The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Pope should just do a Christian universe reset, to clean up the continuity errors.
I'm beginning to think Pope John Paul II was from the Ultimate Catholicism spin-off, but now Ratzinger is here to remind us that Jews are still wicked and Gwen Stacey is still dead.
Although that's true, isn't it also true that a lot of the books in the bible were written by regular guys, long after Jesus died? So those could also be considered "bible fanfiction". It's a really fine line deciding what counts as official scripture and what doesn't. Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
There really isn't a fine line in what is official bible and what is not. The books in the new testament were written at different times and from different sources. There was debate for a while on what was canon but at some point in the middle ages there was a council that basically said, this is what's canon, everything else is not. This is at least true for Catholicism.
Right, so who's to say that that medieval council was correct? They were just regular guys, not saints or angels. What's to stop Christians from convening a new council now and saying that Dante's inferno, Paradise lost, and the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas are now canon, and Revelations isn't?
There are maybe a dozen Christian sects that don't believe Hell is the final stop for wicked folks. I don't know for sure, though. *turns on the Qingu signal*
That said, the reason the damned suffer is because their lifestyles aren't compatible with heavenly types. If you can't fall in line with the straight and narrow road, you might spoil others on the path.
Although that's true, isn't it also true that a lot of the books in the bible were written by regular guys, long after Jesus died? So those could also be considered "bible fanfiction". It's a really fine line deciding what counts as official scripture and what doesn't. Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
There really isn't a fine line in what is official bible and what is not. The books in the new testament were written at different times and from different sources. There was debate for a while on what was canon but at some point in the middle ages there was a council that basically said, this is what's canon, everything else is not. This is at least true for Catholicism.
Right, so who's to say that that medieval council was correct? They were just regular guys, not saints or angels. What's to stop Christians from convening a new council now and saying that Dante's inferno, Paradise lost, and the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas are now canon, and Revelations isn't?
Although that's true, isn't it also true that a lot of the books in the bible were written by regular guys, long after Jesus died? So those could also be considered "bible fanfiction". It's a really fine line deciding what counts as official scripture and what doesn't. Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
There really isn't a fine line in what is official bible and what is not. The books in the new testament were written at different times and from different sources. There was debate for a while on what was canon but at some point in the middle ages there was a council that basically said, this is what's canon, everything else is not. This is at least true for Catholicism.
Right, so who's to say that that medieval council was correct? They were just regular guys, not saints or angels. What's to stop Christians from convening a new council now and saying that Dante's inferno, Paradise lost, and the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas are now canon, and Revelations isn't?
Who's to say any of it was correct? Religion boils down to an argument from authority; it's correct because the Church says its correct, and so it is considered correct by members of the Church.
Although that's true, isn't it also true that a lot of the books in the bible were written by regular guys, long after Jesus died? So those could also be considered "bible fanfiction". It's a really fine line deciding what counts as official scripture and what doesn't. Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
There really isn't a fine line in what is official bible and what is not. The books in the new testament were written at different times and from different sources. There was debate for a while on what was canon but at some point in the middle ages there was a council that basically said, this is what's canon, everything else is not. This is at least true for Catholicism.
Yeah, there were several councils in the 16th century (in Catholicism and protestantism) that solidified the "canon" of the NT. But that was basically just reaffirming what was already used as canon. It pretty much grew organically in the early Christian church - Paul's Epistles (being the earliest written of the NT materials) were seen as core documents by 100CE, and the four gospels as the only legit ones as early as 180CE.
What you have to remember is that during this era your average person couldn't read these things. It was all controlled and interpreted by the "priests," so as Christianity grew and sects combined into something that could be seen as an organized movement, those groups used the same texts.
Ok, so call me wierd, but recently I had thought of a question that I have yet to answer myself. The question is simple, yet very complicated. I thought it would make for a good discussion, so we'll see how it goes.
The ponderment is that Christianity preaches that God is a lord with infinite forgiveness and patience, correct? Well, if that is true, why is there such a place as Hell? I mean, Hell is essentially just a prison and punishment area for those that God has condemned due to some such thing. If God was truely infinitely forgiving then there would be no call for a place like Hell because he would have forgiven even Lucifer himself for his betrayl.
So, in my mind, either religion preaches wrongfully, in that God is NOT infinitely forgiving thereby meaning there is a Hell. OR there has to be no Hell.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based off (effectively) a caricature of God. In order to "sell" God to a changing world, some denominations have moved towards the "God is Love" model.
But this simply isn't supported in the Bible. Yes, God loves mankind, but his love is one of his traits, not his entirety. He is also, amongst other things, just. When viewed this way, suddenly the Old Testament makes more sense (unless you were a Gnostic).
If you're interested in some references, might I suggest Romans 1, 3, and 6? "Men are without excuse", "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "the wages of sin is death".
I will openly admit that this isn't a "happy" answer. But this isn't exactly a "happy" subject either.
Although that's true, isn't it also true that a lot of the books in the bible were written by regular guys, long after Jesus died? So those could also be considered "bible fanfiction". It's a really fine line deciding what counts as official scripture and what doesn't. Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
There really isn't a fine line in what is official bible and what is not. The books in the new testament were written at different times and from different sources. There was debate for a while on what was canon but at some point in the middle ages there was a council that basically said, this is what's canon, everything else is not. This is at least true for Catholicism.
Right, so who's to say that that medieval council was correct? They were just regular guys, not saints or angels. What's to stop Christians from convening a new council now and saying that Dante's inferno, Paradise lost, and the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas are now canon, and Revelations isn't?
Who's to say any of it was correct? Religion boils down to an argument from authority; it's correct because the Church says its correct, and so it is considered correct by members of the Church.
Ok, so call me wierd, but recently I had thought of a question that I have yet to answer myself. The question is simple, yet very complicated. I thought it would make for a good discussion, so we'll see how it goes.
The ponderment is that Christianity preaches that God is a lord with infinite forgiveness and patience, correct? Well, if that is true, why is there such a place as Hell? I mean, Hell is essentially just a prison and punishment area for those that God has condemned due to some such thing. If God was truely infinitely forgiving then there would be no call for a place like Hell because he would have forgiven even Lucifer himself for his betrayl.
