I attribute some fair amount of its success over the past few centuries to a focus on the half of the Bible that doesn't promote all of the very things you accuse other societies of.

4. If I ask you about how Christians should treat a person that practices whichcraft, will you quote Jesus or will you give me a Leviticus passage about killing them? If I asked a Christian 400 years ago, what would they say? If I asked you why we don't murder witches today, would you provide the ironic reply that it is because Christianity has taught us not to?

Even if I concede that Christian morality is superior in its promotion of a larger scale cooperation, peace, acceptance, etc., it does not solve the question about motivation. Jesus's teaching has given the tools that Christianity needed to evolve and modernize. A feature of a long term successful religion would need to include an ability to adapt. For a religion to be successful during a period of globalization, it would require it to be more open to a larger scale cooperation.

---

You've got a problem presupposing doctrines exist to support an institution before the institution (as you conceive of it) actually exists. The doctrines existed in the infancy of the church and your objections are to things centuries later. How did the disciples make a religion for self-serving purposes? How were they served by it? Didn't seem to keep any of them alive for long, nor did the 'institution'. You've got the idea that the church is some nebulous thing that's been birthed into this world and now exists for its own end, whatever that is. You really can't even define it.

In fact, what institution did Christ serve? I can name one (but that's because I'm a Christian and He's the head of the church) but the concept that you mistrust didn't exist!

1. Sure but why are you the judge and what makes you capable of rendering judgment? You must assume someone is lying if you choose not to believe their words and teachings.

2. I disagree but we'll let it be.

3. When you assume something isn't true or didn't happen it's really hard to prove otherwise. You're stating 'but the OT' and aren't providing examples. These things aren't complicated but you've rejected that divine revelation is a thing or knowledge of God is possible before our discussion so how could we resolve it? Lord of Spirits delves a lot into tribal practice and protocol and what's going on in that time. I mean you might find it fascinating but I don't think you'll say, 'oh sure, that makes total sense and is right.' You also have to disentangle what people did with what God commanded them to do but that's hard when most read it like a history book instead of interpreting it.

4. Clown question. As I said before Christ is the head of the church. We'd also have to explore their practice of witchcraft and it's impact on the community. Are they telling people to kill their babies? Slaughtering animals and leaving threatening signs like voodoo? Trying to channel spirits and demons? I mean you don't believe in the spiritual realm but I sure do and that's not all benign.

What is religion? What is the church? You keep talking about it like it exists and works towards its own end, coopting people along the way. Is it sentient?

Quote:

---

History is filled with cultures where violence was a part of the culture. And we really only study the ones that were over the top, because the others don't last very long. Would it be a relevant question to ask if think Christians have ever been the most over the top blood thirsty group within a region?

---

In my mind, that analysis could only tell us how far off the mark a culture's Christianity is. The European imperial powers are great examples of nations full of Christians where the actions of the nation did not have a Christian character at all. I'm no expert on other religions, but I think some religions are inherently more bloodthirsty than others. For instance, some native Indonesian religious preach cannabilism and human sacrifice. Compare that to Buddhist monks that will only eat fruit because they even refuse to harm plants to get vegetables. So if you find a group of those Buddhists being extremely violent, you can say they are poor examples of Buddhism. If you see a group of Indonesians do the same thing, it might be a faithful representation of their religion. Same for lots of Christian nations. If they are being selfish, violent, dishonest, etc, then they are poor examples of our religion.

So am I wrong in assuming that you believe Christianity tries to coerce people to believe through fear?

And use that to gain control, power, and money?

AGC said:

---

You've got a problem presupposing doctrines exist to support an institution before the institution (as you conceive of it) actually exists. The doctrines existed in the infancy of the church and your objections are to things centuries later. How did the disciples make a religion for self-serving purposes? How were they served by it? Didn't seem to keep any of them alive for long, nor did the 'institution'. You've got the idea that the church is some nebulous thing that's been birthed into this world and now exists for its own end, whatever that is. You really can't even define it.

