Hell and Christianity

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god being kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for the church was considered virtues.

Ah, I see yor point. However, I think this was only true after the Reformation, as Catholics prior to the Reformation were expected to work hard to maintain the Body of Christ, i.e. the serf was bound by God to work his Master's land and the Lord was bound by God to protect his vassals, while the Priest was bound to pray for the souls of both.

Thence we have the "Three Orders" of life, those who Work, Fight, and Pray, which went to make up pre-Renaissance Europe.

[Fragony]

Ah, I see yor point. However, I think this was only true after the Reformation, as Catholics prior to the Reformation were expected to work hard to maintain the Body of Christ, i.e. the serf was bound by God to work his Master's land and the Lord was bound by God to protect his vassals, while the Priest was bound to pray for the souls of both.

Thence we have the "Three Orders" of life, those who Work, Fight, and Pray, which went to make up pre-Renaissance Europe.

Yes but that is really the change, it's an outdated idea that there was no godly dimension to manual labour before the reformation, just about every guild had it's own patron saint for example, but with the reformation all these tree orders became part of a single entity where everybody does it's part, the christian community, people weren't concious about their religion like that before the reformation, there was no alternative. If you look at art from the period for example you will always see religious procedures happing with a city in the background

[Rhyfelwyr]

Those are good point there Frag, but I have to say I came across Weber in my politics course last year, and I think his understanding of Protestantism and it's effects on society are a bit off at times.

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here. Don't get me wrong, Calvinism and capitalism definetely complemented each other once they were developing alongside, but I would say that it was the social/economic factors which caused Calvinism to develop where it did, rather than vice-versa. For example, take England - the growth in the importance of trade over the old feudal system cleary predates the development of Puritanism - and when Puritanism did develop, it just happened to be in the major commercial centres amongst the artisans and merchants etc. Also, it's not just the theology that mattered, there was also the issue of church governance. The Catholic Church with its hierarchy was seen as an oppressive force upholding the old feudal order and supporting increasingly absolutist monarchs whose control over trade was so strict it was almost an early form of state capitalism. Calvinism, on the other hand, brought a more democratic form of church governance through either Presbyterianism or Congregationalism - and as they say, there's no king without the bishops.

Another way to tell whether capitalism or Calvinism caused each other is to look at the states which are the exception to the rule. So take Scotland for example - a more backward country than Puritan England or the Netherlands, yet despite becoming fiercely Calvinist, it remained backward and feudal until the 18th century, by which time deism was in all likelihood as prominent amongst the enlightenment figures (Adam Smith, Hume etc) as Calvinism (though they couldn't say it out loud or they got executed). Anyway, if Calvinism really caused the development of capitalism, this should as a rule have happened in Scotland as well, but it didn't.

Secondly, I think he over emphasises the idea that people believed wealth was a sign of salvation, or the 'prosperity doctrine' as we call it today. I have never seen this idea amongst any of the major Calvinist figures of the previous centuries, from Calvin himself, to John Owen, John Murray etc. What they do say is that God may bless 'the elect' with prosperity, he may maintain them with what they have, or he may take everything away. What I do gather though is that the Calvinist work ethic seems to stem from the strict nature of the theology - so basically if you're not working as hard as you can and using everything God gave you, then you are being slothful, and that is a sin and a sign of reprobation.

[Fragony]

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

[Strike For The South]

Hell has nothing to do with good and evil.

Hell has everything to do with you accepting Jesus and his gift.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hell has nothing to do with good and evil.

Hell has everything to do with you accepting Jesus and his gift.

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

I am just curious as to what the Christians (or others) on this board say, since there is such a wide range of views. The views could range from anything to saying that hell doesn't exist, or that hell is just symbolic for separation from God, or that people simply deserve to go to hell.

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

Surely Weber is arguing the opposite of the Marxist view? Weber seems to say that Calvinist beliefs were the trigger for the development of capitalism. A Marxist on the other hand would say that market forces and the development of social structures are the sole factors which drive change in society. Different ideologies such as Calvinism would only be expressions of these.

