Hell II (Was: Rational thought etc.)

lynx wrote:
 
> Sean McHugh wrote:
 
> > lynx wrote:

> >> Sean McHugh wrote:

> >> Sean.. maybe you posted this without proof reading it?

> > I saw a missing word which was my typo. In your reply I also saw a
> > string of missing words from the middle of a paragraph. But those
> > words appear in my post. Was there something else I missed?
 
> I thought there were several, some duplicated words and a sentence that
> didn't make sense. Perhaps I'm confused, and tired or both. It is Friday
> nite. (I think!? )
 
> > I'm guessing that your position is one of holding some things sacred.
 
> I think that's a principle that's being lost in todays society, and one
> that shouldn't be. As I've been saying, in one way or another, we don't
> seem to be drawing any lines (and I'm not talking just about religion)
> or if we do, we keep crossing them.

Sometimes we have no choice. For instance, mankind had to stop
believing that thunder was the gods getting angry. Hell, especially
the Middle Ages version that I was originally taught, is simply
untenable. It is less credible than what one, as a child, was told
about Santa Claus coming down the chimney.  

> > I understand that. However, because I don't believe in Christianity at
> > all, for me it can't be sacred. That's why I can't see how someone
> > could be sceptical yet demand that Hell (a Rowland versus
> > fundamentalism issue in another strand/thread) be held sacred.

> If you're suggesting that I hold the doctrine of hell sacred, then let
> me say that I don't. I only make the point that it's an essential part
> of christian belief, and to deny that it is is wrong.

No, Hell has been a dynamic construct and as such is _not_ essential.
When I began school we were taught about Hell (by enthusiastic nuns)
as a fiery pit where we would sizzle and fry for eternity if we missed
going to church on a Sunday. By the time I left school, Hell was
hardly mentioned and when it was, it was spoken of as a place where
one is deprived of God. That only became official in 1999:

~ In 1999, Pope John Paul II made headlines by saying hell should be 
~ seen not as a fiery underworld but as "the state of those who 
~ freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source 
~ of all life and joy."

Now the Catholics represent a big slice of Christianity, but it isn't
only the Catholics who have essentially abandoned Hell. Billy Graham
was a fire-and-brimstone Gospel preacher, however his Hell no longer
holds eternal flames. The modified descriptions aren't even as nasty
as what we were taught about purgatory. Hell is now more on par with
Catholicism's Limbo (since abandoned), a place to which babies went if
they died before receiving Baptism. So, gone is the threat of Hell
fire and only a renamed Limbo remains. But even this pseudo-Hell gets
hushed up in churches today. Here is a comment from Harvey Cox Jr. a
religious historian and professor at Harvard Divinity School:

~ You can go to a whole lot of churches week after week, and you'd be 
~ startled even to hear a mention of hell.

> >  To me Hell's absurdity is only exceeded by its obscenity and 
> > associated pomposity.

> That's irrelevant with regard to it's reality or not.

Of course it is relevant! Firstly, something that is _absurd_ tends to
be toward the bottom of the low-credibility pack, meaning it's
extremely unlucky to be true. Secondly, the _obscenity_ aspect is at
odds with a supposedly perfectly good God. Its creator would need to
be an absolute monster. The two proposals become mutually destructive.
Thirdly, those brandi****ng Hell tend to pontificate and try to instil
fear into their subjects. It is a means by which they and the Church
seek to exert power. For a long time it worked as an effective device
to gain control the people and their money. As such it had all the
earmarks of a scam, if not extortion.

Like it or not, Christianity is an evolving thing. The Jews didn't
have Hell. That alone shows it was a late development in Yahwism. The
original 'Christian' Church would better be described as Messianic
Jewish. That was James' Jerusalem Church which held the Apostles. It
appears to have have not only retained Jewish beliefs and wor****p, but
practised them with great intensity. Paul provided the next stage and
can arguably be regarded as the founder of Christianity. He never
mentioned Hell either. It is unlikely it was part of his theology. It
wasn't till we get to the later written Gospels that we hear the first
mention of Hell. Even then, it wasn't till the Middle Ages that Hell
really gained prominence. Art actually played a big role in this:

http://www.the-artfile.com/ArtFile/history/middleages/middleages.htm

~ Often a scene of the Last Judgment can be found above the main 
~ entrance, the west-****tal. This scene reminded the people of 
~ what awaited them and stimulated them to live a good and descent 
~ life. In many other places of the Romaine (Early Middle Ages) 
~ churches the horrifying scenes regarding hell and damnation 
~ can be found, which of course had the same effect on the people. 

The Church provided their 'television' and news re****ts. Today people
are much better informed and except for the most gullible, it is
impossible for them to accept such images/proposals as pertaining to
reality. If the churches returned to issuing such fantastic nonsense,
it would probably be to their peril. Those pu****ng for Hell to be
fully reinstated should consider this. Of course it's no skin off
atheism's nose if they don't. 
 

Best Regards,


Sean McHugh