What is hell, and what is it for?

[Vader]

The major Church centers were quite separate, and were unified by agreed upon dogma. The "Roman mood" did exist - as a mood, and tendency in thought, and gradually fueled the equating of spiritual leadership with secular authority. This didn't happen in the other Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople). Rome retained a Pope, even when Rome collapsed, while Constantinople had an emperor distinct from the Patriarch throughout its existence. This remained the case when Moscow became "the third Rome" until Peter the Great eliminated the patriarch and established his own means of control - the Holy Synod - which, as a more controlled entity, led to the spiralling downward of the Russian Church until the revolution - and by that time there were a lot of just claims against clergy and Church practices there. But I seriously digress.

Point is, that the collegiate nature of the Church in it's first 1,000 years was destroyed by the ascendant papacy in the west, but retained in the east. One man can't take the whole Church out with him if he goes wrong.

Not to forget the Celtic Church which was separate from Rome until the Synode of Whitby in 664. Though not really a homogenous Church in the sense The Roman Catholic Church was, the early Celtic Christians had comon traditions and concepts which were different from Rome - even the scheduling of holidays like Easter were different.

[Menolly]

I admit that all I know of the Celtic church is from fiction, namely The Sister Fidelma series. But if its portrayal in those books is at all accurate, what a fascinating system it was...

[Vader]

I admit that all I know of the Celtic church is from fiction, namely The Sister Fidelma series. But if its portrayal in those books is at all accurate, what a fascinating system it was...

Concerning its organization it was probably a christianized version of Celtic druidism. The Celtic monks even kept the old hairdo of the druids - shaving the head from ear to ear - rather then having the Roman style tonsure where you shave your head only leaving the chaplet (thus resembling the crown of thorns).

Interesting reads on this subject:

books.google.com/books?q=The+Celtic+Chu ... arch+Books

[rusmeister]

I admit that all I know of the Celtic church is from fiction, namely The Sister Fidelma series. But if its portrayal in those books is at all accurate, what a fascinating system it was...

Concerning its organization it was probably a christianized version of Celtic druidism. The Celtic monks even kept the old hairdo of the druids - shaving the head from ear to ear - rather then having the Roman style tonsure where you shave your head only leaving the chaplet (thus resembling the crown of thorns).

Interesting reads on this subject:

books.google.com/books?q=The+Celtic+Chu ... arch+Books

Organization and hairdos are completely different things. I would point to the importance of distinguishing between their dogma and local practices, and hair style is a good example of local practice. Assuming that they simply developed from druidism is unfounded. Again, it would not necessarily contradict the faith to adopt local practices not contrary to the teachings of the faith.

[Vader]

I admit that all I know of the Celtic church is from fiction, namely The Sister Fidelma series. But if its portrayal in those books is at all accurate, what a fascinating system it was...

Concerning its organization it was probably a christianized version of Celtic druidism. The Celtic monks even kept the old hairdo of the druids - shaving the head from ear to ear - rather then having the Roman style tonsure where you shave your head only leaving the chaplet (thus resembling the crown of thorns).

Interesting reads on this subject:

books.google.com/books?q=The+Celtic+Chu ... arch+Books

Organization and hairdos are completely different things. I would point to the importance of distinguishing between their dogma and local practices, and hair style is a good example of local practice. Assuming that they simply developed from druidism is unfounded. Again, it would not necessarily contradict the faith to adopt local practices not contrary to the teachings of the faith.

I am not saying that the Celtic Church has partly been pagan. Once converted, the Irish were faithful Christians as any Roman Catholic wished he was. But it is a fact that the first Irish monks were former druids - basically the only learned people back then. Whom else could the first missionaries have taught "the Word"? Furthermore it was important to get those druids on their side because they were the influence back then, more than the noblemen. Turning druids into Christian monks made christianizing the peasants a lot easier.

[rusmeister]

Concerning its organization it was probably a christianized version of Celtic druidism. The Celtic monks even kept the old hairdo of the druids - shaving the head from ear to ear - rather then having the Roman style tonsure where you shave your head only leaving the chaplet (thus resembling the crown of thorns).

Interesting reads on this subject:

books.google.com/books?q=The+Celtic+Chu ... arch+Books

Organization and hairdos are completely different things. I would point to the importance of distinguishing between their dogma and local practices, and hair style is a good example of local practice. Assuming that they simply developed from druidism is unfounded. Again, it would not necessarily contradict the faith to adopt local practices not contrary to the teachings of the faith.

