IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:13 AM   #201
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Does this fall into modern Christianity: https://web.archive.org/web/20071219...y.org/main.asp

Have to use Wayback as that church decided to do a massive PR clean-up job once Paisley died.
In my earlier comment I had quite forgotten about that style of Christianity, which likes to use the Bible as a cudgel with which to beat unbelievers. The Westboro Baptist Church falls into this category.

In my opinion, such groups indeed fall under the umbrella of modern Christianity. They're usually not much liked by the other Christians I described, because their beliefs and antics alienate non-believers and make a mockery of Christ's message of love.

They're one step away from being terrorists. This, of course, raises the question about whether it's religion that makes the terrorist, or if the terrorists use religion as a cover for their hatred. The site you linked to above is evidence it's the former.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 11:54 AM   #202
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
It might even be the latter. It's still the same issue, though. It's still very much a part of "modern Christianity."
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 12:01 PM   #203
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
As for Jesus's message of love... eeehhh... his message is more like all over the place. Seriously, it's mainstream bible scholarship for more than a century now, that AT MOST 30% of all that Jesus says in the bible can be reasonably assumed to be said by the same person, because they reflect very different and conflicting world views. And even bible scholars disagree as to which 30% is the real Slim Shady... err... the real Historical Jesus. Which is why you can pick and choose to fit whatever world view you want it to fit.

I mean, not as an analogy for any modern sect, but just as an example of how far one can be from love and still find something in Jesus's words to base it on: "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble [in their faith], it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matt 18:6, also repeated in Luke 17:2.) It was used as a justification by the early medieval church to literally do that to heathens and apostates. You could literally get a stone tied to your neck and be chuck into a lake by the Byzantines if you were teaching the old pagan gods or polytheistic philosophy or such. (Among other offenses.)

Quite far from love, I would say.

The Inquisition? "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6) Though it was used long before what we'd call an actual Inquisition. The first burnings at the stake done by Xians are, again, Byzantine empire as early as 4'th century CE.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 3rd May 2022 at 12:08 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 12:22 PM   #204
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,729
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As for Jesus's message of love... eeehhh... his message is more like all over the place. Seriously, it's mainstream bible scholarship for more than a century now, that AT MOST 30% of all that Jesus says in the bible can be reasonably assumed to be said by the same person, because they reflect very different and conflicting world views. And even bible scholars disagree as to which 30% is the real Slim Shady... err... the real Historical Jesus. Which is why you can pick and choose to fit whatever world view you want it to fit.

I mean, not as an analogy for any modern sect, but just as an example of how far one can be from love and still find something in Jesus's words to base it on: "If anyone causes one of these little onesóthose who believe in meóto stumble [in their faith], it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matt 18:6, also repeated in Luke 17:2.) It was used as a justification by the early medieval church to literally do that to heathens and apostates. You could literally get a stone tied to your neck and be chuck into a lake by the Byzantines if you were teaching the old pagan gods or polytheistic philosophy or such. (Among other offenses.)

Quite far from love, I would say.

The Inquisition? "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6) Though it was used long before what we'd call an actual Inquisition. The first burnings at the stake done by Xians are, again, Byzantine empire as early as 4'th century CE.
A pretty good collection of all the silly and sad things Jesus said to do are here: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/nt_list.html

Pick want you want to justify what you want.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 04:11 PM   #205
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
A pretty good collection of all the silly and sad things Jesus said to do are here: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/nt_list.html

Pick want you want to justify what you want.

An impressive list. Add to this we have Jesus endorsing all that nasty stuff in the Old Testament when challenged.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 04:22 PM   #206
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

I don't need to add much to what Blue Mountain replied, except to say that I don't think Tertullian represents mainstream moral philosophy even in the Catholic sorry Roman Catholic church today.

Specifically, I don't think the doctrine that Christians in heaven will experience pleasure at witnessing the suffering of sinners forms a part of the teachings of very many modern churches. And yet Thor2 brings it up as though it is a description of modern religious philosophy, rather than an interesting historical note, which is what it is.

Tertullian's vision struck a cord with Thomas Aquinas also it seems:

"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 06:45 PM   #207
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So when do we say it became "modern"? You seem to be avoiding giving an answer - I'm not asking for "1:15pm on the 24th August 1758", just something like "the last 200 years" or the "last 50 years". If you won't define what you mean by "modern" when we are talking about a religion that goes back 2000 years it will be hard to understand what point you are trying to make with your undefined "modern".

