Some thoughts while shoveling yesterday about religion's contributions

[Goblinmonger]

While shoveling for 1.5 hours yesterday, I was thinking about the discussion on here about the contributions of faith and religion to society. I thought it was cool that so many people were talking about such a wide variety of religions that spanned such a long time and such a large spectrum of beliefs and how all of those religions contributed positively, to some degree, to society. I really was being positive.

Then I had another thought that was not so positive:

A vast majority of people on this website (not to mention the less progressive) who are christian (and used those pieces of religious art to support why religion is a good thing) believe that the same people that created those fantastic works of religious art will be/are burning in hell because they did not accept Jesus as their savior. And even worse, combining a couple of threads, the Buddhist that made a beautiful temple will be in hell right along with Pol Pot who may have personally executed that same Buddhist.

I can probably write this off as too much time on my hands while shoveling, but I thought I would try and get your thoughts. Sorry in advance for pissing some people off.

[Deep13]

1. I'm unaware of any positive contributions of religion.

Most of the examples one can cite are merely reactions to bad things also caused by religion or else the religious aspect of something positive was merely incidental to it.

[Bellamia]

2. No positive contribution?????????

That's sure a jaundiced view. "Religion" contibutes such things as the Ten Commandments or the Eightfold Path. It is those who presumably follow the tenets but are more hypocritcal than anything that give Religion a bad name. I can think of one: GWB.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Well

The Ten Commandments are a combination of secular and religious laws. The secular laws were nothing new. The religious laws, in my opinion, caused a lot of problems by leading to wars and such.

The Eightfold Path doesn't really come from a Religion. Buddhism has no dogma and, therefore, is a philosophy and not a religion.

[Orrex]

12. Some forms of Buddhism embrace the notion of reincarnation, do they not?

It can still be a philosophy, of course, but if it holds with supernatural beliefs, then it's a religion.

[manic expression]

25. Shinto doesn't have a dogma, either

neither do any of the traditional religions of Africa, or the Americas or Europe (paganism). Neo-paganism/reconstructionism has no real dogma.

They are all religions.

Hinduism has many philosophies within it that are part of the religion.

By the way, does Zoroastrianism have a dogma? I'm not sure.

[Deep13]

8. The ten commandments punish people for thought.

Anyway, one does not need religion to have rules for society. That is one of those things that I would consider incidental to religion.

I am only vaguely familiar with the Eightfold path, but reject any philosophy that encourages people to forsake the real world for an imaginary one.

[Goblinmonger]

3. Couple things

1. :popcorn:
2. I would generally agree with you.
3. There are two threads in Religion/Theology that deal with this. One started by me and another one (not sure why mine wasn't enough--my pessimistic thought is that I am not a theist, my optimistic thought is that mine said "religion" and the other said "faith"). Most of the discussion is about art.

[sybylla]

5. Mere humans are not competent to speak for God

That's my thought, since you asked. Like you, I'm not a theist. And like you, I spend some really strange hours thinking about religion. Reading your thoughts and knowing I've been through them myself before, the most rational conclusion I came to is that humans, at best, do not have the whole story and are not qualified to expound on God.

[Goblinmonger]

6. To be honest, my thoughts were not about God

but about how the people that espoused the "religious" achievements of some came to grips with that in light of their belief that those same people will end up in hell.

As an atheist, there is no god. All of us are just worm food when we are dead, so this offers no cognitive dissonance for me. I was just wondering how those that is should provide cognitive dissonance for dealt with it.

[supernova]

7. I don't know that you can say that

about most DUers who happen to identify as xtian.

A vast majority of people on this website (not to mention the less progressive) who are christian (and used those pieces of religious art to support why religion is a good thing) believe that the same people that created those fantastic works of religious art will be/are burning in hell because they did not accept Jesus as their savior.

I, for one, don't believe in the stereotypical Hell and I'm xtain. So, no I don't think we wind up there when we die. That's a societal construt to me, rather than something rooted in theology.

That might make for an interesting poll question. Just sayin'.

[Goblinmonger]

11. I would suggest

that the vast majority of xian religions have dogma that indicates hell is a reality. And that dogma is pretty consistant that non-believers will be in that hell.

This is not to deny what you believe, but I have had conversations with many on DU that reflect that dogma.

[supernova]

14. And I would equally suggest

that perhaps your experience with certain DUers is self-selective.

I'm not doubting your experince. However, to say, in effect:

- Most xtain dogma preaches hell, ergo most DUer xtains must believe in hell doesn't follow. There's a wide range of xtain beliefs represented at DU, not all of them fundamentalist or even orthodox.

I think to get a representative sample, you'd have to ask us how we interpret that concept.

[Goblinmonger]

16. I think I am asking DUers for their interpretation of the concept

That is why I posted this.

So which christian religions don't believe in the concept of hell? I can't think of any off the top of my head. I'm not trying to be sardonic; I really want to know.

[hfojvt]

129. well Jehovah's Witnesses don't

although they might not be considered "Christian". Same with Unitarians.

For an example, it is not that the Methodist Church does not teach the concept of hell, but in practical terms that alot of Methodists, such as myself, do not believe in it. Even in the Free Methodist church, which is as fundy as the Nazarenes, they did not spend that much time talking or thinking about hell. So I could go there without alot of cognitive dissonance or conflict.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. It is not for me to judge another's actions

and whether or not those actions will result in a hellish afterlife. I belive that most religions suggest that one's primary task should be looking after their own soul and personality, and not worry about others.

[Goblinmonger]

10. I think it is the dogma of most all xian religions

that the non-believer is destined to an eternity of hell. Hence the Universalist movement (which, for the most part, failed). Now, you may not be xian, but that was the point of my initial post.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. that is the dogma of most faiths

as I tried to explain in my post. No, I am not Christian, btw. :)

[More Than A Feeling]

13. I also reject the premise of your thought

I think the "vast majority of people on this website who are christian" can speak for themselves whether they believe that or not.

I don't know whether those people are in hell or not. I honestly haven't thought about it recently, and I sure as heck don't have a firm belief about it.

I won't argue with a strawman.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Why are you tossing around words like "strawman"

I don't make a strawman argument. I tell you what I thought; I ask for your input on my thoughts. That's not a strawman, thats asking

the "vast majority of people on this website who are christian" {to} speak for themselves whether they believe that or not

I am doing exactly what you say I should do, yet you accuse me of a logical fallacy. That would make YOU the person who is making the stawman, not I.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Um, you're stereotyping religious people there

The idea that all non-Christians are going to hell is like one of those ancient laws about buggy whips that are still on the books in some towns but are no longer part of the actual life of the town.

I've been attending Lutheran and Episcopal churches for all my 55 years, and I've never heard anyone preach that non-Christians are going to hell. Ever.

True, some people do believe that all non-Christians are going to hell, but many do not, and I'd be willing to bet that most DU Christians are not of that opinion.

For one thing, it's un-Biblical. (cf. Romans 2:12-16).

[Goblinmonger]

19. "Ancient laws"?

Do you see the irony of this? I mean, seriously, you are in a religion that is based on the bible, yet you talk about ancient laws being bad? 10 Commandments are pretty ancient.

