Well, that's the rub, isn't it. Nobody knows that it's a real thing. But we terrify children anyway.
“We” do?
Terrifying children or anyone else with the idea of Hell has never been part of my experience of church, except as occasionally observed in churches I would never consider being part of.
Indeed, Christianity as it's practiced in puh-lenty of places today does, and it's not new, especially in America, and especially in the Deep South.
I didn’t say otherwise, nor would I, having lived all my life in the American South/Bible Belt and in the land of Billy Graham, some of whose family I know.
What I’m pushing back against is the idea that because it happens in many forms and expressions of Christianity, it happens in all forms and expressions of Christianity.
The letter-writer clearly isn't in favour of moving away from the clear, trans-Testamental teaching on sexual behaviour, marriage, and the family, but they're entitled to express their opinion.
However, I doubt if many people outside the C of E (or even within it!) bother to read the Church Times, so the letter won't have had a wide circulation. In any case, I suspect that much of the population doesn't give a Fig for anything *vicars* think about certain Dead Horse issues...
True. But this vicar has power within his own congregation and with views like that he will bully and abuse.
Lord, have mercy ....
The letter-writer clearly isn't in favour of moving away from the clear, trans-Testamental teaching on sexual behaviour, marriage, and the family, but they're entitled to express their opinion.
However, I doubt if many people outside the C of E (or even within it!) bother to read the Church Times, so the letter won't have had a wide circulation. In any case, I suspect that much of the population doesn't give a Fig for anything *vicars* think about certain Dead Horse issues...
True. But this vicar has power within his own congregation and with views like that he will bully and abuse.
Lord, have mercy ....
Yes, you're quite right. Please don't think that I was intending to disparage the anxiety you feel.
FWIW, I recall a newly-ordained young curate from many years ago in the Church of my Youth, standing in the pulpit and loudly proclaiming that certain types of people (I forget which, but probably to do with Dead Horse issues) would most certainly go to Hell. I remember thinking then *How does he know?*
Well, that's the rub, isn't it. Nobody knows that it's a real thing. But we terrify children anyway.
“We” do?
Terrifying children or anyone else with the idea of Hell has never been part of my experience of church, except as occasionally observed in churches I would never consider being part of.
Indeed, Christianity as it's practiced in puh-lenty of places today does, and it's not new, especially in America, and especially in the Deep South.
I didn’t say otherwise, nor would I, having lived all my life in the American South/Bible Belt and in the land of Billy Graham, some of whose family I know.
What I’m pushing back against is the idea that because it happens in many forms and expressions of Christianity, it happens in all forms and expressions of Christianity.
Well, one side is right and one is wrong. Both can’t be correct.
Sometimes it’s a real liability that Christianity is so broadly based that it accommodates opposing viewpoints on significant issues.
Really, that's true of any complicated system of beliefs held by more than one person. Including political beliefs, economic, social, psychological... You're going to find differing opinions, even if it's only in degree--and "significant" is going to vary depending on who you ask, since it's a value judgement.
I think that's what's getting under my skin lately. I'm seeing a helluva lot of broad, broad brushstrokes--and really, just as adults, we all ought to know better.
Really, that's true of any complicated system of beliefs held by more than one person. Including political beliefs, economic, social, psychological... You're going to find differing opinions, even if it's only in degree--and "significant" is going to vary depending on who you ask, since it's a value judgement.
Umm - it seems to me that the point that ChastMastr (for one) is making is the converse, that the significance of hell *isn't* a value judgment.
And that's true of quite a lot of political and religious beliefs - disagreement about whether or not various doctrines are essential to an ideology is not something that can be subject to a value judgment.
Whether economic, social and psychological beliefs are ideological in the same sense, is another question.
I think that's what's getting under my skin lately. I'm seeing a helluva lot of broad, broad brushstrokes--and really, just as adults, we all ought to know better.
Humanity in general has tried over the ages to describe 'Hell' much more than it has tried to describe 'Heaven'. There is a fascination in almost all of us with evil and even with torture, no matter how much we find it offensive.