As you can see Blue Mountain thought you were meaning the "revivalist"
Christians.
FFS.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I am referring to Christianity as it is practiced today, by any church, in contrast to Christianity as it was practiced in the CE200s when Tertullian wrote. And quite honestly, I thought I was being pretty clear. I might have to painstakingly pre-define all my words in future if this carries on.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 10:44 PM   #208
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by arthwollipot
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So when do we say it became "modern"? You seem to be avoiding giving an answer - I'm not asking for "1:15pm on the 24th August 1758", just something like "the last 200 years" or the "last 50 years". If you won't define what you mean by "modern" when we are talking about a religion that goes back 2000 years it will be hard to understand what point you are trying to make with your undefined "modern".

As you can see Blue Mountain thought you were meaning the "revivalist" Christians.
FFS.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I am referring to Christianity as it is practiced today, by any church, in contrast to Christianity as it was practiced in the CE200s when Tertullian wrote. And quite honestly, I thought I was being pretty clear. I might have to painstakingly pre-define all my words in future if this carries on.
Arthwollipot, I'm sure you know the modern Christianity is incredibly diverse. For every example I can bring of Christians living a of quiet humility, prayer, community service, and just being decent human beings, critics can find a firebrand sect like the Westboro Baptists or a few churches where Tertullian would feel right at home.

Modern Christianity covers everything from a person who calls himself "Christian" simply because he has some sort of a belief in a nebulous god of some description and couldn't tell you a thing about Jesus or what his death and resurrection means, all the way to "everyone but me and the dozen people in my Ďchurchí are all condemned to Hell because they don't follow our narrow interpretation of Jude 2:15."

At the risk of putting words in to Arthwollipot's mouth, I believe what he describes as "modern Christianity" is mainstream Christianity. If you polled people who identify as Christian, asking their opinion on the statement "Christians in heaven will draw great pleasure looking down at the condemned souls in Hell and seeing their torment," I rather suspect over 90% would disagree. (Caution: I have no idea what the true number is.) In all likelihood they may express the opinion that Heaven and Hell are too separated to see each other, or say they'd be very saddened to see their distress and express regret they didn't do more to prevent it.

That still leaves 10%, but they'd be the outliers.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 11:20 PM   #209
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
You've basically grasped the main point I was trying to make, yes. This is exactly what I said:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
...I don't think the doctrine that Christians in heaven will experience pleasure at witnessing the suffering of sinners forms a part of the teachings of very many modern churches.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 01:34 AM   #210
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,221
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
FFS.
The RCC still practices it today...
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 01:37 AM   #211
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The RCC still practices it today...
The Roman Catholic Church currently teaches that people in heaven will experience pleasure at witnessing the suffering of sinners?

I'm going to need some evidence of that claim. If true, then I will withdraw this line of argument.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 01:42 AM   #212
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
It's not even a matter of finding some small denomination. The faith in faith argument basically IS that only some kind of literal fear of God is keeping people from literally raping and pillaging, and is so widespread that even some atheists use it. Hell, back when this was actually Randi's site, even on this board we had someone bring up people raping babies if they didn't have religion as a deterrent.

And it's pretty hard to argue exactly why would it even work as a deterrent, if there is no fear involved. (Never mind that the argument tends to be quite explicit about the stick part, even while professing to not believe in the carrot part.)
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 01:49 AM   #213
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The Roman Catholic Church currently teaches that people in heaven will experience pleasure at witnessing the suffering of sinners?

I'm going to need some evidence of that claim. If true, then I will withdraw this line of argument.
To quote from you: FFS.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/on...n/what-is-hell

Scroll down to the bottom, namely answer #5, who deals with exactly why it's only normal to rejoice that your loved ones will be sent to hell. In his view, it's like cheering for a criminal to be sentenced in court, and how you'd be disappointed if he were acquitted.

And specifically,
we can, and indeed we should, rejoice in the good that is justice. You could say in a joyful way, “Justice was served today! And that is a good thing!”

On Judgment Day, all will know that every person will have been judged rightly, and we will be able to see this with “God’s eyes,” so to speak. The blessed will be able to rejoice in God’s justice and mercy.
Again, that's in the context of knowing that your loved ones got sentenced to hell for eternity. Fully knowing that they'll experience indescribable pain for all eternity. (Yeah, he actually went on to make it clear that yes, it's indescribable pain on the same page.) If you're one of the blessed, you'll REJOICE in that display of absolute justice.

