Taught to love God through fear of hell [Archive]

MoonlitWaves

Jul 10, 2008, 03:26 PM

There have been many questions of late that revolve around, "If I/he/she does (pick your sin and place it here), will hell be consequence?" Because of this, I can't help but wonder if all people are taught to love God by using the fear of hell.

I know the importance of knowing the consequences of actions taken. But why does instilling fear of the consequences seem to be the forefront of stopping bad actions?

When you were a child and your parents told you not to pick on other children...Should it be, "If you do this you will receive such and such punishment" Or should it be, "It is cruel and wrong to put other people down. This is not how anyone should act." Are they both just as effective?

Maybe both ways are just as effective, but if you choose people's fear of punishment, then they don't gain understanding of why such action shouldn't be done. I feel that is what is most important. The understanding of why a bad action shouldn't be done teaches morals, it teaches us how to be good persons because that is how people should be and NOT because something bad will happen to you if you do the opposite.

In my own observations I see how people being taught to love God through their fear of hell causes them to equate God with hell. God should NEVER be equated with hell. Hell has nothing to do with any discriptions of God. I have seen too, that people seem to have a harder time understanding the whole point in Jesus' death. They also don't understand the "door of grace". Many of them think of God as cruel, stern, no sense of humor, stiff and even unfriendly. How can anyone ever be expected to grow close to God when these are the distinctions in the forefront of minds when thinking of Him?

Yes, God is strict and He is the epitome of strength, as well as He should be. But He is more than that too. He is grace, mercy, kindness, forgiveness and LOVE like you've never been loved before. God is the only reason there is love and goodness because that is who He is. Without God there is no good in this world or in people.

Why do so many people use hell to scare people into loving God instead of allowing God to truly shine through and be loved on His own accord, because He is deserving of it simply because He is God and not because you will go to hell if you don't?!?

progunr

Jul 10, 2008, 03:32 PM

There is no doubt that religion uses FEAR to keep people on the straight and narrow.

What could be worse than thinking you are going to burn in hell for eternity, as a way to keep you from doing something the religion believes is wrong.

I don't think it has anything to do with loving God, just a way to scare you into going to church and being a good boy or girl.

Scleros

Jul 10, 2008, 03:36 PM

Why do so many people use hell to scare people into loving God...

Frankly, there isn't much to motivate non-believers. Other reasons could include inability to let another make their own decisions without input. Desire for control. Belief of moral obligation/duty to convert non-believers. Note my low opinion of religion in general may be influencing my response.

Galveston1

Jul 10, 2008, 04:05 PM

MoonlitWaves

Jul 10, 2008, 04:51 PM

Fear is a poor motivator anyway. You can only be afraid of something or someone for only so long, then you begin to get comfortable with the thought and the fear diminishes. Only love is a permanent motivator. In some instances, fear of Hell may bring some people to an altar, but if the connection with Jesus Christ is not made, that person will drift away before long.

I completely agree with you Galveston. And that is my point... If people use fear, which seems to be too common of an occurrence, then people aren't understanding Truth.

I'm not condoning sin. Nor do I ever want to put off the impression that one should rely on forgiveness so they can feel okay about sinning. But the truth is that we all sin saved or not. God knowing this sent Jesus to keep us from damnation, yet by the recent questions it seems as though people are oblivious to this. It seems as though the reason for this is because they have misconceptions of who God is... and it's probably because of how they were taught. (Note: I mean understanding and knowing God as much as one can in this body and mind. I know we don't have the capability to completely understand God, but He doesn't hide Himself either.)

As I said before, knowing consequences is important and I'm not saying it should be omitted when spreading God's Word.

Let me ask this... When reading about punishments in the Bible... Do you think God said this with the intentions to scare us into asking for salvation? Do you think this is the way God would want people to come to Him?

Choux

Jul 10, 2008, 05:29 PM

The monotheistic religions... Judaism, Christianity and Islam... ARE BASED on the original GodAlmighty, a god who punishes human beings capriciously!! (see the story of Job)!. the paradigm is that GodAlmighty is a parent/father and human beings are flawed children who are kept in line by fear and laws and rules. Of course, in Christianity, all this is glossed over by protestations of "God Is Love", "Jesus Loves You", BUT there is always the threat of punishment(*eternal* in some cases!) lurking in the shadows. :)

ordinaryguy

Jul 10, 2008, 06:30 PM

I don't think it has anything to do with loving God, just a way to scare you into going to church and being a good boy or girl.
And don't forget to bring money!

