Stuff you hate

[tushantin]

@Truthordeal: Purgatory is my favorite realm. XD

Feel free to vent, Saj, looks like your insights may be helpful. I'd also like to offer my perspective, though.

Agreed, spiritual abuse and "Hell talk" is a bad thing, especially when enforced by a specific culture, and it's even worse when people fail to collect the proper implications of such ideas. However, where I come from, this isn't much of "spiritual abuse", rather "spiritual enlightenment". The reason why I say this is because there's no one to force you what path you ought to follow (unless you're family's psychotic), and it is the individual's own responsibility to establish right from wrong.

The Hindu / Urdu terms for Hell is "Narak" and I still haven't figured if the term was native to Dharmic or it was borrowed from Islamic. However, the term signifies the same as the Christian term of Hell, though it implies more than after-life penalty.

Anybody familiar with the saying "What goes around comes around"? One of it's standard implications is that the world runs the way you do, aka if you're nice to your boss then your subordinates will likely be more nice to you, and if you help someone then perhaps some day you'll also receive that help. The idea is detailed, though I think I realize the depth of it's significance in an empathetic society, and it is also deeply structured in the concept of "Narak". One of the key symbols of this idea is "Paap ka Ghada" (i.e., the Cauldron of Sins), where a certain amount of sin is forgiven if it can be atoned (such as pilfering a dollar, badmouthing, etc.) but when the cauldron is full with the gravest of sins (such as unjust murder, etc.) then you begin to see to see signs haunting you, and lest you atone for your sins and lessen the burden in that cauldron, you'll suffer eternal damnation.

Personally, I think, such an idea is beautiful to look at because it gives you a chance to atone for your follies and be a better person, all without the intervention of Religion (despite it being the source of the influence). The "scare factor" isn't just the after-life, but it does imply that one would be penalized even when alive (there's a quote saying that the sinner dies a several deaths before ceasing to exist). But the "Narak" concept has no such thing that you have to be religious if you want to reach heaven; even the non-believers go to heaven if they are good, but those who wrong others are merely filling their cauldron of sins and begging damnation. And it's true too: insecurity rises mostly to those who do wrong (drug cartels, traffickers, assassins, terrorists, etc.), because whether they acknowledge it or not their deeds haunt them every step of their way.

In India, even the Jews and Christians have broadened their views on "Hell" and therefore we don't have much spiritual abuse here. I'm a non-believer, but many priests called me a "blessed child". If only the other places opened their minds a little. =/


EDIT: I'm also a big fan of Krishna rather than Jesus. While "Accepting Krishna" is a part of the plan, the guy focuses more on teaching how to be a better individual, and constantly implies that a blind follower is blind nonetheless. Meaning? He's in his SoY!

[tushantin]

I would also like to imply that the Dharmic culture favors that every human and animal is defaulted to "Heaven", because innocence is purity, and "Hell" appears in natures when you've committed a grave sin. You needn't "convert" to be forgiven, because beliefs and jumping bandwagons won't save you. If you want to be forgiven then atone for your sins.

An example would be the Demon King Raavan, also known as "God Slayer". He was a disciple of Shiva, and yet was slain because he "sinned" by kidnapping and hurting Sita, Ram's wife, and thus wasn't saved. This implies that no matter who you are, your sins count.

[Sajainta]

According to the Catholics, you don't go to Hell, but Purgatory until you're prayed for or dealt with whatever sin. At least, one interpretation of it does. I think that's what Dante was getting at.

I've heard Catholics and Protestants say both Purgatory and Hell.  Regardless, sending children to Purgatory is only slightly less despicable.

[Mr Bekkler]

I remember when I was a child and was sent to a Christian summer camp, Triple R Ranch. They told me, word for word: "Jews go to hell."

This was the beginning of the end of my "faith".

[Sajainta]

Ugh.  Just ugh.  No wonder that was the beginning of the end of your faith.