So, in my mind, either religion preaches wrongfully, in that God is NOT infinitely forgiving thereby meaning there is a Hell. OR there has to be no Hell.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based off (effectively) a caricature of God. In order to "sell" God to a changing world, some denominations have moved towards the "God is Love" model.
But this simply isn't supported in the Bible. Yes, God loves mankind, but his love is one of his traits, not his entirety. He is also, amongst other things, just. When viewed this way, suddenly the Old Testament makes more sense (unless you were a Gnostic).
If you're interested in some references, might I suggest Romans 1, 3, and 6? "Men are without excuse", "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "the wages of sin is death".
I will openly admit that this isn't a "happy" answer. But this isn't exactly a "happy" subject either.
Hmm. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that love and forgiveness is a pretty important part of the Christian idea of God. The story is, God loves us so much that he was willing to sacrifice his only son/himself for us, and Jesus forgives all, so he even forgave the people that killed him. If God is just, and not all-loving and all-forgiving, then why would Jesus allow himself to be crucified? Why not just kill all the sinners who tried to kill Jesus?
Although that's true, isn't it also true that a lot of the books in the bible were written by regular guys, long after Jesus died? So those could also be considered "bible fanfiction". It's a really fine line deciding what counts as official scripture and what doesn't. Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
There really isn't a fine line in what is official bible and what is not. The books in the new testament were written at different times and from different sources. There was debate for a while on what was canon but at some point in the middle ages there was a council that basically said, this is what's canon, everything else is not. This is at least true for Catholicism.
Yeah, there were several councils in the 16th century (in Catholicism and protestantism) that solidified the "canon" of the NT. But that was basically just reaffirming what was already used as canon. It pretty much grew organically in the early Christian church - Paul's Epistles (being the earliest written of the NT materials) were seen as core documents by 100CE, and the four gospels as the only legit ones as early as 180CE.
What you have to remember is that during this era your average person couldn't read these things. It was all controlled and interpreted by the "priests," so as Christianity grew and sects combined into something that could be seen as an organized movement, those groups used the same texts.
I didn't realize it was decided that early. So has there ever been a decision by the Catholic Church, or any other official organization, on the status of the other religious texts? I mean, are they considered "divinely inspired", or just heresy? Because it would make a lot of sense to me if God decided not to give us his word all at once, but rather to space it out over a long period of time.
The ponderment is that Christianity preaches that God is a lord with infinite forgiveness and patience, correct?
Not the character from the Bible.
I mean, people like to quote John 3:16 ... but look two verses ahead at John 3:18 and it's clear that the dude doesn't have infinite forgiveness or patience.
So, in my mind, either religion preaches wrongfully, in that God is NOT infinitely forgiving thereby meaning there is a Hell. OR there has to be no Hell.
Yeah, this is a pretty elementary thing for an apologist to weasel out of: "the people in hell WANT to be there because they REJECTED God/hell is the absence of God."
Ok, so call me wierd, but recently I had thought of a question that I have yet to answer myself. The question is simple, yet very complicated. I thought it would make for a good discussion, so we'll see how it goes.
The ponderment is that Christianity preaches that God is a lord with infinite forgiveness and patience, correct? Well, if that is true, why is there such a place as Hell? I mean, Hell is essentially just a prison and punishment area for those that God has condemned due to some such thing. If God was truely infinitely forgiving then there would be no call for a place like Hell because he would have forgiven even Lucifer himself for his betrayl.
So, in my mind, either religion preaches wrongfully, in that God is NOT infinitely forgiving thereby meaning there is a Hell. OR there has to be no Hell.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based off (effectively) a caricature of God. In order to "sell" God to a changing world, some denominations have moved towards the "God is Love" model.
But this simply isn't supported in the Bible. Yes, God loves mankind, but his love is one of his traits, not his entirety. He is also, amongst other things, just. When viewed this way, suddenly the Old Testament makes more sense (unless you were a Gnostic).
If you're interested in some references, might I suggest Romans 1, 3, and 6? "Men are without excuse", "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "the wages of sin is death".
I will openly admit that this isn't a "happy" answer. But this isn't exactly a "happy" subject either.
Hmm. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that love and forgiveness is a pretty important part of the Christian idea of God. The story is, God loves us so much that he was willing to sacrifice his only son/himself for us, and Jesus forgives all, so he even forgave the people that killed him. If God is just, and not all-loving and all-forgiving, then why would Jesus allow himself to be crucified? Why not just kill all the sinners who tried to kill Jesus?
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
Revelations for example- why is that in the bible???
Given this topic, it's a very good question. Indeed, the island St John the Divine notoriously hailed from has a rather large population of psilocybin-bearing mushrooms!
1. It's Revelation, not Revelations.
2. It's not that weird. Apocalyptic literature was very common among Jewish sects at the time. ("Apocalyptic" does not necessarily mean "end of the world." It means "revelatory." This kind of literature involves a narrator who is taken up into heaven by an angel or similar creature and shown a vision of a future.)
The symbols and numbers used in the text would have been obvious codes for people reading it in Roman-era Judea. For example:
• 4 = the world, wholeness
• 7 = power, greatness
• 12 = Israel
• Babylon = Rome
Apocalyptic texts usually serve as wish-fulfillment, detailing the destruction by God of some empire that deserves its "come-uppance." Revelation does exactly this, as does Ezekial in the Old Testament and a large number of non-Biblical religious texts.
Also, if you review the apocalyptic literature, they also seem to try to "one-up" each other. Revelation, for example, is much more over-the-top and gory than Ezekial or earlier apocryphal apocalypses. In this, they are much the same as horror movie sequels, anime, or Final Fantasy games. You know how each final boss in the Final Fantasy series has a successively more over-the-top final attack? That's why Revelation reads like it does.
But don't confuse its over-the-topness for nonsense or drug-induced hallucinations. It's not even as over-the-top as your average Hindu myth.
