Is Islam compatible within Western Society?

[annabenedetti]

Way to avoid what actually happens with regard to rules of engagement. It's like this: Pilot in mission briefing - "But these targets are in populated areas and will cause collateral damage." Mission commander - "Yes, we know. Bomb them anyhow. Our ROE (rules of engagement) do not prevent us from causing collateral damage." Pilot - "So purposefully kill innocent civilians?" Commander - "Yes, we must kill the enemy soldier, even if they are in cities, and innocent Iraqis happen to be nearby." Pilot - "Well, that will sure give these ragheads a reason to not mess with the USA." Commander - "Exactly."

If you support this you support terrorism.

You've reminded me of the Plain of Jars in Laos, bombed so heavily by the U.S. in the Secret War.

Between 1964 and 1973, the Plain of Jars was heavily bombed by the U.S. Air Force (see Secret War) operating against North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao communist forces. The U.S. Air Force dropped more bombs on Laos, primarily the Plain of Jars, than it dropped during the whole of World War II. This included 262 million anti-personnel cluster bombs. An estimated 80 million of these did not explode and remain a deadly threat to the population.^[4][5][6]

​

Noam Chomsky on the book Voices from the Plain of Jars, by Fred Branfman:

The drawings [of the bombings, made by refugees] vividly display the torment of the victims, poor peasants in a remote area that had virtually nothing to do with the Vietnam war, as officially conceded. One typical report by a 26 year-old nurse captures the nature of the air war: “There wasn’t a night when we thought we’d live until morning, never a morning we thought we’d survive until night. Did our children cry? Oh, yes, and we did also. I just stayed in my cave. I didn’t see the sunlight for two years. What did I think about? Oh, I used to repeat, `please don’t let the planes come, please don’t let the planes come, please don’t let the planes come.'” Branfman’s valiant efforts did indeed bring some awareness of this hideous atrocity. His assiduous researches also unearthed the reasons for the savage destruction of a helpless peasant society. He exposes the reasons once again in the introduction to the new edition of Voices. In his words:
“One of the most shattering revelations about the bombing was discovering why it had so vastly increased in 1969, as described by the refugees. I learned that after President Lyndon Johnson had declared a bombing halt over North Vietnam in November 1968, he had simply diverted the planes into northern Laos. There was no military reason for doing so. It was simply because, as U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Monteagle Stearns testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in October 1969, `Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do’.”
Therefore the unused planes were unleashed on poor peasants, devastating the peaceful Plain of Jars, far from the ravages of Washington’s murderous wars of aggression in Indochina.
​

 

[Town Heretic]

I've purposely continued to use the word "general" views of believers. My perception of what happened on the cross doesn't matter. We are talking about the general belief among Christians that if you don't believe like them God sends you to Hell.

I think how we frame a thing matters. And I'd say the idea is that if you insist on living apart from God you bear the consequence of the judgment it invites. I don't blame the judge for a criminal's sentence.

Do you dispute that is the GENERAL belief among American Christians as seen on the famous bumper sticker, "if you are living like there is no God, you better be right," accompanied by pictures of flames?

I'd dispute that as the representation'/expression of how most Christians approach the notion of consequence. People who reduce profound ideas to bumper stickers, in my experience, are the sort who mostly miss the profound part.

I hold my view that most Christians are Christians because they don't want to go to Hell.

I am sorry that you believe that...I know it has no place in my thinking and my best bet is that outside of discussions on the point most people find the affirmative and positive experience of God the larger part of their motivation in maintaining their walk.

That might not be you, but it's nearly every Christian I've ever known.

I think that's a sign of spiritual immaturity...I'd expect to see it among the young or among some new converts who began their walk because of a feeling of guilt and concern over the consequence of their actions, but I'd be surprised to find that maintained into a mature faith.

The Religious Right Wing is a large demographic. And they aren't pushing for secular laws.

They mostly aren't and haven't. You're thinking of the more extreme end. The polling on most Christians is different.

Sure the attitude is shifting, but that is only recent. Is your argument that Christians were not fit for this society until recently?

That issue is recent. I was noting that not only isn't there a move to criminalize there's a far gentler approach to the question of moral choice as an individual right. The last part of your question seems mostly a product of your bias and unfortunate experience of Christians noted prior. This society and the freedoms attending are the byproduct of the people who seem to trouble you. They established and maintained the Republic, however imperfectly. And the legacy of those people remains a marvel of right and freedom, even if we're still a work in progress.

