Octopus Overlords

I'll allow it.

Thank you, sir.

The Catholic tradition of "The Harrowing of Hell" says that Christ, between his crucifixion and resurrection, descended into Hell and made Salvation available to all the righteous (meaning mostly the good people in the OT) who died before his sacrifice.

I'm not sure how much of that tradition survives in Protestantism. In my churches growing up, not much was said about it. Presumably it all falls under the blanket assumption that the rules were different B.C. and A.D.

Grifman wrote:
Progressives appalled as Christians affirm doctrine held unanimously for 2000 years

I'd be a lot more forgiving about the condemnation they heap on others if they actually were interested in following any part of the rest of the bible. Given that the majority of these chuckleheads are fine with wearing WWJD bracelets while building walls to keep the poor away, gutting social programs to feed and house the poor and take away any health care the poor might get, I'm not ok with giving them the benefit of the doubt when interpreting Leviticus.

Holman wrote:The Catholic tradition of "The Harrowing of Hell" says that Christ, between his crucifixion and resurrection, descended into Hell and made Salvation available to all the righteous (meaning mostly the good people in the OT) who died before his sacrifice.

I'm not sure how much of that tradition survives in Protestantism. In my churches growing up, not much was said about it. Presumably it all falls under the blanket assumption that the rules were different B.C. and A.D.

The question was occasioned by a TV show with a story arc set in hell. There's a caveman there. Seemed to me like he got a raw deal, what with no commandments laid down or any possibility of redemption. In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right? So before Christianity hell hadn't even been "discovered" yet.

It just got me wondering, is all. I'm not surprised that there's no universally accepted answer. Still think that caveman got a raw deal, though.

The Harrowing story is a very Catholic thing. (There's a ton of church art about it.)

Now that I think about it, I recall the official answer from my suburban Evangelical upbringing was that there actually is no "time before Christ's sacrifice" because Christ's sacrifice is the lynchpin of history. Those people who had the kind of faith before Christ that would have accepted Christ had they known about him are saved retroactively (although it isn't actually retroactive because See Immediately Preceding).

Of course this introduces the new problem of why people who have that kind of faith AFTER (in human history) the sacrifice of Christ don't get the same leniency into heaven even if they never know Christ. In other words, why does a good-souled 1000 B.C. Greek get retro-saved when a good-souled 1000 A.D. Chinese doesn't?

I then had someone try to explain that the necessity of accepting Christ only applies to people who have heard of Christ, which immediately led my 14-year-old self to wonder if it wouldn't then have been better for the Christian Church to have stayed minutely small rather than spreading itself out and threatening more and more souls with damnation. I believe the doctrinal answer here was that you have a better chance of being good with Christ than of lucking into being good on your own, but this never sat all that well with me either.

And of course it's important to remember that there are many, many Christians who do not view salvation and damnation in these literal, mechanical, legalistic ways. But you can be sure that most of the conservative Evangelicals signing things like the Nashville Statement do.

Kraken wrote:

Holman wrote:The Catholic tradition of "The Harrowing of Hell" says that Christ, between his crucifixion and resurrection, descended into Hell and made Salvation available to all the righteous (meaning mostly the good people in the OT) who died before his sacrifice.

I'm not sure how much of that tradition survives in Protestantism. In my churches growing up, not much was said about it. Presumably it all falls under the blanket assumption that the rules were different B.C. and A.D.

The question was occasioned by a TV show with a story arc set in hell. There's a caveman there. Seemed to me like he got a raw deal, what with no commandments laid down or any possibility of redemption. In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right? So before Christianity hell hadn't even been "discovered" yet.

It just got me wondering, is all. I'm not surprised that there's no universally accepted answer. Still think that caveman got a raw deal, though.

That cave man could've been a huge asshole, though, for all you know.

El Guapo wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Holman wrote:The Catholic tradition of "The Harrowing of Hell" says that Christ, between his crucifixion and resurrection, descended into Hell and made Salvation available to all the righteous (meaning mostly the good people in the OT) who died before his sacrifice.

I'm not sure how much of that tradition survives in Protestantism. In my churches growing up, not much was said about it. Presumably it all falls under the blanket assumption that the rules were different B.C. and A.D.

The question was occasioned by a TV show with a story arc set in hell. There's a caveman there. Seemed to me like he got a raw deal, what with no commandments laid down or any possibility of redemption. In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right? So before Christianity hell hadn't even been "discovered" yet.