That's not written in Tertullian's time.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th May 2022 at 01:58 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 01:53 AM   #214
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,221
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The Roman Catholic Church currently teaches that people in heaven will experience pleasure at witnessing the suffering of sinners?

I'm going to need some evidence of that claim. If true, then I will withdraw this line of argument.
The burden of proof is on you. "Ad nationes" and "Apologeticus" are still studied in the church, they are quoted in treaties and sermons. You are the one claiming something different so it is up to you to show that. As an example - literally the first result in my google search shows a document referencing Apologeticus - on the Vatican site by a Pope:

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI



"...51. Cf. Tertullian Apologeticum, 39: CCL, I, PP. 150-153; Minucius Felix, Octavius 9 and 31: CSLP, Turin 1963, pp. 11-13, 47-48...."
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 02:03 AM   #215
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Okay! Thank you! If that had been posted earlier we could have avoided pages of this.

The relevant part is this:

Quote:
Perhaps an analogy would work best in explaining this. Imagine that you are in a courtroom, and a man who you know is guilty of murder is standing before the judge and jurors. His fate is about to be determined. The foreman of the jury stands up and says, “Your honor, we find Tom Smith (insert your own name here) “not guilty” of all charges.

Your immediate reaction would most likely be to say, “That’s unjust!” At least, it should be. This would be an injustice, because this man is, in fact, guilty! You should feel outraged at an injustice like this.

On the flip side, if that same juror were to say, “We find Tom Smith guilty,” there would be a sense in which you could rejoice. We should not rejoice in the suffering that awaits this man. We should not allow ourselves to fall into a sense of vengeance for vengeance’s sake. But we can, and indeed we should, rejoice in the good that is justice. You could say in a joyful way, “Justice was served today! And that is a good thing!”
(Emphasis mine.) That's quite a distance from Tertullian.

Also, it's worth mentioning that this page describes a hell that is very different from the common conception of Hell. For example:

Quote:
Again, the Catechism emphasizes the fact that hell is primarily eternal separation from God. As CCC 1033 says: “The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.” It is absolute emptiness and isolation beyond anything we can fathom. The pains are quite real, quite literal, and consist of both the pain of loss and the pain of sense—i.e., they involve the body after the resurrection of the body. They “follow from the very nature of sin,” or they arise from the inside out, not from the outside in.
It's worth reading in full for a better understanding of the Catholic view of hell.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 02:47 AM   #216
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,221
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Okay! Thank you! If that had been posted earlier we could have avoided pages of this.

The relevant part is this:

(Emphasis mine.) That's quite a distance from Tertullian.
It isn't.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Also, it's worth mentioning that this page describes a hell that is very different from the common conception of Hell. For example:

It's worth reading in full for a better understanding of the Catholic view of hell.
Sorry but that is the common conception of hell for us that were raised in Christian denominations... from a Christian's perspective eternal separation from god is the worse torture possible, there is nothing worse, having your skin burned off and being dipped in acid and then being made whole for it all to start again is nothing compared to eternal separation from god.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 04:00 AM   #217
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Yes, I did read it, and also I did already know the Catholic doctrine on the topic, and no, it's not correcting anything I've said. E.g., for him hell is still indescribable pain, even if it's not literally fire. Sorry, but that doesn't make it any better.

Sorry, but basically you're doing as nonsensical handwaving as if I were to say, "Jack is innocent, because he doesn't regularly punch his wife, he beats her with a stick. See? That makes it much better." No, it doesn't.

And it certainly doesn't make the quotes from the same guy later on that page disappear. Yes, he does say we shouldn't rejoice in the suffering of the condemned for its own sake, but he does say you should rejoice in the justice of him being condemned to that suffering. And indeed that all the blessed WILL rejoice.

That's,

A. not as far off from the reasoning of Tertullian and other Church fathers as you seem to think. There is no reason to believe that any just wanted to say "only the sadists will be saved." Certainly nothing they actually wrote. In fact, they all thought you should cheer because they deserved it, i.e., at the justice being served, not at the suffering per se.