Not preaching something and not being part of the dogma are two different things. When I was still catholic, I would talk to people about transubstantiation and receive nothing but blank stares on their faces. Just because they had not heard preaching about the bread and wine actually becoming flesh and blood doesn't mean the catholic dogma doesn't hold that.

Isn't Romans 2:12-16 something that most xian religions distance themselves from. It gives credence to the catholic viewpoint that you get into heaven by good deeds. Most non-catholic sects feel that it is not deeds that get you to heaven but the acceptance of JC as your personal savior.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Actually, the fundies ignore it because it preaches against

the idea that non-Christians are damned.

[Goblinmonger]

21. So good deeds, done for themselves, are enough

to get you into heaven? I, seriously, did not think that mindset existed outside the RCC.

And didn't Jesus make some pretty strong indications that belief in him was a key to heaven?

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."--Mark 16:16
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.--John 14:6

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. The Book of John is thought to be an interpretation of Jesus' life

rather than a straightforward biography.

In other words, the writer of John was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and created a Jesus character who served as a mouthpiece for his philosophical positions. (It's universally acknowledged to be the last of the Gospels to be written.)

See the work of the Jesus Seminar.

[Goblinmonger]

23. If we are going there

I have also read a lot that Jesus as a whole was created as an amalgom of greek heros--only better because JC succeeds where they fail. This was written in regard to Matthew, not John, so that the entire basis is Greek/Homeric. Can't remember the author though.

[manic expression]

26. It seems that

pretty much everyone has ignored it (yes, I'm exaggerating), or the passage isn't so tolerant after all. If that was the case, then Christianity would never have spread, especially not out of the Roman Empire's borders.

Just a few thoughts.

[Lucy - Claire]

24. Thank you

I only heard of hell as a serious idea, from Pentecostal or Baptist churches here in the UK.
Never in the Catholic or CofE churches have I heard of it as a literal interpret ion of fire and eternal toucher.
I know many Catholics do worry about the afterlife but hell isn't a literal thing for many of us.I have never heard the word hell once at the Catholic Church that I attend, I have also never seen a rosary either because hell is none issue.
Being a Christian is about serving God and community, not saving yourself and being smug about it.The whole business of your going to hell and I'm a little sunbeam for Jesus, sickens me. I know some good people that do believe that way, that do good things for God.
The fundie Church outside of the USA is not Bush supporting, in fact many from those churches were marching on the streets of London, to protest the war in Iraq. They also have very little influence as evangelicals and generally get laughed at.Yet many of those churches will campaign for fair trade and ethical shopping habits,support the Stop Poverty Now campaign, send people out to Africa not to convert but to work with secular charities such as Oxfam.
It bothers me that the behaviour of the Fundamentalist Christians is America, reflects on Christians of all denominations and all countries.
I go to a non-Catholic church sometimes where the leader is a woolly jumper, Guardian Lefty but he is also a Christian, that insists the coffee and tea is Fair-trade and banned Nescafe.His wife is a sweetheart too. But because of what is happening in America they are labeled as the same as The Southern Baptists.

[Inland]

31. It's always the most literalist, most extreme positions

of religion that are taken in all these threads. I can't tell if it's an attempt to set up a straw man to knock down or merely ignorance.

In any event, all the tears are saved by the fact that all of the major sects don't hold that a lack of belief leads to damnation. Dante in 1300 had pagans looking forward to salvation.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Well this Christian doesn't believe that at all

for whatever that's worth to you.

I believe all who sincerely seek God (by whatever name, in whatever form that takes) will find God. I believe our actions, our choices, about loving one another affect our ability to know and find God.

If the divine in revealed to you through Buddhism, cool. If it's revealed to you through simply loving your fellow humans, cool. I don't think God gives one whit what we call ourselves, or how we practice our chosen religion (or even don't practice any religion).

[FM Arouet666]

28. What you shoveling Willis?

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-way.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
http://www.bibleword.org/onlyway.shtml

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the father, but by me".

Seems pretty clear to me, accept JC or you don't get into heaven. There are only two places the soul can go, right? If you don't go to heaven you go to....... Las Vegas? No! You go to Hell. Interesting how christians have responded to your question. Ya got to read the rule book! No jesus, no heaven, ya don't collect 200$, and you land in hell. Ummmm, put that to music........

Oh, and what are you shoveling? Oh, I forgot, its winter. Damn, it was 85 F today in Arizona. I will go shovel some sand for you tomorrow. :evilgrin:

[lvx35]

30. That's a fundementalist view

and fundamentalism is prevalent. Catholics for instance said that pagans who were good but did not have access to jesus went to purgatory until prayed out. The issue is delt with in different ways by folks. Some say that whoever you are, the holy spirit presents jesus to you in some form in your life, and you either accept or reject.
Doesn't make sense to me though, what about miscarried babies, supposing fetuses have souls as many people say? Did they find jesus in the womb? This is why I am not christian, but still I wouldn't reduce their beliefs until you have asked lots of them about it.

[Inland]

32. It's pretty funny you telling her what she believes.

It's pretty funny that some atheists find it necessary to tell a christian what she actually believes. Why? Because it's hard to argue against religion if it's tolerant and rational. So you have to tell her that she must be mistaken about her beliefs. It's not surprising that the most dogmatic, inflexible views on DU on what is or is not a christian actually comes from atheists and not from believers.

Too funny. Next, the story on how catholics, orthodox, the mainline protestant churches and every single christian on DU aren't REAL christians, courtesy of atheists.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Are you just going to do these little drive bys

or are you actually going to have a discussion about that principle. Or, in the words of Mr. White, "are you going to bark all day little doggie, or are you going to bite."

First, I don't really know what the hell you are talking about. You refer to FM telling "her" what "she" should believe. His post is in reponse to my OP. I am not a "her" and FM knows who I am and what I was getting at. Perhaps you don't. In your desire to have a quick drive by, you missed what was really going on. It was one of your favorite "atheist high-fives." Sorry you posted the wrong yipping little attack.

As to the other thread you refer to that you clearly don't have the pair to join in on, well, game on.

You tell me. How do we define a Christian? I will let you have the first shot. But, from someone who has done A LOT of research on definitions (4 years college debate, 8 years coaching college debate) let me tell you that every good definition has to be inclusive and exclusive. You need to make it clear in your definition what is included in Christianity and what is excluded. None of this "love your neighbor" bullshit or "do unto others." Gotta be concrete; gotta be a good definition.

So, balls in your court. Give me a definition of what it takes to be Christian and we will have the discussion first about your definition (because I am guessing you will F it up) and then about who meets our mutually agreed upon definition.

On edit: maybe it was switching my avatar that screwed you up?

[Inland]

34. Of course, I don't need to "define" a christian, just note what most think

Your premise is wrong. None of the major sects would hold you damned because of your disbelief. You can call that a "drive by" if you like, but it really doesn't take a whole lot of discussion.

It isn't a matter of definition, it's a matter of you making a gross, inaccurate generalization as the premise of your musings.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Usually you are more careful

"None of the major sects would hold you damned because of your disbelief." I offer for your consideration the Roman Catholic Church. According to canon law, I am an apostate (worse than a heretic) and will not be allowed into heaven unless I recant my recanting of the religion.