It just got me wondering, is all. I'm not surprised that there's no universally accepted answer. Still think that caveman got a raw deal, though.

That cave man could've been a huge asshole, though, for all you know.

See "Cleveland Blakemore"?

Interesting Pew report on a recent religion survey:
U.S. Protestants Are Not Defined by Reformation-Era Controversies 500 Years Later.

One weird result is that apparently 30% of American Protestants believe in Purgatory. That's very odd, since I don't know of *any* Protestant denominations that teach or preach the idea of Purgatory. It's not like it's something that people talk up in popular consciousness, either (is it?).

I'm about to pick up a new history of American Evangelicals by Frances FitzGerald (yes, that Frances FitzGerald).

El Guapo wrote:
That cave man could've been a huge asshole, though, for all you know.

Don't the rules have to be in place before you can break them? This retro-judgment seems unfair.

Wait, no, that's right up ol' Testamenty's alley.

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:
That cave man could've been a huge asshole, though, for all you know.

Don't the rules have to be in place before you can break them? This retro-judgment seems unfair.

Wait, no, that's right up ol' Testamenty's alley.

Where did Cain get his wife?

Enjoy!

Kraken wrote: In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right?

Incorrect. Jews believe in an afterlife, but it isn't nearly as detailed a concept as other religions or the focus or the religion, because the emphasis is supposed to be the here and now. They don't believe in a Hell, however, which may be what you're thinking of. IIRC, there's Gehenom, the closest thing to hell, which is where the wicked go to suffer as they atone for their sins, until they proceed to the afterlife, while the very evil don't proceed to the afterlife.

Defiant wrote:

Kraken wrote: In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right?

Incorrect. Jews believe in an afterlife, but it isn't nearly as detailed a concept as other religions or the focus or the religion, because the emphasis is supposed to be the here and now. They don't believe in a Hell, however, which may be what you're thinking of. IIRC, there's Gehenom, the closest thing to hell, which is where the wicked go to suffer as they atone for their sins, until they proceed to the afterlife, while the very evil don't proceed to the afterlife.

Does the bible even support the popular heaven/hell understanding, or was that tacked on later? I vaguely remember somebody believing that they're supposed to just molder in place until the Second Coming, whereupon they all get physically resurrected. The heaven/hell/judgment day model was added as a behavioral control device and for marketing reasons.

Or did I just now make that up?

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Kraken wrote: In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right?

Incorrect. Jews believe in an afterlife, but it isn't nearly as detailed a concept as other religions or the focus or the religion, because the emphasis is supposed to be the here and now. They don't believe in a Hell, however, which may be what you're thinking of. IIRC, there's Gehenom, the closest thing to hell, which is where the wicked go to suffer as they atone for their sins, until they proceed to the afterlife, while the very evil don't proceed to the afterlife.

Does the bible even support the popular heaven/hell understanding, or was that tacked on later? I vaguely remember somebody believing that they're supposed to just molder in place until the Second Coming, whereupon they all get physically resurrected. The heaven/hell/judgment day model was added as a behavioral control device and for marketing reasons.

Or did I just now make that up?

In brief, Heaven and Hell are never fully explained in the Christian Bible. There are mentions and suggestions, but there's never any point where Jesus or anyone else lays it out systematically. It's all very vague, and it's even less clear in the Hebrew Bible.

If all you had to go on was the New Testament, you would probably come away with the sense that good Christians would eventually live forever with God in some new kingdom on Earth rather than somewhere called "heaven," although again it's never clearly explained.

The traditional idea of Heaven and Hell comes from later Church fathers and from Dante, Milton,and other influential artists.

That's more or less what I thought.

I was raised in a fire-and-brimstone Old Testament Hell tradition, offset by a vague milk-and-honey, harps-and-hymns heaven, and even to my young mind it all seemed like something adults pretended to believe in order to make us kids behave.

It's no wonder they don't know what to do with those poor unenlightened cavemen.

I was always taught growing up (good ol' Southern Baptist), that pre-saved-by-Jesus folks were just sort of grandfathered into Heaven. I don't think that was official church teaching, just what my mom told me when I asked the question.

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Kraken wrote: In fact, Jews don't believe in an afterlife, right?

Incorrect. Jews believe in an afterlife, but it isn't nearly as detailed a concept as other religions or the focus or the religion, because the emphasis is supposed to be the here and now. They don't believe in a Hell, however, which may be what you're thinking of. IIRC, there's Gehenom, the closest thing to hell, which is where the wicked go to suffer as they atone for their sins, until they proceed to the afterlife, while the very evil don't proceed to the afterlife.