B. nonsense handwaving. It wants to decouple the idea that justice has been served, from the question of whether the severity of that punishment is actually commensurate to the offence. Like, don't mind what happens afterwards, focus just on the verdict, and cheer for that. Which is nonsense. Appropriate sentencing is just as much part of a just justice system.

If I got out of my Tardis and witnessed some petty thief being sentenced to be impaled by Vlad Dracula and left to die in agony over several days for stealing an apple, I certainly wouldn't cheer and rejoice at justice being served. Because an unjust punishment isn't justice in the first place. Just saying "yeah, but he was guilty" is just apologetics and trying to get you to gloss over the more important questions of what was he guilty OF, and how does the punishment fit that.

And doubly so in Christianity where the only guilt you need -- and according to most apologists the grievous guilt of all -- is just not believing that Jesus is real. To return to the Vlad example, now imagine witnessing some guy being impaled by Vlad just for not thinking Vlad is the current king. (E.g., happened next day after he was put back in power, the news hadn't reached everyone.) Or if you want a more direct equivalent to being punished for being the wrong religion, imagine witnessing Vlad's impaling whole towns in his incursion in Bulgaria just for being Muslims. Technically, sure, they were "guilty" of being the wrong religion. But anyone who thinks you should automatically cheer at them being sentenced to that, just because, hey, they were "guilty", is deranged at best.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 4th May 2022 at 04:08 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2022, 06:19 PM   #218
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It isn't.
Sorry, but I just don't see how "We should not rejoice in the suffering that awaits this man" is the same thing as "people in heaven will experience pleasure at witnessing the suffering of sinners". Those things are just opposites.

I'm not saying that the separation from God isn't the thing that causes suffering. Turns out that's exactly what my Pentecostal church taught too. But I don't think there are very many churches that are still teaching that people will experience pleasure at watching people suffer in that way. That the witnessing of suffering is what causes the pleasure - not joy that justice was done, joy at watching people suffer.

This may be a pretty fine hair to split, and frankly I'm pretty tired of arguing about it. So I'm going to accept the testimony of people with more experience of Catholicism than I do and withdraw the argument.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.

Last edited by arthwollipot; 4th May 2022 at 06:23 PM.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 01:27 AM   #219
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Except it is the flippin' same as what the doctrine was all along, and what was objected to. Again, if you actually read Tertullian, he's not actually saying that he's just a sadist enjoying seeing suffering for suffering sake. He's enjoying it because they deserved it.

In fact, this whole subthread has been an exercise in pulling stuff out of the ass and attributing it to Tertullian. He's not the one actually saying that it gives anyone more pleasure. (Though the text does read like he's enjoying that thought.) The best known one actually flat out saying that (though not the only one) would be Aquinas. (So, yeah, things hadn't changed much for the better by then) And even he clarifies it to, basically, 'no, they're just enjoying seeing justice being done'. Here, from Summa Theologica:
A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
So no, that's not something "modern" or anything. That's exactly what Aquinas says. And you haven't actually discovered anything we didn't already know.


The problem still remains, though -- and it was known to anyone not making apologetics even in the time of Aquinas, since that's the objection he's answering there -- namely that it's not all that much of a difference. Rejoicing in the suffering caused by an unjust punishment is still not much better.

It's like saying I don't enjoy hearing the neighbour beat up his wife per se, I enjoy it because it sounds like she messed up dinner again. Does that actually sound like a righteous attitude to you?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th May 2022 at 01:33 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 01:45 AM   #220
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Thank you for posting the original text, which, yes, does basically agree with what your previous link says.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 05:08 AM   #221
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Though if you want something even more egregious from Aquinas, it's spelling it out that the 'saints' will have to be what we'd nowadays call complete psychopaths. As in, for them it will be physically impossible to show any empathy or pity for another.
Whoever pities another shares somewhat in his unhappiness. But the blessed cannot share in any unhappiness. Therefore they do not pity the afflictions of the damned.
Source: Summa Theologica

And that, honestly, I find an even scarier thought.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 05:24 PM   #222
junkshop
Graduate Poster
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Over here.
Posts: 1,061
If, when certain Christians use the phrase 'fear of God' they don't mean the literal fear of God, but rather (as has been claimed) something more akin to awe of God, then would it not be be more prudent to revise the translation to use a word that better describes the intended meaning, rather than insisting on an archaic translation of a text not originally written in English, that apparently results in so much misunderstanding of the intended meaning of said text?
__________________
Not a Cockney.

