• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How hard is it to watch people heading for hell

Wotan

Active Member
""If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms around their knees, imploring them to stay, ... C.H. Spurgeon."

MoF, could you explain by what logic you have the right to interfere in other people's lives?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
We owe ourselves an apology for forgetting that we are partly (at least) bestial and that's no reason for God to not love us.

For further explanation, consider this:

“...I think the demon's target is not the possessed; it is us...the observers...I think the point is to make us despair; to reject our own humanity...to see us as ultimately bestial; as ultimately vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy. And there lies the heart of it, perhaps: in unworthiness. For I think belief in God is not a matter of reason at all; I think it is a matter of love; of accepting the possibility that God could love us.” William Blatty, The Exorcist, pg 369.

Excellent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Oh, sorry. I thought that Man of Faith said that.

I was going to say, I thought you knew my rampant use of fiction as spiritual insight better than that.

I actually wanted to post a link to a post I made in a thread by Saint Tigeress thread about atonement. I can't seem to find it, but the post is:
Guitar's Cry said:
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> “...I think the demon's target is not the possessed; it is us...the observers...I think the point is to make us despair; to reject our own humanity...to see us as ultimately bestial; as ultimately vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy. And there lies the heart of it, perhaps: in unworthiness. For I think belief in God is not a matter of reason at all; I think it is a matter of love; of accepting the possibility that God could love us.” William Blatty, The Exorcist, pg 369.


(Blatty 369)

Humankind has always thought itself a little above nature in terms of its intellect, and this has led to an angel/animal duality where our socialized, civilized side is in a conflict with our instinctual, primitive side.

We are animals with an advanced conscience.

The Greeks described this as like driving a chariot with one horse representing instinct and emotion, and the other reason.

When we allow the instinctual side to take reign, our socialized side--the one that lauds reason and decorum over emotion and irrationality--feels guilty, and in separating our world, we put ourselves in opposition to the universe. We want to love ourselves; we want the universe to love us, and to be accepted. But the conflict is always there, since we cannot (as yet) separate our animal side from our angel side.

The Christian way of settling this is through atonement: believing that one is being forgiven by the ultimate reality, and thus loved.

Other cultures have other ways of settling this. Many involve accepting the animal side as being in harmony with the angel side (Yin and Yang, the Pentacle), and others involve reaching a level of equality with the universe (Enlightenment, Nirvana).

Blatty, William. The Exorcist. New York : Bantam Book, 1971.

The idea being that our human concept of sin can be seen as related to our rejection of our animal, instinctual side, falsely believing that the Universe sees this side as bad or negative.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
We owe ourselves an apology for forgetting that we are partly (at least) bestial and that's no reason for God to not love us.

For further explanation, consider this:

“...I think the demon's target is not the possessed; it is us...the observers...I think the point is to make us despair; to reject our own humanity...to see us as ultimately bestial; as ultimately vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy. And there lies the heart of it, perhaps: in unworthiness. For I think belief in God is not a matter of reason at all; I think it is a matter of love; of accepting the possibility that God could love us.” William Blatty, The Exorcist, pg 369.

I love this. Fan-freakin-tastic! :clap
 

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
""If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms around their knees, imploring them to stay, ... C.H. Spurgeon."

MoF, could you explain by what logic you have the right to interfere in other people's lives?

Freedom of religion, given by the creator.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
I disagree, freedom of religion is not just freedom of beliefs.

Yes, you're free to express yourself through your religion, however you do not have the right to interfere in peoples live based on your personal opinion. For example, if you're beating someone over the head with a baseball bat, and i come over and take that bat away from you, I'm not interfering with your freedoms, I'm stopping you from interfering with someone else's freedoms.
 

Misty

Well-Known Member
Freedom of religion only extends as far as the right to hold your beliefs, but your rights end where mine begin. Interference in others lives, is not freedom of religion.

I agree. What right does anyone else have to instruct others in what to believe?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Freedom of religion only extends as far as the right to hold your beliefs, but your rights end where mine begin. Interference in others lives, is not freedom of religion.

That is true, but the line where these two "rights" meet is not black and white.

What if, for example, you think that you have the right not to see buildings dedicated to religion and religious practice - including proselytizing.

And I wonder if you have the right to avoid the proselytizing - don't people have the right to approach someone and talk with them, knock on doors, and even preach in the streets (in the public domain)?
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
That is true, but the line where these two "rights" meet is not black and white.

What if, for example, you think that you have the right not to see buildings dedicated to religion and religious practice - including proselytizing.

And I wonder if you have the right to avoid the proselytizing - don't people have the right to approach someone and talk with them, knock on doors, and even preach in the streets (in the public domain)?

Yeah, I totally agree. They're free to proselytize, just like I would be free to tell them why I think they are wrong, or have made an error in judgement. What I meant by interfering, is creating laws that limit the freedoms of others based on personal opinion.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I agree. What right does anyone else have to instruct others in what to believe?

I agree, with the exception that a religious leader is given authority by the church to preach and teach. This person and those like her are available for discussion with "unbelievers" as an authority representing their belief system.

Personally, I think that proselytizing is like apologetics - it is for the entertainment of Christians and an annoyance to everyone else.

It's far more productive to forget the antics and just discuss spirituality and listen to the other paths. Questions will come up concerning the nature of sin, Jesus, and every other talking point.
 
Top