Does the bible even support the popular heaven/hell understanding, or was that tacked on later? I vaguely remember somebody believing that they're supposed to just molder in place until the Second Coming, whereupon they all get physically resurrected. The heaven/hell/judgment day model was added as a behavioral control device and for marketing reasons.

Or did I just now make that up?

You made it up. Jesus actually talked about hell quite a bit.

Grifman wrote:

Kraken wrote:
Does the bible even support the popular heaven/hell understanding, or was that tacked on later? I vaguely remember somebody believing that they're supposed to just molder in place until the Second Coming, whereupon they all get physically resurrected. The heaven/hell/judgment day model was added as a behavioral control device and for marketing reasons.

Or did I just now make that up?

You made it up. Jesus actually talked about hell quite a bit.

No doubt Jesus believed in some sort of hell, but his mentions of it occur in the context of parables and references he expected his listeners to already get. There's never any attempt to explain the afterlife. Pretty much everything definite that Christianity says about it is a later formulation.

If you collect every mention of Hell (or related imagery) in the Bible, most of them are metaphoric or allusive, and the idea is always assumed, never explained. Hell looks like a myth or folk belief being carried along as part of cultural baggage rather than like some kind of strict doctrine. The Jewish tradition in the Old Testament (no stranger to rules and specificity) never spells it out.

(My understanding is that in Jesus' time the mainstream rabbis did not emphasize an afterlife, but there were a variety of sects and radical teachers who did. John the Baptist was one of these, and it seems that Jesus was one of John's followers before launching his own ministry. It's possible that Jesus could assume his followers knew John's teachings, but of course we don't have those today.)

What *does* happen is that Hell becomes important to Christian teaching as Christianity becomes socially and politically powerful. Christian teaching emphasizes Hell as Christianity becomes central to keeping order in Western civilization.

Jesus refers to Hell briefly and allusively maybe eight or nine times. Christian rulers and their preachers go on to talk about Hell pretty much all the time for centuries upon centuries.

Holman wrote:No doubt Jesus believed in some sort of hell, but his mentions of it occur in the context of parables and references he expected his listeners to already get. There's never any attempt to explain the afterlife.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "explain". Jesus makes quite clear that hell is a real place of suffering and anguish, populated by those that choose not to repent. I'm not sure what else was needed.

Pretty much everything definite that Christianity says about it is a later formulation.

That might be true for Catholicism with it's emphasis on purgatory, but Protestant Christianity holds pretty much to what Jesus said, and not much more.

If you collect every mention of Hell (or related imagery) in the Bible, most of them are metaphoric or allusive, and the idea is always assumed, never explained.

I would disagree with that. Jesus spoke of hell/punishment in far more than parables. I can bore you with verses from the Bible if you want me to

Hell looks like a myth or folk belief being carried along as part of cultural baggage rather than like some kind of strict doctrine. The Jewish tradition in the Old Testament (no stranger to rules and specificity) never spells it out.

You're going to need to provide evidence here, though I agree with your assessment of OT Judaism

(My understanding is that in Jesus' time the mainstream rabbis did not emphasize an afterlife, but there were a variety of sects and radical teachers who did.

This is definitely not true. There were three main factions in 1st century Judaism, the priestly/temple leaders, the Sadducees (the scribes) and the Pharisees. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, while the Pharisees did. In fact the Sadducces, not believing heaven, asked Jesus a "trick" question once, hoping to embarrass him:

Mark 12:18-23New International Version (NIV)

18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[a] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

I'll leave it to those interested to look up Jesus' response

John the Baptist was one of these, and it seems that Jesus was one of John's followers before launching his own ministry. It's possible that Jesus could assume his followers knew John's teachings, but of course we don't have those today.)

"It seems . . ." There is no historical mention of this in the gospels or any other document of the time period, so this is pure speculation.

What *does* happen is that Hell becomes important to Christian teaching as Christianity becomes socially and politically powerful. Christian teaching emphasizes Hell as Christianity becomes central to keeping order in Western civilization.

Again, assertion without evidence You could be right, you've just given us no reason to accept this view.

Jesus refers to Hell briefly and allusively maybe eight or nine times.

Jesus doesn't give us a detailed view of hell but it is quite clear that he believed it existed and he almost always spoke it it with a warning included. There are also a number of times where he did not mention "hell" directly but spoke of punishment in the afterlife.

Christian rulers and their preachers go on to talk about Hell pretty much all the time for centuries upon centuries.

