76
   

If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2021 05:24 pm
@revelette3,
There are plenty who observe Pagan traditions.

The main reason Christianity lasted is because it was the state religion of the Roman Empire, it was tailored for crowd control at the council of Nicaea, but they kept the birthday of the previous incumbent Sol Invictus.

Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism and Buddhism are all real religions too for that matter.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 04:50 am
@izzythepush,
Granted Hinduism and Buddhism are real religions. However my point was simply that Christianity has endured as a religion whereas those former sacrificial myths you spoke of has not to same extent.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 05:38 am
@revelette3,
Maybe not, but the main reason for its endurance was it being adopted by the Roman Empire.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 06:06 am
@izzythepush,
*Shrugs*
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 06:39 am
@revelette3,
I’m not trying to argue, just pointing out there are political, non divine reasons or Christianity’s endurance.

Not commenting on any divine plan or anything like that.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 07:07 am
@izzythepush,
And I should have just said, perhaps. It is probably one of those things where cause and effect are hard to determine. All I know is that Christianity didn't disappear with the Roman empire and has endured until this day at least.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 07:54 am
@revelette3,
I don't think one should underestimate the effect of the church being united with the state – an empire in this case. The Western and Eastern empires had an enormous cultural influence in the Mediterranean, North Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe. The fact that a person didn't have to belong to a particular ethnicity helped the religion to spread. And the message, promising salvation for the poor and downtrodden certainly had a universal appeal. The religion's alliance with the emerging capitalist economy in Western Europe during the late Middle Ages cemented the bond between the church and the ruling class — to the detriment of many of the core values of the original faith. (See R.H. Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 1926)

Aside from this statist aspect of Christianity Inc, there's nothing to prevent groups of like-minded believers from meeting together to practice the faith as they understand it. I believe this is where the original spirit of the teachings of Jesus still lives.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 08:31 am
Christianity was born an underground movement and remains so to this day.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 09:24 am
@hightor,
Most of this is way beyond what I know, or (no offense) care to know. I kind of get it, It is like when the Roman Catholic church first started. From what I understand they ruled the kings back then until Henry the 8th. Unless I am misunderstanding everything. It don't matter to me but I can see how it might to those who are first coming to religion or looking for some kind of spiritual answers.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 09:35 am
@revelette3,
Not exactly, priests were not subject to the laws of the land, they were responsible to religious courts.

This caused a lot of resentment, but the Pope was never higher than various kings.

The reason Henry VIII had such problems getting a divorce from Catherine of Aragon was because her nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor. He had his troops in the vicinity of Rome and were the Pope to grant Henry VIII a divorce he would not have been Pope for very long.

Various kings have set up alternative popes. Google Avignon papacy to see how French kings dealt with wayward priests.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 09:56 am
@izzythepush,
Henry VIII was never a Protestant, he was given the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope, a title that still appears on UK coins today.

He made himself head of the church in England, not head of the Church of England. England did not become properly protestant until Edward VI.

Shakespeare penned the play King John during the reign of Elizabeth I. Now when most people think of King John they think of Robin Hood, the revolt of the barons and the signing of the Magna Carta, but there’s not a lot about that in the play.

Instead Shakespeare writes about the problems John had with Rome, similar to Elizabeth, at one point John contacted the Moroccan sultan to discuss converting the country to Islam. It was never taken seriously, but things may have been very different.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 10:23 am
@Leadfoot,
If that is the case, then the mission of spreading the gospel to "all the world" failed.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2021 01:18 pm
@revelette3,
But how would you know that?
I’m not even sure how deep it goes in some places. It’s a death sentence if found out in a few. But still it survives.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2021 02:39 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
On the one hand, there is the “eternal” fire described in Matthew, but then you refer to temporal effects, e.g., dust and gasses that result from the combustion of fuel, that result from fire’s temporal sense, a process not mentioned in the Matthew passage. This is a contradiction, a product of a lack of reasoning. The rationalization comes from the subjective desire to reconcile the Hebrew texts about Sheol with the Greek texts about Hades.
It’s always a dead giveaway when people tell others what their motives are. It’s called 'projection'. You accuse me of doing exactly what YOU are doing. You think I am trying to reconcile the old and new testaments so you invent a scenario where you claim I twisted things to look that way.


So, you're not trying to reconcile ideas about Sheol with ideas about Hades?

Leadfoot wrote:
You need to quote the texts you claim I’m doing this with, if your argument is valid.


You were responding to, or it seems that you were, purplefuzzysugar's post citing Genesis 1 through 3, and mine citing Matthew 25:41.

Leadfoot wrote:
Furthermore, The point of view I gave is the one where there was no contradiction. Point out what about my POV is 'twisting things' not just make the claim I’m doing it.

I already did, twice.

Leadfoot wrote:

To recap, I made the claim that ‘everlasting fire' means that it’s effects are permanent and that is consistent with hell being 'the second death' as it says elsewhere. I see no violation of reason or logic there.

I'll elaborate on my claim. It doesn't take "everlasting fire" to permanently make ash and dust; those are the effects of temporal fire, i.e. combustion. What's more, the dust described in the Genesis passages that purplefuzzysugar cited is the dust of the ground, not the dust resulting from combustion, i.e. ash. An eternal fire for a finite amount of combustible material, i.e. corpses, is neither reasonable nor logical.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2021 05:34 pm
@InfraBlue,
Sorry, I quit taking you seriously after you quibbled about the definition of 'fire' in Matthew.

Quote:
On the one hand, there is the “eternal” fire described in Matthew, but then you refer to temporal effects, e.g., dust and gasses that result from the combustion of fuel, that result from fire’s temporal sense, a process not mentioned in the Matthew passage.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2021 04:08 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Sorry, I quit taking you seriously after you quibbled about the definition of 'fire' in Matthew.

Why?

Also, you haven't clarified whether or not you're trying to reconcile ideas about Sheol with ideas about Hades.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2021 05:08 am
@InfraBlue,
More quibbling.

We both know we are talking about the fate of those not found in the 'book of life'. I doubt anyone here was confused about that, despite your efforts.

Use any word you like.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2021 11:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

More quibbling.

We both know we are talking about the fate of those not found in the 'book of life'. I doubt anyone here was confused about that, despite your efforts.

Use any word you like.


Heh, you refer to a discussion about the details of the meaning of certain terms in certain passages in the Bible as quibbling.

I was not talking about the fate of those not found in the 'book of life,' I was talking specifically about the descriptions of returning to the ground and dust from Genesis 1 and 3, and its conflation with ideas about sheol and further conflation with ideas about eternal fire found in Matthew 25:41.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2021 05:44 pm
@InfraBlue,
Give me an idea of what you’re drive'n at and I’ll see if it’s interesting. I don’t see it now.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2021 02:34 pm
@Leadfoot,
I've stated it from the beginning of this discussion.
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 02:28:35