In fact, what institution did Christ serve? I can name one (but that's because I'm a Christian and He's the head of the church) but the concept that you mistrust didn't exist!

1. Sure but why are you the judge and what makes you capable of rendering judgment? You must assume someone is lying if you choose not to believe their words and teachings.

2. I disagree but we'll let it be.

3. When you assume something isn't true or didn't happen it's really hard to prove otherwise. You're stating 'but the OT' and aren't providing examples. These things aren't complicated but you've rejected that divine revelation is a thing or knowledge of God is possible before our discussion so how could we resolve it? Lord of Spirits delves a lot into tribal practice and protocol and what's going on in that time. I mean you might find it fascinating but I don't think you'll say, 'oh sure, that makes total sense and is right.' You also have to disentangle what people did with what God commanded them to do but that's hard when most read it like a history book instead of interpreting it.

4. Clown question. As I said before Christ is the head of the church. We'd also have to explore their practice of witchcraft and it's impact on the community. Are they telling people to kill their babies? Slaughtering animals and leaving threatening signs like voodoo? Trying to channel spirits and demons? I mean you don't believe in the spiritual realm but I sure do and that's not all benign.

What is religion? What is the church? You keep talking about it like it exists and works towards its own end, coopting people along the way. Is it sentient?

---

1. We all have to make judgements every day about all manner of things. When a politician tells you they stand for 'x and y' and are going to do 'z'. You have to render judgement about what you think they actually believe, their motivations, and and they'll actually do. What makes you capable of rendering that judgement?

"You must assume someone is lying if you choose not to believe their words and teachings."
Disagree. I need only be sufficiently skeptical. If you told me you can bench press 800 pounds, I can choose to not believe you on account that it is a fantastic enough claim as to justify further evidence. I'm not calling you an outright liar.

3. The opposite of this is true as well. When you assume that something is objective truth from God, skepticism is absurd. My posts should be read as an explanation of why I'm skeptical of and why rather than a persuasive argument. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and that is fine.

4. For argument sake, these witches are telling people to kill their babies and channeling demons. What is the appropriate response? How should you treat that witch?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

You've got a problem presupposing doctrines exist to support an institution before the institution (as you conceive of it) actually exists. The doctrines existed in the infancy of the church and your objections are to things centuries later. How did the disciples make a religion for self-serving purposes? How were they served by it? Didn't seem to keep any of them alive for long, nor did the 'institution'. You've got the idea that the church is some nebulous thing that's been birthed into this world and now exists for its own end, whatever that is. You really can't even define it.

In fact, what institution did Christ serve? I can name one (but that's because I'm a Christian and He's the head of the church) but the concept that you mistrust didn't exist!

1. Sure but why are you the judge and what makes you capable of rendering judgment? You must assume someone is lying if you choose not to believe their words and teachings.

2. I disagree but we'll let it be.

3. When you assume something isn't true or didn't happen it's really hard to prove otherwise. You're stating 'but the OT' and aren't providing examples. These things aren't complicated but you've rejected that divine revelation is a thing or knowledge of God is possible before our discussion so how could we resolve it? Lord of Spirits delves a lot into tribal practice and protocol and what's going on in that time. I mean you might find it fascinating but I don't think you'll say, 'oh sure, that makes total sense and is right.' You also have to disentangle what people did with what God commanded them to do but that's hard when most read it like a history book instead of interpreting it.

4. Clown question. As I said before Christ is the head of the church. We'd also have to explore their practice of witchcraft and it's impact on the community. Are they telling people to kill their babies? Slaughtering animals and leaving threatening signs like voodoo? Trying to channel spirits and demons? I mean you don't believe in the spiritual realm but I sure do and that's not all benign.

What is religion? What is the church? You keep talking about it like it exists and works towards its own end, coopting people along the way. Is it sentient?

---

1. We all have to make judgements every day about all manner of things. When a politician tells you they stand for 'x and y' and are going to do 'z'. You have to render judgement about what you think they actually believe, their motivations, and and they'll actually do. What makes you capable of rendering that judgement?

