Does hell really make sense?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

By taking part in it, you are sharing in experience of the body and blood washing you clean. Most of the time Christians seem to take it for granted - the Eucharist makes it very real. So, of course, it is sacred.

[kentonio]

By taking part in it, you are sharing in experience of the body and blood washing you clean. Most of the time Christians seem to take it for granted - the Eucharist makes it very real. So, of course, it is sacred.

But his death cleansed your sins anyway didn't it, regardless of any ceremony you take part in afterwards?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ceremonies don't have any added significance? So college graduations don't have additional feelings and emotions attached to it, even though you've already graduated from college after you've completed your finals?

[kentonio]

Ceremonies don't have any added significance? So college graduations don't have additional feelings and emotions attached to it, even though you've already graduated from college after you've completed your finals?

Of course they do, but I wouldn't describe a graduation ceremony as sacred either.

[Ben Kenobi]

You guys do realise that "hell" and "heaven" weren't originally in the Bible, but were taken from Norse mythology.

Ge-hinnom?

Hel was an underworld goddess who looked over the souls of the dead, and that place was quite cold. Norse mythology also believes about a man taking from a tree knowledge of good and evil, a tree which is fed by a snake. And Norse mythology believes that the son of god would be killed by Loki (fire bearer) by a spear, and would be resurrected, after Loki has been released from his prison and fought a battle to end the world, and would rule over the new heaven and earth and new man and woman. Sound familiar?

More like they took those ideas from the Christians. Christianity is older than Norse mythology, and the Jews older than Christianity. Heck, why not say that Christianity stole the idea from the Greeks.

This is a crackpot theory.

Christ in Matthew 5:22 refers to geenan - (Ge-hinnom)

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

I've been both! Well, evangelical mennonites aren't much different from Baptists anyways.

[Ben Kenobi]

It isn't my belief. Read St. Cyprien's treaty De Catholicae Ecclesiae unitate published in 251.

One, Christ himself refers to hell as 'ge-hinnom', in Matthew 5.

Two, here's the entire text:

You are wrong, and whatever source that cited Cyprian is lying to you.

4) If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"
(5) And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,-when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.
The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gnostics where one of the early christianities but were persecuted and erradicated by mainstream christianity because of their differences in faith as soon as they gained power in the roman empire.

What's the difference between Manacheanism and Gnosticism? Both teach that the soul is blessed but the body is sinful. This is wrong. Christianity teaches that soul and body are together and that both are blessed by God. Body being the temple of the holy spirit, sins against the body, etc.

Yes, Gnosticism is similar to Christianity, much like Arianism was similar to Christianity, but neither were Christianity. There are some pretty crucial differences between the two.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course they do, but I wouldn't describe a graduation ceremony as sacred either.

Getting the grades to graduate from college isn't sacred either. However, you are commemorating a sacred event and participating in the sacred event. Thus the sacredness gets passed on in that ceremony.

[kentonio]

Getting the grades to graduate from college isn't sacred either. However, you are commemorating a sacred event and participating in the sacred event. Thus the sacredness gets passed on in that ceremony.

So someone dies for your sins (or rather doesn't because he's god anyway, but lets not quibble), ok that makes sense as a sacred thing, but then later people stand around remembering it, and they've somehow also become part of something sacred? Sounds like people wanting to be part of something sacred without actually sacrificing anything or doing anything to earn it.

[Jon Miller]

But his death cleansed your sins anyway didn't it, regardless of any ceremony you take part in afterwards?

How is that related to communion being sacred or not?

JM

[Elok]

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?

Now I'm kinda curious. How could Christ have "passed on the message" in such a way that disagreement, schism, etc would not have followed? Short of coming down once every fifty years or so until the end of time, I don't see a way. We're contending with errors in transcription and translation, interpolations, political interference for one reason or another, syncretism, inertia due to longstanding custom, and above all changes in cultural perspective over time.

Consider Shakespeare. Great writer, sublimely expressive, but a lot of his message is lost on today's readers--even the ones with annotated editions that give the meanings of archaic words, or changes in the meanings of words over time. His works were grounded in an early modern perspective, referencing early modern memes, conventions, and current events. When they're viewed by people from a totally different time and place (see http://naturalhistorymag.com/editors...8-09_pick.html for a fun examination of this), their meaning can change in unexpected ways.

So while you, living in a twenty-first century western nation (I assume), think Jesus's speech about the Eucharist a little muddled, it was probably perfectly clear to the first-century Jew who wrote it down.

[Jon Miller]

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.

Worshiping God is sacred too.

I don't think you understand the concept of sacred.

JM

[Elok]

Sounds like people wanting to be part of something sacred without actually sacrificing anything or doing anything to earn it.

While Christians disagree over a lot of things, almost all of us agree that if we had to actually earn (ie, deserve) the things we get from God, we'd be totally SOL.

[kentonio]

Now I'm kinda curious. How could Christ have "passed on the message" in such a way that disagreement, schism, etc would not have followed? Short of coming down once every fifty years or so until the end of time, I don't see a way. We're contending with errors in transcription and translation, interpolations, political interference for one reason or another, syncretism, inertia due to longstanding custom, and above all changes in cultural perspective over time.

Consider Shakespeare. Great writer, sublimely expressive, but a lot of his message is lost on today's readers--even the ones with annotated editions that give the meanings of archaic words, or changes in the meanings of words over time. His works were grounded in an early modern perspective, referencing early modern memes, conventions, and current events. When they're viewed by people from a totally different time and place (see http://naturalhistorymag.com/editors...8-09_pick.html for a fun examination of this), their meaning can change in unexpected ways.

So while you, living in a twenty-first century western nation (I assume), think Jesus's speech about the Eucharist a little muddled, it was probably perfectly clear to the first-century Jew who wrote it down.

Well it didn't exactly take very long for the early Christians to start fighting with each other about what it all meant, so I think it's safe to assume it wasn't so clear even back then. Presumably just saying how things should be run would have been immediately clearer than all the parables for a start. Also I'm assuming an omnipotent creator could have made his message as clear as he wanted it to be. Maybe writing the bible himself and making it so it could be read and understood by any human in any time wouldn't have been out of the realms of possibility for someone who can do literally anything.