PaulS

I note you said ‘not all’, but we can both agree there is and has been ‘a lot’. But I don’t know if our immediate discussion about support/validation for a particular experience should be a numbers game. Obviously it’s not easy to discuss other people’s personal experiences without people taking it personally. One can only try to be genuine and respectful when asking such question. No name calling, no insulting, just questions. Personally I think in the first instance if somebody wanted to use belief in little green men from Mars to contrast my experience with say Hell, I’d try to understand where they are coming from and try to discuss it with them to get to an understanding. I then would probably try my best to explain why if I think their example contrasts or doesn’t work with what I am trying to explain. Hopefully I might be able to explain my understanding 8ng to them in such a way that they then understand themselves. Or not. To decide if one is genuinely probing or making light would probably take a little bit of probing in itself. Respectful probing, like we have done here. At the end of the day if the conversation had to end with me just saying “that’s my experience” I believe I would understand why it might be stretch for the other to understand. That’s why I was asking - to see if you had any other insights to further your explanation that perhaps could help me better understand your understanding concerning experience.

I think that might depend on one’s conditioning and one’s personal experience. There are obviously others that agree with the suicide bomber/throat splitter. Whether or not experience can be considered actual experience of God is clearly a personal thing but for somebody who doesn’t share another’s experience I think it’s reasonable to probe and question respectfully. Well, I can only tell you that I mentioned it not to refute or negate, but to question and try to understand. Contrasting your experience with another, albeit extreme example, only serves to highlight the question I am asking about perceived reality of such experiences. I don’t know if it is the same or not, that’s why I was asking to see if you could provide any insight.

Indeed. I agree.

Sorry, I don’t see the obviousness you are referring to. What is the agreement concerning the Muslim that leaves no doubt?

No, I certainly don’t read harm into your words. I am only asking and exploring around this concept of personal experience and possibly relying on it as an argument for one thing or another. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound attacking in any way - for me it’s a genuine question.

Okay then. I’m at peace with that. Peace to you.

I’m only assuming his claim may be just as real as yours because he is prepared to blow himself up for his beliefs. That seems pretty radical to me and I can only imagine something deep in their heart must speak to such people. I imagine they feel convinced they know God. To me it seems a bit dismissive just to say a religious suicide bomber isn’t convinced about their understanding of God. If there experience of God gives them such strength to commit such an act, what does that mean for ‘experience’ is what I am wondering about.

But Joseph, what about the fanatical Muslim who wants to slit the throats of infidels because of his innate knowing that that’s what God is about and wants? Admittedly, I don’t personally know any throat cutting Muslims (i.e. fanatics) but I imagine they and those that are prepared to blow themselves up, might say the same thing as you. Would you doubt their experience of God?

I’m trying Thormas, I hope you will too. Peace and goodwill.

Nope, seems you need the last word, even if you edit it into a previous post. And then re-edit that previous post to make it read like it was originally continuous. Love your work mate! 😀

I’ve let it go Thormas - see if you can.

As disbelief is defined as having an unpreparedness, or inability to believe something, I think ‘disbeliever’ would be a more appropriate term than Atheist. Unbelief is the absence or rejection of belief, which I think more accurately describes Atheist. Words do have their limitations.

That makes absolutely no sense - if you didn’t read my last post how would you even know whether it was conversation or confrontation? Of course, you did read it. And you see the convenience in moving on rather than addressing what I am pointing out. However, peace to you brother. I hold no grudge. It’s let gone.