Choux

Jul 11, 2008, 09:04 AM

mountain_man

Jul 11, 2008, 01:00 PM

Tom, it is the BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY. Do what you are told *or* you will burn in hell for eternity.

Jesus, If what happened to Job isn't cruel and unusual punishment, then I don't know what is!

Cri, What happened to Job, no matter how you rationalize it or how the story rationalized it , was **horrific and unusual punishment by a capricious and callous god!** You see, that was the real GodAlmighty's "personality"...master puppeteer, cruel beyond measure.

If you don't believe the absolute TRUTH of the Bible as a whole (which you have stated many times); how can you now pull a complete book out of the Bible (Job) and misinterpret it and then base that on the whole foundation of Christianity. Does that sound resonable to you?

Choux

Jul 11, 2008, 02:33 PM

MM, The question is about the FEAR OF HELL in Christianity... that is the core of Christianity... to get "salvation" so you don't GO TO HELL.

Hell is GodAlmighty's *eternal* punishment. Heaven is "his" reward.

Alty

Jul 11, 2008, 02:37 PM

The God I believe in is a forgiving, kind, caring God, and yes, I do believe in God. The bible, that's a book written by men, not God. Church, I don't go, yet another mans interpretation of God's word. I worship God at home, I believe in his kindness, and that he loves us all. So if I'm wrong, then I guess I'm going to hell, I won't be alone, of that I am certain.

Tj3

Jul 11, 2008, 04:34 PM

Tom, it is the BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY. Do what you are told *or* you will burn in hell for eternity.

Choux,

I don't know who told you about Christianity, but you heard wrong.

Man willfully chose to go stray, and willfully chose to go to hell. God never wanted that. Hell was made for Satan and His demons.

Matt 25:41-42
41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
NKJV

And why? Because they rebelled against God and deceived men into following them into hell. Hell was created as a punishment for Satand and the demons in part for what THEY (not God) did to men in leading them to hell.

In response, what did God do? God chose to come to earthy as a man and died on the cross for us, that we might have a means by which we could have another chnace to escape the torment of our choosing.

1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
NKJV

Jesus did not come to condemn, but rather to die for us that we might live in an eternity free from the punishment that we chose.

John 3:15-18
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
NKJV

Jesus choice to die on the cross for us once again gave us a chance to consider our choice to spend eternity in hell.

I don't know who misled you by misrepresenting Christian teachings, but I fear that millions will go to hell having been misled in like fashion.

arcura

Jul 11, 2008, 10:47 PM

To answer the original question.
I think you are partly right, that fear IS used to get people motivated and moved to belief in and obidience to God.
But I was raised to love a God who loves me and many other people were also raised that way.
"Jesus loves me this I know,
Because the bible tells me so."
Is the first song I was taught to sing in Sunday School.
I think people who teach by fear are missing the boat,
There is far more in the bible about a loving, helpful, merciful God than hell and damnation.
Basically Jesus taught by attraction with both words and deeds.
Punishment for being or doing wrong is found in all societies throughout history.
So it is standard procedure.
So is explaining why one should be good without the threat of fear.
Loving brings love.
Hate and fear brings hate and fear.
The whole GOOD story is that love eventually triumphs, some times sooner, some times later so the golden rule applies significantly in a person's life and versions of it is found in most religions.
For my and my family that is the best way to go.
:) Peace and kindness,:)
Fred (arcura)

Choux

Jul 12, 2008, 05:19 PM

Wondergirl

Jul 12, 2008, 05:45 PM

It's like raising a small child. The parent doesn't tell the child, "Love your sister," because the child doesn't know what love is. The parent gives specific rules as the child behaves negatively: "Don't hit your sister" and "Don't spit on your sister" and "Don't step on your sister's dollhouse furniture." Only when the child has matured enough will he know how to show love to his sister, and that will come only after years of finding out what NOT to do and practicing with the parent's suggestions on what TO do: "Please help your sister find her orange socks" and "Mr. Smith next door broke his leg. I want you to cut his lawn every week until he can do it himself" or "Please help me carry in the groceries." Someday that child will be driving and will be cut off by another motorist (especially if he lives in the Chicago area), but because he understands love, he won't retaliate. Someday that child will find someone's lost possession, but instead of keeping it, will do his best to find the owner and thereby show love.

