To Bush Bunny. I agree with your assessment of Scientology. It's worse then a joke in my opinion. Streight on it's a fraud for money. Most religions say they want to help people, and even offer to do so without demanding payment in return. Scientology on the other hand promises the benefits That any psychologist and self help book has to offer. To be free from suffering and be successful. Except instead of giving this to people freely, they offer it at a costly price.

Does anyone think Hell is on earth, not in the afterlife. They say that religious folk are trying to avoid going to hell. Spiritual people have been through it on earth and survived. It's OK quoting parts of the bible, but to truly understand and show compassion for those that have been accused of sinning, is a different matter.

Just remember the Roman Catholics have Purgatory where the sinners go to suffer and contemplate their sins before going to heaven. Hedging ones bets, eh?

And that doesn't mean one has to forgive everyone who sins against you. Well in my book certain things can be forgiven, but others can't.

Not_Now.Soon,

In the context of this discussion, my understanding of abuse is simply what I quoted from the OED.

<<It sounds like that your definition of abuse gets very close to just things that are hurtful, but not abusive.>>

Not just hurtful, damaging or harmful.

<<By what you've said I take it you can't think critically about religion unless you don't believe it.>>

Not entirely.

We used to have a lot of sophisticated theists on OLO. You should have seen their discussions! They could on for page after page about what Kant said and what Aquinas said, etc, etc. Many Christians spend their whole lives agonising over how to reconcile verses like Psalm 137:9. There’s theodicy, which is the study of the problem of evil (a study which has been going on for centuries now and still has not produced a satisfying answer to the dilemma).

The problem is that none of these theists (at least the ones who never lose their faith) are ever willing to entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe, God doesn’t exist and it’s all made up. Until they are willing to do this, all the critiquing in the world will have been for nothing as the answers they arrive at will not be reliable.

<<Hell, and the various descriptions of it indeed are worth being afraid of. And as you've said if it's not a lie then parents have an obligation to warn their children.>>

Yes, but again, for the teaching of it to not constitute abuse, one would need to be able to objectively demonstrate its existence because of the harm that can be caused should they be wrong. The burden of proof remains with those who are making the claim.

<<[Is the teaching of Hell] abuse? No.>>

You have not yet demonstrated this. This is just an assertion.

<<God made hell as a punishment for the devil.>>

You don’t need to start preaching. I know the backstory. In fact, the rest of your post is just preaching.

Continued…

…Continued

I know the theology, you don't need to repeat it to me. The problem is not that I don't understand the theology, it's that the theology is both flawed and immoral.

<<God does not want anyone except Satan and those who rebelled with Satan to go [to Hell].>>

The fact that your god let’s people go there at all, when he could prevent that by simply changing the rules (He does make them, after all), makes him an evil monster not worthy of worship. Would you lock your children in the basement and torture them for the rest of their lives just because they didn’t love you? If not, then you are more moral than your god.

<<We're saved if we believe Jesus and accept the costly sacrifice that Jesus paid.>>

Firstly, Jesus had a bad weekend and then got to go to Heaven and become God. He did not sacrifice anything.

Secondly (and as I have I pointed out to you before) if this is the case, then the ball is in your god’s court to demonstrate his existence in a way that a belief in him would be rationally justifiable. The fact that He doesn’t do this means that either He doesn’t exist, or He doesn’t care enough about those who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it.

Which one is it?

AJ, Jesus was the son of God, not God. The Muslims see him as a holy prophet. The Jews saw him and still do as a radical Jew, and the Romans knew how to curb a potential troublemaker. The Rabbis saw him as a threat to their cooperation with the Romans. The Ancient Romans were not at all tolerant to anyone who fought them or rebelled. You behave or you will suffer.

The believers in Jesus saw or believed his miracles and resurrection. But they were hunted and eventually killed. St.Paul was the one who promoted Jesus and created Christians, from Gentiles, not other Jews.
Can't anyone see the politics and self promotion at work in this?

Bush bunny,

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus did get to become God (at least one part of God). God is made up of the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. I think confusion arises from the fact that ‘the Father’ and ‘God’ are used interchangeably.

That, and that fact that none of it really makes any sense at all.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the Trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” - Thomas Jefferson

The main point is that Jesus didn’t really sacrifice anything but His weekend. Soldiers who die in battle sacrifice far more for us than Jesus.