Ok, so call me wierd, but recently I had thought of a question that I have yet to answer myself. The question is simple, yet very complicated. I thought it would make for a good discussion, so we'll see how it goes.
The ponderment is that Christianity preaches that God is a lord with infinite forgiveness and patience, correct? Well, if that is true, why is there such a place as Hell? I mean, Hell is essentially just a prison and punishment area for those that God has condemned due to some such thing. If God was truely infinitely forgiving then there would be no call for a place like Hell because he would have forgiven even Lucifer himself for his betrayl.
So, in my mind, either religion preaches wrongfully, in that God is NOT infinitely forgiving thereby meaning there is a Hell. OR there has to be no Hell.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based off (effectively) a caricature of God. In order to "sell" God to a changing world, some denominations have moved towards the "God is Love" model.
But this simply isn't supported in the Bible. Yes, God loves mankind, but his love is one of his traits, not his entirety. He is also, amongst other things, just. When viewed this way, suddenly the Old Testament makes more sense (unless you were a Gnostic).
If you're interested in some references, might I suggest Romans 1, 3, and 6? "Men are without excuse", "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "the wages of sin is death".
I will openly admit that this isn't a "happy" answer. But this isn't exactly a "happy" subject either.
Hmm. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that love and forgiveness is a pretty important part of the Christian idea of God. The story is, God loves us so much that he was willing to sacrifice his only son/himself for us, and Jesus forgives all, so he even forgave the people that killed him. If God is just, and not all-loving and all-forgiving, then why would Jesus allow himself to be crucified? Why not just kill all the sinners who tried to kill Jesus?
Oh, it certainly is an important part of the Christian idea of God. The problem is when it stops being a part of the idea of God, and becomes the idea in it's entirety.
I think a TVTropes link is appropriate here: Flanderization
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
I'll admit, this is something I'm not sure on.
The explanation I was given is that Jesus took all the sins on himself, and (due to his infinite nature) was able to bear the punishment for all of them. (Or all of the people who will be saved, if you're a Calvinist).
There's also the explanation that's implied in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. When Jesus died, Satan took him to Hell because that's what Satan does. Except, Jesus never sinned. So Satan violated his deal with God, so people can go to heaven.
(Though it's a little stupid if you think about it too much. God had to catch Satan in a loophole?)
Edit: The first explanation is where you get into the trouble of Aliens and Christianity. If God had to take human form to do this, what does that mean regarding alien life? Either they don't exist, they never sinned, or Jesus visited them too.
What is Mormon Hell like? What is Muslim Hell like?
Mormon hell is cool. It's called "Outer Darkness." But there's also this place that nonbelievers hang out in after they die, but before they go to Outer Darkness. Dead believers get to go into this place and rescue them.
Mormon heaven is also cool. There are three levels—the terrestial level, the telestial level, and the celestial level. I think they might be called "spheres." A small amount of people in the top celestial sphere get to become the God of their own planet.
Muslim hell is basically a more colorful version of Christian hell. It's a fiery place where you constantly have to swallow burning oil and God will replenish your skin so you can feel it burn off repeatedly. The Quran goes into a lot of detail about hell; I actually wonder if it influenced later Christian imagery.
I didn't so much mean it as "why is it in the bible (as a matter of fact)" but "why is it generally regarded as an integral part now".
I'm not sure what you mean. Why is it still included in the canon? Why wouldn't it be?
Are you trying to say that since people today think Revelation is nonsense they would therefore take it out of the canon? Well, that's not really how Christianity works. If a Christian doesn't like something in the Bible, they don't take it out of the canon, they just ignore it completely, and if you ask them about it, they say "it's a metaphor."
Qingu on
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I'm not sure what you mean. Why is it still included in the canon? Why wouldn't it be?
I was thinking in the same way that many Christian denominations have basically disowned 90% of the OT there has been a lack of similar behaviour with regard to Revelation - whereas I'd have thought it's where one would start the ignoring.
Hm? I think it's safe to say that many Christians treat Revelation basically the same as they treat 90% of the OT. They just pretend it's not there.
I mean, even fundamentalists take a sort of hands-off approach to Revelation, though this is largely because of the wildly inconsistent ways it's interpreted.
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
I'll admit, this is something I'm not sure on.
The explanation I was given is that Jesus took all the sins on himself, and (due to his infinite nature) was able to bear the punishment for all of them. (Or all of the people who will be saved, if you're a Calvinist).
There's also the explanation that's implied in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. When Jesus died, Satan took him to Hell because that's what Satan does. Except, Jesus never sinned. So Satan violated his deal with God, so people can go to heaven.
(Though it's a little stupid if you think about it too much. God had to catch Satan in a loophole?)
Edit: The first explanation is where you get into the trouble of Aliens and Christianity. If God had to take human form to do this, what does that mean regarding alien life? Either they don't exist, they never sinned, or Jesus visited them too.
Its kind of stupid to say he never suffered; he was, according to the scripture, publicly humiliated, flayed, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and made to carry a heavy cross a long way. Once there he was executed in a pretty painful way, hanging from mutilated hands and feet and left to die of exposure.
As far as sacrifices go, I think its sufficient. Also, as far as I'm aware there are no christian sects that believe he was taken to hell. He was resurrected and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. Or something like that.
Whether you believe is Christ or not, it's hard to argue he did not sacrifice his life and suffered as it's presented in the bible.
Hm? I think it's safe to say that many Christians treat Revelation basically the same as they treat 90% of the OT. They just pretend it's not there.
I mean, even fundamentalists take a sort of hands-off approach to Revelation, though this is largely because of the wildly inconsistent ways it's interpreted.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Ever heard of the Left Behind series?
And for ignoring parts of the Bible, I think that Genesis and Revelation are probably the best bets. (By ignore, I mean treat as metaphor). It's not like Moses had access to modern scientific knowledge when trying to explain what happened from Creation to the Flood. And John certainly wouldn't know how to describe a nuclear war, global warming, or whatever thing is most likely to kill us all.
