Religious Fear Mongering

[Kheldarson]

i'm not arguing it isn't the position now that it's just separation. just that it didn't used to be. the Official Positions seems to change based on what will keep butts in pews

Sorta. It's based more on what doctrines are being restudied, and that usually is based around what society currently cares about.

[Gravekeeper]

Sorta. It's based more on what doctrines are being restudied, and that usually is based around what society currently cares about.

Which, again, is a fancy way of saying butts in the pews, hehe. The Vatican is being forced to shift a fair measure of things right now due to the dawning realization that if it doesn't it will literally die off.

Most of the really cruel or crazy shit just can't survive outside out its own cultish echo chambers. Because it only works when your flock doesn't have access to other sources of information. ( Similar things can be said for American politics. )

The great wailing and gnashing of teeth going on down there at the moment with "Christians" ( I use the term loosely for the loud southern ones ) is the increasingly fearful death throes of a beast that is slowly starting to realize its life is coming to an end.

[Kheldarson]

Which, again, is a fancy way of saying butts in the pews, hehe. The Vatican is being forced to shift a fair measure of things right now due to the dawning realization that if it doesn't it will literally die off.

Well, I'm still going with sorta. The Vatican takes what's the current issues and goes through and looks at the current dogma and Tradition. Then it makes a supposedly Spirit guided decision on how those are to be interpreted. Sometimes it makes a radical change (see the changes around the Protestant Reformation), sometimes they finally come down on an issue they hadn't really considered before (see Jansenism), and sometimes they maintain the status quo (see Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism).

We'll see how they come down on the current issues.

Most of the really cruel or crazy shit just can't survive outside out its own cultish echo chambers. Because it only works when your flock doesn't have access to other sources of information. ( Similar things can be said for American politics. )

The great wailing and gnashing of teeth going on down there at the moment with "Christians" ( I use the term loosely for the loud southern ones ) is the increasingly fearful death throes of a beast that is slowly starting to realize its life is coming to an end.

And agree. It's why I have hope that the Catholic Church will do the right thing and loosen up a bit on some issues.

[Panacea]

While I'm glad we agree that fear mongering is bull, it still sounds like God sends others to hell according to beliefs. I mean, God ultimately chooses who to damn, right? (I can't imagine anyone choosing hell themselves)

That's more of a Calvanist attitude. Calvanists believe that God has already predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned. Faith doesn't really play into the picture. JWs are the same way IIRC.

Catholics believe that anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus, and who lived a moral life is saved, though they spend time in Purgatory first. Purgatory is pretty much a Catholic idea; a place to purge yourself before you are ready for Heavan.

Only the worst are supposed to go to Hell; the ones who reject God utterly.

I believe Hell exits. However, other than Satan, I don't know that there is anyone else in there.

I just wish more faiths would focus on what faith is supposed to promote: treating others well, helping the less fortunate, etc, and being more "godly" rather than bickering over whether or not God exists and what happens when you die.

You'd be surprised how many Christians actually feel the same way. And Jews, Muslims, and so on. You don't hear about it because they are more focused on their charitable work. My church does a LOT in our local community and is active in interfaith affairs: helping build affordable housing, stocking the local food back, funding local homeless shelters, providing clothing, providing counseling to parishioners, and much more. It's quiet work, most people don't realize the extent of what we do.

No faith bickers about whether God exists. We bicker about what God is like, and what it takes to please Him.

Was anyone else reminded of a deleted scene from Dogma?

"Evil Is An Abstract."

On a somewhat related note, why does the Devil have any power or influence? How does he have any power and influence? After being banished did God not think to strip him of his powers?

Satan is a prisoner in Hell, not its ruler. He has no power other than the power of temptation, but it's a whopper of a power because human nature makes it so easy to give in to those temptations!

Catholics don't believe in the End Times stuff that evangelical Protestants do. That's called Dispensationalism, and it takes several books of the New and Old Testaments (Revelations and Daniel in particular) and turns them inside out. It's also a fairly modern idea; less than 200 years old. It was in large part of a means of some people to try and predict the return of Christ, which of course can't be done.

Most theologians believe Revelations is a political commentary of its own time. It's a form of "apocalyptic writing" common to the era where ideas that could be thought seditious were couched in poetic or prophetic language to conceal its true meaning. Apocolypse means "to reveal," in ancient Greek.

I really don't focus on all the afterlife stuff. I focus on the social justice message of Jesus.

[Kaylyn]

You'd be surprised how many Christians actually feel the same way. And Jews, Muslims, and so on. You don't hear about it because they are more focused on their charitable work. My church does a LOT in our local community and is active in interfaith affairs: helping build affordable housing, stocking the local food back, funding local homeless shelters, providing clothing, providing counseling to parishioners, and much more. It's quiet work, most people don't realize the extent of what we do.