I don't know of any Muslims campaigning for more Sharia Law where I live, and I live in a city with a very large Muslim Somali refugee population.

I'd be surprised if you did given the climate in the country. It's much easier for a small number of vocal Christians to publicly lament. They'll meet some sympathy and little public ridicule.

 

[shagster01]

I think how we frame a thing matters. And I'd say the idea is that if you insist on living apart from God you bear the consequence of the judgment it invites. I don't blame the judge for a criminal's sentence.

Interesting you compare living apart from God to being a criminal deserving of a sentence....

I'd dispute that as the representation'/expression of how most Christians approach the notion of consequence. People who reduce profound ideas to bumper stickers, in my experience, are the sort who mostly miss the profound part.

Again, you compared God to a judge and going to Hell as a sentence for "living apart." If someone doesn't want to be my friend or be close to me, I don't feel the need to punish them for it.

That may not be the focal point of your beliefs, but it is certainly there. Convert or be sentenced, as you essentially said above.

I am sorry that you believe that...I know it has no place in my thinking and my best bet is that outside of discussions on the point most people find the affirmative and positive experience of God the larger part of their motivation in maintaining their walk.

No place in your thinking, yet you eluded to it above. Do you often type things you have no thought of?

I think that's a sign of spiritual immaturity...I'd expect to see it among the young or among some new converts who began their walk because of a feeling of guilt and concern over the consequence of their actions, but I'd be surprised to find that maintained into a mature faith.

Perhaps it is the focal point for young believers, but it never leaves the equation, does it?

They mostly aren't and haven't. You're thinking of the more extreme end. The polling on most Christians is different.


That issue is recent. I was noting that not only isn't there a move to criminalize there's a far gentler approach to the question of moral choice as an individual right. The last part of your question seems mostly a product of your bias and unfortunate experience of Christians noted prior. This society and the freedoms attending are the byproduct of the people who seem to trouble you. They established and maintained the Republic, however imperfectly. And the legacy of those people remains a marvel of right and freedom, even if we're still a work in progress.


I'd be surprised if you did given the climate in the country. It's much easier for a small number of vocal Christians to publicly lament. They'll meet some sympathy and little public ridicule.

So Christianity is liberalizing and society is keeping Muslims quiet?

 

[Town Heretic]

Interesting you compare living apart from God to being a criminal deserving of a sentence....

Given we are speaking of judgment and consequence it seemed appropriate.

Again, you compared God to a judge and going to Hell as a sentence for "living apart." If someone doesn't want to be my friend or be close to me, I don't feel the need to punish them for it.

Neither does God. We aren't hurting his feelings and getting shoved for it. Get past the threshold of the question and consider what the implications are.

That may not be the focal point of your beliefs, but it is certainly there. Convert or be sentenced, as you essentially said above.

Rather, live with God or live without Him and what that entails.

No place in your thinking, yet you eluded to it above.

Well, it's a bit difficult to speak to what I see as a contextual mistake on your part without speaking of or to it.

Do you often type things you have no thought of?

Supra. Or no, but I sometimes find myself thinking less and less about things others type.

Perhaps it is the focal point for young believers, but it never leaves the equation, does it?

I'm not sure what you mean.

So Christianity is liberalizing

Depends on how you view it. Christian majorities are responsible for establishing the freest peoples on earth. A clear majority that could have denied equality or consideration of law as more than an exercise of power chose something else. Imperfect and a work in progress, but a worthy endeavor that didn't come in spite of, but because. I think that has to say something about those people that can't be diminished by inconsistency and error.

and society is keeping Muslims quiet?

Why don't you ever see the Klan parading in Harlem?

You should look at my post in this thread where I took on the subject of Muslims in relation to Sharia. It's here. I don't think you'll find it unfair and it was mostly offered in rebuttal to the too often prevailing notion that Muslims are all somewhat radicalized or interested in undermining our institutions. What I'd expect, given the climate of our day, is that Christians of every stripe would feel reasonably safe in voicing any opinion about their faith because they're not surrounded by suspicion and some degree of hostility from an overwhelming majority. The same cannot be said of Islam within our borders.



As to Islam. If you read my prior post taking on the problematic cherry picking of our latest anti Muslim (see post:

 

[shagster01]

Given we are speaking of judgment and consequence it seemed appropriate.

