[extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts

[David Lubkin]

Olga wrote:

>So it's, like, don't be anti-semitic now, but it's NOT a sin or 
>anti-semitic (and anti-[insert any other religion] to think that Catholics 
>(and some other Christians - or maybe just Catholics?) to believe that 
>Jews (and others who are not of the true faith) are going to roast in the 
>Lake of Fire forever in the life-after-death?  (These issues cannot be 
>separated - one can't have it both ways - the trouble being, of course, 
>that if the Catholic church didn't have that dangling-carrot advantage 
>that they teach about life-after-death for good Catholics, well then ... 
>what's the point?  What's a heaven for?)
>
>>Whether Jews go to heaven or not is a separate issue for the church.
>
>It may be separate, but it's tied into their inherent and implied 
>exclusive status.  Obviously Jews are not going to go to heaven - no one 
>does.  But to even think or believe such a thing - even if implicitly 
>taught - if that's not all out savagery and self-righteousness and as 
>cruel an idea as has been propounded, I don't know what is.

You appear to conflate distinct concepts.

1. There is an after-life.
2. It is better than this one.
3. Only people who (a) believe our dogma and (b) behave themselves get to go.
4. Everyone else (a) stays here, (b) gets a chance to redeem themselves, or 
(c) goes somewhere else for punishment.

Different religions and denominations preach different combinations of 
these concepts. Catholicism may rely on all of them, but it doesn't 
necessarily have to.

Judaism, for example, does not have either the concept of hell or admission 
criteria for heaven, and has millions of followers who attempt to live 
moral lives; the only explicit carrot or stick is pleasing or disappointing 
their deity. Variants of Buddhism don't even have that to motivate 
adherents; ethical behavior is its own reward.


-- David.