All of us are aware, in some way ,of evil in the world and we are also aware of goodness in the world. For me Heaven is where the goodness of God comes to fruition and Hell is where there is an absence of God.
That absence and separation from God can be explained in many ways and described as being akin to horrible tortures.
Those who claim to be followers of Jesus often call him 'Saviour' and 'Redeemer'
What, however ,has he saved us from, if there is no state of separation from God which we call Hell ?
Humanity in general has tried over the ages to describe 'Hell' much more than it has tried to describe 'Heaven'. There is a fascination in almost all of us with evil and even with torture, no matter how much we find it offensive.
All of us are aware, in some way ,of evil in the world and we are also aware of goodness in the world. For me Heaven is where the goodness of God comes to fruition and Hell is where there is an absence of God.
That absence and separation from God can be explained in many ways and described as being akin to horrible tortures.
Those who claim to be followers of Jesus often call him 'Saviour' and 'Redeemer'
What, however ,has he saved us from, if there is no state of separation from God which we call Hell ?
That there may or may not be a potential state of separation from God does not imply that anyone ends up in that state. A 100% cure rate does not logically mean a disease didn't exist.
The question was, "What, however, has he saved us from, if there is no state of separation from God which we call Hell?"
It is, I think, an experienced state of separation from Our Dear Lord NOW. We know however far we stray from Him down here, our relationship, our peace with Him (or Her, if you like) can be renewed.
As to eternal separation after death ... I dunno!
And what do we tell those who are completely selfish , and extremely cruel ?
Do we tell them just to go on the way that they are as. There is no real point in trying to improve as we will all get on fine anyway
This doesn't often happen in real life. For example those who drive dangerously well over the speed limit are more likely to kill someone else or indeed themselves. It is generally considered a good thing to tell them about the possible dangers to others or themselves.
I think that's what's getting under my skin lately. I'm seeing a helluva lot of broad, broad brushstrokes--and really, just as adults, we all ought to know better.
Just to be clear, you mean *all* adults, yes? Or, were you not intending to make a stroke with such a broad, broad brush?
And what do we tell those who are completely selfish , and extremely cruel ?
Do we tell them just to go on the way that they are as. There is no real point in trying to improve as we will all get on fine anyway
This doesn't often happen in real life. For example those who drive dangerously well over the speed limit are more likely to kill someone else or indeed themselves. It is generally considered a good thing to tell them about the possible dangers to others or themselves.
No, we point people to a better way of living now - a way of helping others rather than helping outself with others, if you will.
Even if everyone will find their way to the top of the mountain eventually, wouldn't we still point the way to people on harder, longer routes. Especially if we can foresee they're going to need mountain rescue if they carry on the way they are.
I think the advantages of Universalism come when we let it redirect our attention from an excessive focus on final destination and refocus us on where we are here and now. As Granny Weatherwax observed - if folk thought less about how wonderful it's going to be in the hereafter they might do a bit more to make things better here and now.
As Granny Weatherwax observed - if folk thought less about how wonderful it's going to be in the hereafter they might do a bit more to make things better here and now.
I'm agreeing with most of the rest of your post, but I'm not sure Granny Weatherwax is right in this instance. When Christians don't engage in social action I don't think that's very often their reasoning for not doing so.
I was trying to think of a baddie in Pratchett and then remembered Ghenghiz Cohen who is as near an antihero as Pterry wrote, I think.
There's a bit of possible redemption right at the end of The Last Hero but generally speaking Cohen is in the business of lining his own pockets and killing and pillaging.
Which perhaps is a boring way to say that if people thought more about their (earthly) lives they might just end up trying to snatch more of it.
I think it was Christian Aid, who, some years ago, advertised themselves as being concerned with *Life before death* more than *Life after death*.
I may not have got that quite right, but it seemed like good sense to me, given that, for the majority of people on this planet, their life is likely to be nasty, brutish, and short.
Humanity in general has tried over the ages to describe 'Hell' much more than it has tried to describe 'Heaven'. There is a fascination in almost all of us with evil and even with torture, no matter how much we find it offensive.