[Inland]

40. Wrong again.

Specifically, the catholic church would not hold you damned merely for being in a state of disbelief, or an apostate, or a heretic. Sorry, dude, not true.

Isn't it bizarre that you've got to cite to some unnamed canon law to tell the christians on DU what they REALLY believe? I mean, you are trying so, so hard to get somebody to damn you to hell and nobody is willing. How disappointing!

Thing is, if you wanted to think about your original issue rather than score points on christians, you could recognized that people who reflexively find nonbelievers to be damned are probably coextensive with those that don't value the contributions of the damned. People who value the contributions of the nonbelievers are usually coextensive with those that believe that god too will find some value. That's why you have Dante putting all the atheist stalwarts in hell's waiting room for the second coming to kick them all upstairs. And that was a medieval point of view, too.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Well then, O great Pontiff,

what DO catholics send you to hell for if my public statement of "There is no God" is not enough?

[Inland]

44. Well, grasshopper, that's sort of the point, isn't it.

It's tough to find "the list". Sorry you haven't found anyone willing to damn you to hell for a public statement. How disappointing fo you!

[Goblinmonger]

45. You don't get off that easy.

You made the claim that being an apostate of the highest form, and dying that way, is not enough to land you in hell according to catholic dogma. You now need to indicate what does get you there. Catholics believe in hell. Something must get you there. What is it.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Somebody sure stepped in it this time.

Let's watch him try to scrape it off...

[Goblinmonger]

51. And, trust me

he is 100% wrong about apostates and hell.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Oh, I know.

I'm looking forward to the spectacle.

You'd think he'd learn from the others who bought into the whole religion-ignorant atheist stereotype.

[Inland]

48. Oh, now I have to prove to YOU what puts people in hell.

Because if I can't list it, then whatever you name must be right, even if no christian can be found that actually believes it.

What crap.

Fact is, it's tough to find anyone who pretends to know. Oh, sure, I bet that you could poll about murderers.

How sad that you can't find anyone to damn you to hell. It's so frustrating when people don't play the part of intolerance and dogmatism you have picked out for them, isn't it?

[Goblinmonger]

50. Hey, you're the smartass that told me

I was wrong. You're the all-knowing being who told me that being an apostate wasn't enough for catholics to damn that person to hell. Those kind of statements indicate that you know what does put you there. Obviously you don't, which means you were probably talking out of your ass about me being wrong. That's what I was trying to show. Thanks for proving me right.

[Inland]

52. Oh, I told you that you were wrong. Excuuuuuuuse me.

All I said is that there is no definitive list of what "puts you there" that you are going to find all christians signing onto. First you assume that there is one, then you assume that because I can't describe it to you, that your proposed list MUST be right. Even if you can't find any christians who actually believe it.

Yep, I'm just a big bad smartass, actually calling you on your statements and disagreeing and all.

Must be a bummer that nobody is going to damn you to hell in the manner that supports your thesis. Have you tried Free Republic?

[Goblinmonger]

54. And the backpedaling starts already before I even post below

That IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. I said that being an apostate puts me in hell. You said I was wrong. Way to back off it. Too bad it was too late. And there is a list, smarty. Dieing with a mortal sin lands you in hell. 10 commandments? Ever heard of them? Break one of those and die with that sin on your soul and I'll see you in hell.

[Inland]

57. Except you can't back it up.

Now breaking one of the ten commandments lands you in hell. So we are ALL going, and now you aren't the poor, poor persecuted atheist feeling all boo boo because the bad christians are singling you out?

Really, find a position.

[Goblinmonger]

60. It's the same position

Don't try to make my argument something it isn't.

I have always maintained that dieing with a mortal sin sends you to hell. Apostacy is a mortal sin. Breaking the 10 commandments is a mortal sin.

You are really just showing your ignorance of Catholic dogma, you do know that, don't you. Committing the sin doesn't land you in hell. Dieing with that sin on your soul does. That is what reconciliation (previously confession) is for. To cleanse your soul of veniel and mortal sin.

My whole goal in all of this has been to publicly prove you wrong for being a pompous windbag. I have done that.

[Inland]

64. There it is again...

all you have to do is to show that someone is saying they KNOW what lands you in hell.

Poor guy. You so want the christians to damn you but nobody is playing their role as oppressor or meanie. Have you tried Free Republic?

[Goblinmonger]

66. Simple

1. Apostacy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with mortal sin = hell

Showing me something that denies either of those and we will talk.

[Inland]

69. So simple, and nobody believes it. Strange that.

It's not just NOT your belief, but nobody else seems to be signing on either.

It's not catholicism, it's Humpty Dumpty, who gets to define religion in the way that let's him take offense.

Sorry nobody's damning you. Have you thought about telling them about bad things you do?

[Goblinmonger]

71. Catholics believe it. It's simple

1. Apostacy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Show me something that denies either and we will talk.

Others don't need to join in because I am kicking your ass in this argument quite easily myself, thank you.

[Inland]

73. And yet, you can't find one.

Not even one. Isn't it funny how you can say, "catholics believe it" without any reference at all?'

Yeah, it's simple. Making up stuff always is. Proving it is a different matter. That's why you fell back on "you show me what damns one" in the first place. Now you're there again.

Whatever. You know, you can always just believe yourself damned, if it's so important to you. Or go to Free Republic, or Rev. Phelps church. But then, you wouldn't be able to pretend like you were being persecuted by all those mean, mean christians on DU. You know, the ones that won't damn you to hell no matter how much you want them to?

[Goblinmonger]

76. Still a simple argument

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

I have proven those with quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Find something catholic that disproves one of those and we will talk.

I am not going to join in on your sputtering episode which so clearly indicates you are beaten. Why don't you just stop the histrionics and do some research before you embarrass yourself even more.

[Inland]

80. Oh, it's an argument. But it's not the catholic one.

Catholics don't believe it. At least, you can't find a single apostasy = hell citation. You seem to think that your argument about what catholics believe is some sort of substitute for the real thing. They just aren't drawing the same conclusions you are. What a shame. You SO want someone to be mean to you.

Really, it's pretty thin beer. You've limited yourself to apostasy, and to roman catholicism, and you still can't prove even that limited set of beliefs.

What you can do, of course, is challenge me to disprove it. As if the fact that nobody here will damn you isn't proof, or the fact that your own research has failed, isn't proof.

Those mean christians. They didn't have the manners to damn you in the way you wanted.

[Goblinmonger]

85. Look, you set the parameters, not I

You said nobody condemns non-believers to hell. I said that catholics do. That denies your statement that NO religion does that. You didn't believe me. I gave you POSITIVE PROOF of the following two statements in regard to the RCC:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with mortal sin = hell.

That proves my point. If you don't think I am correct on either of those, please feel free to do the research, give me your evidence and we will talk.

Until then, sputter away.

[Inland]

88. That's your conclusion. Too bad you can't find anyone believing it.

I mean, it makes good enough sense to me, and it's an argument, but there's no getting around that you can't find any catholics believing it. And that's what really counts, isn't it? Not that you find it proof positive, or even I find it proof positive. You've got to find people who actually believe it, and for whatever reason, your logic clearly isn't very compelling.