If you have seen the video and re-read the posts in order, you will see I ONLY ever referred to the Christian teaching of an eternal, tortuous hell, and there is no denying that this has been a historical teaching of Christianity. But I was careful to point out that not all Christians taught or believed this. The video I introduced from Bart was referring to Jesus never teaching Hell as a place of eternal torment. Hell and eternal torment has undeniably been a Christian theme throughout history. Some Christians might not like to be lumped into the same religion as those that promote that message, I certainly don't, but nonetheless, it has been A Christian understanding that has been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years, and in many quarters is still taught today. A couple of posts later Burl said that he found the idea of an eternal fire in the bible but not eternal torment. He thought it was more like being thrown into an incinerator than living in one, and the idea of any eternal life beyond the grave is only for the saved. I agreed with Burl that that did seem to be Bart's understanding from what I have read of him and that I'd let Burl know more when I read Bart's book. I also later said that I liked the idea of taking the very same documents that have been used to paint a certain picture (i.e. eternal, tortuous hell - because that's the only hell I'd referred to up to that point) and shedding a bit more historical accuracy on them to demonstrate they don't actually mean what many have been told they do. I'm not shy about admitting that that is a message I'd like more Christians to understand - that Hell doesn't exist in the teachings of the bible as many of them have been told that it does. It is indisputable that this message has been and is, present in Christianity. We can argue all day about who's Christianity (not yours obviously) but it is a clear Christian message in many quarters. Unfortunately, all of Christianity gets caught under the label of Christianity - progressive and fundamental and all grades in between. Getting offended by me because of messages that other Christians preach misses my point entirely. Taking the time to discuss might help, but that wasn't the approach Burl or you chose to take before accusing me of various things such as bigotry, attacking Christianity or saying that I blame Christianity for all sorts of problems with the world (something that you have both interpreted - not something that I have said). You with me so far? I made a fairly rational and logical approach to a certain message about Hell that Christianity has taught. I embraced the better understanding of scripture that the likes of Bart can share with the world and perhaps with people who have been taught this foul message of eternal, tortuous hell. I expect you can see that as a good thing also (seeing as you are now acknowledging that the doctrine of Hell has caused harm to others as this conversation starts to come back to where it was in the first place, before Burl's 'offence' took us off on this useless tangent). So let's get to the post after which Burl accused me of being cynical and bigoted against Christianity and which he accused me of attacking other people’s faith beliefs (comments that you seem to support because "you can understand Burl's 'offence'"). This is what I said: From my point of view personally, I feel that what Christianity has done to so many in teaching the prospect of hell and telling people they are a product of their disconnection from God, that they are evil sinners, and that they need saving, has caused much pain and heartache in the world. And this goes on today, in a huge way! So whilst I agree with you that Hell is a nonsense concept, I know there are many people out there who are in pain, who wrestle with this concept and the impact it has on their lives. I think it is probably the worst evil Christianity can be known for. I would like to see that message done away because it simply isn't true, and in the last couple of hundred years scholars have been showing why even the early Christians didn't believe in it. So why does Christianity at large persist with this untruth and why any of us tolerate it? None of us would accept a child being sexually abused, but our 'Christian' society tolerates them being psychologically abused. So for me personally, when contemporary authorities such as Erhmann publish something that helps heal that wound, I like people to know. What is it