Yes, I suppose that's true. Matthew 6:6 "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Not an exact parallel to the topic, but a similar message. We see the extremists who have to shout about what they think is right or wrong, be it gay rights or abortion or whatever the cause of the month is, or shout about fire and brimstone as in the original post to scare others into submission, rather than the quiet ones who are more like your church and simply go out and serve others and just DO what is right. It sounds contradictory, but I wish THOSE folks were the ones we see in the headlines. It would go a lot further to promote the cause than the fearmongering.

No faith bickers about whether God exists. We bicker about what God is like, and what it takes to please Him.

Ah, yeah, what I meant to say is theists vs. atheists debating on God's existence, not people within faiths. My fault for not being entirely clear. I think that theists and atheists can both agree on the point I was stressing.

[Hyena Dandy]

Which, again, is a fancy way of saying butts in the pews, hehe.

I'd disagree with that. I think it's a decision influenced by the society around us. But people also sometimes see things in a new context. The world changes, the people change, it's not necessarily a popularity thing. People who, for instance, supported fascism in the thirties likely didn't in the fifties, but that's not necessarily because fascism became unpopular. It could be simply that they saw things (Hitler, WWII) that convinced them the previous view was wrong.

So it can be with a religious organization, the change coming because the minds are changed, not by a PR department.

[siead_lietrathua]

So it can be with a religious organization, the change coming because the minds are changed, not by a PR department.

i tend to disagree with this. just because, if the issue was that people just need to believe in god, then it wouldn't matter if they switch denominations so long as they kept faith. then each branch could keep with their "true" vision of their beliefs, rather than compromising their beliefs to conform to society. after all, shouldn't society change to please god, not the other way around

no, the real issue is that when people switch denominations, it removes the tithing revenue from the original branch of faith. therefore conversion becomes an issue because it effects the bankroll. so they do reformations to make the church's direction fit society's flow, rather than standing true to their vision of faith. it's to ensure people don't leave, or to make themselves more appealing to new converts. so they can get more tithing.
after all, popemobile's and bling aren't cheap.

and the idea that it's not decided by a PR committee is false. i mean, look at the "babies in limbo" thing. they've actually had a committee meet and decide they should just say babies that aren't baptized go to heaven. i think the pope never approved the changes in the end, saying something akin to "we just have to trust god to be merciful to the innocent" or some crap.
everything in religious organizations is based on committee. the bible was compiled by committee. a service is compiled on committee between the pastor, choir, etc.. evangelical events typically have a committee organizing them. it's not an uncommon thing to use.

[Panacea]

Yes, I suppose that's true. Matthew 6:6 "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Not an exact parallel to the topic, but a similar message.

Words I try to live by

I'd disagree with that. I think it's a decision influenced by the society around us. But people also sometimes see things in a new context. The world changes, the people change, it's not necessarily a popularity thing. People who, for instance, supported fascism in the thirties likely didn't in the fifties, but that's not necessarily because fascism became unpopular. It could be simply that they saw things (Hitler, WWII) that convinced them the previous view was wrong.

So it can be with a religious organization, the change coming because the minds are changed, not by a PR department.

People to change over time, either within a generation or over much much longer periods.

There are lots of things that society used to consider OK that we no longer consider OK: slavery, women as property, all kinds of things. As a society we don't condone those things anymore, and our religious faiths largely don't either.

As man has evolved, changed, improved himself so have religious faiths.

Many fundamentalists like to say "God never changes." I agree . . . but I believe our understanding of him DOES change. When we stop using religion to support horrible practices, then our understand of God has evolved and improved for the better.

[Kheldarson]

i tend to disagree with this. just because, if the issue was that people just need to believe in god, then it wouldn't matter if they switch denominations so long as they kept faith. then each branch could keep with their "true" vision of their beliefs, rather than compromising their beliefs to conform to society. after all, shouldn't society change to please god, not the other way around

Except that we're humans trying to understand a far more infinite mind. There's bound to be translation issues

no, the real issue is that when people switch denominations, it removes the tithing revenue from the original branch of faith. therefore conversion becomes an issue because it effects the bankroll. so they do reformations to make the church's direction fit society's flow, rather than standing true to their vision of faith. it's to ensure people don't leave, or to make themselves more appealing to new converts. so they can get more tithing.
after all, popemobile's and bling aren't cheap.

Again that's only part of the issue.

For a good example, look at the Reformation. The Church, yes, gathered a committee to make decisions. But it wasn't necessarily just to keep butts in the pew. That ship had kinda sailed as political factions had stepped into the opening the Reformation had created and no way were the Princes going back (they, too, liked their money).