It's also easier. I mean, as Lewis said in his introduction to The Screwtape Letters,
Ideally, Screwtape’s advice to Wormwood should have been balanced by archangelical advice to the patient’s guardian angel. Without this the picture of human life is lop-sided. But who could supply the deficiency? Even if a man-and he would have to be a far better man than I- could scale the spiritual heights required, what ‘answerable style’ could he use? For the style would really be part of the content. Mere advice would be no good; every sentence would have to smell of Heaven.
I think that's what's getting under my skin lately. I'm seeing a helluva lot of broad, broad brushstrokes--and really, just as adults, we all ought to know better.
Just to be clear, you mean *all* adults, yes? Or, were you not intending to make a stroke with such a broad, broad brush?
@The_Riv please see the previous host warning. This isn't a forum for pointscoring or poking fun at other posters as to how they've expressed themselves on serious personal matters. If you want to disagree with someone it can be done more harshly in Hell or Purgatory but needs to be expressed a bit more carefully here where we aim to be constructive.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
One of the things I love about Judaism is that, if you were to ask a question about salvation, it would be meaningless. The purpose of life, in that tradition, is to do the will of God in the present moment, and to entrust our eternal future to His loving care. That however far we have removed ourselves from God, we can, at any moment, restore the divine image in which we were created, by an act of contrition. Teshuva, usually translated as repentance, means turning, a radical turning from our sinful ways. This is the sort of relationship I try, in my very inadequate way, to have with God, and I trust it completely.
One of the things I love about Judaism is that, if you were to ask a question about salvation, it would be meaningless. The purpose of life, in that tradition, is to do the will of God in the present moment, and to entrust our eternal future to His loving care. That however far we have removed ourselves from God, we can, at any moment, restore the divine image in which we were created, by an act of contrition. Teshuva, usually translated as repentance, means turning, a radical turning from our sinful ways. This is the sort of relationship I try, in my very inadequate way, to have with God, and I trust it completely.
Many thanks for this wonderful summary, through which - Great Heavens! - I discover I must be Jewish! I would add just one thing: I need Jesus's help to repent ... again and again ... day by day.
One of the things I love about Judaism is that, if you were to ask a question about salvation, it would be meaningless. The purpose of life, in that tradition, is to do the will of God in the present moment, and to entrust our eternal future to His loving care. That however far we have removed ourselves from God, we can, at any moment, restore the divine image in which we were created, by an act of contrition. Teshuva, usually translated as repentance, means turning, a radical turning from our sinful ways. This is the sort of relationship I try, in my very inadequate way, to have with God, and I trust it completely.
Also greatly appreciating this post. Maybe 'salvation' can be, for those that are in need of such a transformation, a door into this kind of life that acknowledges that God, in love, is there for all.
And the post reminds me how much I loved the radio broadcasts of Lionel Blue and still have his books on my shelf.
Sometimes I feel that I bumble through life, not knowing quite what I believe in an adult, joined up way, often having a stronger sense of what I don't believe.
Metanoia is a very similar and, as far as I know, Christian concept, though it may well have a direct parent in Teshuvia. Somehow, the distance between Yeshua and Teshuvia feels slight, Yeshua being (as I understand it - I don't speak a word of Hebrew) a transcription of the Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) pronunciation of Jesus.
This feels very close to the point I was making on the "what do you actually believe" thread. There is in a lot of Christian practice and liturgy a sense of delegation and devolvement of responsibility onto the figure of Jesus Christ which I don't see as being supported by a significant trend within his quoted utterances. He is a model of Teshuvia, and of its association with right relationship with God - his following of this path does not prevent us from having to do so, but neither does it mean that religious institutions have the automatic right to dictate how this is done - this is a matter between the individual and God, ultimately. On the other hand, the church can provide a context which can assist in this process, if appropriate caution is exercised and coercion is firmly off the table.
Metanoia is a very similar and, as far as I know, Christian concept, though it may well have a direct parent in Teshuvia. Somehow, the distance between Yeshua and Teshuvia feels slight, Yeshua being (as I understand it - I don't speak a word of Hebrew) a transcription of the Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) pronunciation of Jesus.