As for ignoring the OT, people do it for two reasons. First, Paul made it clear that the Jewish civil law no longer applies. Second, the rest doesn't fit with their "God is Love" simplification.
gjaustin on
0
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
What is Mormon Hell like? What is Muslim Hell like?
As for Mormonism, here is how it works. (I'm not going to try and argue whether what we believe is true, whether your athiest or Christian and hate us, I dont care, I'm just giving relevant information in context with the OP of the thread and this guys question) Also, I did a lot of copy and pasting here, and I'm very tired, so theres a possibility that I didn't clarify something very good, well, I'm not going to try, and I'm just trying to give you a very basic idea of what we believe.
We believe in a three-tier heaven. Everyone goes to heaven, whether your athiest or not, whatever, your going to heaven whether you like it or not.
Actually, I'm just going to quote directly from Preach My Gospel, which is the manual we used as Missionaries in studying the lessons that we taught.
"... God rewards usaccording to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deeds
done in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assigned
after the Judgment. Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances of
the gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement of
Christ. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestial
kingdom. They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy.
They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In the
scriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun.
People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but live honorable
lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the
glory of the moon.
Those who continued in their sins and did not repent in this life will receive their
reward in the lowest kingdom, which is called the telestial kingdom. This kingdom is
compared to the glory of the stars."
Ok so a little bit more on the 3 kingdoms. The sun, moon and stars are just an analogy to demonstrate the respective differences of each kingdom, imagine the light given off by each the sun, the moon or the stars. Ok.
The Highest Kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom is a gimme, if you follow the commandments, receive the neccessary ordenances and remain faithful then you will be received there. Its the best, where you would want to go.
The Terrestial Kingdom, equated with the moon, is for the those who lead honorable lives, but dont accept the fullnes of th gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants talk about this kindgom explaining that here you may be in the presense of Christ, but not the father.
The tellestial, equated with the stars is a step down, and there you can be adminstered to by Angels, but not dwell in the presense of The Father or The Son. These people are like, the really bad ones, people who actually do horrible things.
(I'm skipping a lot and..sigh, ok if you want more context on this, here is a spoiler explaining very briefly our basic beliefs on what happens after death, the spirit world, ressurection, judgment and kingdoms of glory.
The Spirit World
Even though Christ conquered physical death, all people must die, for death is part of
the process by which we are transformed from mortality to immortality. At death our spirits
go to the spirit world. Death does not change our personality or our desires for good or
evil. Those who chose to obey God in this life live in a state of happiness, peace, and rest
from troubles and care. Those who chose not to obey in this life and did not repent live in
a state of unhappiness. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to those who did not
obey the gospel or have the opportunity to hear it while on earth. We remain in the spirit
world until we are resurrected.
The Resurrection, Judgment, and Immortality
When our bodies and spirits are reunited through the resurrection, we will be brought
into God’s presence to be judged. We will remember perfectly our righteousness and our
guilt. If we have repented, we will receive mercy. We will be rewarded according to our
works and our desires.
Through the resurrection all people will become immortal—they will live forever.
Immortality is a free gift to all people, whether they are righteous or wicked. Eternal life
is not, however, the same as immortality. Eternal life is a gift of God given only to those
who obey His gospel. It is the highest state that we can achieve. It comes to those who
are freed from sin and suffering through the Atonement of Christ. It is exaltation, which
means living with God forever in eternal families. It is to know God and Jesus Christ and
to experience the life they enjoy.
and then after this is the kingdoms of Glory bit which I quoted earlier.
About Hell. We don't believe in a traditional Hell, as most Christian Denominations. We do believe in Outer Darkness which is reserved for those who have the fullness of the gospel, know 100% for sure of God's existance and have even probably seen visions or had visitations of somesort, and still denied God. It's basically equated as someone standing in miday sun and denying that the sun is there, thats how sure your knowledge would have to be. IN OTHER WORDS, the only people who could go there in this day and age are Members of the Church themselves, and not even just members of the church, (if i were to fall away, I wouldn't be going there) this is for those who literally have been given everything and denied it, so very few people will end up here.
In outer darkness you suffer for eternity blah blah blah yea you got it.
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
I'll admit, this is something I'm not sure on.
The explanation I was given is that Jesus took all the sins on himself, and (due to his infinite nature) was able to bear the punishment for all of them. (Or all of the people who will be saved, if you're a Calvinist).
There's also the explanation that's implied in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. When Jesus died, Satan took him to Hell because that's what Satan does. Except, Jesus never sinned. So Satan violated his deal with God, so people can go to heaven.
(Though it's a little stupid if you think about it too much. God had to catch Satan in a loophole?)
Edit: The first explanation is where you get into the trouble of Aliens and Christianity. If God had to take human form to do this, what does that mean regarding alien life? Either they don't exist, they never sinned, or Jesus visited them too.
Its kind of stupid to say he never suffered; he was, according to the scripture, publicly humiliated, flayed, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and made to carry a heavy cross a long way. Once there he was executed in a pretty painful way, hanging from mutilated hands and feet and left to die of exposure.
As far as sacrifices go, I think its sufficient. Also, as far as I'm aware there are no christian sects that believe he was taken to hell. He was resurrected and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. Or something like that.
Whether you believe is Christ or not, it's hard to argue he did not sacrifice his life and suffered as it's presented in the bible.
There is also the position that when Jesus was crucified and died that God turned his back on him and he took the the sins of the world upon himself and thus was condemned to Hell. And with Hell being a non-temporal place he suffered there as anyone who was cut off from God would during the 3 days before he rose.
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
I'll admit, this is something I'm not sure on.
The explanation I was given is that Jesus took all the sins on himself, and (due to his infinite nature) was able to bear the punishment for all of them. (Or all of the people who will be saved, if you're a Calvinist).
There's also the explanation that's implied in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. When Jesus died, Satan took him to Hell because that's what Satan does. Except, Jesus never sinned. So Satan violated his deal with God, so people can go to heaven.
(Though it's a little stupid if you think about it too much. God had to catch Satan in a loophole?)