I am not saying that the Celtic Church has partly been pagan. Once converted, the Irish were faithful Christians as any Roman Catholic wished he was. But it is a fact that the first Irish monks were former druids - basically the only learned people back then. Whom else could the first missionaries have taught "the Word"? Furthermore it was important to get those druids on their side because they were the influence back then, more than the noblemen. Turning druids into Christian monks made christianizing the peasants a lot easier.

No argument there.
I imagine it is quite possible that practices and even teachings got mixed in - at first - but the latter wouldn't survive contact with canonic incorporation - that or they would essentially break communion with the mother Church.
For me it's just additional evidence of how a form of original Christian teaching can cease to be that, and thereby cease to claim to be the Church that teaches what was taught from the beginning - thereby becoming invalid in that all-important sense. (People can believe it, but they would essentially have to admit that it was invented, not in AD 33, but in 200, or 1100, or 1518 or whatever.)

[aliantha]

I didn't mean to leave this hanging. Somehow real life got in the way. (I hate when that happens. )

Our natural tendency is to think of ourselves as good and to look out for number one. The ability to see that perhaps, we are not as good as we think we are (that we are actually a mass of lusts, rages and petty vices and desires) and to consciously turn from that and prefer others to self, is monumentally difficult, and all around us encourages us to do the opposite - to admire our own goodness while indulging all of our dark desires - and even to see the dark as "light enough". This is why the saints were always talking about how bad they were - they simply had learned to see better, just as we cannot see the streaks and dirt on a glass in the dark, but taken into real light, we can see how poorly it was washed.

With respect for all things around us, it would be wrong to prefer those things to the well-being of our neighbors, though. (I mean an ideal that refuses to cut down a tree to build shelter, or to kill a deer or chicken when your children are hungry- and I do mean when alternative sources of food and shelter are unfeasible.) So we would again, part ways if you held differently.

About not killing a chicken to feed the kids: I believe the Native Americans covered that by asking pardon of and/or giving thanks to the spirit of the animals they killed. That was part of the reason for the ceremony before the big hunt. In the same vein, if a Pagan uses something from a living plant, he or she is supposed to thank the plant. Just, y'know, a quick "thanks for making the sacrifice for me." The point is to be mindful of one's actions and one's impact on the natural world -- which fits very nicely, btw, into the "living lightly on the Earth" spirit in the ecological movement and, by extension, in the simple living movement that I was involved with for some years.

As for saints being bad and whatnot: Here we have a definite divergence of opinion. I don't buy into the good/evil dichotomy, so I don't see people as either good or bad. (Please don't somebody say, "What about Hitler? Wasn't he evil?" ) I think, Rus, you and I can agree that people aren't perfect. The difference is one of attitude. The Christians I have met consider themselves fundamentally flawed. And I think that this attitude can lead to despair and self-loathing. (Why, I believe someone started a thread on this very topic here a few months back! ) Yes, God will forgive them their imperfections, but still there's that *flaw*.

I think the Pagan attitude is healthier: It's a given that nobody's perfect; you're *going* to mess up. No need to beat yourself up about it -- it's just part of life. Apologize if you need to, make reparations if you need to, and figure out how to do better next time.

The difference is that Christians castigate themselves as imperfect creations of God, while Pagans accept themselves as human.

[lucimay]

interesting discussion folks.

some of you are eloquent on the topic.
i actually like that bit of writing you quoted of rus' ali, and your post as well!

ethics and moralities aside, i'm inclined to believe that, to quote the writer, there are other worlds than these.

i don't rule out a realm of darkness, nor a realm of light for that matter.
(to which does shadow belong? or is it the child of the two?)

i have often thought it foolish to imagine these realms don't exist.
who the rulers of them are is anyone's guess.
i'm not inclined to believe humanity is alone in the universe.
nor do i doubt these forces gather strength from the cumulative
effect of human belief.
if the body of human documentation of such is to be believed,
they're a damned manipulative bunch.

as for corporeal heaven and hell? (2. Of a material nature; tangible.)

universal consciousness.
user created reality.

if you build it, they will come.

[rusmeister]

I didn't mean to leave this hanging. Somehow real life got in the way. (I hate when that happens. )

Our natural tendency is to think of ourselves as good and to look out for number one. The ability to see that perhaps, we are not as good as we think we are (that we are actually a mass of lusts, rages and petty vices and desires) and to consciously turn from that and prefer others to self, is monumentally difficult, and all around us encourages us to do the opposite - to admire our own goodness while indulging all of our dark desires - and even to see the dark as "light enough". This is why the saints were always talking about how bad they were - they simply had learned to see better, just as we cannot see the streaks and dirt on a glass in the dark, but taken into real light, we can see how poorly it was washed.

