![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not only is this incredibly inappropriate for the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, I wonder why he thought that telling us all that we MUST believe in Hell was a good idea.
As a long time member of an avowedly heretical religious movement, I'm not sure whether to laugh or roll my eyes. Probably a bit of both.
As a long time member of an avowedly heretical religious movement, I'm not sure whether to laugh or roll my eyes. Probably a bit of both.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-26 03:24 pm (UTC)From:A person who is only 'good' because he thinks someone is looking and because he fears punishment is someone of whom one should be very, very wary. When one considers how easily an uncritical believer can be led by someone claiming to be doing 'God's Will' and the atrocities performed with joy in the name thereof...
Yeah.
The fundamentalist is not secure in his belief, he is incredibly insecure and unstable. Everyone must believe as he does, or else. It's the only way for him to feel safe in his faith - and to him dissent is a threat and a danger.
Perhaps most of all, the 'no hell' theology is a threat and a danger to the damnation and hellfire business model of so many churches. Those tithes and the money in the collection plate is 'pay to pray' and essentially meant to reserve a spot in heaven. No wonder the fundamentalists are all wound up. If God is a loving one, and there is no hell - why do we need them?