6 ms·

Interesting how the judeo- Christian concept of immortality is so clearly harmful, while the Greek/ eastern concept of the transmigration of souls is so sociall

Interesting how the judeo- Christian concept of immortality is so clearly harmful, while the Greek/ eastern concept of the transmigration of souls is so socially useful. For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. But for a Hindu, you will inherit the good and bad you do in this life in the next. Though, of course, that can lead to a different kind of fatalism in terms of treatment of the poor.

baldfat 8y ago
> For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. That isn't universal and as a Theological student it isn't even what is written in the scriptures. In fact you can't read anywhere in the scriptures where people go to heaven, but it talks about people living here on earth. It's hard to make universal statements.
- coliveira 8y ago
  It's hard to make universal statements because the bible is shock full of contradictory statements. Jesus says explicitly that large is the path that leads to damnation and that few will be chosen by him. So, while some will have redemption, the story goes that most of humanity will end up in despair. Of course, other texts can be used to conclude the opposite, which is the normal fashion for bible interpretation.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    You're overstating how clear the contradictions really are. There's nothing close to "Ham is green, no hams are green."
  - mseebach 8y ago
    It means "nobody gets it for free". Nobody gets to say "oh, but I'm the king, I'm pre-redeemed, I can do whatever". Everyone has to work hard every day for redemption, and nobody is ever done.
    - avogadro 8y ago
      That is one possible interpretation of the english translation that you happen to be using.
- samirillian 8y ago
  > It's hard to make universal statements I feel like I've been motte and bailey'd a bit here [1]. OK, let's remain agnostic about the hermeneutics. Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth than the doctrine of reincarnation? Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
  - baldfat 8y ago
    I wasn't baiting and switching I was just stating your statement wasn't factually correct though your empirical evidence might state differently. Sorry if I came across with any attitude it wasn't directed at you or anyone on HN. > Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? No, I just was trying to be diplomatic. I also wasn't really reacting to your statement as much as I hate when Christians throw on the doom and gloom when it is based on emotions and lazy Theology. It drives me crazy how people put so much energy into their beliefs when they don't put any energy into learning about their own beliefs. That is why so many people become so > Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth I have also read hundreds of Hindu books and I can say that Christian Scriptures also has clear statements about stewardship of the Earth. People also love ignorance and are lazy. They just believe what a person says and don't investigate it themselves. BUT I still don't see where Heaven and Hell as anything to do with stewardship. The Christian Scriptures don't have a Good / Evil balance scale for who goes to heaven and hell.
    - samirillian 8y ago
      > BUT I still don't see where Heaven and Hell as anything to do with stewardship Huh, seems self-evident to me. If you have to keep a thing, you're gonna be motivated to treat it nice. If you're gonna throw that thing away after you're done with it, you're less motivated to treat it nice. Since you are a Theological student, I'm sure you're familiar with 2 Corinthians, where Paul goes on at length about the evanescence of our terrestrial "tents": "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands." Now this certainly sounds like it would be quite conducive to a "sinking ship" mentality. At the very least on the face of it! You might disagree for more _Theological_ reasons, but if you can't recognize the most obvious, exoteric implications of the text, then I can't help but feel that you're not considering what I said in good faith. In another sense, it's a question of enforcement. All religions explicitly name the consequences for sin, so if abusing the environment is a sin in Christianity, what is the consequence? I mean, I assume even Christians have some vague sense that you shouldn't torture animals, but where exactly in the Scriptures is even that prohibited? This is all rooted in Christianity's anthropocentric "ranking of souls." Since only humans are made in the image of God, we have a special status, which is why it's fine to eat the flesh of animals, which God specifically exhorts Peter to do, no?

baldfat 8y ago

> For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. That isn't universal and as a Theological student it isn't even what is written in the scriptures. In fact you can't read anywhere in the scriptures where people go to heaven, but it talks about people living here on earth. It's hard to make universal statements.

coliveira 8y ago
It's hard to make universal statements because the bible is shock full of contradictory statements. Jesus says explicitly that large is the path that leads to damnation and that few will be chosen by him. So, while some will have redemption, the story goes that most of humanity will end up in despair. Of course, other texts can be used to conclude the opposite, which is the normal fashion for bible interpretation.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  You're overstating how clear the contradictions really are. There's nothing close to "Ham is green, no hams are green."
- mseebach 8y ago
  It means "nobody gets it for free". Nobody gets to say "oh, but I'm the king, I'm pre-redeemed, I can do whatever". Everyone has to work hard every day for redemption, and nobody is ever done.
  - avogadro 8y ago
    That is one possible interpretation of the english translation that you happen to be using.
samirillian 8y ago
> It's hard to make universal statements I feel like I've been motte and bailey'd a bit here [1]. OK, let's remain agnostic about the hermeneutics. Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth than the doctrine of reincarnation? Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
- baldfat 8y ago
  I wasn't baiting and switching I was just stating your statement wasn't factually correct though your empirical evidence might state differently. Sorry if I came across with any attitude it wasn't directed at you or anyone on HN. > Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? No, I just was trying to be diplomatic. I also wasn't really reacting to your statement as much as I hate when Christians throw on the doom and gloom when it is based on emotions and lazy Theology. It drives me crazy how people put so much energy into their beliefs when they don't put any energy into learning about their own beliefs. That is why so many people become so > Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth I have also read hundreds of Hindu books and I can say that Christian Scriptures also has clear statements about stewardship of the Earth. People also love ignorance and are lazy. They just believe what a person says and don't investigate it themselves. BUT I still don't see where Heaven and Hell as anything to do with stewardship. The Christian Scriptures don't have a Good / Evil balance scale for who goes to heaven and hell.
  - samirillian 8y ago
    > BUT I still don't see where Heaven and Hell as anything to do with stewardship Huh, seems self-evident to me. If you have to keep a thing, you're gonna be motivated to treat it nice. If you're gonna throw that thing away after you're done with it, you're less motivated to treat it nice. Since you are a Theological student, I'm sure you're familiar with 2 Corinthians, where Paul goes on at length about the evanescence of our terrestrial "tents": "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands." Now this certainly sounds like it would be quite conducive to a "sinking ship" mentality. At the very least on the face of it! You might disagree for more _Theological_ reasons, but if you can't recognize the most obvious, exoteric implications of the text, then I can't help but feel that you're not considering what I said in good faith. In another sense, it's a question of enforcement. All religions explicitly name the consequences for sin, so if abusing the environment is a sin in Christianity, what is the consequence? I mean, I assume even Christians have some vague sense that you shouldn't torture animals, but where exactly in the Scriptures is even that prohibited? This is all rooted in Christianity's anthropocentric "ranking of souls." Since only humans are made in the image of God, we have a special status, which is why it's fine to eat the flesh of animals, which God specifically exhorts Peter to do, no?