Funny how a thing like hell can be done away with.
I won't pretend to be an expert on various sectarian Christian theology, but it's for damn sure (pun intended) plenty of Christians still believe in hell, regardless of what the official creeds might be.
The only organizations that don't have power and dominance structures are the ones that don't last.
And while there are certainly plenty of complicated emotions competing in the arena that dictates parental action, love is always a major player. I don't think it's helpful to forgo the assumption that parents love their children by default. Sure, there are exceptions, but the rule remains, regardless of how awful their actions and attitudes may be.
You're referring to functional structures, whereas I was alluding to the power religions exercise when they create tiers of worth, with men being the top tier, and everyone else being less, lower, and the dominated, especially women and children.
A parent merely loving a child doesn't mean their words and actions stem from love. Threatening a child with going to hell, for example, is self evidently abusive and manipulative, rather than loving parenting.
I sort of feel like we're talking past each other. You're making some very generalized statements about religion that I don't believe are universally applicable. I understand the antipathy, but I'm not sure how helpful it is for me to try to respond to it.
Also, there's a big difference between threatening kids with hell, and legitimately fearing for your kids' souls. Both things undoubtedly happen. My comments don't apply to the former. I have no sympathy for anyone who wields theology as a weapon of dominance.
Only Catholics had hell, and even they did away with it, I'd thought?
Funny how a thing like hell can be done away with.
I won't pretend to be an expert on various sectarian Christian theology, but it's for damn sure (pun intended) plenty of Christians still believe in hell, regardless of what the official creeds might be.
Given the power and dominance structures of all religions, you're being generous in ascribing parental motives to love.
The only organizations that don't have power and dominance structures are the ones that don't last.
And while there are certainly plenty of complicated emotions competing in the arena that dictates parental action, love is always a major player. I don't think it's helpful to forgo the assumption that parents love their children by default. Sure, there are exceptions, but the rule remains, regardless of how awful their actions and attitudes may be.
You're referring to functional structures, whereas I was alluding to the power religions exercise when they create tiers of worth, with men being the top tier, and everyone else being less, lower, and the dominated, especially women and children.
A parent merely loving a child doesn't mean their words and actions stem from love. Threatening a child with going to hell, for example, is self evidently abusive and manipulative, rather than loving parenting.
I sort of feel like we're talking past each other. You're making some very generalized statements about religion that I don't believe are universally applicable. I understand the antipathy, but I'm not sure how helpful it is for me to try to respond to it.
Also, there's a big difference between threatening kids with hell, and legitimately fearing for your kids' souls. Both things undoubtedly happen. My comments don't apply to the former. I have no sympathy for anyone who wields theology as a weapon of dominance.