With respect for all things around us, it would be wrong to prefer those things to the well-being of our neighbors, though. (I mean an ideal that refuses to cut down a tree to build shelter, or to kill a deer or chicken when your children are hungry- and I do mean when alternative sources of food and shelter are unfeasible.) So we would again, part ways if you held differently.

About not killing a chicken to feed the kids: I believe the Native Americans covered that by asking pardon of and/or giving thanks to the spirit of the animals they killed. That was part of the reason for the ceremony before the big hunt. In the same vein, if a Pagan uses something from a living plant, he or she is supposed to thank the plant. Just, y'know, a quick "thanks for making the sacrifice for me." The point is to be mindful of one's actions and one's impact on the natural world -- which fits very nicely, btw, into the "living lightly on the Earth" spirit in the ecological movement and, by extension, in the simple living movement that I was involved with for some years.

As for saints being bad and whatnot: Here we have a definite divergence of opinion. I don't buy into the good/evil dichotomy, so I don't see people as either good or bad. (Please don't somebody say, "What about Hitler? Wasn't he evil?" ) I think, Rus, you and I can agree that people aren't perfect. The difference is one of attitude. The Christians I have met consider themselves fundamentally flawed. And I think that this attitude can lead to despair and self-loathing. (Why, I believe someone started a thread on this very topic here a few months back! ) Yes, God will forgive them their imperfections, but still there's that *flaw*.

I think the Pagan attitude is healthier: It's a given that nobody's perfect; you're *going* to mess up. No need to beat yourself up about it -- it's just part of life. Apologize if you need to, make reparations if you need to, and figure out how to do better next time.

The difference is that Christians castigate themselves as imperfect creations of God, while Pagans accept themselves as human.

On your Pagan example - yes, there is a lot of good in paganism; no argument there. Christianity did not invent the concept of goodness or bring a totally new morality into the world. The sense of moral law that leads pagans to respect life just as Christians or Hinduists do has always been around.

I suspect misunderstandings still exist - as if the Christian view of sin were like the way the Ravers put it: "Are you not evil?" It is not the same at all.
The Ravers seem to be suggesting a total depravity, and one that has no good element, or is unredeemable...
A much better example to help understand how we see it it can be found in Tolstoy's story "Resurrection".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_(novel)
Basically a wealthy guy has an affair with a servant and forgets about it. He much later discovers the impact of the "mistake that he didn't need to beat himself up about" on the woman. The thing is, our sins are generally far more damaging - not only to ourselves but to others as well - than we think. And as love begets love, so anger, hate and selfishness beget... anger, hate and selfishness - and it multiplies. In that example, the healthier thing is to really be mindful of our impact on others, and to repent, to really hate the sin and commit to not doing it again. Of course, we do 'fall' and sin again, but with God's help, not so gravely, and the object is to get up as quick as you can - to not wallow in self-loathing, but to genuinely hate the sin. This results in humility, not indifference to sin.
I don't think our views are so different, but your presentation of it (as I read it) can easily interpreted to minimize the significance of the impact.
For my part, I should, having said what I said, emphasize the need to get up and again, struggle to be good - it's kind of like a lifelong boxing match. The thing is, to get up after every fall, to hate the fall, but to get up anyway.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Cybrweez]

And if I might add, the idea of a "flaw" in man, think of it like recognizing we make mistakes. Being honest w/ourselves. It could lead some to despair, thinking they are worthless or something, but that would be ignoring other themes in Christianity, like the fact God loves you, and cares enough to send Jesus to, in essence, ignore those mistakes, which could lead one to see the sacrifice, understand that love, and return it.

[Vraith]

On your Pagan example - yes, there is a lot of good in paganism; no argument there. Christianity did not invent the concept of goodness or bring a totally new morality into the world. The sense of moral law that leads pagans to respect life just as Christians or Hinduists do has always been around.

Interesting point...but it seems uncommon, I've got a friend you'd probably like who says things like this though. Most of the Christians I know, however, are more like:

as if the Christian view of sin were like the way the Ravers put it: "Are you not evil?"

They say things like hate the sin, not the sinner, but they don't act in accordance with that premise/attitude.
And I think (or maybe just wonder if) part of the reason for that is that there seems to be a fundamental difference between a mere flaw and sin.
You don't seem to be making a great distinction, but many do. They do not see sin as flaw, they see it as evil...hence the need for hell as a punishing place. As someone else said, I just don't buy the good/evil dichotomy, but the point (and the problem I have with Christianity and a few other organized relgions) is that in seeing "evil" they then go out to combat...if they only saw normal human flaws, they might engage the world differently, and then they wouldn't trap themselves in their own sins.

[rusmeister]

On your Pagan example - yes, there is a lot of good in paganism; no argument there. Christianity did not invent the concept of goodness or bring a totally new morality into the world. The sense of moral law that leads pagans to respect life just as Christians or Hinduists do has always been around.