Even then, where you end up is that everyone who has committed a mortal sin is similarly damned, meaning, well, just about everybody is damned. Kinda ruins your whole pity party if everyone is in the same boat, you, christians, non christians, you, me, everyone?

Poor guy, working so hard to convince me that all these christians are damning him to hell, and nobody's cooperating. There aren't any that are willing to play their part.
Have you tried Dr. Phelps's group?

[Goblinmonger]

93. Catholics do believe it

Show me that one of the following isn't true in the Catholic religion:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin.
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

If you can show me that either of those are not true, we will talk.

[Inland]

98. And yet, you can't find any. Strange that.

From the guy who promised me a citation to canon law, now can't find a single apostasy = religion statement.

Hmm. It's part of the religion, yet nobody every said it or seems to believe it. How mystical.

After all that narrowing of the issue to catholicism and apostasy, you still can't get the goods. How sad. That's okay, I'm sure somebody thinks you damned for something or other, and you can get your persecution on.

[Goblinmonger]

101. Dude, get over it.

I am not going to fall for you baiting me into saying something that will get me tombstoned. My position is clear. Catholic dogma believes that

1. Apostasy is a mortal sin
2. If you die with a mortal sin on your soul you go to hell.

I am sorry that a clear two step process is too hard for you. You must have a bitch of a time with a syllogism since there are usually three steps involved.

[Inland]

103. Catholic dogma. Where's that statement you promised me?

Dogma that isn't recorded anywhere. Canon law without citation. But because you say it, it must be true, even if you can't find any evidence that a single catholic believes it.

Poor guy. You SO want someone to damn you to hell, and nobody will.

[Goblinmonger]

105. Again, you keep misquoting me.

Here is what I really said

1. I never said it would be one statement that proved my point.
2. I did give you a cited source. The Catholic Encyclopedia. You have never contradicted that source.
3. I have never wanting someone to damn me (though I don't care because it is all just mythology anyway) I have been wanting to make you look like you are talking about something you know nothing about. I have done that.

And I can keep typing the following for ever:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Disprove one of those and we will talk.

[Inland]

108. It's all whatever YOU want it to be.

YOu can't find a statement, but you never said you would find one. You can't find a single person who believes it, but you never said you could. When you say it's dogma, you don't mean that you can actually find it written down somewhere or someone actually believing it. Yep, you win. You've managed to define a religious belief into something nobody actually believes in. Good work.

And on top of that, I have to disprove your thesis...not with the kind of "evidence" you get to use, but the real thing, I suppose. Since the absence of anyone actually believing it doesnt' mean it's not part of the "religion" as YOU use the term, it's pointless. I'm debating your mystical faith in something you really, really believe, because you really, really want it to be true.

[Goblinmonger]

110. Not a single person?

Do you want my mom's phone number? How about this, look in the phone book for Catholic churches and call one. Ask for the priest. Ask him if apostates go to hell if they die with that sin on their soul. If you tell me they say know, I will pay for the conference call I want to have with you, me, and that priest.

I NEVER SAID IT WOULD BE A SINGLE STATEMENT. I said it was the dogma of the church. I gave you two entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia (again, you have never shown how that is not a valid source for this argument) that show

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Now I believe you have to disprove me, or my source, since I have given you that evidence. You can use the same source as I did, I have no problem with that. But your source should be of equal or better weight in the Catholic church and not "Billy Bob's Home of Random Religious Thoughts."

If it is so NOT true, you should have no problem disproving either #1 or #2 above. Until that time, I have proven my point. QED.

[Inland]

111. Well, now at least you pretend to get the idea.

YOu have to find someone who actually believes it. As to whether your mom thinks you are going to hell, I suppose that's one. But maybe she knows your entire body of work.

[Goblinmonger]

113. Never claimed that 100% of catholics believe it

I said that the church damns atheists to hell. I have shown, with Catholic sources, that

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

The fact that that isn't enough for you kind of boggles me. Are you that dedicated to never being shown to be wrong by an atheists that you keep ranting like you do? Frankly I think it is getting a little embarrasing for you. The only think that keeps me going is that you look more foolish every time you refuse to acknoledge my argument and my source. Neither of which you have disproven, or even attempted to disprove, since I presented them. The fact that you want me to provide you with names of people that damn me, personally, to hell is, frankly, childish. I provided you with a description of the church's teaching FROM A CHURCH SOURCE. That is enough.

Disprove #1 or #2 above or discredit my source and we will talk. Until then, QED.

[Inland]

115. Another straw man. Nobody required a hundred percent of anything.

It's the "dogma" argument you can't prove. Because you can't find a single statement that says, "we believe apostasy = hell". Instead, you construct an arugment sayhing that logically catholics SHOULD believe it. Well, seems like those stupid catholics can't follow your argument and be as damning and rigid as you would like, since you can't find that dogma stated anywhere.

Really, dude, go back to your mom's beliefs. It's not much, but at least it's RELEVANT to your thesis that someone is damning you to hell.

[Goblinmonger]

116. Do you really thing catholic dogma reads that way

Do you really think they have statements that say "X = hell" for every mortal sin. Don't you think it is less wordy to say "Mortal sins that are uncleansed land you in hell," and then to talk about what is a mortal sin. And I have shown you that they say that. In case you forgot

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

QED

[Inland]

117. They are trying to hide it from you?

Yes, it's less wordy, if there was ever an intent to provide the rigid, this is who goes to hell formula you pretend exists.

I mean, like I said, I could find a statement on transsubtantiation. And at one time, you were going to cite canon law to me. But now you know excuse the lack of a statement with some concept that it has to be obliquely understood. It's that tree falling in the forest deal again.

They believe it, just nobody says so. It's dogma, just not stated dogmatically. It's a belief and a dogma, there's just no evidence of it. Are you sure you don't believe in god, because you've got the entire "I see it and therefore you must disprove it" patter down.

[Goblinmonger]

118. Are you trying to discredit my source?

Because if you are, it is a pretty piss poor job. If that is your intent, then please really go for it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia supported my statement that

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

There were sources listed in the entries for you to look through if you wish. When you can either

1. disprove #1
2. disprove #2
3. discredit my source

we will talk. None of this "it isn't really dogma" but really tell me why my source isn't reflecting the dogma.

[Inland]

125. Your source is hiding it from you?

I mean, you both assert that it's an article of dogma that apostasy = hell, that most if not all catholics believe it, and then add that nobody would ever expect to see it explicitly stated, or explicitly acknowledged, unlike, say, transsubstantion.

So the question is, are all those bad catholics hiding it from you, or are you wrong? Maybe that explains how you could say that christians on DU hold that non-believers are going to hell and yet, all you got was denials of that. They don't know what they believe, or they know and are just lying.

Well, whatever. It's your thesis to prove, and you failed. Nobody needs to do an autopsy, this time.

[Goblinmonger]

126. I don't know who "both" is.

I also can't speak for the cafeteria plan catholics that are out there. What I can speak to is what the church states as its doctrine. For that I looked to an excellent source called the Catholic Encyclopedia. Guess what it said? Yep, you guessed it.