....Only if true

Neither does God. We aren't hurting his feelings and getting shoved for it. Get past the threshold of the question and consider what the implications are.


Rather, live with God or live without Him and what that entails.

Which is paradise or torment. He felt no need for an in-between.

Well, it's a bit difficult to speak to what I see as a contextual mistake on your part without speaking of or to it.


Supra. Or no, but I sometimes find myself thinking less and less about things others type.

I said most Christians view God as a convert or face punishment type of being. You countered by comparing him to a judge doling out sentences. Not much of a counter.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The thought that leaving the faith means Hell never leaves a Christian's theology.

Depends on how you view it. Christian majorities are responsible for establishing the freest peoples on earth. A clear majority that could have denied equality or consideration of law as more than an exercise of power chose something else. Imperfect and a work in progress, but a worthy endeavor that didn't come in spite of, but because. I think that has to say something about those people that can't be diminished by inconsistency and error.

Eventually. When left largely to Christianity alone we also had slavery and witch hunts though.

Why don't you ever see the Klan parading in Harlem?

You should look at my post in this thread where I took on the subject of Muslims in relation to Sharia. It's here. I don't think you'll find it unfair and it was mostly offered in rebuttal to the too often prevailing notion that Muslims are all somewhat radicalized or interested in undermining our institutions. What I'd expect, given the climate of our day, is that Christians of every stripe would feel reasonably safe in voicing any opinion about their faith because they're not surrounded by suspicion and some degree of hostility from an overwhelming majority. The same cannot be said of Islam within our borders.



As to Islam. If you read my prior post taking on the problematic cherry picking of our latest anti Muslim (see post:

I agree with this for the most part.

 

[shagster01]

Town, I said I feel that both Christianity and Islam are mostly good people who can live in society and both have factions that can't.

And I feel like you came along and said, "let me argue with you about why I completely agree."

Sent from my SCH-I545 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think how we frame a thing matters. And I'd say the idea is that if you insist on living apart from God you bear the consequence of the judgment it invites. I don't blame the judge for a criminal's sentence.

How do you define "insist on living apart"? Do you think every atheist, agnostic or persons of non Christian faith are consciously doing this? Do you think all those who don't believe in this one lifetime are deserving of being eternally cut off?

I'd dispute that as the representation'/expression of how most Christians approach the notion of consequence. People who reduce profound ideas to bumper stickers, in my experience, are the sort who mostly miss the profound part.

What can you possibly expect from dogmas/doctrines that espouse the "consequences" that you believe are part and parcel of not having faith? That being eternal separation/suffering - insert particular version here etc. You fashion your own 'understanding' of 'hell' based around a 'traditional paradigm' of the same yet it really isn't any the more palatable frankly. For example you don't believe that people are literally burned for eternity as that doesn't sit with your understanding of a loving and just God correct? Yet you do think it's all well and good for countless people to be reduced to some irreversible state of being/'becoming' suffering for simply not finding the 'narrow gate' in this one life, right?

I am sorry that you believe that...I know it has no place in my thinking and my best bet is that outside of discussions on the point most people find the affirmative and positive experience of God the larger part of their motivation in maintaining their walk.

TH, in your case the bumper sticker may not read 'turn or burn' but essentially the avoidance aspect of 'hell' is at the forefront and with any traditional take on 'hell' it has to be. There's no point in extolling the virtues and positives of faith when there's a hideous fate lying in wait for anyone who doesn't possess it. That's what people are "saved" from after all isn't it? So how could it possibly not be priority?

I think that's a sign of spiritual immaturity...I'd expect to see it among the young or among some new converts who began their walk because of a feeling of guilt and concern over the consequence of their actions, but I'd be surprised to find that maintained into a mature faith.

You're talking about a belief that involves an eternity of 'hell', from literal burning to unbearable pain/suffering of some other descriptor so it doesn't just apply to the young or new converts. It's a doctrine rooted in absolute fear and you cannot downplay that in any way, your own "watered down" version of it within the 'traditional' notwithstanding.