I grew up hearing that bullshit in sermons and in school from infancy until the last time I attended church (which was last Christmas Eve).  Buddhists go to hell.  Agnostics go to hell.  Wiccans go to hell.  Christians who believe in evolution aren't real Christians and they're going to hell.  I had to take this class my senior year of high school called World Religions, but it should have been called "Why Everyone Other Than Us Is Going To Hell And How You Can Convert Them".  I hated it.  I was already an atheist at that point (and had been for a long time), so attending that high school was just awful.

I've been told I'm going to Hell so many times I can't keep track.  I would be so rich if I had a quarter for every time someone told me I was going to burn for eternity!  XD

[Syna]

Once Apologetics Boot Camp took us, highschoolers, to a college campus (of all fucking places) to practice our evangelism. They had the audacity and, well, cheese to quote the sixth sense: "Think about it like this. You see dead people. They're all around. They don't know they're dead."

When I expressed some of my personal agony that these people might go to hell, I was informed that this should be my motivation for evangelism. I had been refusing to go along with soliciting the college students - I was fourteen, I knew better than to think I could convince anyone, and in addition to being quite shy at the time I knew that sort of solicitation is goddamn disrespectful.

It's so funny. I am so much more alive now that I'm not a Christian. I know people who are so much more alive than anyone in that environment. When I was in college frolicking among heathens, the same types who I would have been pushed to evangelize four years before -- god, we were more alive than I could have possibly conceived. (This isn't to say Christians can't be alive, of course, but the difference in my life - awful environment aside - was very palpable, along the lines of a conversion experience even.)

[tushantin]

Sigh. Fanclub-ism. When does it end?

[Mr Bekkler]

"My dad could beat up your dad times infinity!"

Same thing.

[tushantin]

"My dad could beat up your dad times infinity!"

"My brand beats your brand."
"My belief is more efficient than your belief."
"My theory pwns your theory."
"My preferences are more logical than your preferences."
"My experiences outweigh your experiences and inquisitive nature."
"My ice cream is... ah, you're ice cream is dairy too."

And the list goes on.   

[tushantin]

I hate this feeling. The ever-so-cheerful Tushantin before (the one everyone knows) was a radical fool of unwavering smile and limitless zeal, who stared into face of impossible and laughed at it. But now, despite the love for curious observation, thought and zealous dreams, I feel the occasional pangs of despair, anxiety and insecurity. And fear. I abhor this feeling.

I think I'll pick a day off and dedicate myself to physical exertions, monsoon breeze and intense meditation. If nothing else, I might vent a little.

[Thought]

The doctrine that infants who die will go to Hell if they are not baptized or that children who die before they "accept Christ" will go to Hell.

Although many Christian denominations have an "Age of Accountability" as part of their official doctrine -- that is, no one goes to hell until they are of an age in which they can recognize that their own behavior is wrong and correct it -- most Christians seem to not know the very doctrine that they claim to believe in. As such there are vast numbers who, in apostacy, claim that infants go to hell.

[Lord J Esq]

Religions, when viewed from outside, are not really a marriage of people and deity. That's simply the claim made by the adherents. To everyone else, each given religion is nothing more than a broad social pact--a culture. The systems of morality that religions preach are normative, with no underlying intrinsic validity. (Take a strict reading of that; I am not saying more than I am saying.) If people call themselves Christian, and affirm their conviction in the core tenets of Christian theology--principal of which are that Jesus Christ is Lord and died as a mortal to absolve humanity of its sins, and that through Jesus one may achieve salvation--then, really, who are you to call them apostates? You may have a superior grasp of history and better logical grounding than they do, and in particular you may have a better understanding of the history and particulars of Christian theology, but a culture is not obliged to care about any of these things...and "apostate" is just a specialized form of the concept of "outsider," a cultural bestseller.

These infantodamners may not represent your Christianity, but they do represent a Christianity, and since there is no one true Christianity by which to judge the many worldly shades of it, all you can defensibly posit is that wide swaths of your religion are barbaric--preferably with a vow to marginalize the barbarians' influence. I am uncomfortable with the trend among religious moderates to condemn the views of their extremist counterparts as morally inferior to their own. In so doing, they pursue the disturbing aim of rehabilitating the religion's public image without doing anything to address the barbarism that turns people against the religion in the first place. Often they echo that barbarism themselves by preaching from a perch of moral sanctimony built upon fallacy.