Last edited by junkshop; 5th May 2022 at 05:26 PM.
junkshop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 06:42 PM   #223
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
If, when certain Christians use the phrase 'fear of God' they don't mean the literal fear of God, but rather (as has been claimed) something more akin to awe of God, then would it not be be more prudent to revise the translation to use a word that better describes the intended meaning, rather than insisting on an archaic translation of a text not originally written in English, that apparently results in so much misunderstanding of the intended meaning of said text?
Indeed, that is exactly what has happened in several different versions, particularly those intended for children, who may not have the most nuanced understanding of the language.

Proverbs 23:17, in the King James reads:
Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long.

It reads as follows in some other translations:

Contemporary English Version:
Don't be jealous of sinners, but always honor the Lord.

Easy To Read Version:
Never envy evil people, but always respect the Lord.

Good News Translation:
Don't be envious of sinful people; let reverence for the Lord be the concern of your life.

International Childrenís Bible:
Donít envy sinners. But always respect the Lord.

Living Bible
Donít envy evil men but continue to reverence the Lord all the time...

New Century Version
Donít envy sinners, but always respect the Lord.

The Voice
Donít be envious of those wrapped up in sin, but always maintain a healthy respect for the Eternal.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 07:33 PM   #224
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Err... weren't you the one who was saying that theology evolved a bit since Tertullian? Well, The earliest parts of Proverbs are estimated to have been written between around 700 BCE, the last bits somewhere in the 4th century BCE, so, you know, things had evolved since then even for the early Xians.

Not the least because we're talking about a dead liturgical language at the time. The Hebrews no longer spoke Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic.

And to this day even learned and influential rabbis have disagreements as to exactly what a certain word meant. See the debate we had about "thou shalt not kill".

But in that case, we're talking about this word: יִרְאָה. It's the same word used clearly as fear in such verses as "Fear and trembling have beset me; horror has overwhelmed me." (Psalm 55:5) or "you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns" (Isaiah 7:25) or "No longer will there be a prince in Egypt, and I will spread fear throughout the land." (Ezekiel 30:13). That's the PRIMARY meaning of yirah.

ONLY for the Lord it is sometimes translated as "reverence", but we don't really have ANY evidence of it used anywhere else that doesn't mean fear. So yeah, the fearful kind of reverence, AT BEST.

But here's the real kicker: "Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”" (Exodus 20:20.) Yeah, that "be afraid" is the verb version of the same word. It makes no flippin' sense for Moses to actually be saying "do not be reverent"


And basically that's why Bible scholarship is a bit more complicated than "But in English it says X in version Y"
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th May 2022 at 07:34 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 08:02 PM   #225
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
But anyway... my point is that the whole POINT of the faith in faith apologetics, and usually it's flat out spelled out, is that the quite literal fear of what God will do to them is what keeps people from literally raping and pillaging. Unless you want to tell me that those people are supposed to find Hell awesome, and that's why they'd rather be moral than end up there
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 08:17 PM   #226
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And basically that's why Bible scholarship is a bit more complicated than "But in English it says X in version Y"
Of course it is. I was answering junkshop's specific question by providing examples of translations that did not use the word "fear". That's all.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2022, 08:20 PM   #227
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But anyway... my point is that the whole POINT of the faith in faith apologetics, and usually it's flat out spelled out, is that the quite literal fear of what God will do to them is what keeps people from literally raping and pillaging. Unless you want to tell me that those people are supposed to find Hell awesome, and that's why they'd rather be moral than end up there
I'm of the opinion that this is not what stops most people from literally raping and pillaging.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2022, 01:10 AM   #228
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm of the opinion that this is not what stops most people from literally raping and pillaging.
The point isn't whether you think that's how morality works. The point is that it's probably the most common kind of apologetics these days. And it relies on a literal fear of god.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2022, 01:44 AM   #229
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The point isn't whether you think that's how morality works. The point is that it's probably the most common kind of apologetics these days. And it relies on a literal fear of god.
Hmm, well, it's certainly a common argument against atheism, I'll give you that.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2022, 03:21 PM   #230
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Hmm, well, it's certainly a common argument against atheism, I'll give you that.