Edit: The first explanation is where you get into the trouble of Aliens and Christianity. If God had to take human form to do this, what does that mean regarding alien life? Either they don't exist, they never sinned, or Jesus visited them too.
Its kind of stupid to say he never suffered; he was, according to the scripture, publicly humiliated, flayed, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and made to carry a heavy cross a long way. Once there he was executed in a pretty painful way, hanging from mutilated hands and feet and left to die of exposure.
As far as sacrifices go, I think its sufficient. Also, as far as I'm aware there are no christian sects that believe he was taken to hell. He was resurrected and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. Or something like that.
Whether you believe is Christ or not, it's hard to argue he did not sacrifice his life and suffered as it's presented in the bible.
The Apostles Creed includes the phrase "descended into Hell". He was dead for at least 48 hours, so he had to be somewhere after all. I have no idea where, but Hell seems like a reasonable choice.
As for suffering, I believe the argument isn't that he didn't suffer, but rather that he didn't suffer enough to account for the sins of billions of people, each of which warrants damnation. Again, not the happy answer. That's where the explanations I provided come in.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Ever heard of the Left Behind series?
They're popular, but most evangelicals I've talked to are actually quite embarrassed by its implicit interpretation of Revelation.
One way to put it: Left Behind is to Revelation as Dante's Inferno is to Biblical Hell.
And for ignoring parts of the Bible, I think that Genesis and Revelation are probably the best bets. (By ignore, I mean treat as metaphor).
Hold on.
"Ignore" does not mean "treat as metaphor."
When I said Christians treat these parts of the Bible as "metaphor," I was being snide, because that's not what they're actually doing at all. They're invoking the word "metaphor" because they don't believe in the text as it's written and think that by saying this word, they can freely ignore what it says. They never bother to say what they think it's a metaphor for, or why.
It's not like Moses had access to modern scientific knowledge when trying to explain what happened from Creation to the Flood. And John certainly wouldn't know how to describe a nuclear war, global warming, or whatever thing is most likely to kill us all.
If you believe Revelation is actually a metaphor for a near-future nuclear war or global warming, you're not "ignoring" Revelation.
As for ignoring the OT, people do it for two reasons. First, Paul made it clear that the Jewish civil law no longer applies. Second, the rest doesn't fit with their "God is Love" simplification.
I'd also add a third: "they don't read it and are somewhat shocked when they find out what it actually says."
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
I'll admit, this is something I'm not sure on.
The explanation I was given is that Jesus took all the sins on himself, and (due to his infinite nature) was able to bear the punishment for all of them. (Or all of the people who will be saved, if you're a Calvinist).
There's also the explanation that's implied in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. When Jesus died, Satan took him to Hell because that's what Satan does. Except, Jesus never sinned. So Satan violated his deal with God, so people can go to heaven.
(Though it's a little stupid if you think about it too much. God had to catch Satan in a loophole?)
Edit: The first explanation is where you get into the trouble of Aliens and Christianity. If God had to take human form to do this, what does that mean regarding alien life? Either they don't exist, they never sinned, or Jesus visited them too.
Its kind of stupid to say he never suffered; he was, according to the scripture, publicly humiliated, flayed, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and made to carry a heavy cross a long way. Once there he was executed in a pretty painful way, hanging from mutilated hands and feet and left to die of exposure.
As far as sacrifices go, I think its sufficient. Also, as far as I'm aware there are no christian sects that believe he was taken to hell. He was resurrected and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. Or something like that.
Whether you believe is Christ or not, it's hard to argue he did not sacrifice his life and suffered as it's presented in the bible.
Thats just it, if he died and was subsequently resurrected in heaven what did he actually sacrifice. Heaven is always portrayed as being better than everything here on earth, its only a sacrifice if he basically poofs out of existence or is damned eternally. True the torture bit would suck a lot but hey a lot of other people got tortured and killed that way (they had no guarantee that they were going to heaven like Jesus did).
Jesus being damned eternally would make the most sense as he is paying for everyone else's sins. It
I suppose I phrased that poorly. I understand what you mean by ignore, which fits into my second definition (and your third).
Many people I know would classify my first definition as ignoring as well (I know I used to), so that came through in what I wrote.
gjaustin on
0
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Ferrous, Christ was sacrificed in that he suffered for every single persons sins. Instead of us having to suffer for our sins, Christ did it so that we don't have to.
In the Bible it talks about this, in Luke 22:44 it says "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
So we believe that his suffering was so great that he bleed from every pore.
On top of that adding in what the Book of Mormon says (just to give you more context on our beliefs)
It says in Alma that Christ suffered for our afflictions, our sicknesses, our temptations, our trials, everything. So in essence, take every single pain you have ever suffered in your life, every sickness all of it, now take all that at the exact same time, and add the billions of other people in the world, and add that, and that is what Christ suffered while in the Garden of Gethsemane.
So yes, we believe his suffering was a pretty big sacrifice.
Kind of like that, but with Christ, not Obama. And remember these are the people who literally know the truth without a shadow of doubt, they have seen visions or whatnot. I'm not sure Birthers can see anything.
Hm? I think it's safe to say that many Christians treat Revelation basically the same as they treat 90% of the OT. They just pretend it's not there.
I mean, even fundamentalists take a sort of hands-off approach to Revelation, though this is largely because of the wildly inconsistent ways it's interpreted.
Jehovah's Witnesses are keen on Revelation. JW's have more than a few books dedicated to deciphering prophesies and what Revelation means. Did you know there's a big difference between 'spiritual' Israel, 'New' Israel, and 'Earthly' Israel? You would if you were a JW - they have a book and a half dozen pamphlets about it.
Hm? I think it's safe to say that many Christians treat Revelation basically the same as they treat 90% of the OT. They just pretend it's not there.
I mean, even fundamentalists take a sort of hands-off approach to Revelation, though this is largely because of the wildly inconsistent ways it's interpreted.
Jehovah's Witnesses are keen on Revelation. JW's have more than a few books dedicated to deciphering prophesies and what Revelation means. Did you know there's a big difference between 'spiritual' Israel, 'New' Israel, and 'Earthly' Israel? You would if you were a JW - they have a book and a half dozen pamphlets about it.