[Fragony]

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

[Strike For The South]

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

.

My cliif notes.

-There is an ongoing war between God and Satan for the souls on Earth
-Temptation and leading some of the flock astray is Satans way of waging this war.
-Let me make this clear there is a hell because there is evil but it is not because God is evil
-It is because Satan is, God is merciful and just and all we have to do is accept him and follow the teachings of jesus Christ.

That is what I beilive and I know it's not popular here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

Hell is waking up to find oneself in an alternate reality where Fragony is a refined intellectual, talking about stuff I do not understand.



My boy.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkykJ5uFqPI

This thread reminded me of this.

[CountArach]

Another way to tell whether capitalism or Calvinism caused each other is to look at the states which are the exception to the rule. So take Scotland for example - a more backward country than Puritan England or the Netherlands, yet despite becoming fiercely Calvinist, it remained backward and feudal until the 18th century, by which time deism was in all likelihood as prominent amongst the enlightenment figures (Adam Smith, Hume etc) as Calvinism (though they couldn't say it out loud or they got executed). Anyway, if Calvinism really caused the development of capitalism, this should as a rule have happened in Scotland as well, but it didn't.

Weber believed that there were multiple paths to Capitalism, and that Calvinism was just one of them.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

Nah, that's a Modernist historian. Marxist historians are still Marxists (Look at Hobsbawm, etc) in the economic sense and still look for that guiding hand of economic development, but they are by their very nature also Modernist. Modernist historians look for an overarching grand narrative to history and look at the inter-linking developments between two points (a diachronic analysis). This is as opposed to post-modern historians who would rather perform a synchronic analysis of a society, which is just a snapshot of a society at one given moment.

[Fragony]

Marxist historians are still Marxists (Look at Hobsbawm, etc) in the economic sense and still look for that guiding hand of economic development, but they are by their very nature also Modernist.

It's a relatively new approach to include social/economic factors to the greater picture, I would say it emerged at the same time. Ok, there is a difference between a Marxist historian and a marxist approach.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My cliif notes.

-There is an ongoing war between God and Satan for the souls on Earth
-Temptation and leading some of the flock astray is Satans way of waging this war.
-Let me make this clear there is a hell because there is evil but it is not because God is evil
-It is because Satan is, God is merciful and just and all we have to do is accept him and follow the teachings of jesus Christ.

That is what I beilive and I know it's not popular here.

The problem I have with foregrounding Satan and God in this (very Calvinistic) way is that it removes too much responsibility for our own actions, it allows you to move that responsibility to an external power and absolve yourself.

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

I am just curious as to what the Christians (or others) on this board say, since there is such a wide range of views. The views could range from anything to saying that hell doesn't exist, or that hell is just symbolic for separation from God, or that people simply deserve to go to hell.

I think that seperating "being evil" from "rejecting God" is strange. It implies there is a seperation between Good and God.

True, but according to most protestants God's salvation is still conditional upon accepting Christ by your death. The idea of hell in which I was speaking of is not so much purgatory as it is another chance to make peace with god. Would God truly allow something as simple as death to come in the way of an eventual reunion with one of his children? Remember the prodigal son, it is not the saved who god reaches out to as much as those who can be brought back into the flock. The existence of a permanent hell contradicts to many things to hold any weight.

You just described Catholic Purgatory. The prodigal Son goes back to his Father, the Father waits but does not drag his son home. What kind of God (Father) beats his children and demands they love him?

Hell is fundamentally a seperation from God, such a seperation must be chosen, not enforced.

[CountArach]

It's a relatively new approach to include social/economic factors to the greater picture, I would say it emerged at the same time. Ok, there is a difference between a Marxist historian and a marxist approach.

Modernist historiography goes all the way back to von Ranke who wanted to find evidence of the work of God in history and saw something of a guiding hand. Marxists simply look at one approach to this 'guiding hand' (economic determinism) and say that it is the sole driving force of history.

[Ronin]

George Carlin made some extremely point on this discussion.
Carlin On religion

The most revelant part to this discussion:

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!

[Skullheadhq]

If hell exists, where would it be?