My understanding is that metanoia (or some form of it) is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew nacham, which means something like “to sigh with regret.”
I was always told that metanoia conveyed a sense of a 'change of mind' or 'change of direction.'
Simply sighing over our sins or shortcomings doesn't achieve a great deal. We have to turn away from them, by God's grace.
From Wikipedia:
In Christian theology, metanoia (from the Greek μετάνοια, metanoia, changing one's mind) is often translated as "conversion" or "repentance," though most scholars agree that this second translation does a disservice to the original Greek meaning of metanoia.
Still, it is the Hebrew nacham, not teshuvia, that is, at least sometimes, translated in Greek in the Septuagint as metanoia.
I was disturbed to hear the way the 'gospel ' was preached to school age children in a Christian Union event around 20 years ago. Basically the speaker described how awful crucifixion was for Jesus and that all of us deserve that same because of our sinful rebellion against God but Jesus took the punishment in our stead. So that's all right then!
I think quite a few were turned off Christianity as a result. I sometimes wonder what it is that motivates such 'preachers' of the 'Good News'.
And yes, I think it was a form of psychological abuse.
I was disturbed to hear the way the 'gospel ' was preached to school age children in a Christian Union event around 20 years ago. Basically the speaker described how awful crucifixion was for Jesus and that all of us deserve that same because of our sinful rebellion against God but Jesus took the punishment in our stead. So that's all right then!
I think quite a few were turned off Christianity as a result. I sometimes wonder what it is that motivates such 'preachers' of the 'Good News'.
And yes, I think it was a form of psychological abuse.
Yes, I heard much the same at school CU, about 60 years ago...
I was disturbed to hear the way the 'gospel ' was preached to school age children in a Christian Union event around 20 years ago. Basically the speaker described how awful crucifixion was for Jesus and that all of us deserve that same because of our sinful rebellion against God but Jesus took the punishment in our stead. So that's all right then!
I think quite a few were turned off Christianity as a result. I sometimes wonder what it is that motivates such 'preachers' of the 'Good News'.
And yes, I think it was a form of psychological abuse.
I was disturbed to hear the way the 'gospel ' was preached to school age children in a Christian Union event around 20 years ago. Basically the speaker described how awful crucifixion was for Jesus and that all of us deserve that same because of our sinful rebellion against God but Jesus took the punishment in our stead. So that's all right then!
I think quite a few were turned off Christianity as a result. I sometimes wonder what it is that motivates such 'preachers' of the 'Good News'.
And yes, I think it was a form of psychological abuse.
That is bog standard CU type evangelical PSA.
Indeed, and it goes back further than the 60 years I mentioned, I don't doubt. It was also the normal fare for teenagers' groups in The Church Of My Youth (snake-belly Low...).
Same here, but I don’t recall huge emphasis on the awfulness of death by crucifixion, as such. I don’t think I learned how it was done until much later. Whilst PSA was taught, the emphasis was on Love. In my circles there was never any excessive pressure to respond.
Same here, but I don’t recall huge emphasis on the awfulness of death by crucifixion, as such. I don’t think I learned how it was done until much later. Whilst PSA was taught, the emphasis was on Love. In my circles there was never any excessive pressure to respond.
Oh, there was lots of emphasis on six inch rusty nails and all that.
I remember thinking "yebbut ontheother'and there's that whole business of him not having his legs broken because he was already dead. Missed a chance to up the suffering there?"
I think the crucifixion description was a sort of 'get your attention ' shock tactic and a bit of 'hey I'm a speaker who knows about what crucifixion was really like so listen to me '. But the psychological stuff was 'you may know that you do bad things sometimes but God knows what you're really like and you're bad all the way through'.
Our Place does a version of *Stations of the Cross* as part of the programme for the monthly Youth Club during Lent.
AIUI, the Young Persons absolutely love banging six-inch nails into a piece of wood, when they get to the *Jesus is nailed to the Cross* picture...
I don't know if they're encouraged to think of each blow of the hammer as another of their Sins being added to Our Lord's burden.