The OT has ten commandments that guide us, and the NT has two commandments that sum up the ten. God had to start with the ten rules and regs as training, so we could eventually do the two spontaneously.

Hellfire is man's construction--sinners in the hands of a God who is angry with them for never "getting it."

savedsinner7

Jul 12, 2008, 05:48 PM

Fear of going to Hell is why I knew as a child that I needed Jesus. This did not keep me from sinning. You an read my profile to learn more about the way that I chose to go if you want to.

When I started going to church this time, I met God. I felt His presence for the first time in my life. I was hooked. How can one get more? I have been on a journey seeking the Face of God and Jesus presence in my life every day. I need Him in every part of my life. This is love and this is motivation to be with someone. Not fear of Hell. Yes, Hell is real and is a consequence of a life of disobedience, but living in a real relationship with the Creator and Savior is the BEST. Being filled with the Holy Spirit is better than being on anything else! This is what we need to share with the rest of the world and not fear. To fear God in a Biblical sense is to love and respect and revere Him above all else so that when He speaks we stop what we are doing and listen and obey. Not be so afraid of Him that we cower in His presence. He loves us so dearly, he came to live with us and then took our sins on Himself and then died our death so that He would not have to spend eternity without us!! Who else does that for humans? What other god loves its people? None but the LORD Jesus Christ!

Tj3

Jul 12, 2008, 07:09 PM

Tom, You are totally mistaken.

It is God/Almighty who created everything in your worldview of Christianity ESPECIALLY the rules of salvation. Christianity is based on the paradigm of GodAlmighty setting rules that allow for a human being to gain salvation(enter heaven after death), and GodAlmighty has the power to send people to burn for *eternity* in hell if the rules for salvation are not followed.

That is the basis for Christianity, from which all the rest of scripture follows, whether you like it or not.

Choux,

Like I said, I don't know who gave you these false ideas but your view is not scriptural and I note, you have not provided any validation for your claim.

To suggest that because someone gets punished that it is the fault of God is like saying that it is the fault of the police because a person who violates the rules of the road gets a ticket. Any reasonable person would say that is ridiculous.

But it get more ridiculous yet because Jesus came and paid a penalty that He did not owe on behalf of the guilty person so that He might be found blameless. So your position would be analogous to blame an innocent person who sacrifices to pay a fine that he does not owe to help a person who is guilty.

I feel sorry for you. I don't know who mis-led you into mis-understanding Christianity, but don't let that person cause you to reject your one and only hope.

bushg

Jul 12, 2008, 07:20 PM

The OT has ten commandments that guide us, and the NT has two commandments that sum up the ten. God had to start with the ten rules and regs as training, so we could eventually do the two spontaneously.

Very nice post wondergirl... I'm curious though what are the NT two commandments?

Galveston1

Jul 12, 2008, 07:25 PM

Tom, it is the BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY. Do what you are told *or* you will burn in hell for eternity.

Jesus, If what happened to Job isn't cruel and unusual punishment, then I don't know what is!

Cri, What happened to Job, no matter how you rationalize it or how the story rationalized it , was **horrific and unusual punishment by a capricious and callous god!** You see, that was the real GodAlmighty's "personality"...master puppeteer, cruel beyond measure.
You have missed the whole point of the book of Job. It was Satan who took everything from Job. Job did think it was God for some time, as he didn't know all the facts. Satan issued a challenge to God that could not be ignored.
That challenge was the claim that even the best man alive at that time did not serve God because he loved Him, implying that God was not qualified to be supreme because he had no real following. In the end, Job proved Satan wrong. Now go back and read the book, maybe it will make some sense to you. You sure didn't get it before.
P.S. God is NEVER capricious.

Wondergirl

Jul 12, 2008, 07:30 PM

You have missed the whole point of the book of Job. It was Satan who took everything from Job.
Ummm, check Job 1:12.