Interesting point...but it seems uncommon, I've got a friend you'd probably like who says things like this though. Most of the Christians I know, however, are more like:

as if the Christian view of sin were like the way the Ravers put it: "Are you not evil?"

They say things like hate the sin, not the sinner, but they don't act in accordance with that premise/attitude.
And I think (or maybe just wonder if) part of the reason for that is that there seems to be a fundamental difference between a mere flaw and sin.
You don't seem to be making a great distinction, but many do. They do not see sin as flaw, they see it as evil...hence the need for hell as a punishing place. As someone else said, I just don't buy the good/evil dichotomy, but the point (and the problem I have with Christianity and a few other organized relgions) is that in seeing "evil" they then go out to combat...if they only saw normal human flaws, they might engage the world differently, and then they wouldn't trap themselves in their own sins.

Hi Jeff,
I think you're right, but I'd like to point out that we all find ourselves in an environment, and if we don't understand how that environment came to be, then we don't have a full understanding of what is going on around us. This is true of many things - for example, how most people stand in relation to the public school system, and it is how they stand in relation to Christianity as well.
So your experience of Christians and Christianity would have a fuller understanding if you knew how their versions of it came about. Even the quickest glimpse at history reveals that nearly all of those versions are the result of some form of Protestantism, which began with the Reformation. The very name indicates a reaction to something; ie, the western Roman Catholic Church. Most (English-speaking) people's knowledge stops there, and the entire history of the East and what Christianity there remains unknown, never mind an understanding of how and why developments in the Roman Church led to the Reformation and so while you are reacting (and quite possibly proper reactions, too) to what you have experienced, you cannot say that you can completely reject all of Christianity just because of your experiences with the part that dominates your part of the world - and nearly nowhere else. (You can say anything you like, of course, but it would be unreasonable.)

On "normal human flaws", this is where the misunderstanding exists. Traditional (ancient) Christianity teaches that the flaws are NOT normal; that they are causes of ongoing damage and destruction, and that this is true of all, not merely Christians. So it is a matter of being aware of the true nature of the flaws. Referring again to the example from Tolstoy's "Resurrection", applying the attitude you describe to the actions of Nekhlyudov (the comfy nobleman) and becoming aware of their consequences reveals callousness and indifference based on, not evil intent, but simple ignorance and selfishness. And that's what speaking of sin as a "normal human flaw" results in. To take the point to an extreme, it would end in, "Oh, rats, I killed someone! I really must correct that flaw in myself. Oh well, better luck next time." (Not that you are trying to express that. But that IS where it goes.) In that light, it is Christianity's (again, the view that you have evidently NOT experienced) attitude toward sin that is truly balanced and correct. It encourages neither endless self-castigation nor indifference, but calls to true repentance. That's the "getting up" aspect of having fallen in sin. I'm guessing the Christians you've seen might have called to simply wallowing in the mud.

In the end, I can only defend Orthodox Christianity. Lumping us all together is misleading, and remember, the Enemy always seeks to mislead you. (Hmm, this is starting to sound Donaldsonian... )
But where I can I'll try to include all of the best of Christianity.

[rusmeister]

And if I might add, the idea of a "flaw" in man, think of it like recognizing we make mistakes. Being honest w/ourselves. It could lead some to despair, thinking they are worthless or something, but that would be ignoring other themes in Christianity, like the fact God loves you, and cares enough to send Jesus to, in essence, ignore those mistakes, which could lead one to see the sacrifice, understand that love, and return it.

This is an important point - that of ignoring certain themes in favor of others (or in favor of bashing others) that provide a complex and balanced picture, even if we do express things differently.

[Kevin164]

Hell is having your mother tell you to your face she doesn't love you. Hell is being thrown away and knowing that you can never come back home.

[Auleliel]

Hell is what happens when I don't start studying until 2am the night before the exam.

[Dromond]

Hell is having your mother tell you to your face she doesn't love you. Hell is being thrown away and knowing that you can never come back home.

Wow. Yeah, that sounds damn close. I'm sorry to read this.

A lot can change in a lifetime, I know for a fact.
Peace, Kevin... I hope you find it.

[Menolly]

Hell is having your mother tell you to your face she doesn't love you. Hell is being thrown away and knowing that you can never come back home.

Wow. Yeah, that sounds damn close. I'm sorry to read this.

A lot can change in a lifetime, I know for a fact.
Peace, Kevin... I hope you find it.

^ what he said.

Kevin:

Always remember...
You ARE Loved.
Perhaps not by one you wish to be loved by.
But, you ARE Loved.