What was important were the massive theological holes that the various Protestant groups (and one heresy that popped up later) illuminated. These were things that hadn't quite been formally discussed, assumptions just mad over time from the barest of writings. And yet important things like what grace is and how it affects salvation and free will.

Society highlighted an issue that hadn't seemed important before or was thought to be perfectly understood but wasn't. The Church addressed it as an important theological issue for its own sake, not to get people back.

That's what the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits were for

and the idea that it's not decided by a PR committee is false. i mean, look at the "babies in limbo" thing. they've actually had a committee meet and decide they should just say babies that aren't baptized go to heaven. i think the pope never approved the changes in the end, saying something akin to "we just have to trust god to be merciful to the innocent" or some crap.
everything in religious organizations is based on committee. the bible was compiled by committee. a service is compiled on committee between the pastor, choir, etc.. evangelical events typically have a committee organizing them. it's not an uncommon thing to use.

Of course it's decided by committee. One man, or woman, by themselves isn't going to have all the information on any particular dogmatic issue. And it's very rare for God or His saints to discuss things with us directly. But "when two or more are gathered in My name", the Holy Spirit is found to provide guidance.

That's also why the councils take so long to make a decision.

[Gravekeeper]

You'd be surprised how many Christians actually feel the same way. And Jews, Muslims, and so on. You don't hear about it because they are more focused on their charitable work.

Fun Fact: Islam is the most charitable religion in the world. Charity is codified in Islam. It is literally tabulated like income tax and set at a percentage of your wealth and assets per year.

Islam doesn't let you just pay lip service to the concept. ;p

No faith bickers about whether God exists. We bicker about what God is like, and what it takes to please Him.

<snip>

Satan is a prisoner in Hell, not its ruler. He has no power other than the power of temptation, but it's a whopper of a power because human nature makes it so easy to give in to those temptations!

Sigh, okay, lets back up here. Everyone on Team Western Abrahamic Religion really need to stop making statements like this. I know you're not trying to, but you're unintentionally extending your personal worldview on the entire world and I don't feel like spending yet another thread pointing out all of the historical, cultural and geographical flaws in such statements.

There are, have been and will be more religions on this planet than you can count. Those of a monotheistic nature are the minority. Many of whose concepts Christianity itself was influenced by or outright stole from. Despite popular belief, Christianity has never been a unified idea or concept and has never agreed on who or what God is or what he wants or even if He is a he. It had multiple bickering parties right from day one and still does to this day and historically it has resolved these arguments through violence. And that's before you even get into the faiths that outright disagree with you to begin with.

Catholics don't believe in the End Times stuff that evangelical Protestants do. That's called Dispensationalism, and it takes several books of the New and Old Testaments (Revelations and Daniel in particular) and turns them inside out.

Ah yes, the people who invented the Rapture. They've REALLY helped. ><

[Rageaholic]

Exactly. This is something I'm never going to see eye to eye with Christians on. Whether you argue if hell is a punishment or just a 'choice', in the end, it's all semantics, distracting from the fact that it's an unjust fate for merely not knowing a God who doesn't communicate in the first place.

My problem with the above argument is that it assumes that someone is a fool for not 'choosing' God when, even when I went to church, the idea of knowing an entity outside of your five senses never sat well with me.

I'm quoting myself here, but I realized that the people I was initially going after were the Ray Comfort types who believe hell is a punishment. They smugly go around trying to convince people they're shit (how many of the ten commandments they've broken) and get them to admit that they deserve hell. Those are usually the people doing the fear mongering, yet they still try to make God seem like the good guy.

[Gravekeeper]

Interesting enough and right on topic, but the Vatican has been bitterly infighting over the last two weeks about how much they should accept homosexuality. Unfortunately, the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the inner circle has dragged the proposal back from cautiously accepting to passive aggressively agreeing that maybe we shouldn't burn them. The Pope can't get the 2/3rd's he needs out of the bishops.

Draft:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community... Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman.

Final:

The Church teaches: "No grounds whatsoever exist for assimilating or drawing analogies, however remote, between homosexual unions and God's design for matrimony and the family." Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies should be accepted with respect and sensitivity. "Any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard is to be avoided."

Just discrimination is totally okay though!

Note this isn't even the final final. After 2 weeks of fighting the Pope over it they've agreed to reconvene again next year to continue dragging themselves back to the middle ages.

[Jarlaxle]

Possibly-stupid question: who or what is a "narm"?

[Rageaholic]

Narm is term from TvTropes that stands describes unintentionally funny moments in media. The unintentional humor in this case is the result of the bad acting and cheesy soap opera music during the letter reading.