YOU have missed the whole point of the book.

Tj3

Jul 12, 2008, 07:35 PM

For those, like Choux, who have heard an erroneous version of what Christianity teaches, let me add the following.

Choux believes that if we don't do what we are told, that we go to hell. Well, one way to be saved is to never sin, but so far no one other than Jesus has ever lived on earth who has managed to go through life in the flesh and not sin:

Rom 3:23-24
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

Heb 4:15-16
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
NKJV

So, if Choux was right, then there would be no hope - we would ALL be on our way to hell. But God provided another way by coming to earth as a man, manifest in the flesh. And why did He come?

John 3:17-18
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
NKJV

Note: God did not choose to condemn anyone - it is each person's decision to choose life through receive Jesus' sacrifice on the cross; or choosing death by choosing to spend eternity in hell.

Those who receive the sacrifice that He made on the cross are no longer under the law, as Choux suggests. The purpose of the law is not to condemn us, as she suggests, but rather to point us to Christ:

Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

When we receive Christ, we are no longer under the law because it is His righteousness that is imputed to us:

Rom 4:22-25
22 And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness." 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
NKJV

We see God's love when Jesus was on the cross, pounding nails into the hands of God in the flesh, and rather than condemning them to hell, what does Jesus (who is God) say about these evil me?

Luke 23:33-34
34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
NKJV

That is not the god that Choux describes, but this is the one true loving God who cares for each one of us and who desires that each one of us receive the sacrifice on the cross so that we might spend eternity with Him in heaven.

arcura

Jul 12, 2008, 08:27 PM

Choux,
Whether you believe it or not people do bad things and always have.
The foundation of Christianity is that God is merciful and offers forgiveness.
People like to and need to be forgiven otherwise the guilt of what they have done often eats them up and ruins their lives.
We KNOW that very often what we have done get punished in some way.
What goes around comes around.
I happens all the time.
If a person is forgiven a person can have a happy life, otherwise often not.
That is they way things are,
It is called the law of balances.
Whether a person believes it or not it does happen.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Alty

Jul 12, 2008, 08:34 PM

You can't expect for someone who doesn't believe in God to get what it's about. Just like we as people who believe in God don't understand atheists beliefs. It's oil and water, they don't mix.

What I don't understand is this, why can't people just let others have their beliefs? Why do we have to argue back and forth? This is ridiculous, and it's all over this site. Arguing, name calling, the bible says this, I say that, God does this, I do that. Where is it getting us? No where, that's where.

Argue if you want, for those who believe, well, believe, for those who don't, don't, we all have the right to believe what we want. Quote scripture, the atheists will come up with something else to dispute it, tell them your beliefs, they'll come up with a way to dispute that. It's a lose, lose situation, no winning, just fighting. Why can't we just let it be already and agree to disagree?

Enough already, I'm sticking with my dads advice on this one. Don't ever discuss politics or religion if you want to avoid a fight.

To the rest of you, good luck with your losing battle.

arcura

Jul 12, 2008, 08:38 PM

Tj3,
Right!
Many people refuse to accept that for human beings doing bad this is a fact of life.
Also that often being punished for that is also a fact of this life.
Choux says that she does not believe in a spiritual "after this life".
But what does happen during this one strongly points to that fact that there IS a next life where what we do now is dealt with then.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

arcura

Jul 12, 2008, 08:59 PM

Altenweg,
I for one do let people believe as they want to.
But in a discussion such as this those different beliefs come to the fore and are expressed by the believers on how they believe.
It is how we get to know each other.
I have some atheist friends whom I like and they are welcome to believe as they wish. It does not change my liking of them.
They have made their choice as I have mine, and discussing it from time to time seems to be a normal thing to have happen.
That should NOT cause ill feeling or name calling or bigotry.
If it does it is time to stop.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Alty

Jul 12, 2008, 09:54 PM

Fred, go around the site, see all the arguments that are going on in the religious discussion board. The same offenders, time and time again, saying the same stuff, giving the same arguments, getting mad, name calling, picking apart arguments, beliefs, and each other.