 

[intojoy]

London's Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan believes Islam is completely compatible within Western Society yet studies contradict this claim. Below are the results of a study on a representative 1081 muslims of the more than 3 million living in Britain:



Only 74 percent completely condemn “suicide bombing to fight injustice”;
Only 66 percent completely condemn stoning those who commit adultery;
Only 53 percent completely condemn violence against those who mock Muhammad;
Only 34 percent would contact police if they believed someone close to them was involved with jihadism;
23 percent believe Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations;
52 percent believe homosexuality should be illegal;
31 percent believe polygamy should be legal;
39 percent believe women should always obey their husbands;
35 percent believe Jews have too much power in the UK.


Is the Muslim mayor correct or is Donald Trump?

Sure it is. Just they have to be in dictatorial headship of everyone else. Except lgbt they're not humans.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Town Heretic]

....Only if true

I don't see how that factors into the parallel.

Which is paradise or torment. He felt no need for an in-between.

The Catholics might take umbrage, but there's nothing between sin and grace.

I said most Christians view God as a convert or face punishment type of being.

I know. I don't agree with you.

You countered by comparing him to a judge doling out sentences. Not much of a counter.

It wouldn't be if your assertion were fair, but it isn't. I wasn't trying to "counter" anything. I was demonstrating the impact of context. Yours appeared to shift something important. I shifted it back.

The thought that leaving the faith means Hell never leaves a Christian's theology.

I don't believe I understand your sentence. And I haven't said hell left my theology. It simply doesn't factor into why I'm a Christian.

Eventually. When left largely to Christianity alone we also had slavery and witch hunts though.

Slavery wasn't a Christian invention, though Christendom did eventually bring the practice to an end. As to power and its exercise, it has a way of oppressing someone and harming those outside of the power structure. One of the remarkable things about our experiment is how we've steadily marginalized that particular.

Town, I said I feel that both Christianity and Islam are mostly good people who can live in society and both have factions that can't.

And I feel like you came along and said, "let me argue with you about why I completely agree."

:chuckle: I never said we were worlds apart, but I had some disagreement with how you chose to view and portray mainstream Christendom and I felt it was worth noting, if genially. :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

How do you define "insist on living apart"? Do you think every atheist, agnostic or persons of non Christian faith are consciously doing this? Do you think all those who don't believe in this one lifetime are deserving of being eternally cut off?

I'm simply distinguishing between those who have accepted grace and those who haven't.

What can you possibly expect from dogmas/doctrines that espouse the "consequences" that you believe are part and parcel of not having faith? That being eternal separation/suffering - insert particular version here etc. You fashion your own 'understanding' of 'hell' based around a 'traditional paradigm' of the same yet it really isn't any the more palatable frankly. For example you don't believe that people are literally burned for eternity as that doesn't sit with your understanding of a loving and just God correct? Yet you do think it's all well and good for countless people to be reduced to some irreversible state of being/'becoming' suffering for simply not finding the 'narrow gate' in this one life, right?

I think it's just that men bear the consequence of working a willful evil. The rest is grace.

TH, in your case the bumper sticker may not read 'turn or burn' but essentially the avoidance aspect of 'hell' is at the forefront and with any traditional take on 'hell' it has to be. There's no point in extolling the virtues and positives of faith when there's a hideous fate lying in wait for anyone who doesn't possess it. That's what people are "saved" from after all isn't it? So how could it possibly not be priority?

I'd distinguish between what motivates me in relation to God and my concern for those who live outside of God's grace, especially those who willfully do so, who show up here now and again to tell the faithful that they'd prefer to spit in God's face. That sort of thing. I don't agree that there's no point in extolling virtue in the face of depravity, to move it a bit. I think there's so much to be gained by living for God if we present Him correctly the subject of failing to will be a philosophical and marginal point.

You're talking about a belief that involves an eternity of 'hell', from literal burning to unbearable pain/suffering of some other descriptor so it doesn't just apply to the young or new converts.

We differ on the point then. Outside of discussions like this I couldn't tell you a day when hell crossed my mind, though I thank God every day for my life, for His guidance in it and for making me a new creature with a different understanding and desire than I had in my former life.

It's a doctrine rooted in absolute fear and you cannot downplay that in any way, your own "watered down" version of it within the 'traditional' notwithstanding.

Hell is a peculiar doctrine, mostly useful as a motivation for witness. If you don't believe in Christ and grace what should it mean to you? And if you do, what can it have for you? I was brought up in a church filled with decent people doing good work. I admired the work but never thought much of the mythology until it ceased to be mythology to me. I never feared hell because it would be irrational to worry about the byproduct of a thing I didn't believe in. And when I did believe I had no reason to fear it.