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dying with a mortal sin = hell

There you go. That is what the teaching of the church is. Can I dictate what individuals believe? No. Though I know a lot that do believe it. As a side note, not beliving it would make them a heretic. Ironic, isn't it?

[Inland]

127. And where did the church state apostasy = hell again?

"What I can speak to is what the church states as its doctrine." So where is that doctrine that apostasy = hell?

Oh, that's right, you've got all sorts of excuses. It's dogma, it's what the church believes, heck, there's even canon law out there you said once. But it's just silly to expect to actually find a statement by a catholic or catholic organization about this dogma , this law, this article of faith, this hard and fast rule.

After all, the catholic church is such a new organization, and has put so little time into noodling over questions of dogma, of course YOU would be able to figure out what catholics believe before THEY got it into print. Or they are hiding it, because catholics hate taking divisive theological positions.

Well, I know that sarcasm is confusing to you, so let me simply say that you don't have a statement on doctrine. You have an argument that it SHOULD be apostasy = hell. But what you think SHOULD be and what IS actually believed are two different things.

Enough of your excuses and your arguments on what SHOULD be. Let me know when you find the statement that apostasy = hell. Until then, it's just you looking for a reason to have a pity party because nobody is going to damn you to hell and play the part of mean christians.

[Goblinmonger]

130. Irony

You getting pissed that I can't find anything from an old religion and then mocking me when one of my documents was the basis for church dogma and was written in the 2nd century.

Please, if you have a problem with my sources, go for it. Tell me why the Catholic Encyclopdia, and the sources it gives internally, are not valid for a discussion of church dogma. I would love to debate that with you. As it stands now, you are just stamping your feet and shedding some tears as to why I don't have a good source. Whining does not equal argument. Until you directly indict my source, one must assume that it is OK.

And with that, I did find the catholic church saying the following

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dying with a mortal sin = hell

There you go. Again, still don't know why that isn't enough. Maybe you aren't making the logical jump. A = B; B = C; therefore A = C. Do you have a problem with that equation?

QED

[Inland]

132. The church dogma you can't find anywhere.

And I'm following the logical jump. I'm just missing the part where the catholics follow it. I mean, it's YOUR argument, not theirs. It might make sense to an atheist working hard to find a vengeful, meanspirited church out to damn him, but it might not make sense to catholics.

So you are going to have to find the statement that apostasy = hell, just in the same way I could find fifty or sixty statements on precisely the belief behind transsubstantion. Enough with the extrapolation that makes sense to an atheist and the BS that nobody should expect dogma to be explicitly stated anywhere. You don't have it. After narrowing it down to catholics from DU christians and apostasy from all disbelievers, you still don't have the statement from the catholics.

But then again, you never were big on what the believers actually thought. It's all an exercise of you telling people what they believe.

Let me know when you have a statement from catholics that apostasy = hell, rather than your own personal theological conclusions or excuses.

[Goblinmonger]

136. Just because you say it

doesn't mean I have to do it. My evidence has been clear. What I find troubling is that you are someone who claims not to be a christian. Which means you are not a catholic (though, by your logic I should test you on each specific sect since you really never said you weren't a catholic but just not a christian). Yet you are arguing with someone who was a devout catholic for 20 years and who attended a catholic seminary for 4 years in preparation for the priesthood. Yet, somehow, as a non-christian, you know more about the religion than I. How exactly did that happen?

The evidence is clear.
1. Being an apostate = mortal sin
2. Dying with a mortal sin = hell

If you can contradict either statement or the source they come from, we can talk.

[Goblinmonger]

114. Hey Inland

Look down below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x50732#53352

[kwassa]

122. I don't mean to be a spelling nazi, but .....

DYING, not dieing.

The mistake was just repeated so many times.

[Goblinmonger]

123. I'm going to resist my first urge

I have been cutting and pasting my little "repeater." I will make the change. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Goblinmonger]

42. And before you answer my question above...

Who here has attended catholic seminary?

[Inland]

43. Then the citation to canon law would be fine.

Let me know when you have it.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Well

I have links to two entries that prove you wrong. I will give those to you after you spend a little more time squirming out of your "nope, you're wrong, sorry dude, nobody is damning you to hell" bullshit you got yourself into above. I am first interested in seeing what you think lands you in Catholic hell.

[Inland]

49. Sure you do. nt

[Goblinmonger]

53. OK, because I am interested to see you backpedal

out of this. These are both from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Dieing with a mortal sin lands you in hell.

There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).

Being an Apostate A FIDE, or PERFIDIÆ is one of the worst of all sins. One for which there "is no forgiveness."

Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous. The "Shepherd" of Hermas, a work written in Rome in the middle of the second century, states positively that there is no forgiveness for those who have wilfully denied the Lord.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it. I busted you. You have to admit it. You talked out of your ass about Catholic dogma to someone who actually knows it, and studied it for 4 years in the seminary. To bad. My public declaration, and accompanying thoughts, that there is no god will land me in hell according to the RCC.

[Inland]

56. Oh, my. You're in SUCH a hurry to be damned.

So where's the statement that all apostates are going to hell?........

Guess it's not there.

It's one of the most grievous sins. Okay. And hell is for people who deserve it. Okay.

But nowhere is there the statement that you go to hell. Huh, how's about that? You read it all into there.

See, you want to approach it like a lawyer, stating that a good person has broken a rule and is therefore caught on the horns of the law. But you approach it like a bad lawyer. Citing the "Shepard of Hermas" isn't exactly stating doctrine, is it. There isn't a statement saying apostates are going to hell.

Frankly, it seems such a simple proposition one has to wonder why you can't find it simply stated. Apostates go to hell, says Pope X.

Poor guy. You SO want someone to condemn you to hell, and all you have is the Shepard of Hermas, whoever the fuck he was, two thousand years ago.

How rude of the christians to not play their part of the condemnors?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Seriously

go talk to a priest and see what they tell you. Those two quotations are clear. Which of the following do you deny as being true for catholics:

1. Dieing with a mortal sin means you go to hell.
2. Being an apostate is one of the worst sins there are (it breaks the FIRST commandment, DUH).

Apostacy is a mortal sin. If I die an apostate, I go to hell. I would guess that everyone reading this sees what I see with the exception of you. Because you were busted and now you look like a dumbass.

Is it a stupid policy? Sure. I don't buy ANY of the catholic dogma. But it is there.

Hey, genius, the Shepard of Hermas isn't a person, it's a document. Nice try though.

[beam me up scottie]

61. "the Shepard of Hermas isn't a person, it's a document."

:spray:

I KNEW this would be worth sticking around for!




:rofl:

[Inland]

62. Seriously, it's a simple proposition that you SAID you had proof of.

Apostate = hell.

YOu would think that if there was a simple equation like that somewhere, one could find it.

Isn't it strange that you can't find any authority that puts it as plainly and definitively as you did. Apostate = hell.

But you can't find it, so instead you give me a lawyer's argument about how it's a mortal sin and moral sins put you in hell....You can't find any christian to prosecute you, so you do it yourself. And what do you know? You find that christianity is full of all sorts of rigid rules. It's just a christianity you can't find anyone ascribing to.

