Question for Theists

[arewethereyet]

Christians believe in saints

Catholics believe in saints and Protestants don't.

, and these saints' immortal souls go to or are in heaven.

As to when they go, opinions differ.

Look up saint in Wikipedia. You are completely incorrect.

[Ahriman]

There's been debate about this among Christians, right from the beginning. 

A lot of early Christians assumed that Hell would be a temporary place of cleansing, similar to Dante's Purgatory. It's not pleasant, but nobody goes there forever. 

Augustine settled the issue for most, by arguing for eternal punishment, but there has always been dissension. Contrary to what some here think about the church, they don't burn everybody who argues theological points. 

Currently the debate is active on line, since David Bentley Hart, who is a popular East Orthodox translator and theologian, published a book saying that in the end everyone will go to heaven. Edward Feser, who is his conservative Catholic counterpart, of course disagrees. 

I thought it was interesting that Lewis Carroll spent a great deal of time on the issue. The idea that hell is eternal depends largely on the translation of a single Greek word in the New Testament. But like a lot of Ancient Greek, the translation is not 100% certain, and reasonable people may disagree. Lewis Carroll, being a well-educated guy, knew Greek and wrote his interpretations of it. 

It is also important that many Christians do believe in an eternal hell, but are strict about remembering that only God decides who goes there. 

On the old Amazon forums there was a conservative Catholic guy who thought that gay sex was bad, but whenever it came up also emphasized that each and every one of us is full of sin, and so it's not our place to judge others' sins. He said that we are to forgive (as we hope to be forgiven), no matter what God does.

So Grand Nudnik's experience of Christianity is far from universal.

I'm aware there are different interpretations of what hell is/would be, its duration, and who goes there,  but in my experience the majority of people I've met, on and offline, believe in the bog standard eternal fire and brimstone idea. Within that group there are those, mainly offline, that have expressed real and heartfelt concern for my soul, and those are the ones I respect the most because it shows that a) they truly believe what they're saying and have given it a lot of thought, and b) that they are compassionate. Then there are those that don't dwell on it, probably compartmentalise it, certainly don't threaten or posture with it. And then, mainly online, in my experience, are the sadistic ones who seem to relish the prospect of people going there, and use it as a weapon in argument. Those are the ones I have no respect for.

You've never made enemies in your whole life?

[emjay]

I'm aware there are different interpretations of what hell is/would be, its duration, and who goes there,  but in my experience the majority of people I've met, on and offline, believe in the bog standard eternal fire and brimstone idea. Within that group there are those, mainly offline, that have expressed real and heartfelt concern for my soul, and those are the ones I respect the most because it shows that a) they truly believe what they're saying and have given it a lot of thought, and b) that they are compassionate. Then there are those that don't dwell on it, probably compartmentalise it, certainly don't threaten or posture with it. And then, mainly online, in my experience, are the sadistic ones who seem to relish the prospect of people going there, and use it as a weapon in argument. Those are the ones I have no respect for.

You've never made enemies in your whole life?

What I'm talking about is the inconsistency with the stated goals of the religion of Christianity, depending on how you interpret it. If you interpret it like TGN then I guess that's fine, there never really is any inconsistency, but if you accept a more global interpretation of love thy neighbour, and forgive all those who trespass against you - which is the version of Christianity I grew up in and still surrounds me IRL - then it is inconsistent to delight in their suffering, and even more inconsistent to take that to the grave, and hypothetically beyond, since it says in the Bible you can't even get into heaven without forgiving others. So what I mean is I have no respect for them as claimed Christians ... Fred Phelps for instance, who went to extreme and sickening lengths to delight in the death and hypothetical eternal suffering in hell of Matthew Shepard, would be one of many who - if (the global version of) Christianity turned out to be true - I'd expect to get turned away at the pearly gates.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its not reasonable to expect a social movement that spans the globe and centuries to be consistent over time or distance. It's gone through the same changes that the societies which have hosted it have, and syncretism never stopped. To put it even more bluntly, the religious movements that stopped changing for any significant period of time are the ones that ceased to exist, often replaced by a time and region appropriate version of abrahamism.

When I talk about christianity here in the states (and broadly across the west) splitting off into two distinct and post-christian christianities..that's not criticism, that's a sign of their continued success and relevance. That people still think they can take the stories and make them useful, make them fit to a contemporary ideology...whether that's stone cold authoritarian hate or wishy washy new age healing and tolerance.

[emjay]

Its not reasonable to expect a social movement that spans the globe and centuries to be consistent over time or distance.  It's gone through the same changes that the societies which have hosted it have, and syncretism never stopped.  To put it even more bluntly, the religious movements that stopped changing for any significant period of time are the ones that ceased to exist, often replaced by a time and region appropriate version of abrahamism.

When I talk about christianity here in the states (and broadly across the west) splitting off into two distinct and post-christian christianities..that's not criticism, that's a sign of their continued success and relevance.  That people still think they can take the stories and make them useful, make them fit to a contemporary ideology...whether that's stone cold authoritarian hate or wishy washy new age healing and tolerance.

Fair enough. That's just what I think of when I, perhaps too rigidly, think of Christianity, but I see what you're saying; it evolves and its continued success depends on its ability to evolve/be reinterpreted to fit any ideology. That's not a great selling point though, that it's vague enough to be able to so drastically change its meaning, but I guess from the perspective of its adherents, that is a selling point, making their religion basically Plug and Play

[Ahriman]

Its not reasonable to expect a social movement that spans the globe and centuries to be consistent over time or distance.  It's gone through the same changes that the societies which have hosted it have, and syncretism never stopped.  To put it even more bluntly, the religious movements that stopped changing for any significant period of time are the ones that ceased to exist, often replaced by a time and region appropriate version of abrahamism.

When I talk about christianity here in the states (and broadly across the west) splitting off into two distinct and post-christian christianities..that's not criticism, that's a sign of their continued success and relevance.  That people still think they can take the stories and make them useful, make them fit to a contemporary ideology...whether that's stone cold authoritarian hate or wishy washy new age healing and tolerance.

The wishy washy shit is actually worse than the authoritarian alternative.

[The Grand Nudger]

You like what you like.