Thought this was a great article. I haven’t researched it to the degree that this author has, so I can’t speak to the complete accuracy of what he says. But he makes a great case, and it’s the same view I’ve held for a while.
The ancient Persians had a significant impact upon some of the core myths that underscore Judaism and Christianity. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity owe thanks to the Persian priests of Zoroaster for the light versus darkness motif, the belief in an impending apocalypse, and the messianic dogma. But above all, both Jews and Christians should thank Persia for the Devil himself. I think it’s fair to say that had they not adopted this fictitious character from the Persians, they might not have succeeded with such ease in persuading and maintaining their frightened and superstitious flocks.
The religion of Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, received its name from a Magian Priest by the name of Zoroaster (Greek)/Zarathustra (Persian), who was a loyal servant of the “one true” Persian God Ahura Mazda, or Ormuzd. Ormuzd was commonly referred to as the “The Holy Spirit” in the pre-Christian portions of the Avesta.(1) This…
View original post 3,596 more words
Finding Truth 
You may recall it was mentioned that there are various interpretations of the doctrine of Hell.
Perhaps if the ones who do not believe in eternal torture in a fiery pit made an effort to convey this it might help?
LikeLike
Actually, I do think you’re having a hard time seeing his point. It’s more nuanced than what you’re describing. In part, he’s saying that maybe we’re labeling things as “abuse” and “traumatic” too quickly these days. It’s similar to the epidemic on college campuses where students don’t want to hear from a speaker who has a point of view that differs from their own. That kind of isolationism is dangerous.
I don’t necessarily know that William is right about that, but I do think it’s an interesting point worth discussing.
As to your responses to him, the merits of your points are great. You just have a tendency to devolve into personal insults, and that’s why it does seem ironic that you now criticize William of doing what’s essentially your M.O.
I just hope we can drop all the personal stuff and move on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From what I understand, they do. Remember all the fuss when Rob Bell put out his Love Wins book? The problem is, fundamentalist Christians run in fundamentalist circles where the preachers very much believe in a literal Hell. There’s just not a quick solution to this problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the issue can only be resolved in the same way that any backwards thinking is resolved — through time and education. We can’t stop redneck parents from teaching their kids to be bigots. At least, not directly. But we can make sure that people who espouse that kind of hatred face social consequences, and we can make sure our public school systems teach the values of diversity and equality.
The same thing happened with LGBT rights, and I think the same thing has to happen with fundamentalist religion and the doctrine of Hell. In mainstream society, it’s already viewed as kind of backward. Things will get better, even if it’s never eradicated. I just think it takes time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
William,
If a father tells his children that if they do not behave HE will burn them alive, wouldn’t you agree that that is child abuse? Would you also agree that if same father tells his children that the Boogeyman under the bed is going to burn them alive if they do not behave, that that is also child abuse?
It seems that what you are saying is that if the father really and truly believes that there IS a Boogeyman under the bed who will burn his children alive if they do not behave, that threatening the child with stories of being burned alive by a Boogeyman is not child abuse because unlike the second situation above, the father truly believes it to be true.
But if we excuse parents for doing bad things to their children simply because they believe that what they are doing or saying is “good” for their children, we need to start excusing all kinds of horrific, superstitious behavior. For instance, in some cultures the genitalia of little girls are mutilated for superstitious (religious) purposes. Should we accept this practice as “moral” and “acceptable” simply because of the INTENT of the parent? If we go back far enough in history we would find parents brutally slitting their children’s throats as human sacrifices to appease angry gods. Since the INTENT of the parents was “good”, do we excuse the killing of children in religious human sacrifice ceremonies as “moral” and NOT condemn it as child abuse?
I think you are getting hung up on the PENALTY for child abuse. You are worried that I am advocating the removal of children from homes in which the doctrine of Hell is taught. I am not. However, I am in favor calling Evil by its true name. Teaching children to fear being burned for misbehavior is evil and it is child abuse regardless of the context of the threat.
LikeLike
Yeah, I see your points, but still.
So, slitting your kid’s throats is definitely abuse. I’d say that female circumcision is too, but I wouldn’t go as far to say male circumcision is.
I don’t like pierced ears and don’t know why parents do that to their kids, but i wouldn’t call that abuse either.
If a parent told their kids that the police were going to put them in jail if they keep acting out in a restaurant, then I wouldn’t say that was abuse, just bad parenting.