I have trouble keeping track of all the terms involving modern interpretations of Revelation.
I stopped trying when I learned about the "Post-millenialists."
I think most people don't pay attention to Revelations (other than JWs and other "end of days" types) because it's not that applicable to anything other than thinking about when the world is going to end. Jesus' contemporaries (incl. Paul in his letters) thought that the second coming would happen and the world would end in their lifetimes. It just doesn't apply now.
I don't see why it has to either - most Christians and Catholics don't believe that the NT is the exact literal word of God. They believe it was written by men.
For this thread to continue, I think we need to look at everything Jesus and the apostles said about Gehenna and Hell and Sheol and the grave and the pit.
For this thread to continue, I think we need to look at everything Jesus and the apostles said about Gehenna and Hell and Sheol and the grave and the pit.
EDIT: Erm, don't click on that link if you're Catholic...
If they're on this board and they're Catholic, they probably should click the link. If anything it would give them a clearer understanding of Christ's teachings and the bible in general (which in my opinion is a good thing.Catholicism is almost polytheistic,what with the cult of mary,the saints and the pope).
EDIT: But what does it matter to me, I'm an atheist.
For this thread to continue, I think we need to look at everything Jesus and the apostles said about Gehenna and Hell and Sheol and the grave and the pit.
EDIT: Erm, don't click on that link if you're Catholic...
Hm.
I skimmed the link. I agree that hell in the Bible is not this ever-present place that bad people go to when they die. The early Christians associated it with the end times, when God would return to earth and punish the wicked, living and dead—which, by the way, they thought would happen very soon.
(The fact that it didn't happen obviously meant the concept of a fiery punishment by God had to evolve into something else, so it's not surprising we ended up with afterlife-hell).
HOWEVER. The link also seems to argue that Gehenna refers only to a "national judgment" against the Jews. This is pretty clearly contradicted by Revelation, which mentions a lake of fire and clearly details all kinds of punishments for non-Jews, particularly Romans. It's also extremely dodgy reasoning—the fact that Jews would interpret Gehenna this way doesn't mean that therefore Jesus is only talking about Jews going to Gehenna.
But it is true that the concept of hell as an ever-present afterlife place was not developed at the time of Christianity, and the Jews did not believe in this at all. (Incidentally, this is why I don't really care, as an atheist, for arguments against Christianity that involve hell; besides, there's plenty of gruesome punishments explicitly threatened by God to choose from that are actually in the Bible)
Posts
I'm beginning to think Pope John Paul II was from the Ultimate Catholicism spin-off, but now Ratzinger is here to remind us that Jews are still wicked and Gwen Stacey is still dead.
Right, so who's to say that that medieval council was correct? They were just regular guys, not saints or angels. What's to stop Christians from convening a new council now and saying that Dante's inferno, Paradise lost, and the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas are now canon, and Revelations isn't?
That said, the reason the damned suffer is because their lifestyles aren't compatible with heavenly types. If you can't fall in line with the straight and narrow road, you might spoil others on the path.
Who's to say any of it was correct? Religion boils down to an argument from authority; it's correct because the Church says its correct, and so it is considered correct by members of the Church.
Yeah, there were several councils in the 16th century (in Catholicism and protestantism) that solidified the "canon" of the NT. But that was basically just reaffirming what was already used as canon. It pretty much grew organically in the early Christian church - Paul's Epistles (being the earliest written of the NT materials) were seen as core documents by 100CE, and the four gospels as the only legit ones as early as 180CE.
What you have to remember is that during this era your average person couldn't read these things. It was all controlled and interpreted by the "priests," so as Christianity grew and sects combined into something that could be seen as an organized movement, those groups used the same texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based off (effectively) a caricature of God. In order to "sell" God to a changing world, some denominations have moved towards the "God is Love" model.
But this simply isn't supported in the Bible. Yes, God loves mankind, but his love is one of his traits, not his entirety. He is also, amongst other things, just. When viewed this way, suddenly the Old Testament makes more sense (unless you were a Gnostic).
If you're interested in some references, might I suggest Romans 1, 3, and 6? "Men are without excuse", "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "the wages of sin is death".
I will openly admit that this isn't a "happy" answer. But this isn't exactly a "happy" subject either.
This is so not correct about many religions.
I didn't realize it was decided that early. So has there ever been a decision by the Catholic Church, or any other official organization, on the status of the other religious texts? I mean, are they considered "divinely inspired", or just heresy? Because it would make a lot of sense to me if God decided not to give us his word all at once, but rather to space it out over a long period of time.
I mean, people like to quote John 3:16 ... but look two verses ahead at John 3:18 and it's clear that the dude doesn't have infinite forgiveness or patience.
Yeah, this is a pretty elementary thing for an apologist to weasel out of: "the people in hell WANT to be there because they REJECTED God/hell is the absence of God."
This always confused me. If Jesus dies he goes to heaven correct? How is this a sacrifice in any way, I guess the whole torture before death. But once he is died BAM! he is in heaven. That doesn't exactly sound like a giant sacrifice. Unless Jesus was ripped from the space-time continuum and no longer exists. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the whole story.
2. It's not that weird. Apocalyptic literature was very common among Jewish sects at the time. ("Apocalyptic" does not necessarily mean "end of the world." It means "revelatory." This kind of literature involves a narrator who is taken up into heaven by an angel or similar creature and shown a vision of a future.)
The symbols and numbers used in the text would have been obvious codes for people reading it in Roman-era Judea. For example:
• 4 = the world, wholeness
• 7 = power, greatness
• 12 = Israel
• Babylon = Rome
Apocalyptic texts usually serve as wish-fulfillment, detailing the destruction by God of some empire that deserves its "come-uppance." Revelation does exactly this, as does Ezekial in the Old Testament and a large number of non-Biblical religious texts.