How unhappy are you that nobody is going to damn you to hell? You can't stand it, this rash of humility. So you just do it yourself. Too funny. Too sad.

And if I made a mistake in thinking that you were citing an unknown second century person as opposed to a second centry document of unknown provenance, well, fuck me all to hell. As if it makes a difference.

[Goblinmonger]

63. It's a simple two step process

1. apostacy = mortal sin
2. dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Don't know what is stupid, wrong, bad-lawyerly about that.

You are wrong. Everyone knows it. Nice try.

[Inland]

65. "Everyone knows it." Except the christians, strangely enough,

who refuse to condemn you. Poor guy. You SO want someone to be think you as damned so you can feel self righteously persecuted.

But nobody is rising to the occasion. How sad is that, they won't play the part you set for them?

[Goblinmonger]

67. Simple

1. Apostacy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Show me something that denies either of those and we will talk.

[Goblinmonger]

68. And the shepard bit

just shows that you are just a pompous windbag that really knows very little but likes to act like he does. Kind of like Cliff from Cheers.

And it was a MAJOR document in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century not a "second century document of unkonw provenance." Can't even google it when I mock you with it the first time.

[Inland]

70. Oh, a MAJOR document! No kidding! And only 16 centuries ago!

Well, say no more. For a second, I thought you were completely full of shit!

[Goblinmonger]

72. OH, the Bible

a MAJOR document and only 40 centuries ago. Stop talking about Catholicism until you know something about it.

[beam me up scottie]

74. He's digging

deeper and deeper...

[Goblinmonger]

78. I rather enjoy the sputtering

doesn't he realize he would be better off just stopping now and trying to research? Not that it will do any good.

[beam me up scottie]

81. I just Googled.

He really does like to argue from ignorance, doesn't he?

Be careful he doesn't anger you into violating the rules, that's SOP when he's losing.

Gets your posts deleted and claims victory.

[SixStrings]

92. And this is what is really fucking scary about these sheep...

They will continue to support and defend a principle, idea, religion they know nothing about. Truly frightening. We are all screwed.

[Inland]

75. Oh, the Bible backs you up? No?

Well, it's no Shepard of Hamhocks, but .......

[Goblinmonger]

77. You are showing your ignorance again.

I was making a point about old documents still being relevant in the Catholic religion.

And yes the bible does.

1. Apostasy (breaking the first commandment--it's in the old testament, remember) = mortal sin.
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Find something contradicting either of those and we will talk.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Google is your friend.

Really.

[Inland]

82. But you didn't show it relevant at all.

Or is this another item that is proven because you say it is? Are you familiar with the old saying "on stilts"?

You know what would be relevant? A single statement of apostasy = hell.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Why isn't a two-step argument enough.

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. dieing with a mortal sin = hell.

Find something to contradict either of those and we will talk.

[Inland]

89. Why, I don't know. Those damn irrational christians not smart like you?

They don't find your logic very compelling, because you can't find any that follow it.

You are arguing that their religious premises compel a belief. Yet, you can't find any evidence of any catholic holding the belief. Maybe your premises are mistaken, maybe they have an out for you. Maybe you are just all wrong. Who knows?

You were going to show me "canon law". I was expecting a statement from a christian. Instead I get a statement from you and nothing from them.

[Goblinmonger]

94. They do follow it.

Please find a source that says that. I gave you a segment of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Go check out the whole thing. Multiple sources are listed within the article that you can go to. It all shows that I am right about the following:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell.

Find something that disproves either of those and we will talk.

[Inland]

96. "They"? And yet, you can't find a single one.

It's positively zen. "They" all believe it, yet you can't find a single statement of apostasy = hell. Except from yourself, of course, which basically proves that YOU believe it. Why don't those darn catholics except your inexorably logic and just damn you to hell finally? How frustrating it is that they aren't playing the role you set out for them.

[Goblinmonger]

100. I came from the Catholic Encyclopedia for Christ's sake

Why doesn't that count. Other sources are listed in there as to where it comes from. It shows that catholic dogma believes the following:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

They do damn me to hell. It is pretty clear. Have you talked to a priest about this yet? And I have, several times, during the four years I spent at Catholic seminary

[Goblinmonger]

95. Get over it

There are "catholics" that don't believe transsubstantiation. Doesn't mean it isn't the dogma of the church. I gave you postive proof of the following.

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell.

Find something that disproves either of those and we will talk.

[Inland]

97. But I could find a statement explicitly backing transsubstantion.

But you can't find that Apostasy = hell canon law you promised. Not a single statement.
Indeed, if you asked on DU, you could find one or two who expressly belive in transsubtantiation. But what christian has backed your thesis that they have you all damned up?

So weak from the guy who promised canon law. You do remember, right? Promising canon law?

And you so have your heart set on being damned by those christians for a matter of opinion, and they aren't persecuting you. Have you tried Free Republic or the Rev. Phelps?

[Goblinmonger]

99. I never said it would be a single statement

And you haven't shown me how my statements are wrong. In case you haven't read, I have POSITIVELY PROVEN, WITH SUPPORT, the following:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. dieing with a mortal sin = hell

You can sputter all you want about what you think I think, but until you give me something that disproves either of the above, my point is proven. QED

[Inland]

102. An article of faith nobody says they believe. A tree falling in the fores

and only Goblinmonger hears it!

Too mystical for me. An article of faith nobody believes in.

And "QED", I can't disprove it so therefore, it exists. Gee, are you SURE you don't believe in God? Because I couldn't have put the theist argument better. No facts, no evidence, but you really, really believe it and I can't disprove it, ergo...

Mystical, believing Goblinmonger.

[Goblinmonger]

104. OK, time for you to stop

here is my argument

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

Those two statements are directly from Catholic sources and represent the beliefs of the church. If you want to continue the discussion of whether a religion bans atheists to hell you need to do one of the following

1. Disprove #1
2. Disprove #2
3. Show my how my logic which moves me from #1 to #2 is flawed.

Absent that, it is pretty clear I have proven my point.

But just so you know, I will now be holding you to the standard of providing one AND ONLY ONE source for anything you tell me since that is YOUR standard of proof.

[Inland]

109. It's an argument. But you can't find any christians believing it.

Your thesis is that somebody BELIEVES atheism = hell. But your argument is that they SHOULD believe it based on these premises. Should and do are different, and the fact is that nobody is buying your preachment. Sorry, dude, but your religious ideas don't seem to have a lot of takers. seems like the chrisitans aren't as you tell them they should be. Have you tried Rev. Phelps church?

[Goblinmonger]

112. Catholics do believe this

Call a church and ask. Better yet, hand out a survey after mass sometime if you are so curious. My argument has never been that every catholic believes X. My statement was that the CATHOLIC RELIGION damns atheists to hell. For proof of that I have offered you the Catholic Encyclopedia that says the following:

1. Apostasy = mortal sin
2. Dieing with a mortal sin = hell

That is the church's teaching. If you have some proof that it isn't, please let me know and we will talk.

[trotsky]

90. You got smacked down, Inland.

But I hope you don't give up, it's way too much fun seeing you dance around in denial.

[trotsky]

35. Inland isn't interested in debate or discussion.

That much should be obvious.