I agree with you, believe what you want, and if you can have a mature rational discussion about your differing beliefs, then great, go for it, but I've never seen a mature rational discussion on religion on this site, not once, it's war and they will fight to the death any way they can.

I'm just so tired of it. Why do some people just have to be right, no matter what, for something they cannot with 100% certainty prove or disprove. It's belief, and it's everyone's right to believe or not. Stop fighting about it, it gets you no where, that's what I think.

I know it won't stop, some people just love to fight, love to belittle others, put down their beliefs and faith for their own entertainment. Until those people stop and realize that all they are doing is causing dissention, there will continue to be fights about religion. Personally, I'm done. I'll stick to the sexuality boards and the discussion boards, they're safe. :)

Good luck everyone, no matter what you believe, or whether you believe, I believe in your right to believe it. Just remember, you beliefs are yours, not everyone else's, so show some respect, okay?

thisnthatshoppe

Jul 12, 2008, 09:59 PM

arcura

Jul 12, 2008, 10:08 PM

Altenweg,
I'm sorry to see you go.
I do respect you and all others here.
I do believe that belittling others is wrong and counterproductive.
It is wasteful to boot.
Please reconsider ans sick around.
It is voices like yours on that subject that NEED to be heard often.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3

Jul 12, 2008, 10:16 PM

When the bible speaks of hell or sheol, it is actually a place where garbage was burned and dead were sometimes buried. Hell is not a real place of toture for sinners. Christianity has lost it's roots in Christ and has used fear of damnation for centuries. This can not be reconciled with the blood of Christ or an all loving God. Just allow yourself to believe that God loves you as you are, flaws and all, and that Christ's blood was shed for all sinners. We are renewed once we believe that. Ignore all the damnation stuff. It isn't real.

Hell is a real place and will be tossed into the Lake of Fire which is eternal.

Rev 14:10-11
E shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
NKJV

They were created as a place of punishment for Satan and the demons, but Satan managed to convince men to follow him into hell.

Wondergirl

Jul 17, 2008, 08:04 PM

Galveston1 disagrees: Job 1:12 clearly says that God ALLOWED Satan to test Job. Satan was happy to do so!

I didn't say anything about who allowed whom to do what. Please reread what I wrote.

Apparently you too have missed the point that the Book of Job makes.

arcura

Jul 17, 2008, 08:34 PM

Wondergirl,
Clearly God allowed Satan to test Job and Job passed the test.
From the New Jerusalem Version.
Job 1: 6. One day when the sons of God came to attend on Yahweh, among them came Satan.
7. So Yahweh said to Satan, "Where have you been?" "Prowling about on earth," he answered, "roaming around there."
8. So Yahweh asked him, "Did you pay any attention to my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth: a sound and honest man who fears God and shuns evil."
9. `Yes," Satan said, "but Job is not God-fearing for nothing, is he?
10. Have you not put a wall round him and his house and all his domain? You have blessed all he undertakes, and his flocks throng the countryside.
11. But stretch out your hand and lay a finger on his possessions: then, I warrant you, he will curse you to your face."
12. `Very well," Yahweh said to Satan, "all he has is in your power. But keep your hands off his person." So Satan left the presence of Yahweh.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Wondergirl

Jul 17, 2008, 08:53 PM

Wondergirl,
Clearly God allowed Satan to test Job and Job passed the test.
Yes, dear Fred. I agree. That wasn't what I was saying.

What's the point of including the Book of Job in the canon?

simoneaugie

Jul 17, 2008, 09:32 PM

If someone or something gives me free will to live the life I choose, that doesn't seem very strict. If we are to believe that Job only lived that one life, then yes, God is capricious and cruel. The story was an example of faith, Job's faith, not God's cruelty.

arcura

Jul 17, 2008, 10:41 PM

Wondergirl,
I and many others think that it is a marvelous ancient poem which presents an extraordinarily good story on suffering through great loss, challenges and trials to be eventually successful in achieving blessing and redemption from God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

DrJ

Jul 21, 2008, 01:13 PM

I've often wondered about this...

What if, through the Bible, God taught us that to love Him would ultimately end with eternal damnation to Hell. However, we are to love Him anyway... a true test the love for our Creator.