that you disagree with in my post? Has Christianity NOT harmed many in teaching the prospect of hell and telling people they are a product of their disconnection from God, that they are evil sinners, and that they need saving, has caused much pain and heartache in the world? Does this still not occur to this day in many Christian churches? Are there not many people out there who are in pain, who wrestle with this concept and the impact it has on their lives? Do you not think it probably is the worst message and evil that Christianity has told to people? As wrong as it may be, Christianity has done that. Would you not like to see that message done away with? Do you not think it is a positive that somebody like Erhman can publish something that may help heal that wound for others? And for this I am accused of being a bigot and attacking Christianity? I'll admit it's denigrating people's faith - denigrating the faith of people who hold such a harmful and putrid subject aloft and teach it to their innocent children. I will stand up for those children. I can see clearly what you and Burl have mistaken - you think my criticism of a particular teaching of Christianity is a criticism of Christianity as a whole. Even though I NEVER made such a comment. That is what I was referring to in your, and Burl's, rush to defend Christianity. I think you have both imagined that my distaste for this particular Christian message about Hell means I am saying that Christianity as a whole only looks at Hell this way. Again, I never said any such thing. You said you could understand why Burl might be offended - because I had said "what Christianity has done in teaching the prospect of hell ....caused much of the pain and heartache in the world". Well what other religion do you think has taught that mankind is doomed for eternal torture in Hell unless they accept Jesus as their savour? That has been Christianity - not Buddhism or any other religion! My point here is that that has been A christian message - not all Christians as I had pointed out, but A Christian message nonetheless. One that I would like to see Christianity end. You both seem hung up on defending Christianity as though it never teaches this, and I acknowledged that your Church perhaps doesn't, but it is undeniable that many, many Christian churches do. That is the reality. So why do either of you take offence or feel that I am denigrating Christianity. I am denigrating a teaching that even you now agree is repugnant and harmful. God, I wish more Christians like you and Burl would denigrate this hellish approach to eternal torment that is still taught by Christianity today (just not the Christianity that you like to be referred to as - I get that) rather than feel obliged to fight for Christianity and explain how different Christians think differently. I know you don't think of Hell that way and because of Burl's comment about how he saw Hell in scripture I thought he better understood Hell too. Maybe not. I am simply not referring to those who don't see Hell as eternal torment - I am referring to the ones that do cause the harm, that continue to psychologically harm children by indoctrinating them with beliefs and scare tactics, all the while not even correctly aligning them with their own so called Holy Scriptures. They're the people you and Burl should be angry with for denigrating Christianity - not me! It's not a big ask for either of you to understand that much harm has been caused by such a message. You say 'much harm' is an amazing statement and questionable. Well with their being millions and millions of Christians of the fundamental variety in this world, who do teach their children this nonsense, I don't think it takes much imagination to work out there are many who suffer from this harmful doctrine. That you'd even bother questioning that seems to me to be your natural response to wanting to defend 'Christianity'. I don't think it needs you defending it - it needs Christians speaking loudly and clearly that eternal Hell and torture is the wrong message. There never was a discussion I wanted with you or Burl about what Hell could mean and be. This thread was started because I said Bart had a new book coming that would throw light on the horrendous message of eternal hell and torture. Of course there are other views and meanings about Hell that you, Burl, me and others have. That wasn't the point I was making. You both missed it. I think that was a shame. Peace and goodwill.