Also, if you review the apocalyptic literature, they also seem to try to "one-up" each other. Revelation, for example, is much more over-the-top and gory than Ezekial or earlier apocryphal apocalypses. In this, they are much the same as horror movie sequels, anime, or Final Fantasy games. You know how each final boss in the Final Fantasy series has a successively more over-the-top final attack? That's why Revelation reads like it does.
But don't confuse its over-the-topness for nonsense or drug-induced hallucinations. It's not even as over-the-top as your average Hindu myth.
Oh, it certainly is an important part of the Christian idea of God. The problem is when it stops being a part of the idea of God, and becomes the idea in it's entirety.
I think a TVTropes link is appropriate here: Flanderization
I'll admit, this is something I'm not sure on.
The explanation I was given is that Jesus took all the sins on himself, and (due to his infinite nature) was able to bear the punishment for all of them. (Or all of the people who will be saved, if you're a Calvinist).
There's also the explanation that's implied in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. When Jesus died, Satan took him to Hell because that's what Satan does. Except, Jesus never sinned. So Satan violated his deal with God, so people can go to heaven.
(Though it's a little stupid if you think about it too much. God had to catch Satan in a loophole?)
Edit: The first explanation is where you get into the trouble of Aliens and Christianity. If God had to take human form to do this, what does that mean regarding alien life? Either they don't exist, they never sinned, or Jesus visited them too.
I didn't so much mean it as "why is it in the bible (as a matter of fact)" but "why is it generally regarded as an integral part now".
Mormon heaven is also cool. There are three levels—the terrestial level, the telestial level, and the celestial level. I think they might be called "spheres." A small amount of people in the top celestial sphere get to become the God of their own planet.
Muslim hell is basically a more colorful version of Christian hell. It's a fiery place where you constantly have to swallow burning oil and God will replenish your skin so you can feel it burn off repeatedly. The Quran goes into a lot of detail about hell; I actually wonder if it influenced later Christian imagery.
Mormon hell is a gay singles bar.
Are you trying to say that since people today think Revelation is nonsense they would therefore take it out of the canon? Well, that's not really how Christianity works. If a Christian doesn't like something in the Bible, they don't take it out of the canon, they just ignore it completely, and if you ask them about it, they say "it's a metaphor."
I was thinking in the same way that many Christian denominations have basically disowned 90% of the OT there has been a lack of similar behaviour with regard to Revelation - whereas I'd have thought it's where one would start the ignoring.
I mean, even fundamentalists take a sort of hands-off approach to Revelation, though this is largely because of the wildly inconsistent ways it's interpreted.
Its kind of stupid to say he never suffered; he was, according to the scripture, publicly humiliated, flayed, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and made to carry a heavy cross a long way. Once there he was executed in a pretty painful way, hanging from mutilated hands and feet and left to die of exposure.
As far as sacrifices go, I think its sufficient. Also, as far as I'm aware there are no christian sects that believe he was taken to hell. He was resurrected and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. Or something like that.
Whether you believe is Christ or not, it's hard to argue he did not sacrifice his life and suffered as it's presented in the bible.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Ever heard of the Left Behind series?
And for ignoring parts of the Bible, I think that Genesis and Revelation are probably the best bets. (By ignore, I mean treat as metaphor). It's not like Moses had access to modern scientific knowledge when trying to explain what happened from Creation to the Flood. And John certainly wouldn't know how to describe a nuclear war, global warming, or whatever thing is most likely to kill us all.
As for ignoring the OT, people do it for two reasons. First, Paul made it clear that the Jewish civil law no longer applies. Second, the rest doesn't fit with their "God is Love" simplification.
As for Mormonism, here is how it works. (I'm not going to try and argue whether what we believe is true, whether your athiest or Christian and hate us, I dont care, I'm just giving relevant information in context with the OP of the thread and this guys question) Also, I did a lot of copy and pasting here, and I'm very tired, so theres a possibility that I didn't clarify something very good, well, I'm not going to try, and I'm just trying to give you a very basic idea of what we believe.
We believe in a three-tier heaven. Everyone goes to heaven, whether your athiest or not, whatever, your going to heaven whether you like it or not.
Actually, I'm just going to quote directly from Preach My Gospel, which is the manual we used as Missionaries in studying the lessons that we taught.
"... God rewards usaccording to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deeds
done in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assigned
after the Judgment. Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances of
the gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement of
Christ. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestial
kingdom. They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy.
They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In the
scriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun.
People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but live honorable
lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the
glory of the moon.
Those who continued in their sins and did not repent in this life will receive their
reward in the lowest kingdom, which is called the telestial kingdom. This kingdom is
compared to the glory of the stars."
Ok so a little bit more on the 3 kingdoms. The sun, moon and stars are just an analogy to demonstrate the respective differences of each kingdom, imagine the light given off by each the sun, the moon or the stars. Ok.
The Highest Kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom is a gimme, if you follow the commandments, receive the neccessary ordenances and remain faithful then you will be received there. Its the best, where you would want to go.
The Terrestial Kingdom, equated with the moon, is for the those who lead honorable lives, but dont accept the fullnes of th gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants talk about this kindgom explaining that here you may be in the presense of Christ, but not the father.
The tellestial, equated with the stars is a step down, and there you can be adminstered to by Angels, but not dwell in the presense of The Father or The Son. These people are like, the really bad ones, people who actually do horrible things.
(I'm skipping a lot and..sigh, ok if you want more context on this, here is a spoiler explaining very briefly our basic beliefs on what happens after death, the spirit world, ressurection, judgment and kingdoms of glory.
The Spirit World
Even though Christ conquered physical death, all people must die, for death is part of
the process by which we are transformed from mortality to immortality. At death our spirits
go to the spirit world. Death does not change our personality or our desires for good or
evil. Those who chose to obey God in this life live in a state of happiness, peace, and rest
from troubles and care. Those who chose not to obey in this life and did not repent live in
a state of unhappiness. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to those who did not
obey the gospel or have the opportunity to hear it while on earth. We remain in the spirit
world until we are resurrected.