In any event we've had at least one fairly exhaustive discussion on the topic and I can't see any profit in revisiting the ground and I doubt either of us could convince the Pope to change hats, so to speak.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm simply distinguishing between those who have accepted grace and those who haven't.

Which means what exactly? You're quite prepared to justify anyone who hasn't believed to this "hell" you believe in when some years back you'd have been arguing against the notion just the same as I am. You used child cancer wards as argument in opposition to theism when you were an atheist, correct? So why do you think other people should suffer or become your envision of 'hell' when you could so easily have been one of its number had you died while 'believing' as you did?

I think it's just that men bear the consequence of working a willful evil. The rest is grace.

So would this apply to you when you were an atheist then? If you snuffed it while an unbeliever you'd fully deserve to 'become' suffering or the notion of 'hell' you believe in now you're a theist? You apply that to everyone else "invincible ignorance" notwithstanding (whatever that really actually means).

I'd distinguish between what motivates me in relation to God and my concern for those who live outside of God's grace, especially those who willfully do so, who show up here now and again to tell the faithful that they'd prefer to spit in God's face. That sort of thing. I don't agree that there's no point in extolling virtue in the face of depravity, to move it a bit. I think there's so much to be gained by living for God if we present Him correctly the subject of failing to will be a philosophical and marginal point.

If you were offered a bag of sweets and failure to accept such resulted in being tossed in a vat of acid then do the math TH. The doctrine of 'hell' in its *traditional format* is utterly rooted in absolute fear. I'm not on about rabid anti theists who would argue against belief sans hell or some such anyway so that's moot.

We differ on the point then. Outside of discussions like this I couldn't tell you a day when hell crossed my mind, though I thank God every day for my life, for His guidance in it and for making me a new creature with a different understanding and desire than I had in my former life.

Then maybe you should start thinking about it when you glibly reduce such a concept to little other than a talking point. That way, you might just get why some folk find the notion of eternal suffering of any description absolutely abhorrent, hopeless, despairing and bereft of love.

Hell is a peculiar doctrine, mostly useful as a motivation for witness. If you don't believe in Christ and grace what should it mean to you? And if you do, what can it have for you? I was brought up in a church filled with decent people doing good work. I admired the work but never thought much of the mythology until it ceased to be mythology to me. I never feared hell because it would be irrational to worry about the byproduct of a thing I didn't believe in. And when I did believe I had no reason to fear it.

You think it's useful? Why? Seriously, why? You say it's peculiar so What version of 'hell' is peculiar exactly? Details please.

In any event we've had at least one fairly exhaustive discussion on the topic and I can't see any profit in revisiting the ground and I doubt either of us could convince the Pope to change hats, so to speak.

Maybe I'm hoping that the compassionate side of your nature will question such a concept you seem religiously bound to. Your intellect isn't bound so hey.

Maybe a forlorn hope but if your belief is right there'll be plenty of them to go around anyway...

 

[Krsto]

You've reminded me of the Plain of Jars in Laos, bombed so heavily by the U.S. in the Secret War.

Between 1964 and 1973, the Plain of Jars was heavily bombed by the U.S. Air Force (see Secret War) operating against North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao communist forces. The U.S. Air Force dropped more bombs on Laos, primarily the Plain of Jars, than it dropped during the whole of World War II. This included 262 million anti-personnel cluster bombs. An estimated 80 million of these did not explode and remain a deadly threat to the population.^[4][5][6]

​

Noam Chomsky on the book Voices from the Plain of Jars, by Fred Branfman:

The drawings [of the bombings, made by refugees] vividly display the torment of the victims, poor peasants in a remote area that had virtually nothing to do with the Vietnam war, as officially conceded. One typical report by a 26 year-old nurse captures the nature of the air war: “There wasn’t a night when we thought we’d live until morning, never a morning we thought we’d survive until night. Did our children cry? Oh, yes, and we did also. I just stayed in my cave. I didn’t see the sunlight for two years. What did I think about? Oh, I used to repeat, `please don’t let the planes come, please don’t let the planes come, please don’t let the planes come.'” Branfman’s valiant efforts did indeed bring some awareness of this hideous atrocity. His assiduous researches also unearthed the reasons for the savage destruction of a helpless peasant society. He exposes the reasons once again in the introduction to the new edition of Voices. In his words:
“One of the most shattering revelations about the bombing was discovering why it had so vastly increased in 1969, as described by the refugees. I learned that after President Lyndon Johnson had declared a bombing halt over North Vietnam in November 1968, he had simply diverted the planes into northern Laos. There was no military reason for doing so. It was simply because, as U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Monteagle Stearns testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in October 1969, `Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do’.”
Therefore the unused planes were unleashed on poor peasants, devastating the peaceful Plain of Jars, far from the ravages of Washington’s murderous wars of aggression in Indochina.
​