Yes indeed! And by admitting that, you are admitting that the theists who use that argument, have an unambiguous understanding of what they mean by fear.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2022, 05:27 AM   #231
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
BTW, Thor, there's one perversion of morality for you: Aquinas seems to think such harsh punishments are OK, among other reasons, because it makes the ones spared from them more grateful and happier to be spared. See the

- "considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance" in the quote I posted above, and also,

. "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more abundant thanks for it to God, a perfect sight of the punishment of the damned is granted them."

- "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned."

And that's just from the same Question 94 in the Summa Theologica, that I already linked to.

Any normal human being would find the notion abhorrent that some tyrant would make an example of some people, just so the others are all the more in a hurry to thank him for being spared, but that kind of thing obviously doesn't apply to really hardcore Jesus fanboys.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th May 2022 at 06:13 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2022, 09:02 AM   #232
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,642
Aquinas was an ancient. He shared what Arthur Koestler called "the stony cruelty of antiquity." Aquinas expected his readers to rejoice in his reasoning, as they did, right through late antiquity and the middle ages. I don't know quite when his vision of eternal pleasure at the torments of the damned fell out of fashion. Not that it ever entirely did.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

Last edited by sackett; 7th May 2022 at 09:03 AM.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2022, 12:30 PM   #233
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
As you say. Never completely did.

Mind you, it's a bit hard to say exactly how popular the "ha ha, I'll be in heaven and cackling like cartoonish villain at all of you roasting in hell" attitude is, because it never was entirely safe to outright say it, unless you're a theologian. In modern days it's a bit less fashionable (except on rapture nutter boards, I guess) than even overt racism, and in the middle ages it could get you tied up on top of a pile of wood. Reason being that it was heresy to say you know you'll be saved.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2022, 05:30 PM   #234
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As you say. Never completely did.

Mind you, it's a bit hard to say exactly how popular the "ha ha, I'll be in heaven and cackling like cartoonish villain at all of you roasting in hell" attitude is, because it never was entirely safe to outright say it, unless you're a theologian. In modern days it's a bit less fashionable (except on rapture nutter boards, I guess) than even overt racism, and in the middle ages it could get you tied up on top of a pile of wood. Reason being that it was heresy to say you know you'll be saved.
Modern evangelicals say it all the time now.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2022, 11:24 PM   #235
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes indeed! And by admitting that, you are admitting that the theists who use that argument, have an unambiguous understanding of what they mean by fear.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ó neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2022, 12:48 AM   #236
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,075
Yes well thanks for your quotes arth but just continuing our discussion regarding the meaning of words.

Apart from fear the Bible talks of love quite a bit. Can we be just as loose and pliable, with our meaning of this word also? Maybe we could suggest that love means holding someone, or something, in awe also? In this case the words fear and love are interchangeable. It sort of illustrates the nonsense of this discussion ..... no?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2022, 12:54 AM   #237
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,221
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ó neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
And the answer to Alice's question, as Carroll loved to show throughout his works, is a resounding "yes".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2022, 12:55 AM   #238
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,486
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes well thanks for your quotes arth but just continuing our discussion regarding the meaning of words.

Apart from fear the Bible talks of love quite a bit. Can we be just as loose and pliable, with our meaning of this word also? Maybe we could suggest that love means holding someone, or something, in awe also? In this case the words fear and love are interchangeable. It sort of illustrates the nonsense of this discussion ..... no?
Yeah, sure, why not? The Greeks had six different words for love. We have just the one. It means just what you choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
__________________
This is Australia. It's possible to start a fire with a lukewarm audience reaction to your standup routine.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2022, 02:46 PM   #239
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,194
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes well thanks for your quotes arth but just continuing our discussion regarding the meaning of words.

Apart from fear the Bible talks of love quite a bit. Can we be just as loose and pliable, with our meaning of this word also? Maybe we could suggest that love means holding someone, or something, in awe also? In this case the words fear and love are interchangeable. It sort of illustrates the nonsense of this discussion ..... no?
Love = obey = fear in the Bible. Although it is a bit directional. Manís relationship to god is mirrored by a womanís relationship to her husband. Men have the advantage of god not being real while women have to deal with real men treating them like ****.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2022, 03:00 PM   #240
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah, sure, why not? The Greeks had six different words for love. We have just the one. It means just what you choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

Interesting argument.

We have only one word for love so we can make it mean whatever we like???

I'd like to see you fill that argument out a bit.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.