The Resurrection, Judgment, and Immortality
When our bodies and spirits are reunited through the resurrection, we will be brought
into God’s presence to be judged. We will remember perfectly our righteousness and our
guilt. If we have repented, we will receive mercy. We will be rewarded according to our
works and our desires.
Through the resurrection all people will become immortal—they will live forever.
Immortality is a free gift to all people, whether they are righteous or wicked. Eternal life
is not, however, the same as immortality. Eternal life is a gift of God given only to those
who obey His gospel. It is the highest state that we can achieve. It comes to those who
are freed from sin and suffering through the Atonement of Christ. It is exaltation, which
means living with God forever in eternal families. It is to know God and Jesus Christ and
to experience the life they enjoy.
and then after this is the kingdoms of Glory bit which I quoted earlier.
About Hell. We don't believe in a traditional Hell, as most Christian Denominations. We do believe in Outer Darkness which is reserved for those who have the fullness of the gospel, know 100% for sure of God's existance and have even probably seen visions or had visitations of somesort, and still denied God. It's basically equated as someone standing in miday sun and denying that the sun is there, thats how sure your knowledge would have to be. IN OTHER WORDS, the only people who could go there in this day and age are Members of the Church themselves, and not even just members of the church, (if i were to fall away, I wouldn't be going there) this is for those who literally have been given everything and denied it, so very few people will end up here.
In outer darkness you suffer for eternity blah blah blah yea you got it.
In a nutshell thats it.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
There is also the position that when Jesus was crucified and died that God turned his back on him and he took the the sins of the world upon himself and thus was condemned to Hell. And with Hell being a non-temporal place he suffered there as anyone who was cut off from God would during the 3 days before he rose.
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm
The Apostles Creed includes the phrase "descended into Hell". He was dead for at least 48 hours, so he had to be somewhere after all. I have no idea where, but Hell seems like a reasonable choice.
As for suffering, I believe the argument isn't that he didn't suffer, but rather that he didn't suffer enough to account for the sins of billions of people, each of which warrants damnation. Again, not the happy answer. That's where the explanations I provided come in.
One way to put it: Left Behind is to Revelation as Dante's Inferno is to Biblical Hell.
Hold on.
"Ignore" does not mean "treat as metaphor."
When I said Christians treat these parts of the Bible as "metaphor," I was being snide, because that's not what they're actually doing at all. They're invoking the word "metaphor" because they don't believe in the text as it's written and think that by saying this word, they can freely ignore what it says. They never bother to say what they think it's a metaphor for, or why.
If you believe Revelation is actually a metaphor for a near-future nuclear war or global warming, you're not "ignoring" Revelation.
I'd also add a third: "they don't read it and are somewhat shocked when they find out what it actually says."
Thats just it, if he died and was subsequently resurrected in heaven what did he actually sacrifice. Heaven is always portrayed as being better than everything here on earth, its only a sacrifice if he basically poofs out of existence or is damned eternally. True the torture bit would suck a lot but hey a lot of other people got tortured and killed that way (they had no guarantee that they were going to heaven like Jesus did).
Jesus being damned eternally would make the most sense as he is paying for everyone else's sins. It
I suppose I phrased that poorly. I understand what you mean by ignore, which fits into my second definition (and your third).
Many people I know would classify my first definition as ignoring as well (I know I used to), so that came through in what I wrote.
In the Bible it talks about this, in Luke 22:44 it says "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
So we believe that his suffering was so great that he bleed from every pore.
On top of that adding in what the Book of Mormon says (just to give you more context on our beliefs)
It says in Alma that Christ suffered for our afflictions, our sicknesses, our temptations, our trials, everything. So in essence, take every single pain you have ever suffered in your life, every sickness all of it, now take all that at the exact same time, and add the billions of other people in the world, and add that, and that is what Christ suffered while in the Garden of Gethsemane.
So yes, we believe his suffering was a pretty big sacrifice.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
HAHAHAHA. I see what you did there.
Kind of like that, but with Christ, not Obama. And remember these are the people who literally know the truth without a shadow of doubt, they have seen visions or whatnot. I'm not sure Birthers can see anything.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Jehovah's Witnesses are keen on Revelation. JW's have more than a few books dedicated to deciphering prophesies and what Revelation means. Did you know there's a big difference between 'spiritual' Israel, 'New' Israel, and 'Earthly' Israel? You would if you were a JW - they have a book and a half dozen pamphlets about it.
I stopped trying when I learned about the "Post-millenialists."
I don't see why it has to either - most Christians and Catholics don't believe that the NT is the exact literal word of God. They believe it was written by men.
This came up in the first google search.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
The interesting stuff starts at Luke 12:4,5
EDIT: Erm, don't click on that link if you're Catholic...
If they're on this board and they're Catholic, they probably should click the link. If anything it would give them a clearer understanding of Christ's teachings and the bible in general (which in my opinion is a good thing.Catholicism is almost polytheistic,what with the cult of mary,the saints and the pope).
EDIT: But what does it matter to me, I'm an atheist.
If given the chance, you'd shake the Pope's hand all the same. :P
I skimmed the link. I agree that hell in the Bible is not this ever-present place that bad people go to when they die. The early Christians associated it with the end times, when God would return to earth and punish the wicked, living and dead—which, by the way, they thought would happen very soon.
(The fact that it didn't happen obviously meant the concept of a fiery punishment by God had to evolve into something else, so it's not surprising we ended up with afterlife-hell).
HOWEVER. The link also seems to argue that Gehenna refers only to a "national judgment" against the Jews. This is pretty clearly contradicted by Revelation, which mentions a lake of fire and clearly details all kinds of punishments for non-Jews, particularly Romans. It's also extremely dodgy reasoning—the fact that Jews would interpret Gehenna this way doesn't mean that therefore Jesus is only talking about Jews going to Gehenna.
But it is true that the concept of hell as an ever-present afterlife place was not developed at the time of Christianity, and the Jews did not believe in this at all. (Incidentally, this is why I don't really care, as an atheist, for arguments against Christianity that involve hell; besides, there's plenty of gruesome punishments explicitly threatened by God to choose from that are actually in the Bible)