Does hell really make sense?

[kentonio]

God made many things sacred, in the history of the human-God relationship.

My church does have the foot washing before communion, but only has communion 4 times a year and is quite protestant (although conservative now).

I do think that the sacred has relevance in Christianity.

JM

Isn't foot washing just a reminded to people of the importance of humility though? (I actually quite like that part, and think some of the big name church leaders could do with remembering it when they climb out of their limousines and mansions)

[Imran Siddiqui]

That makes sense, but doesn't it then sound even more like a 'remember my sacrifice' thing rather than a 'this bread is literally sacred' thing?

Why wouldn't the act of remembering God laying down his life for all humanity, for all of its sins, NOT be sacred?

[kentonio]

People like arguing (witness this site). However, for the most part, Christians believe they are all a united whole which little differences which make up denominations. So you get the best of both - a baseline of belief and then a whole host of denominations (or you could just be a free agent really) to plug into.

Seriously?! I though baptists and catholics and others pretty much hated each other? The catholics and protestants in Ireland certainly don't do a great job of being on the same team.

[Jon Miller]

Why should people agree on those things? You could argue about the existence of a church of capitalism I suppose, but surely one of the big tenets of christianity is that the message has already been provided by god, not that you can make up your own version of it?

You seem to think that God and the relationship with God should be able to be completely described in a short book or pamphlet when human relationships and science and everything else in the world is much more complicated?

I was using economics as a stand in for human relationships. And it isn't something that people just 'make up their own version', it should be based upon reality.

JM

[kentonio]

Why wouldn't the act of remembering God laying down his life for all humanity, for all of its sins, NOT be sacred?

It just seems a bit blasphemous I suppose. The original act was the one that I'd have thought should be sacred, and remembering it more of a duty and responsibility. Isn't trying to claim the act of rememberance as sacred just a bit cheeky really?

[Jon Miller]

Seriously?! I though baptists and catholics and others pretty much hated each other? The catholics and protestants in Ireland certainly don't do a great job of being on the same team.

People have different opinions.

Most of the 'hate each other' business is due to politics (like in Ireland), not doctrinal conflicts.

It is true though that many protestants (including my own denomination) has interpreted catholicism with the beast in revelation (or little horn in daniel) and so dislike catholicism. Even many who dislike catholicism can differentiate catholics and catholicism though.

BTW, I think that doctrinal conflicts are good. Otherwise how can we learn and grow?

JM
(Not all, but then Christians are not perfect. Which seems to be a problem that many other people have.)

[Jon Miller]

It just seems a bit blasphemous I suppose. The original act was the one that I'd have thought should be sacred, and remembering it more of a duty and responsibility. Isn't trying to claim the act of rememberance as sacred just a bit cheeky really?

Have you read the old testament? A lot of things which were set up for remembrance/etc were sacred.

I personally think that prayer should be sacred too (I haven't done the same as Elok's co-worshiper, but I have been close... ).

JM

[kentonio]

You seem to think that God and the relationship with God should be able to be completely described in a short book or pamphlet when human relationships and science and everything else in the world is much more complicated?

While I by no means ascribe to the Herman Cain school of 'if its more than 3 pages, I'm not reading it', I think you can sum up the major message of christianity in a pretty short book yes. In fact I think it's absolutely essential that such is so, because if something requires years of theological debate then it's not something that just anyone can understand. If a creator came to earth to spread a message, then requiring humans to interpret that message for others, seems a pretty dangersou way of going about things.

[Lorizael]

I disagree, I think you can look at it logically. What possible benefit would there be to an omnipotent being manifesting themselves to pass a message to humanity but then doing it in such an ass-backwards way that it pretty much guaranteed several millenia of disagreement, schism, misunderstanding and religious warfare?

What possible benefit, indeed. Omnipotent beings do not have to obey laws of logic. It's quite possible that said omnipotent being desired exactly the outcome we have now, because the objective definition of good is this state. It's also equally possible that china tuna fish = running 7 raindrop, and that's why the logic-defying omnipotent being did what it did.

[kentonio]

Have you read the old testament? A lot of things which were set up for remembrance/etc were sacred.

I've read most of it at various times in the past, but I thought the OT wasn't really followed any more due to all the violent bloody stuff?

I personally think that prayer should be sacred too (I haven't done the same as Elok's co-worshiper, but I have been close... ).

Hmm, I don't think I get the sacred thing then. Why should devotion itself be sacred?

[Jon Miller]

While I by no means ascribe to the Herman Cain school of 'if its more than 3 pages, I'm not reading it', I think you can sum up the major message of christianity in a pretty short book yes. In fact I think it's absolutely essential that such is so, because if something requires years of theological debate then it's not something that just anyone can understand. If a creator came to earth to spread a message, then requiring humans to interpret that message for others, seems a pretty dangersou way of going about things.

You can get the major message of Christianity in a short book.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't anything more to learn.

Just like you can get classical mechanics in a short book. But there is a lot more!

People are required to interpret any complicated message.

JM

[kentonio]

What possible benefit, indeed. Omnipotent beings do not have to obey laws of logic. It's quite possible that said omnipotent being desired exactly the outcome we have now, because the objective definition of good is this state.

If the current state is the objective, then I'm seriously questioning the goodness of this god!

[Jon Miller]

I've read most of it at various times in the past, but I thought the OT wasn't really followed any more due to all the violent bloody stuff?

No. The OT is still valid. As Christ said, He did not come to remove/etc things from the law. He came to fulfill the law.

If you want to learn about God, the OT is still something to study. It is what Christ and the first Christians studied after all!

It was actually the early Christians (Paul and Peter) who said 'don't do circumcision/etc'. That had nothing to do with the OT being violent and everything to do with Christ fulfilling the law.

JM

[kentonio]

You can get the major message of Christianity in a short book.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't anything more to learn.

Just like you can get classical mechanics in a short book. But there is a lot more!

Of course, and debates about the small stuff within a church seem perfectly reasonable, but when those differences are allowed to cause churches to actual schism, them surely the followers have allowed their own ego's to grow bigger than the message?

People are required to interpret any complicated message.

Is the message of jesus so complicated really?

[kentonio]

No. The OT is still valid. As Christ said, He did not come to remove/etc things from the law. He came to fulfill the law.

Hmm, I've had lots of christians in the past tell me the opposite during discussions whenever the morally questionable parts of teh OT were raised.