Thankyou for understanding.

The point was this thread has never been an attack on Christianity, so I don’t see why you need to start saying/questioning all these others things about Christianity. All I was only ever addressing was a single, repugnant teaching that Christianity is known for. If Burl believes in this take of Hell, then he may be offended that I think it is repugnant. But there is no need to become defensive and insulting - just discuss the issues at hand. You agree that the teaching of an eternal Hell of suffering and torment for non-believers is repugnant. Do you also believe that such teaching can be harmful to people? Do you think it can be harmful to children? If you did then I don’t understand why you have broadened the discussion to other merits or otherwise of Christianity and it’s teachings or other understandings of Hell as some sort of justification. I never raised that stuff and wasn’t interested past this one, particular concept that I still see existing and promoted today by many (i.e. a lot of) Christian churches. It is that concept of Hell that you and I both see as repugnant and personally I would like to see much of Christianity stop teaching it, particularly as Christian scripture does not teach an eternal Hell of suffering and torment in any case.

Why has anybody changed this thread to an assessment of Christianity? I am and have been only talking about one, specific, harmful and repugnant teaching of Christianity, and have even been cautious to make clear that it is not adopted by all Christians! Did you watch the video and read the thread from the start to see what I am referring to?

You assume too much. I don't blame Christianity with much of the world's pain and in fact here I was only pointing out that the Christian teaching of an eternal Hell is a repugnant teaching. What you and maybe Burl read between the lines is out of my control. I expressed my opinion. I don't need to establish it outside of my personal experience in order to support it. Disagree by all means, have a mature and logical debate too I would encourage, but call somebody a bigot (as Burl did) because you don't agree with their opinion, is poor form. As one of the 8 points says: Know that the way we behave towards one another and Earth is the fullest expression of what we believe.... I made a statement about a Christian teaching which I, and you, find repugnant. I did not make it personal or call anybody names. I expressed an opinion about a belief that is taught today in many (i.e. a lot of ) christian churches. Lucky for you. Others have been psychologically affected. Maybe read the articles I quoted from the PC.org page or genuinely try and do your own research to see if people claim to suffer any trauma from the Christian teaching of an eternal place of torture for non-believers. I disagree about not proving it. You may disagree, but I and others are living proof. Don't agree by all means, that is your entitlement. I'm not sure why you are speaking for Burl, but if he sees me blaming Christianity for a great deal of the world's pain and suffering, then I'd say you have both applied your own lenses. Yes, the issue was an eternal hell of torment. Yes, I do think it is nonsense and you think it is repugnant also. I wasn't talking about any other position on hell - imagined or otherwise. Different discussion. I wasn't talking about such an understanding of Hell. Hav eyou read the thread form the start and watched the video by Bart I posted? Did you read where I said "Yes, so Hell means something, but I think Bart will argue that it doesn't mean what the majority of Christians believe it does (eternal torture or suffering).". I wasn't talking about other versions of Hell. My comment was in regard to stating that Muslims who believe in slitting throats and crashing planes is wrong, bad, evil, something that I will not tolerate or accept in this world. To that Burl accused me of adding anti-muslim bigotry to what he considered my view on the Christian teaching of a Hell of eternal torture and suffering, as being bigoted. It was Muslims that I had in mind who were/are getting their throats cut by other fanatical Muslims. If Burl thinks speaking out for humankind means tolerating or accepting throat slitting, then I am at a loss for words. Of course I can't imagine that he actually does think that and suspect he just got caught up in his own 'offence' to what I was saying. Why are you now restricting my points on this discussion to what the current crop of participants here do or don’t believe? Is it not clear to you that I am referring to a common teaching of Christianity other than necessarily restricted to here? I wasn't referring to the harm caused by a few words on a PC forum but rather the harm caused by the teachings that happen in real life to many who are raised and indoctrinated into these beliefs. There are many who a scarred by such teachings. I am/was but one. You can read about such accounts in lots of places if your care to look. Like I asked you previously - do you think a parent telling a child that they will suffer in an eternal hell if they don’t believe the same as their parents about Jesus, is not harmful? If you think it is harmful then you have answered your own question. If you think it is not harmful, then that saddens me. The fact that you and Burl have turned this conversation into Christianity at all, rather than the single, narrow, harmful teaching that I was referring to evidences your defense of Christianity to me. It is out of proportion. I am and have been only talking about one particular harmful teaching of Christianity (not all Christians as I already said) that exists today in a big way. You even agree with me that it is repugnant - so let's call it out and tell others how repugnant and mistaken it is - it's not even based on scripture. Not make excuses for any version of Christianity that wants to reinforce and teach this nonsense.

That doesn’t seem to be the understanding of say the American Atheists - https://www.atheists.org “Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” (Their bold, not mine). Who should be the final adjudicator on the definition?

Some further interesting articles about Hell published on the ProgressiveChristianity.org website: https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/does-it-matter-which-religion-you-pick-is-there-a-hell/ https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/progressive-christianity-on-the-concept-of-hell/ https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/bishop-spong-on-hell/

I identify as a Progressive christian (little c) but my christianity is a very fluid thing and changes from time to time. Christianity can be quite a broad term taking in a wide range of differing beliefs, so it’s probably something that takes paragraphs to describe rather than a couple of terms, for me anyway. I doubt I would be every Christian’s cup of tea.