Those that loved Him would have to suffer and burn in Hell for Eternity... those that didn't, would dine in Heaven for the rest of the ages.

How many of those who call themselves Christians would still Love their God?

arcura

Jul 21, 2008, 07:01 PM

DrJizzle,
That is a good question but it is unfounded.
The bible is the basis of our information about God.
In it we find much more that God ks loving, forgiving, and merciful much more than a being who wants to punish people.
It is far more easy to love a God like that than the sort that you post mentions.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

ordinaryguy

Jul 21, 2008, 08:00 PM

The bible is the basis of our information about God.
Pity the poor benighted folks who had the misfortune to be born before writing was invented. Any god who depends on written language to reveal himself is pretty limited it seems to me.

Wondergirl

Jul 21, 2008, 08:07 PM

Tj3

Jul 21, 2008, 08:29 PM

Pity the poor benighted folks who had the misfortune to be born before writing was invented. Any god who depends on written language to reveal himself is pretty limited it seems to me.

Rom 1:18-22
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
NKJV

ordinaryguy

Jul 22, 2008, 05:14 AM

Au contraire! God gave each person a conscience.
My point exactly. Direct personal knowledge is the primary source. Placing the Bible above it is idolatry.

NeedKarma

Jul 22, 2008, 05:20 AM

Au contraire! God gave each person a conscience.I have a conscience yet I don't read the bible or go to church; same with my wife and kids. Weird.

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 06:15 AM

My point exactly. Direct personal knowledge is the primary source. Placing the Bible above it is idolatry.

Here is the issue with that. That verse did not say that direct personal knowledge is primary. What is says is that the truth of God is seen in all creation, and some will deny His existence. It is an indicator of the existence of God, but neither the sole or primary source. The Bible is God's word and is the primary source.

The difference between "personal knowledge" and what scripture says is that many people may think that they know something based upon personal experience and can come up with all sorts of strange ideas because they make assumptions and fail to validate them. This scripture is quite specific on what scripture reveals and that revelation is to lead us to seek out the true God. And where do you find out about the true God? In the Bible.

It is worship of the creation rather than the creator which is idolatry, not following His word as He commanded us to do.

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 09:18 AM

I have a conscience yet I don't read the bible or go to church; same with my wife and kids. Weird.
And God has already revealed Himself to you via your conscience. And what happens inside your head and heart when you are hiking around in the great outdoors or see a beautiful sunset or watch a litter of puppies (or your own child) being born?

NeedKarma

Jul 22, 2008, 09:21 AM

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 09:26 AM

Nah, I believe your parents instill what you call a conscience by their disciplining method. It's basically your view of right and wrong as experienced during those important developmental years from 0 - 5. It's easy to see: look at a "bad" kid then look at his home life - there is a direct connection, regardless of religious presence in the child's life.
Not necessarily. And I'm not talking about any religious influence. There are studies that show conscience is inborn, not gotten from parents, but is pre-parental.

I know "bad" kids who have wonderful parents, and I know "good" kids who have miserable parents. Now what?

NeedKarma

Jul 22, 2008, 09:32 AM

I do also believe that kids are born with basic goodness as a blank slate, they have to to survive. As per your observations about the good/bad you never fully know what goes on in someone else's home when you're not there all the time.

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 09:44 AM

I believe a great many people use hell to scare people to God because they don't understand the real concept of hell and that it is the relationship with God that needs to be taught. Too many people don't understand it's really all about our falling out of relationship and our reconciling a relationship with Him.

ordinaryguy

Jul 22, 2008, 11:54 AM

The Bible is God's word and is the primary source.
Not to me, it isn't. But if it is to you, I'm OK with that.

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 05:45 PM

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 08:05 PM

It is about sin and the cross.

Sin and the work on the cross is the beginning of reconciling the relationship. We fell from relationship because of sin, we are reconciled through Christ and the work on the cross.

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 08:15 PM

Sin and the work on the cross is the beginning of reconciling the relationship. We fell from relationship because of sin, we are reconciled through Christ and the work on the cross.

Indeed! But it is only those who choose to receive the sacrifice on the cross who are reconciled. The rest have chosen the path to hell because of their sin.