You compiled a list of all the sermons and writings of Christian leaders, theologians and pastors for 2,000 year, analyzed them for content, and then made this determination?

Grifman wrote:

Holman wrote:No doubt Jesus believed in some sort of hell, but his mentions of it occur in the context of parables and references he expected his listeners to already get. There's never any attempt to explain the afterlife.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "explain". Jesus makes quite clear that hell is a real place of suffering and anguish, populated by those that choose not to repent. I'm not sure what else was needed.

Pretty much everything definite that Christianity says about it is a later formulation.

That might be true for Catholicism with it's emphasis on purgatory, but Protestant Christianity holds pretty much to what Jesus said, and not much more.

Both Catholic and Protestant Christianity elaborate legalistic doctrines of Hell that present strict (and immutable, if you reject purgatory) judgments and punishments. Hell since 100 AD has been an eternal torture sentence.

When Jesus speaks of Hell, it is always about immediate separation from God, and often the possibility of release or relief is the whole point of the anecdote. There is no clear sense that Hell is forever or immutable. There is definitely no clear sense that the whole point of religion is to escape or assign eternal punishment.

If you collect every mention of Hell (or related imagery) in the Bible, most of them are metaphoric or allusive, and the idea is always assumed, never explained.

I would disagree with that. Jesus spoke of hell/punishment in far more than parables. I can bore you with verses from the Bible if you want me to

I have seen them all. The churches of my upbringing were obsessed with them.

...

...

We could debate questions of the historical Jesus for as long as you like. But Kraken's question was about how clear the Bible is about the afterlife, and my point was that it isn't terribly clear at all and that most doctrine/imagery/impression derives from later elaboration.

I'm confident that study of theology and church history bears this out. (Plus, let's be honest, the Bible is a mess. That's why theology happens.)

Christian rulers and their preachers go on to talk about Hell pretty much all the time for centuries upon centuries.

You compiled a list of all the sermons and writings of Christian leaders, theologians and pastors for 2,000 year, analyzed them for content, and then made this determination?

Would such a total project really be necessary to understanding the ways in which divine judgment has been employed socially and politically in the history of Christendom?

Grifman wrote:
You compiled a list of all the sermons and writings of Christian leaders, theologians and pastors for 2,000 year, analyzed them for content, and then made this determination?

The chances that there are not one, but many thesis on this subject must be incredibly high. It wouldn't take personal effort but only a passing familiarity with the subject know what the generally accepted scholastic view point is on the subject.

I don't have that familiarity nor interest, but I can't for a moment believe that the idea of hell has not been studied to death by theologists.

GreenGoo wrote: I don't have that familiarity nor interest, but I can't for a moment believe that the idea of hell has not been studied to death by theologists.

if i may borrow a page from you, you could say they've studied the hell out of it

Zing!

GreenGoo wrote:The chances that there are not one, but many thesis on this subject must be incredibly high. It wouldn't take personal effort but only a passing familiarity with the subject know what the generally accepted scholastic view point is on the subject.

I don't have that familiarity nor interest, but I can't for a moment believe that the idea of hell has not been studied to death by theologists.

The question isn't whether hell has been studied or not, but whether the church talked about it "all of the time" as Holman asserted.

Yeah. That would be part of the study. I mean, I assume. People talking about hell is literally all there is to study about hell.

Is your concern the frequency or the content of these discussions?

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:The chances that there are not one, but many thesis on this subject must be incredibly high. It wouldn't take personal effort but only a passing familiarity with the subject know what the generally accepted scholastic view point is on the subject.

I don't have that familiarity nor interest, but I can't for a moment believe that the idea of hell has not been studied to death by theologists.

The question isn't whether hell has been studied or not, but whether the church talked about it "all of the time" as Holman asserted.

You don't think the scheme of heavenly reward and eternal punishment was very heavily stressed by Christian teaching in the centuries when Christianity was socially and politically dominant in Europe?

Because yes, it was.

Well crap,the Rapture is this Saturday.

If learned biblical scholar Father Guido Sarducci is to be believed, those of us who haven't done anything really bad, but haven't done anything really good either, are only going to get about 3 or 4 feet off the ground and then just hover. That's going to be rough. I may try to find a pair of those boots they used to give deep sea divers.

At the very least, one should have a 5-6 foot branch or pole to help themselves move around a little.

been a while since I've thought of Sarducci.

No church services? Pay your taxes.