[Goblinmonger]

37. Pointing out that he isn't

is still fun. I imagine it will get old soon.

[FM Arouet666]

86. Its your bible

If you choose to spin bible passages to your liking that is your business. Christian apologetics have been doing the same for centuries.

You, as usual, did not address your response to my post. Rather, you choose to attack atheism. So tell me, how can a christian deny christ and still receive heaven?

Oh, and who the hell are you referring to as "her"? Sometimes I wonder about you Inland. :freak:

[Redbear]

38. I interpret John 14:6 to mean Jesus is God.

In other words if you know God, you also know Jesus.

It seems to me that interpretation is much more in line with the entire Book of John (which is constantly concerned with Jesus' divinity) than an interpretation that Jesus is banishing non-christians to hell.

[JerseygirlCT]

142. That's only one interpretation, a very literalist, fundamentalist

one.

Other Christians hold much more expansive views.

[lvx35]

29. That vast majority of Christians here probably don't think that.

Because they are not fundamentalist. Trust me. Do a poll if you like. Most christians around here don't believe that gandhi or whoever is in hell while Jeffrey Dalmer ('saved' in prison) is in heaven. Guaranteed.

[manic expression]

39. Just a thought

isn't that pretty much what the Bible says? By looking at the Biblical quotes posted here and elsewhere (I have some others if you would like to see them), it seems that the dogma of Christianity does say that. I'm just going by what the Bible says, by the way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Try Romans 2:12-16, the passage the fundies love to ignore

:-)

[manic expression]

83. About that

I find a lot of contradictory stuff. It's posted in the thread, but for reference, I mean stuff like this:

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." --Mark 16:16
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." --John 14:6
(already posted)

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Corinthians 10:20-21

Back to your point....

On Romans, this is interesting and seemingly unbiased (maybe it is slanted in another's view):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tol_bibl.htm

"A common and often preached message in the Christian Scriptures is that trusting in Jesus is the only way to be saved, and that only those persons who hear the Gospel and accept it will attain Heaven. However Romans 2:14-16 delivers a different and contrasting message. Paul writes: 'For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.' Paul is here discussing those individuals who have not heard of the Mosaic law. Their lives will be reviewed on Judgment Day; they may be saved and attain heaven if they performed sufficient good works while alive on Earth."

(that's the passage, right?)

Excuse me for being a complete jerk about all this, but doesn't this say that someone who hasn't heard of Jesus is OK as long as they follow the gospel anyway, but someone who has and doesn't believe is flush out of luck? That's just my first impression, but of course I may be missing the point.

(OK, here's my point)

At any rate, I am wondering how (obviously enlightened and liberal DU) Christians view the intolerant passages with the tolerant. I could see thinking that parts of it are misled or outdated, and I'm always a fan of different interpretations, but I'd like to hear how some of the more intolerant scripture is regarded as.

And please, I'm not trying to insult anything. Thank you for the reference.

[Redbear]

87. Good questions. A scholar could answer better but here's what I think

I posted my response to John 14 above.

The best response to Mark 16:16 is that it has become pretty clear that the last 12 "verses" of Mark are really not part of the Bible based upon the best and most ancient manuscripts. There is no reason to believe Jesus actually said what is reflected in verse 16 just as Im pretty sure he never said what is in the next two verses:

"17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."


Some christians do believe in snake handlers and faith healers, but I do not.

I think the Corinthian passage is merely Paul's point that you cannot simultaneously worship God and demons (a principle much better expressed by Bob Dylan I think).

As for Romans 2, it is posible to take a literalist point of view and argue that only those non-christians described in those verses will be saved. I strongly disagree, I think that those therein described are but an example of non-christians being saved.

There are direct examples of Jesus refusing to condemn non-believers, some of which are referenced in the same religioustolerance.org article you cite.

[ThJ]

121. Some views on that subject...

It is my opinion that Paul is not saying those who have not accepted Christ will make it into heaven on good works alone. The Bible makes it pretty clear faith is necessary.

However, there is a question as to whether the virtuous will be severely punished, particularly those who have not heard the Gospel, see Dante's Inferno where there is a place reserved for the virtuous dead. There is also some debate as to whether these people will have the chance to accept the Gospel upon Christ return and his judgment of the living and the dead.

[Inland]

128. But the Inferno

makes it clear that there is going to be a reshuffling of the deck in the second coming, and those in the first circle are going to be looking at salvation.

That was in 1300 or thereabouts, a medieval outlook.

[Goblinmonger]

131. But the first circle is for those that didn't know better

Dante puts Homer in the first circle because Homer was the "perfect human" yet he lived before Christ so couldn't have accepted him as his savior. That is what the first level is for. Heretics were assigned to the 6th circle of hell (10th Canto). People like myself would not be assigned to the first circle of hell because we should have known better.

Oh yeah, I know this because we read and studied The Divine Comedy AT THE SEMINARY.

[Inland]

133. Ah, so your OP WAS bullshit from day one.

NOt only did you know that most DUers didn't consign the nonbelievers to hell, you knew that medieval catholics didn't.

Ah ah ah ah. Caught you, dude. You only stupid when it suits you, and then all of the sudden it's "I'm Mr. Seminary Student"! What a bullshitter you are. Tell me, aside from getting all angry and then saying whatever it takes to score points, do you have any principles?

[Goblinmonger]

138. How is that bullshit

Dante was catholic. He put heretics in the 6th ring of hell. Not the first as you claim. Heretics are not in the first ring reshuffle like you claim.

Again, Dante doesn't put heretics in the 6th level?

[Inland]

134. Dude, you are so busted.

You knew your OP was bullshit the second you wrote it. Suddenly, the expert who studied AT THE SEMINARY is caught making up shit he knows is false, about christians on DU and then about believers genrally. Yes, the expert who studied AT THE SEMINARY always knew that catholics seven hundred years ago were more tolerant and enlightened than he paints DUers today.

But you said it anyway, and pretended to believe it until it was time for you to talk about what youstudied AT THE SEMINARY. Then we find out, hells bells, that you always knew you were painting a false picture of believers.

And now, I'm supposed to listen to your expertise as if you are a trusted source, as if you have honorable goals, and as if you've got a purpose besides making christians look bad with any old shit you trot out.

Leave me out, please. Go sling it to someone else.

[Goblinmonger]

137. So heretics aren't in the 6th ring of hell

in Dante? Cause they are.

[Goblinmonger]

139. I've taken a few minutes to think about your post

and I still don't know what you are talking about. You are obviously pissed at me for proving you wrong above. And I am sure if I spoke to you like you just spoke to me, you would hit the alert button so fast, your head would snap back. But on to the substance.

YOU said atheists on DU would be in the first level of Dante's hell and get reshuffled back into the mix.
I said that isn't true. The first level is for people before Christ who had NO POSSIBLE WAY OF ACCEPTING JESUS AS THEIR SAVIOR because, um, JESUS HADN'T COME YET.

What is true is that heretics like myself would be assigned to a much deeper, much more brutal level of hell, the 6th level (it is the 10th canto of the inferno). Have you even read Dante or are you just pulling all of this out of your ass? I would guess the latter.

I have not contradicted myself. What I have done, AGAIN, is shown that you are wrong.