^{HOLY CRAP!}

 

[Town Heretic]

Which means what exactly? You're quite prepared to justify anyone who hasn't believed to this "hell" you believe in

I don't need to justify God's justice any more than I need to rationalize his mercy...There are any number of things people advance about hell that don't find their root in scripture, but the idea of hell itself isn't one of those. So while there are all sorts of questions relating to the point, the foundation is faith, a trust in God on the point of judgment. I'd say the cross alone buys Him that trust.

when some years back you'd have been arguing against the notion just the same as I am. You used child cancer wards as argument in opposition to theism when you were an atheist, correct? So why do you think other people should suffer or become your envision of 'hell' when you could so easily have been one of its number had you died while 'believing' as you did?

Should is a curious word. If I described the effect of gravity on someone stepping off the face of a high mountain I don't think you'd ask me why I think that person should fall. You might ask, reasonably, why I believe they will fall and I'd say gravity, just as I'd say the consequence of sin is judgment and death. But grace defies gravity and the God who advances it merits trust in His judgment and application...which is one reason I rarely involve myself in this sort of discussion and I only involved myself to begin with over what seemed to me a more important point, understanding Christendom as more than a thin sketch.

So would this apply to you when you were an atheist then?

Was I left in that state without some notion of a fair chance to see myself and understand the context and consequence of sin, within this life and in relation to the next?

If you were offered a bag of sweets and failure to accept such resulted in being tossed in a vat of acid then do the math TH. The doctrine of 'hell' in its *traditional format* is utterly rooted in absolute fear. I'm not on about rabid anti theists who would argue against belief sans hell or some such anyway so that's moot.

I don't think that's the analogy. I'm not a Christian because someone sold me on a bag of promised confection or because someone tapped their nightstick against their leg while they explained the beating I was in line for if I didn't obey the law. I believe that at some point in life most of us will come to a point where we can examine and know ourselves in a way that precludes the hero narrative we mostly run, that when that happens we become responsible for the willful evil that we do.

Tell a lie for an easy advantage and the next lie becomes easier to tell. Why? It's in the nature of sin to transform us, just as it is in the nature of grace to transform us. There are two masters in the world and our actions serve one or the other. Part of the essential tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand that principle. The good news is that for most that cumulative damage isn't enough to preclude seeing and acting on God's promise. A truly hardened heart is a monstrous thing. A person who has consciously chosen evil for evil's sake is a monstrous thing.

Then maybe you should start thinking about it when you glibly reduce such a concept to little other than a talking point.

I'm not being glib any more than my advance on hell was "watered down" before...we simply differ. I won't have a conversation with you about this if you feel the need to use that approach as a part of your methodology. I have a fairly hard rule on the point when it comes to arguing with friends. Good natured insult can happen all day, but that can't.

That way, you might just get why some folk find the notion of eternal suffering of any description absolutely abhorrent, hopeless, despairing and bereft of love.

I think you might want to reconsider that. I don't really believe anyone who contemplates hell at any point in their lives has a difficulty in understanding its horror. So I don't think I have to see it as you do or be someone in need of "getting" the point.

You think it's useful? Why? Seriously, why?

I told you, as a means to motivate those who have been saved to bear witness, though I still believe the nature of that witness, its most powerful draw is found in the evidence of grace among God's people.

You say it's peculiar so What version of 'hell' is peculiar exactly? Details please.

I told you why I thought it was peculiar. Here it is again: if I don't believe in God I can't fear a thing supported by that God and if I am of the Body I have no reason to fear it, except for others.

Maybe I'm hoping that the compassionate side of your nature will question such a concept you seem religiously bound to. Your intellect isn't bound so hey.