I once attended a Mass of the Passion during a Triduum retreat where the description of the crucifixion in the sermon was so graphic that an (adult) congregant vomited.
They were a friend of mine and it definitely wasn’t food poisoning.
Same here, but I don’t recall huge emphasis on the awfulness of death by crucifixion, as such. I don’t think I learned how it was done until much later. Whilst PSA was taught, the emphasis was on Love. In my circles there was never any excessive pressure to respond.
Oh, there was lots of emphasis on six inch rusty nails and all that.
I remember thinking "yebbut ontheother'and there's that whole business of him not having his legs broken because he was already dead. Missed a chance to up the suffering there?"
Same here, but I don’t recall huge emphasis on the awfulness of death by crucifixion, as such. I don’t think I learned how it was done until much later. Whilst PSA was taught, the emphasis was on Love. In my circles there was never any excessive pressure to respond.
Oh, there was lots of emphasis on six inch rusty nails and all that.
I remember thinking "yebbut ontheother'and there's that whole business of him not having his legs broken because he was already dead. Missed a chance to up the suffering there?"
Torture porn sadly
It's more than that.
This is my take:
This brand of Evangelicalism sees sin and salvation in crime and punishment terms. It immediately runs into a problem with eternal - and thus infinite - suffering being the penalty for finite sin. So it absolutely bigs up sin, putting such a gulf between God's holiness and our not so holiness that the best of us from God's viewpoint looks like Pol Pot and Hitler's lovechild dreaming up a whole new level of evil.
Having done that, it then places the Cross as a place where the infinite penalty for this evil is enacted. So its horror is focused and harped upon.
It doesn't work for me - to pay an infinite penalty the Crucifixion would have to last for eternity. I never grasped how having argued so much why an infinite penalty is just, it's held to be cancelled by Christ's finite suffering.
The idea that one tiny sin can damn you for eternity, and that the bill was paid by Jesus on the cross, as long as you believe it happened the way they tell it is why I had to get out many years ago, and I have a visceral, gut wrenching loathing for that type of preaching to this day. But it's alive and well. I've been in the West of Ireland this week organising the funeral of an old friend who had nobody else to do it for her. She was brought up as a Catholic, but when living in England, started going to the Elim Pentecostal Church.
When she returned to Ireland, she found a very evangelical community. So I approached them to make funeral arrangements. I sat through a Sunday service, which triggered my horrific memories of that type of church. To be fair, they were most helpful about conducting a funeral. But I got talking to the pastor's wife over tea afterwards. She told me that she was brought up Catholic, but rejected that background to "find Jesus." One of her biggest regrets is that she won't find her late parents in heaven because they remained Catholic.
They had even been good church going Catholics, but because they didn't agree with her version of Christianity they are eternally damned. I bit my tongue because I wanted their help, but what blasphemous claptrap is it to say that people who consider themselves Christians are eternally damned for having a different take on it. In any of their little tracts they love to give out always look for the part where it says "believe what we tell you to believe or you'll go to hell for eternity. Utterly evil repugnant drivel!
The idea that one tiny sin can damn you for eternity, and that the bill was paid by Jesus on the cross, as long as you believe it happened the way they tell it is why I had to get out many years ago, and I have a visceral, gut wrenching loathing for that type of preaching to this day. But it's alive and well. I've been in the West of Ireland this week organising the funeral of an old friend who had nobody else to do it for her. She was brought up as a Catholic, but when living in England, started going to the Elim Pentecostal Church.
When she returned to Ireland, she found a very evangelical community. So I approached them to make funeral arrangements. I sat through a Sunday service, which triggered my horrific memories of that type of church. To be fair, they were most helpful about conducting a funeral. But I got talking to the pastor's wife over tea afterwards. She told me that she was brought up Catholic, but rejected that background to "find Jesus." One of her biggest regrets is that she won't find her late parents in heaven because they remained Catholic.