I don’t think it’s hard when we beginning looking at all the many things that can cause pain or discomfort or fear, to varying degrees, before we see a gray area.
And while looking at all of it, we see that pain isn’t necessarily bad, or else we’d all be anti-vaccineers. We couldn’t say that all bad feelings are bad, or we’d all keep our children from learning about death, either their own or their pets or loved ones, we wouldn’t let them play with others for fear of them getting their feelings hurt or whatever.
At some point we decide where a line should be. Like walking to ledge: if it’s solid and sturdy rock, then maybe we’d walk right up to the very end, feeling confident that the line is clearly defined, but with other ledges made of dirt, we don’t quite know where that “better safe than sorry” line is, and two people will likely feel very differently about where the real line is in respect to the visible ledge – but we can probably agree on a range, even if we cant on exact coordinates. The vewry edge is too dangerous in that case because it’ll give way, somewhere back from the ledge is safe, but where exactly?
Ark can imply all he likes, but Hell Doctrine is not universally recognized as abuse in the medical community, even if someone wrote one article about it. You think it’s abuse, I do not. You can act like I’m crazy, and I can imply you’re weak – but nate’s right, it’s not fair or helpful.
But, is teaching hell abuse? is giving little girls pierced ears abuse? Is male circumcision? Are dental braces for cosmetic reasons? Is little league american football abuse? Or child level boxing? or making a son chop firewood? Is a parent using the “police threat” abuse? The line isn’t clearly defined, and I don’t see where hell is abuse, but you do, so maybe it’s gray.
This may be the best I can do here. You suffered from being taught about hell. I was also taught that hell was very real, very literal, and I do not suffer from it, so it’s hard to imagine someone thinking that maybe they should hurt or suffer more than what they do or have from something they’ve been through firsthand.
LikeLike
And also, if we go on crusades about what we consider to be evil, that’s eerily similar to religion.
I understand that hell isn’t real and can be scary. But fiction and scary don’t define “abuse” and aren’t always bad in and of themselves.
I think we can agree on the extremes; punching a kid in the face is abuse. Molesting a kid is abuse.
Telling them that their mother was just killed in a car wreck, when really she wasn’t? I mean, I think that’s terrible and a jerk move – not at all funny, but would I call that abuse? I may even say it’s wrong, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable saying it’s abuse. I could see such a cruel joke as being hurtful and emotional – but enough to wreck someone’s life or cause lasting harm? I’d have a hard time with that.
That’s why I used a “scraped knee.” It may not be the best analogy, but a scraped knee is real pain, and a real injury, but it’s also common – lots of people have experienced them, and while it stings and hurts, most people are capable of getting up and walking on – but most of us also aware or have seen one or two people blow the injury out of proportion, acting as if they’re about to die and that they can’t get up. Those of us who’ve had multiple knee scrapes in our time don’t feel more sympathy for the one who wont get up, but frustration, because we know what it’s like, sometimes worse, and are able to forge ahead.
I could be wrong here, looking at hell that way, but for now, I don’t see that. Listing to some sufferer tell me about how bad it is for them will likely be no more convincing than having an “eyewitness” tell how they saw a miracle, so I should believe it too.
It may be that I’m naturally a jerk. It maybe that I’m just not conveying my thoughts well enough here. It may also be that I’m right. None of it matters in the long run though.
Sorry you’ve struggled with it (no sarcasm). I just do not, and it’s hard for me to relate. Sorry.
LikeLike
Is giving permission to a doctor to operate on your ten year old with acute appendicitis evil, even if your child is adamantly against having the surgery? Of course not. It is not evil because western society knows from scientific/medical research and reason that the surgery is in the best interest of the child.
And the same is true for vaccinations, and I would say, for male circumcision.
But there is no scientific research that supports threatening your child with ancient superstitions of being burned alive as a consequence of improper behavior and immoral thoughts. Teaching children baseless, frightening, superstitions to mold desired behavior and thinking should be labeled as immoral, evil, and abuse. At least in my opinion. I’m not advocating “jail time”. I’m advocating removing the social respectability and acceptability for abusing children with this nonsense.
Gary
ex-Baptist fundamentalist/evangelical/LCMS fundamentalist
LikeLiked by 1 person
To me, “abuse” is a difficult word because I think it describes two things: it describes the attitude of the parent (or abuser), and it describes the effect on the child (or abused).