God seems clear on the point and that's where my trust and context must begin. I believe one of the chief enemies of the faith, one of the most effective tools that the devil has found to separate the faithful from an active walk lives in the whisper in our ear that we are the fit judges of the Author of judgment, that we should impress our judgment on His word and demand an accounting and conforming to our understanding instead of judging our understanding insufficient and asking God for the wisdom to conform to His...I think it's a tragedy of the modern age especially and one I've watched pull people away from faith and into a hostile shadow in the guise of liberation and ease. The fruit that follows rarely tastes of either.

Maybe a forlorn hope but if your belief is right there'll be plenty of them to go around anyway...

If I'm right then God is both just and merciful and I can trust that no judgement of His could be capricious or malicious and in that trust ends the trouble of hell.

 

[PureX]

"Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do’.”
Therefore the unused planes were unleashed on poor peasants, devastating the peaceful Plain of Jars, far from the ravages of Washington’s murderous wars of aggression in Indochina.
[/INDENT]

Expending ordinance (bombs) is very good for the military industrialists who routinely bribe the legislature for contracts to build more. Making war has become a big business in America. Halliburton, alone, netted billions of dollars from our completely useless invasion and occupation of Iraq. And in fact, it's the whole reason that we did it. (Dick Cheney being a recent CEO of Halliburton, and fully invested in the company. Dick Cheney also being the man that convinced G.W. Bush to invade Iraq.)

The United States has been killing people in other countries for profit since the 1950s. We also have a long history of causing the fall of governments in countries that have oil, or some other resource we want, and then installing petty dictators like Saddam in Iraq and the Shaw in Iran so we can exploit their oil while the petty dictators we installed exploit and brutalize their people.

 

[Krsto]

Expending ordinance (bombs) is very good for the military industrialists who routinely bribe the legislature for contracts to build more. Making war has become a big business in America. Halliburton, alone, netted billions of dollars from our completely useless invasion and occupation of Iraq. And in fact, it's the whole reason that we did it. (Dick Cheney being a recent CEO of Halliburton, and fully invested in the company. Dick Cheney also being the man that convinced G.W. Bush to invade Iraq.)

The United States has been killing people in other countries for profit since the 1950s. We also have a long history of causing the fall of governments in countries that have oil, or some other resource we want, and then installing petty dictators like Saddam in Iraq and the Shaw in Iran so we can exploit their oil while the petty dictators we installed exploit and brutalize their people.

Exactly right, and why it should be illegal for anyone with decision making ability or major influence to own stock in companies that profit from war. If they get elected, or appointed, they should be required to sell off their stock immediately. This should apply toward prez, vice prez, secdef, sec of state, and all generals.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't need to justify God's justice any more than I need to rationalize his mercy...There are any number of things people advance about hell that don't find their root in scripture, but the idea of hell itself isn't one of those. So while there are all sorts of questions relating to the point, the foundation is faith, a trust in God on the point of judgment. I'd say the cross alone buys Him that trust.

Which "idea" of "hell" is the right one? How assured are you that your particular belief on the score is correct?

Should is a curious word. If I described the effect of gravity on someone stepping off the face of a high mountain I don't think you'd ask me why I think that person should fall. You might ask, reasonably, why I believe they will fall and I'd say gravity, just as I'd say the consequence of sin is judgment and death. But grace defies gravity and the God who advances it merits trust in His judgment and application...which is one reason I rarely involve myself in this sort of discussion and I only involved myself to begin with over what seemed to me a more important point, understanding Christendom as more than a thin sketch.

Gravity is impersonal, it's merely a force that's there, it isn't judging anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in its grip while falling down a mountain or some such. Comparing physical laws to an unproven doctrinal idea of justice/consequence fails. You may believe that eternal hell of some sort awaits non believers but there's no proof for it, nor is it set in stone and not all Christians believe in such a thing either.

Was I left in that state without some notion of a fair chance to see myself and understand the context and consequence of sin, within this life and in relation to the next?

So those who don't agree on what you believe to be the consequences are simply misunderstanding?

I don't think that's the analogy. I'm not a Christian because someone sold me on a bag of promised confection or because someone tapped their nightstick against their leg while they explained the beating I was in line for if I didn't obey the law. I believe that at some point in life most of us will come to a point where we can examine and know ourselves in a way that precludes the hero narrative we mostly run, that when that happens we become responsible for the willful evil that we do.

You may not be but you simply cannot deny that 'turn or burn' doctrine of any description is primarily rooted in fear. Take a look at a 'chick tract' and that would sum up many an evangelical church by way of. Sure, most people will probably take an honest look at themselves at some point but 'hell' shouldn't have any remote bearing on that process.

Tell a lie for an easy advantage and the next lie becomes easier to tell. Why? It's in the nature of sin to transform us, just as it is in the nature of grace to transform us. There are two masters in the world and our actions serve one or the other. Part of the essential tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand that principle. The good news is that for most that cumulative damage isn't enough to preclude seeing and acting on God's promise. A truly hardened heart is a monstrous thing. A person who has consciously chosen evil for evil's sake is a monstrous thing.

And the very same person who lies for self gain or to protect themselves may very well commit an act of kindness for someone half an hour later. Most people are a mixture. A truly hardened heart is just that but few reach such a state and a doctrine of horror would hardly be likely to soften it but love might have a shot...

I'm not being glib any more than my advance on hell was "watered down" before...we simply differ. I won't have a conversation with you about this if you feel the need to use that approach as a part of your methodology. I have a fairly hard rule on the point when it comes to arguing with friends. Good natured insult can happen all day, but that can't.

I'm not saying you're being deliberately glib but you do downplay the coercion of a doctrine that feeds on fear. I've been in churches that advance it and seen the effects of such a monstrous doctrine both on myself and on other people.

I think you might want to reconsider that. I don't really believe anyone who contemplates hell at any point in their lives has a difficulty in understanding its horror. So I don't think I have to see it as you do or be someone in need of "getting" the point.

Reconsider what exactly? It's the actual 'horror' of such doctrines that make it completely open to question. It alienates, it's incomprehensible, it shocks, it manipulates and is utterly grounded in anything but love.

I told you, as a means to motivate those who have been saved to bear witness, though I still believe the nature of that witness, its most powerful draw is found in the evidence of grace among God's people.

So again, it's fear as the primary. Not much point in going on about how great and fulfilling such a life of faith is if the alternative is to interminably rot in some sort of horrific state. Avoiding that is priority as you must surely see, else you're back to downplaying it all again.

I told you why I thought it was peculiar. Here it is again: if I don't believe in God I can't fear a thing supported by that God and if I am of the Body I have no reason to fear it, except for others.

So you do admit there's fear then. Kinda my point.

God seems clear on the point and that's where my trust and context must begin. I believe one of the chief enemies of the faith, one of the most effective tools that the devil has found to separate the faithful from an active walk lives in the whisper in our ear that we are the fit judges of the Author of judgment, that we should impress our judgment on His word and demand an accounting and conforming to our understanding instead of judging our understanding insufficient and asking God for the wisdom to conform to His...I think it's a tragedy of the modern age especially and one I've watched pull people away from faith and into a hostile shadow in the guise of liberation and ease. The fruit that follows rarely tastes of either.

Clear? You might want to say that to all those who have a myriad interpretations on the subject then. Even among those who believe it to be eternal there's no consistency as to just what it comprises of exactly. Everything from literal burning fire to psychological torment, combinations thereon etc etc etc. Never mind annihilationism/universalism etc. For something that's so "clear" there's a "hell" of a lot of differing takes on the matter, so how do you explain that?

Questioning doctrines is no bad thing.

If I'm right then God is both just and merciful and I can trust that no judgement of His could be capricious or malicious and in that trust ends the trouble of hell.

Fair enough but that kinda boots out most hell doctrines anyway.

 

[annabenedetti]

Expending ordinance (bombs) is very good for the military industrialists who routinely bribe the legislature for contracts to build more. Making war has become a big business in America. Halliburton, alone, netted billions of dollars from our completely useless invasion and occupation of Iraq. And in fact, it's the whole reason that we did it. (Dick Cheney being a recent CEO of Halliburton, and fully invested in the company. Dick Cheney also being the man that convinced G.W. Bush to invade Iraq.)

The United States has been killing people in other countries for profit since the 1950s. We also have a long history of causing the fall of governments in countries that have oil, or some other resource we want, and then installing petty dictators like Saddam in Iraq and the Shaw in Iran so we can exploit their oil while the petty dictators we installed exploit and brutalize their people.

And then there's Afghanistan, and South America, and...

 

[Nick M]

 

[Nick M]

Isn't funny how AB x2 and their jinxed Russian friend never criticize how muslims treat homos?

 

[Nick M]

This muslim "migrant" called her a whore for how she is dressed. Then attacked her. Not a word of protest, again, from the left.