"You must assume someone is lying if you choose not to believe their words and teachings."
Disagree. I need only be sufficiently skeptical. If you told me you can bench press 800 pounds, I can choose to not believe you on account that it is a fantastic enough claim as to justify further evidence. I'm not calling you an outright liar.

3. The opposite of this is true as well. When you assume that something is objective truth from God, skepticism is absurd. My posts should be read as an explanation of why I'm skeptical of and why rather than a persuasive argument. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and that is fine.

4. For argument sake, these witches are telling people to kill their babies and channeling demons. What is the appropriate response? How should you treat that witch?

---

1. I mean no, you don't have to render judgment. There's no law that compels you. We're not talking about gravity, we're talking about internal motivation. It's not remotely analogous to weight lifting and physical constraint. Skepticism doesn't lead to truth, it leads to disbelief so we shouldn't be surprised that you're here. It's not an adequate tool for this purpose.

3. We've devolved from everyone sharing the same morals as Christianity, to those morals just governing in-groups, to just ignoring the context of actions in the name of skepticism. Skepticism doesn't make you better or smarter or even less of a fool. It simply makes you less likely to find truth.

4. Define church and institution as you've been using it first please. I've asked many many times now. And then tell me what rules and governments I'm subject to in this situation.

dermdoc said:

---

So am I wrong in assuming that you believe Christianity tries to coerce people to believe through fear?

And use that to gain control, power, and money?

---

That is far too strong of a statement. Avoid the temptation to set up the false dichotomy of the church being either the Arbiter of the Will of God on Earth and an evil manipulative organization bent on world subjugation.

Christianity is a world religion built on historical texts and beliefs, consisting of tens of thousands of denominations, 2.5 billion followers, all manner of heirarchical structures, leaders, experts, tens of millions of churches, varying philosophies, customs, ideas. . . It is far too big and too complex to say that it is one thing. It is many things.

It is the world's largest religion.
It includes claims about the nature of reality and of human origins.
It is a source for moral philosophy.
It is the source of an enormous amount of goodwill and charity.
It is communities.
. . . . . . .

And yes, in some cases, I am skeptical of the motivations of the original authors, original founders, and its leaders throughout history and leaders today.

Regardless of your own view of what Hell is, the Bible very clearly makes references to some gruesome pain and suffering used as punishment. I know that it does, because I have eyes and know how to read. And regardless of what your view of Hell is, it is an absolute irrefutable FACT that some Christians have used Hell as a threat and warning against certain behavior and certain people. And it is a FACT that many Christians have lived and died believing that Hell is a place for bad people. I am of the opinion that Hell is a concept that has been used BY SOME to manipulate people through fear to act a certain way. And I think it entirely plausible that some of the motivation (perhaps even subconscious) of the original writers was to tap into that fear. The idea of punishment after death was not a new concept that Christianity introduced. The idea existed before Christianity . . . . because fear is a powerful motivator. It is easy to see how fear could be a tool for adding weight to the claims and author is making.

Thats not an accusation against the authors. Its reason for skepticism. But its hard for a person to be skeptical if they are 100% unwilling to admit they might be wrong.

Please acknowledge a difference between offering criticism of a religion and the condemnation of the religion as a fear factory pumping out terror for the purpose of world domination.

Fair enough.

What translation are you referring to?

Young's Literal translation does not have the word hell in it. And is believed to be one of the most accurate translations.

And a lot of Christian scholars believe that Christ was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD when bodies were thrown into Gehenna. And there were worms.

And maybe my statement was too harsh but you sure seem tone fixated on the ECT concept of hel and coercion via fear by Christianity.

Have you been to a church lately? It is not like that at all.

It is like you are fixated on certain aspects of certain strains of Christianity.

And I apologize if what I said seemed too strong.

And may I ask if you believe in justice? And punishment for evil actions?

If man is born intrinsically good, why is there so much evil?

ghandi has incredible PR. he was icky.