When it comes to teaching a child about Hell, I agree with William that “abuse” isn’t the right label for the parent, because their intention is to help the child. This gets more complicated in areas like female circumcision, because the parents probably think it somehow helps the child, but I think the harmful effects of it are more demonstrable than our ability to show Hell doesn’t exist. I’d rather not get that complicated with the analogy.
However, when teaching a child about Hell, “abuse” might be the right label to describe its effects on the child. In that way, I do agree with Gary, Ark, etc that teaching a child about Hell is abusive. It may not cause any long-term harm for the child, but it’s certainly not a healthy situation for the child to be in. And we do know of cases where the teaching really did cause needless trauma. In fact, while I don’t suffer directly from that trauma, I feel the effects second-hand, because I think fear of Hell is one of the main reasons my parents and in-laws aren’t able to see the flaws in their beliefs.
But because I don’t think the “abuse” label accurately reflects the parent’s status, I’m not real comfortable using the term liberally. I doubt I would use it when talking to a Christian, because I’d be afraid it would put them too much on the defensive. Even worse, they might not understand the point and think I’m being irrational.
LikeLike
Well, I can agree that I’d like the teaching to stop. and maybe I just got caught up in semantics, i don’t know.
But I don’t think male circumcision is medically beneficial.
And ear piercings, cosmetic braces, etc also fall outside medical necessity and I guess that’s my point – there is a gray area, even if we disagree where the blurry edges begin or end,
But I’ll just focus on our common area from here on – Hell is fiction and we should work towards eliminating that fiction from being taught and believed as reality.
LikeLike
Not to go too far down a rabbit trail, but…
I can understand the concerns people have about male circumcision, but as a physician I see the benefits. I have seen several uncircumcised teenage males with very painful phimoses (google it) and research shows that uncircumcised males are at greater risk of STD’s.
However, if the only purpose of circumcision was religious, I would be in favor of outlawing it.
LikeLike
sure, well, I have no beef with circumcision. I might be apprehensive signing up for the procedure now.
Fortunately, my foreskin was cut away in a modern practice of an ancient and barbaric tradition.
LikeLike
A motion was put before the European Court a few back to try to have Male circumcision declared abuse. The motion was vetoed, mainly by the German delegates if memory serves, and you can imagine why. But at least the motion was put forward and one day i may succeed.
I did not say indoctrinating kids about Hell is universally recognised by the medical profession as abuse. Read the comment carefully. Maybe this is half you problem ,William?
That the parent is unable to recognise that it is abuse is indicative of the indoctrination and abuse the parent has also suffered.
Of course it would be nice if this doctrine was not taught, but it is an integral part of Christianity so stating it should simply be regarded as fiction is a somewhat pointless pursuit if leveled at believers. And telling non believers is preaching to the choir.
Acknowledging it is abuse because it causes serious trauma for many kids brought up in a fundamentalist environment is the first step to eliminating it.
LikeLike
Maybe it is, I just don’t see it as serious trauma. But maybe it is.
I don’t live in Europe or the UK. What’s your take on the Brexit ( I hate that I even typed ‘Brexit’)?
LikeLike
Ark lives in South Africa. You’re originally from England, though, aren’t you Ark?
LikeLike
South Africa? I’d like to visit. I was a fan of District 9. I mean, I don’t know how do you guys cope with all of that.
I also hear there’s a lot of secrets in district 9.
LikeLike
Yes, originally from the UK.
I have no feelings regarding Brexit, one way or the other, to be honest.
LikeLike
No feelings on the Brexit?
You are so unemotional, Ark. Let go a little bit once in a while and really express what you feel.
🙂
LikeLike
I am not au fait with European Politics these days so any ”view” I expressed would be one of mostly ignorance.
I generally don’t like to express an opinion unless I am reasonably clued up about the topic at hand.
However, based on much of political history I suspect for the”man in the street” little difference will be noticed for a considerable time, if at all, and it will largely be a case of ”As you were.”
LikeLike
Actually, he is quite accurate, as I’ve mentioned this scenario from time to time myself. Those Jews held in captivity in Babylon were exposed to many Persian stories long before the Persians attacked and defeated the Babylonians, then helped the Jews rebuild Jerusalem and its temple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zoroastrianism has a good god – Ahura Mazda – and an evil god – Angra Mainu, as well as a man born of a virgin – the Sayoshant – who at the end of the world, after Angra Mainu is defeated, will lead the righteous through a river of fire that will burn their sins away before taking them to paradise.
There seems to have been a great deal of intermixing theologies that took place in the Middle East.
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike