Does hell really make sense?

[Jon Miller]

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?

It has not been fighting over doctrine, it has been people being evil/etc.

I know the claim is that the indiquisition and the crusades/etc are all Christian. And I agree, they were done by Christians. But they were not Christian in the sense that those actions came from how we Christians were directed to behave.

They were not done because of Christianity, they were done because Christians were evil.

JM

[Jon Miller]

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.

A lot of Christians don't study the bible at all.

Read the Bible to see what it says.

Matthew 5:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

JM

[Lorizael]

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

Sorry, you can't. Omnipotent beings may possess the ability to objectively define good and evil. That is to say, if an omnipotent being can change the laws of physics, it may be able to change the laws of morality.

[Jon Miller]

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?

Is the message of jesus so complicated really?

Most Christians agree on the message of Christ.

But a lot of people are also willing to twist it to fit their own desires/etc.

As far as schisms go, why not? As long as they are organizational? People want to worship and be around others who do the same as they do. People should be free to follow doctrine as the Spirit leads them.

And yes, some schisms have been caused by very minor things (to me). Such as a large section of russians breaking free from the church 300ish years ago over a minor change in how to make the sign of the cross. They still worship their way today, with no priests (because no bishops left with them).

JM

[kentonio]

A lot of Christians don't study the bible at all.

JM

I think that's where half my questions come from really; why is it necessary for people to sit and study the bible? Much of it wasnt written by people who were trusted first party sources anyway (Revelations seriously?), so why the necessity for the quibbling over details? Couldn't you summarize the entire thing into something like 'Be nice to each other, look after those less fortunate than yourself, don't hurt people and try to love not hate'? What does it matter what kind of nails they used in the crucifiction or how you should eat bread or whether jesus was left handed or right? It just seems like an excuse for people to avoid actually having to live in the way they were told to most of the time.

[Jon Miller]

I think that's where half my questions come from really; why is it necessary for people to sit and study the bible? Much of it wasnt written by people who were trusted first party sources anyway (Revelations seriously?), so why the necessity for the quibbling over details? Couldn't you summarize the entire thing into something like 'Be nice to each other, look after those less fortunate than yourself, don't hurt people and try to love not hate'? What does it matter what kind of nails they used in the crucifiction or how you should eat bread or whether jesus was left handed or right? It just seems like an excuse for people to avoid actually having to live in the way they were told to most of the time.

Couldn't you summarize Hamlet as "don't chase after revenge"?

To me, what you say sounds ridiculous.

Do people argue about the nails that they used in the crucifixion or how to eat bread (well, someone might thiS) or whether Jesus was left/right handed? No.

For the most part (and not always, see 'did Adam have a navel arguments') people argue about things that have theological significance. Often times great theological significance, like 'what was the nature of Christ, was He fully God and fully man? Was He man like Adam or like you/I?'.

JM

[kentonio]

As far as schisms go, why not? As long as they are organizational? People want to worship and be around others who do the same as they do. People should be free to follow doctrine as the Spirit leads them.

Because to the billions of souls who aren't christian, it sends a really rubbish message about christianity when it seems you can't even agree with each other within a single church? Why should it be acceptable to split off and form splinter groups over points of minor doctrine, isn't the whole point of religion that theres something there thats far bigger than any of you? What happened to sacrificing yourself to the greater power?

[Jon Miller]

For example, in my own denomination there is a conflict between two sides.

One side says that those who are alive before Christ's return who are saved will have to be completely perfect in actions/etc before He comes.

The other side says the (more evangelical) position that we will never be perfect in actions/etc until after Christ's return. That we always depend on His righteousness making His perfect because we continue to struggle with sin until our deaths.

Obvious this difference has huge implications for how you live your life.

One side can be confident that even though they sin sometimes, that if they are following Christ that they are saved.

The other side has to live their lives trying to be perfect, because otherwise they are not confident they are saved.

I think it is obvious which side I am on, if you talk to one of the perfection people they would explain it in a way that was more generous to their position.

JM

[kentonio]

To me, what you say sounds ridiculous.

Do people argue about the nails that they used in the crucifixion or how to eat bread (well, someone might thiS) or whether Jesus was left/right handed? No.

Yes actually they do, although the example I was thinking of what over the number of nails rather than the kind. It caused an early minor schism and led to one group being branded heretic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclavianism

[Jon Miller]

Yes actually they do, although the example I was thinking of what over the number of nails rather than the kind. It caused an early minor schism and led to one group being branded heretic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclavianism

That was Catholic politics, at least partially.

The deny of Christ suffering is a serious and real difference. And would have serious theological implications.

JM

[kentonio]

For example, in my own denomination there is a conflict between two sides.

One side says that those who are alive before Christ's return who are saved will have to be completely perfect in actions/etc before He comes.

The other side says the (more evangelical) position that we will never be perfect in actions/etc until after Christ's return. That we always depend on His righteousness making His perfect because we continue to struggle with sin until our deaths.

Obvious this difference has huge implications for how you live your life.

One side can be confident that even though they sin sometimes, that if they are following Christ that they are saved.

The other side has to live their lives trying to be perfect, because otherwise they are not confident they are saved.

Whoah! How can they not try and live perfectly?!? I can understand no-one managing to pull it off, but how can people go 'oh it's ok, he'll forgive us anyway so we don't need to try as hard?'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Some of the crazy radicals do. But that's the same of, say, political parties. Crazies hate the other side, while most people realize those on the other side have different beliefs but are all citizens of the same country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

Cheeky?! Cheeky? To claim that the rememberance of God's physical sacrifice, of being tortured and killed for our sins, should be sacred? In every church I've taken communion, it has been a solumn and sacred occasion.

[kentonio]

Cheeky?! Cheeky? To claim that the rememberance of God's physical sacrifice, of being tortured and killed for our sins, should be sacred? In every church I've taken communion, it has been a solumn and sacred occasion.

Solemn sure, and extremely important to those taking part, but sacred to me implies something holy about the act itself, and yes that seems a bit cheeky to me. The people doing the remembering weren't the ones making the ultimate sacrifice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Indeed. And, of coruse, it isn't so much like science textbooks, but closer to philosophical teachings - and they will always require further discussion. Especially since Jesus was preaching to Jews in the 30s AD, in ways they would understand and comprehend & we are trying to apply the lessons to our lives.