[Inland]

141. You're busted, dude.

You knew your OP was fake and BS when you wrote it. YOu said it was all non believers who were going to hell, not just amoung most christians, but most christians on DU, a statment you knew to be false when you made it.

Yep, but then when it's time to discuss Dante, why, you pull out of your ass that you knew catholics seven hundred years ago were letting non believers into heaven.

You are so busy making shit up in order to score points, you confused yourself and revealed that you knew your OP was bullshit when you wrote it. Disgusting.

As to whose in the first circle, one word is enough for a bullshitter. Averroes. Look it up, genius. You can't even score points on that.

[Goblinmonger]

146. First of all, let's get something straight

Dante IS a catholic. That doesn't make him THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Secondly, even if Dante is the catholic church, being sentenced to Dante's first level of hell is still IN HELL. So I would still be right.

Third, getting reshuffled into the mix does not mean you are going to heaven.

Finally, I am still sentenced to hell, along with the other apostates that have been around since JESUS. I never claimed that the people around BEFORE Jesus would be held responsible for not worshippin Jesus as Lord since Jesus didn't even fucking exist when they were alive. Even the fucking catholic church isn't that batshit crazy.

OK, I have two problems with the Averroes reference.

1. Because Dante mentions some Muslim in a work of fiction, that means I am wrong about Catholic dogma?
2. Averroes is in Limbo in the Divine Comedy, not Hell. Who's the bullshitter?

[Goblinmonger]

147. One more thing

"catholics seven hundred years ago were letting non believers into heaven"

Please, with a citation, show me where any non-believer is said to be going to heaven in either Dante or Catholic Dogma. Your claim, not mine. You have to prove it. I'm waiting. Until you give it to me, Zip it.

[ThJ]

135. Exactly my point...

and it is not only a medeival outlook, but there are people who believe this now. I know of some Baptists who accept such a view, i.e., they believe these virtuous non-believers will have the chance to accept Christ during the 2nd Coming, precisely because they never had the chance to hear the Gospel.

[Goblinmonger]

140. But you have to also admit

that people that are alive RIGHT NOW, who have had the opportunity to accept Christ, or who once accepted Christ and no longer do, are NOT destined for the 1st level of hell, but the 6th according to Dante. 1st level is for those, like Homer, who should be in hell, but technically had no chance to hear the gospel and accept jesus.

And in case Inland is reading this, all of this is Dante's conjecture and nowhere NEAR catholic dogma, belief, or anything. It is a work of fiction based on a "dream" Dante had.

[JerseygirlCT]

144. To be blatantly honest?

We look at the entirety, and we pick and choose a bit.

Which is exactly what literalists do, too, when something there doesn't suit their views. They just don't admit it, lol.

For me, the overall message of Christ's example speaks of love: God's complete and enduring love for us, and the wish for us to learn of that and show it to each other. Anything that doesn't support that I have a hard time taking seriously. The bible is a tool, an opportunity to see what men from the beginnings of Christianity have learned and have experienced. But it's not the entire faith. I think there's a seriously twisted tendency to place the bible in place of God among some. That seems short-sighted to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

143. The bible isn't meant to be read literally, despite

what fundamentalists believe. Allegory, parable, context are all very important. The gospels' writers each had a specific audience in mind, and wrote toward that group.

Simplistic or legalistic biblical interpretations are not the mainstay of much of Christianity. Fundamentalist Protestantism is rather a newcomer on the scene. Even if they're particularly loud in this country at this point.

[Skinner]

91. That's a pretty broad brush you're using here.

"A vast majority of people on this website (not to mention the less progressive) who are christian (and used those pieces of religious art to support why religion is a good thing) believe that the same people that created those fantastic works of religious art will be/are burning in hell because they did not accept Jesus as their savior."

This is a pretty bold statement, IMO. Would you mind sharing the evidence that leads you to believe that the mast majority of DU christians believe this? Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Perhaps you are right.

I meant to say that the religious dogma of the vast majority of christians on DU. I cannot guarantee that they follow the dogma of their stated religion. But their religions believe that. It is breaking the first commandment. I have shown pretty clearly above that the catholic religion believes that.

Again, I will agree with the rewording and that PERHAPS the majority on DU do not believe it, or say they believe it, but the dogma of their religion would state that apostates of the highest order (to use the catholic lingo) are damned to hell.

[Skinner]

119. Oh, I see.

I do not know what the official teaching of the catholic church is. I will take your word that the catholic church teaches that non-christians are going to hell.

It is an entirely different thing to claim that "the vast majority" of DU christians believes this dogma. I find it hard to believe that most DU catholics would agree with it, and I think some evidence would be necessary before making such a claim. My guess is that most of them don't agree with that bit of dogma, although lacking any evidence I will admit that it is just a guess.

Furthermore, I'm guessing that most DU christians aren't members of the catholic church. So catholic church dogma would mean little when making any claim regarding what they believe.

If you'd like, you can go sort through the official teachings of the various protestant and orthodox sects, and you might find that some of them share this piece of dogma. You might find that many of them do not share it. But what ever official dogma says wouldn't prove what the "vast majority" of DU christians believe it. People still have free will, and they are capable of deciding what religious dogma they believe and what they don't. Heck, in most christian sects in the United States, the ordained clergy do not all agree on what should be official church dogma.

Speaking from personal experience: Growing up, my family attended a United Methodist church, which is pretty much a mainline protestant church. I remember very clearly the pastor of my church getting up in front of the congregation on sunday morning and preaching that he believes non-christians do not go to hell. I have no clue what the official teaching of the United Methodist church was, but I know that the pastor of that church did not teach the dogma that you are trying to pin on the "vast majority" of DU christians.

Bottom line: We do not know what the vast majority of DU christians believe. I think we can safely say that they agree on the name of their religion ("Christianity") but beyond that, we don't really know much about them.

[Goblinmonger]

124. I think this is a good point of discussion

maybe I will start that thread when this little battle settle down in a day or two.

I think that most christian churches that emphasize "accepting Jesus as your savior" over "good deeds" would think that atheists are going to hell. Though the RCC is certainly a "deeds" church and they damn apostates to hell, so that puts a kink in that theory.

I accept you point of dogma vs practice, though that opens a whole new world of confusion for me as to why people would belong to a religion of which they do not follow the dogma. But again, a different thread and not one I am interested in starting. I will be more careful in the future to inidicate dogma when that is what I mean. That was my intent of the OP. I was surprised how this one was received because I really wasn't trying to be an ass with the OP. Really.

[JerseygirlCT]

145. Catholics believe that

the decision about who goes to hell is strictly God's and that humans cannot know.

[PassingFair]

107. I have anecdotal evidence of young catholic friends ...

crying because I was going to hell.

Back in grade school days, when they were going through "catechism",
several of my friends were positively DISTRAUGHT over the "fact" that
I was going to hell because I wasn't catholic.

This was before I even KNEW that I was an atheist!

They weren't coming up with this stuff on their own!

[Skinner]

120. Well, obviously they weren't coming up with it on their own.

Someone taught it to them. But your grade-school catholic friends don't represent the "vast majority" of DU members. Just because they believe something does not mean that christians on DU believe it.