Churches in Montreal are becoming concerned about hosting community groups after being hit with bills for municipal taxes.
...
Provincial law exempts churches and manses from paying municipal taxes but Coppetiers was told that if a manse is vacant for several months between ministers, it's taxable.
Following that, city officials arrived for an inspection of every room in the church and how they were used.

"The indication is there's not an exemption for the church as a whole, there's only an exemption for those areas used for public worship and things directly related to it," said Coppetiers.

As a result, many churches in Montreal that host community groups, such as food banks, or Girl Guides or Boy Scouts, are facing mounting tax bills.
...
When Trinity Memorial Church in NDG closed earlier this year, the city started enacting taxes immediately following the last service.

As a result churches feel pressured to sell swiftly, with Trinity Memorial being sold to Stanford Properties Group within two months.

Ireland

State-run primary schools are taking formal religious instruction for pupils off the timetable.

The umbrella body for community national schools has decided that preparation for sacraments, such as First Communion, will no longer take place inside the school day.

The move by Education and Training Boards Ireland (ETBI) represents a significant milestone in the long-running debate over the place of religion teaching in primary schools.
...
Community national schools have been offering a hybrid approach to religious education - mainly a multi-belief programme for entire classes.

However, although practices varied within schools, time may also be allowed for instruction in particular faiths, if parents request it.

This involves segregating children and, in practice, it has mainly been requested by parents of Catholic children, who make up about half of the 4,000 pupils in 12 community national schools who have made such requests.

In this way, community national schools have differed from Educate Together, whose policy is not to provide time within the school day for religion.
...
Although there are only 12 community national schools, ETBI has ambitions to grow that number under the plan to increase diversity in the education sector through the transfer of Catholic schools.

The Southern Baptists are the third largest disaster relief organization in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/us/09baptist.html

Makes it sound like they're being really nice, but then you kind of realize it's a perfect opportunity to take advantage of some really beaten down, vulnerable people and get some recruiting in. It's always easier to snag some new followers if you can catch them at rock bottom.

Article wrote:Religion and secular rescue efforts do not always mix easily. Jessica Powers, a Red Cross volunteer from New York who ran the feeding operation in conjunction with the Southern Baptist group here, said that on a disaster mission in Louisiana, a Baptist worker riding along with the Red Cross was proselytizing victims.

Floodwater receding from Houston LDS temple, church sends supplies and volunteers to help

All I know is that when the Apocalypse hits I want to be around Mormons. They will have all the food, water, and guns.

Paingod wrote:Makes it sound like they're being really nice, but then you kind of realize it's a perfect opportunity to take advantage of some really beaten down, vulnerable people and get some recruiting in. It's always easier to snag some new followers if you can catch them at rock bottom.

One does not preclude the other. You can have several motivations in anything you do. Christ called his followers both to help people and spread his gospel. As long as aid is not contingent on someone converting or even listening, I see nothing to object to.

According to the fundies, the Rapture is starting tomorrow. Does that mean I don't have to go to my business meeting on Sunday?

Grifman wrote:

Paingod wrote:Makes it sound like they're being really nice, but then you kind of realize it's a perfect opportunity to take advantage of some really beaten down, vulnerable people and get some recruiting in. It's always easier to snag some new followers if you can catch them at rock bottom.

One does not preclude the other. You can have several motivations in anything you do. Christ called his followers both to help people and spread his gospel. As long as aid is not contingent on someone converting or even listening, I see nothing to object to.

It's also possible to just render aid without stuffing your beliefs into the sandwich.

Jaymann wrote:According to the fundies, the Rapture is starting tomorrow. Does that mean I don't have to go to my business meeting on Sunday?

Free clothes!

Paingod wrote:

Grifman wrote:

Paingod wrote:Makes it sound like they're being really nice, but then you kind of realize it's a perfect opportunity to take advantage of some really beaten down, vulnerable people and get some recruiting in. It's always easier to snag some new followers if you can catch them at rock bottom.

One does not preclude the other. You can have several motivations in anything you do. Christ called his followers both to help people and spread his gospel. As long as aid is not contingent on someone converting or even listening, I see nothing to object to.

It's also possible to just render aid without stuffing your beliefs into the sandwich.

Sure, but there's nothing wrong with sharing with people about what you believe is very important. In fact, it would hypocritical and dishonest to not do so. If one believes that there is an eternal destination for people, and that there is a God who loves them, then just providing them food and shelter when there are issues such as this would be negligent if not immoral not so share this with them according to one's own beliefs. People are free to listen or not.