[Thought]

I am surprised, Josh, it isn't like you to make such a gross error. If you reread my post, you will note that I was referring to specific Christian denominations. Perhaps an example might help you: a Presbyterian who doesn't believe in an Age of Accountability is like a Calvinist who does not believe in predestination. This isn't a matter of if they represent my Christianity or not, it is a matter of if they fit their Christianity or not. I can say that a Presbyterian who doesn't believe in an Age of Accountability is in apostacy because they are specifically holding to a theological position that is in direct opposition to Presbyterian doctrine.

In short, Josh, you have mistaken what is essentially a factual statement for a moral statement.

That said, despite this error, you approach a semblance of a useful statement in that, indeed, it is reprehensible for anyone to distance themselves from barbarianism while not attempting to address it. Part of what allows such barbarism to persist is the binary option that many Christians find themselves in. Either they have to be horrible people and accept barbaric traditions, or they have to be "horrible people" and reject religion (please do note the use of quotes in the latter instance). Revealing other options (many of which are already there in Christian dogma) allows for a more tolerable exit from such "saxonery" for those who find both original options unthinkable.

EDIT: I suppose I should note, for the sake of clarity, that there are a number of Presbyterian denominations as well. To my knowledge, all officially hold to an Age of Accountability, but I am not positive on that.

[tushantin]

Religions, when viewed from outside, are not really a marriage of people and deity. That's simply the claim made by the adherents. To everyone else, each given religion is nothing more than a broad social pact--a culture.

Same here; That was the first thing I implied when I first came to the Compendium.

The systems of morality that religions preach are normative, with no underlying intrinsic validity.

Josh, I think there are many cultures and religions beyond Judaism that are actually quite pragmatist in nature, where collective practices mean everything and blind beliefs are intolerable. These cultures are actually an ever-updating form, and validity exists undoubtedly.

@Thought: In the light of Religious representatives dividing to form a "custom" division and undermining the other divisions for what it stands, do you agree that these traits and circumstances are harmful for core or modern Christians who are actually more knowledgeable about their roots? As for the foundation of ethics, do you feel moderation and education is necessary to curb the barbaric nature of ill-minded and misinformed followers from corrupting the nature of humanitarian principles and the like?

In line of "corruption of principles", from my understanding, a fellow Christian here once told me that Benny Hinn had come to India to apparently "convert" many other Christians to his divisions, but he was laughed at and thus driven out because every "true Christian" knows that are the play of the devil (I'm using "devil" here as a symbol of corruption); the only true Christianity is their true principles, the religion of love, and what they learn via practice (aka, "God is only true"). He also told me that many Christians (apparently, the "Indian Christians") believe that the American divisions have it wrong, that a simple person has no right to represent God or Christ and commit injustices in their name, just as I cannot represent Josh's philosophy; those who think otherwise are deluded, thus it becomes easy for any human mind to "infiltrate and corrupt" the core principles and mold truth to their liking. Of course there's probably more to the story that my friend knows and I don't know.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Chrono Master]

Right Now, I am hating myself for many reasons. 1. I don't know how long ago my last login was (and scared to check as well...its gotta be over a year) 2. College is killing any social life I had. 3. firefox froze and I could not get a report submitted in on time. 4. hind sight is 20/20 and is a bitch in all our lives. 5. missed a perfect score on a test because of a stupid error. 6. because of #1 I have not been able to do this... ...I'll never tire of that other sites need to make that an emote. and 7. I have realized I really can't hate other people, or I just haven't met the type of person that can piss me off without trying.

On a side note Because I'm too lazy to go to the stuff you love thread.
Right now I love  how many of you thought that this was probably be something of material value and have continued to read to this point not realizing that this is still going for the sole purpose of having you continue reading this and has not been about what I love, which was writing this with I shirt I used to have in mind so we can have a laugh at humor that (thank god) dose not use crude, immature, or sexual content to be funny, but uses the dry wit to achieve an entertaining humor.