They had even been good church going Catholics, but because they didn't agree with her version of Christianity they are eternally damned. I bit my tongue because I wanted their help, but what blasphemous claptrap is it to say that people who consider themselves Christians are eternally damned for having a different take on it. In any of their little tracts they love to give out always look for the part where it says "believe what we tell you to believe or you'll go to hell for eternity. Utterly evil repugnant drivel!
Comments
From the guidelines we're Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
What I’m pushing back against is the idea that because it happens in many forms and expressions of Christianity, it happens in all forms and expressions of Christianity.
True. But this vicar has power within his own congregation and with views like that he will bully and abuse.
Lord, have mercy ....
Yes, you're quite right. Please don't think that I was intending to disparage the anxiety you feel.
FWIW, I recall a newly-ordained young curate from many years ago in the Church of my Youth, standing in the pulpit and loudly proclaiming that certain types of people (I forget which, but probably to do with Dead Horse issues) would most certainly go to Hell. I remember thinking then *How does he know?*
Well, one side is right and one is wrong. Both can’t be correct.
Sometimes it’s a real liability that Christianity is so broadly based that it accommodates opposing viewpoints on significant issues.
I think that's what's getting under my skin lately. I'm seeing a helluva lot of broad, broad brushstrokes--and really, just as adults, we all ought to know better.
And that's true of quite a lot of political and religious beliefs - disagreement about whether or not various doctrines are essential to an ideology is not something that can be subject to a value judgment.
Whether economic, social and psychological beliefs are ideological in the same sense, is another question.
All of us are aware, in some way ,of evil in the world and we are also aware of goodness in the world. For me Heaven is where the goodness of God comes to fruition and Hell is where there is an absence of God.
That absence and separation from God can be explained in many ways and described as being akin to horrible tortures.
Those who claim to be followers of Jesus often call him 'Saviour' and 'Redeemer'
What, however ,has he saved us from, if there is no state of separation from God which we call Hell ?
That there may or may not be a potential state of separation from God does not imply that anyone ends up in that state. A 100% cure rate does not logically mean a disease didn't exist.
The problem is threatening people with Hell.
It is, I think, an experienced state of separation from Our Dear Lord NOW. We know however far we stray from Him down here, our relationship, our peace with Him (or Her, if you like) can be renewed.
As to eternal separation after death ... I dunno!
Do we tell them just to go on the way that they are as. There is no real point in trying to improve as we will all get on fine anyway
This doesn't often happen in real life. For example those who drive dangerously well over the speed limit are more likely to kill someone else or indeed themselves. It is generally considered a good thing to tell them about the possible dangers to others or themselves.
Just to be clear, you mean *all* adults, yes? Or, were you not intending to make a stroke with such a broad, broad brush?
No, we point people to a better way of living now - a way of helping others rather than helping outself with others, if you will.
Even if everyone will find their way to the top of the mountain eventually, wouldn't we still point the way to people on harder, longer routes. Especially if we can foresee they're going to need mountain rescue if they carry on the way they are.
I think the advantages of Universalism come when we let it redirect our attention from an excessive focus on final destination and refocus us on where we are here and now. As Granny Weatherwax observed - if folk thought less about how wonderful it's going to be in the hereafter they might do a bit more to make things better here and now.
There's a bit of possible redemption right at the end of The Last Hero but generally speaking Cohen is in the business of lining his own pockets and killing and pillaging.
Which perhaps is a boring way to say that if people thought more about their (earthly) lives they might just end up trying to snatch more of it.
Which seems quite unfair.
I may not have got that quite right, but it seemed like good sense to me, given that, for the majority of people on this planet, their life is likely to be nasty, brutish, and short.
Thanks! Yes, that was it.
It's also easier. I mean, as Lewis said in his introduction to The Screwtape Letters,
@The_Riv please see the previous host warning. This isn't a forum for pointscoring or poking fun at other posters as to how they've expressed themselves on serious personal matters. If you want to disagree with someone it can be done more harshly in Hell or Purgatory but needs to be expressed a bit more carefully here where we aim to be constructive.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Many thanks for this wonderful summary, through which - Great Heavens! - I discover I must be Jewish! I would add just one thing: I need Jesus's help to repent ... again and again ... day by day.