And of course, that is your entitlement. Personally, I have no issue with condemning crazy Islamic beliefs such as throat slitting and suicide bombing, whilst simultaneously noting these are believed by ‘some’, not all Muslims. Like others may feel the need to speak out for Jesus, sometimes I feel the need to speak out for humankind. As an aside, the Forum only asks for general acceptance of the 8 points if participating specifically in the Prgogressive Christianity thread, not the overall forum. But I agree that most likely a fanatical Muslim wouldn’t make their way here. Just because one chooses to take offence shouldn’t mean people can’t discuss things that they find offensive themselves. Yes, absolutely expression of particular beliefs can harm the community. Surely you aren’t saying that all religious belief is harmless to the community? Good god, do you think a parent telling a child that they will suffer in an eternal hell if they don’t believe the same as their parents about Jesus, is not harmful! What about other expressions of particular beliefs such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce etc - you don't think expressing these beliefs can/has caused harm to our communities? Let's not race to defend 'Christianity' as though the worlds depends on it - let's talk about the issues if one wants to, or at least let those who want to discuss the issue discuss it amongst themselves. That’s what I was doing. I started this thread on heaven and hell to point out the misunderstanding and wrong teachings that much of Christianity has taught through the ages. I stated that it has caused harm. I was responding directly to a post by Rom when Burl felt it necessary to be offended and to add his two pennies worth. Burl has taken offence rather than accept I have another view to him. I’m good with that. He appears not. I think you need to re-read the thread and see how the conversation came about. I wasn’t attacking or vandalising anybody’s beliefs in particular that I was aware of - I was simply discussing some Christian teachings that I find repugnant. In fact, it’s my hope that all Christians will one day find the teaching of an eternal place of damnation and torture for non-believers as repugnant. Particularly as such teaching isn’t even supported by Christianity’s own scriptures. Fred Plummer, the Founder of the Progressive Christianity homepage connected to here puts it this way: https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/to-hell-with-hell/

I would substitute 'we' for perhaps the word 'some'. Personally I'd prefer if you didn't speak on my behalf, Burl. I do like fact finding and would enjoy other threads with Rom where we can dig down into some more 'concrete' matters. For me personally, I think sense of wonder, inquisitiveness, and attune our perceptions to revelation and enlightenment, go hand in hand with facts. The alternative seems to be saying "we don't want facts to get in the way of a good story".

Anyone who can read this knows I am not being bigoted Burl - you do too. I think most here would understand that what I questioned does not apply to many Muslims, just as beliefs of an eternal, tormenting hell doesn't come from the mouths of all Christians. Sorry you feel offended and challenged that somebody else finds elements of Christian religious belief (not all Christians) offensive. You seem to be saying that it's okay for them to say what they believe even if it offends me, but if I should dare express what I find offensive about their beliefs then I am in the wrong. I think we should all be mature enough here to have an open conversation and be able to deal with other people's differences without losing too much sleep over offense. Peace and goodwill.

Actually, atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. An atheist simply says they do no believe in a theistic God, and some may extend that to say they do not believe in any sort of God. Their non-belief is proof they are right. Jesus 'can' be a different topic as there are some things that we can 'reasonably' claim about his existence, as is generally accepted by scholarship. But I think all considerations of Jesus do come down to belief, albeit well considered ones based on quality assumptions from scholarship, history, anthropology, etc. A strong and seemingly supported opinion is still an opinion without the hard and fast evidence, and this is where we probably digress on Jesus to some degree. I think everything about Jesus comes down to faith - faith in religious belief is just one part of it. Faith in the scholarship is another part. That's not to say that such faith is wrong, but just to point out that it is in fact, faith. Again, I see most often these 'cases' as resting on faith, strong faith or otherwise. I don't agree with 'more solid ground' when it comes to making determinations for or against. That is just faith. It eoither is or it isn't and can be demonstrated, otherwise it is what you first mention - what it means to the individual. I don't see anything wrong wit that - but to me, it is what it is. I think there are things we don't know about evolution and which are theories and best guesses, but also much of our science is based on the understanding of evolution and supported by evolutionary theory. I think where we can scientifically support evolution then of course it shouldn't be up for debate, but where it cannot be conclusively demonstrated then I have no issue sitting within the uncertain. I agree. But what about people who say they have had a 'vision' of Hell (as traditionally understood) as many have. There vision may be very real to them - so do we just say they are wrong or do we agree they 'saw' Hell?