Also greatly appreciating this post. Maybe 'salvation' can be, for those that are in need of such a transformation, a door into this kind of life that acknowledges that God, in love, is there for all.
And the post reminds me how much I loved the radio broadcasts of Lionel Blue and still have his books on my shelf.
Sometimes I feel that I bumble through life, not knowing quite what I believe in an adult, joined up way, often having a stronger sense of what I don't believe.
This feels very close to the point I was making on the "what do you actually believe" thread. There is in a lot of Christian practice and liturgy a sense of delegation and devolvement of responsibility onto the figure of Jesus Christ which I don't see as being supported by a significant trend within his quoted utterances. He is a model of Teshuvia, and of its association with right relationship with God - his following of this path does not prevent us from having to do so, but neither does it mean that religious institutions have the automatic right to dictate how this is done - this is a matter between the individual and God, ultimately. On the other hand, the church can provide a context which can assist in this process, if appropriate caution is exercised and coercion is firmly off the table.
Simply sighing over our sins or shortcomings doesn't achieve a great deal. We have to turn away from them, by God's grace.
Still, it is the Hebrew nacham, not teshuvia, that is, at least sometimes, translated in Greek in the Septuagint as metanoia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia_(theology)
I think quite a few were turned off Christianity as a result. I sometimes wonder what it is that motivates such 'preachers' of the 'Good News'.
And yes, I think it was a form of psychological abuse.
Yes, I heard much the same at school CU, about 60 years ago...
That is bog standard CU type evangelical PSA.
Indeed, and it goes back further than the 60 years I mentioned, I don't doubt. It was also the normal fare for teenagers' groups in The Church Of My Youth (snake-belly Low...).
Oh, there was lots of emphasis on six inch rusty nails and all that.
I remember thinking "yebbut ontheother'and there's that whole business of him not having his legs broken because he was already dead. Missed a chance to up the suffering there?"
AIUI, the Young Persons absolutely love banging six-inch nails into a piece of wood, when they get to the *Jesus is nailed to the Cross* picture...
I don't know if they're encouraged to think of each blow of the hammer as another of their Sins being added to Our Lord's burden.
I once attended a Mass of the Passion during a Triduum retreat where the description of the crucifixion in the sermon was so graphic that an (adult) congregant vomited.
They were a friend of mine and it definitely wasn’t food poisoning.
Torture porn sadly
It's more than that.
This is my take:
This brand of Evangelicalism sees sin and salvation in crime and punishment terms. It immediately runs into a problem with eternal - and thus infinite - suffering being the penalty for finite sin. So it absolutely bigs up sin, putting such a gulf between God's holiness and our not so holiness that the best of us from God's viewpoint looks like Pol Pot and Hitler's lovechild dreaming up a whole new level of evil.
Having done that, it then places the Cross as a place where the infinite penalty for this evil is enacted. So its horror is focused and harped upon.
It doesn't work for me - to pay an infinite penalty the Crucifixion would have to last for eternity. I never grasped how having argued so much why an infinite penalty is just, it's held to be cancelled by Christ's finite suffering.
Why do you think I had to get out of there?
Pop PSA is unfortunately only one of many issues with some flavours of Evangelicalism- your escape is probably down to a whole raft of them...
When she returned to Ireland, she found a very evangelical community. So I approached them to make funeral arrangements. I sat through a Sunday service, which triggered my horrific memories of that type of church. To be fair, they were most helpful about conducting a funeral. But I got talking to the pastor's wife over tea afterwards. She told me that she was brought up Catholic, but rejected that background to "find Jesus." One of her biggest regrets is that she won't find her late parents in heaven because they remained Catholic.
They had even been good church going Catholics, but because they didn't agree with her version of Christianity they are eternally damned. I bit my tongue because I wanted their help, but what blasphemous claptrap is it to say that people who consider themselves Christians are eternally damned for having a different take on it. In any of their little tracts they love to give out always look for the part where it says "believe what we tell you to believe or you'll go to hell for eternity. Utterly evil repugnant drivel!
Yikes!