John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NKJV

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 08:37 PM

Indeed! But it is only those who choose to receive the sacrifice on the cross who are reconciled. The rest have chosen the path to hell because of their sin.

John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NKJV

The ones who choose not to believe are indeed choosing not to believe and have a relationship and will spend eternity in hell. But what does that have to do with how or why people are "taught to love God by fearing hell"?

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 08:59 PM

The ones who choose not to believe are indeed choosing not to believe and have a relationship and will spend eternity in hell. But what does that have to do with how or why people are "taught to love God by fearing hell"?

Hell is one dimension of truth that we cannot nor should not ignore. But it is not the sole or primary reason that we should use for teaching people about God. Other the other hand, if we leave out any part of the gospel, then we have not given them the full gospel.

If we want people to love God, we have to tell them the full story. The story is not complete with giving the story of how God so loved us that even after we chose hell, that He chose to come to earth manifest as a man in order that He might take the penalty for us, even for those who were pounding the nails in His hands, so that we might have the opportunity to be reconciled to Him.

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 09:32 PM

But it is only those who choose to receive the sacrifice on the cross who are reconciled.
Nope, they don't choose to believe. The only power they have is to say no. If there is belief, it is because the Holy Spirit has already been at work in them.

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." (Luther)

"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Spirit." I Cor. 12:3.

"God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. 4:6.

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 09:40 PM

Nope, they don't choose to believe. The only power they have is to say no. If there is belief, it is because the Holy Spirit has already been at work in them.

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." (Luther)

"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Spirit." I Cor. 12:3.

"God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. 4:6.

That states that it is the work of the Holy Spirit drawing us to God, but that does not say how we became estranged from God to begin with.

It is sin which separates us from God and who has sinned?

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

Every person has sinned. That was their doing. They chose to turn from God.

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 09:43 PM

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 09:44 PM

Calvinist?
And I quoted Luther? Surely you jest.

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 09:45 PM

Hell is one dimension of truth that we cannot nor should not ignore. But it is not the sole or primary reason that we should use for teaching people about God. Other the other hand, if we leave out any part of the gospel, then we have not given them the full gospel.

If we want people to love God, we have to tell them the full story. The story is not complete with giving the story of how God so loved us that even after we chose hell, that He chose to come to earth manifest as a man in order that He might take the penalty for us, even for those who were pounding the nails in His hands, so that we might have the opportunity to be reconciled to Him.

Did you some how think I was disagreeing that hell was a part of the whole thing? I wasn't, I think we are on the same page.

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 09:46 PM

Did you some how think I was disagreeing that hell was a part of the whole thing? I wasn't, I think we are on the same page.

No, I did not think that you were disagreeing - I was just adding some additional input.

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 09:47 PM

And I quoted Luther? Surely you jest.

No, I don't. Lots of Calvinists do quote Luther actually. Your statement that it isn't up to us to believe hints at Calvinism. If I am wrong forgive me. I was just wondering.

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 09:51 PM

No, I don't. Lots of Calvinists do quote Luther actually. Your statement that it isn't up to us to believe hints at Calvinism. If I am wrong forgive me. I was just wondering.
It's Lutheran belief, M-S or ELCA, with no hinting.

Tj3

Jul 22, 2008, 09:59 PM

Josh 24:21-22
22 So Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD for yourselves, to serve Him." And they said, "We are witnesses!"
NKJV

Josh 24:14-16
15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
NKJV

tawnynkids

Jul 22, 2008, 10:00 PM

M-S or ELCA

Uhh, I don't know what those mean would mind explaining for me?

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 10:14 PM

uhh, I don't know what those mean would mind explaining for me?
Two of the largest Lutheran church bodies in the U.S. are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Missouri-Synod (LCMS or M-S)

Wondergirl

Jul 22, 2008, 10:15 PM

Tj3

Jul 23, 2008, 07:21 AM

Why are you quoting from the OT? Good try at cherry-picking though!

Do you not accept the OT as scripture?

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

0rphan

Jul 23, 2008, 07:37 AM

Sadley I think it's all about power, trying to force a person to do something that they don't want to, you'll see some form or another of it in all walks of life.

Wondergirl

Jul 23, 2008, 09:20 AM

Do you not accept the OT as scripture?
Lolololol of course I do, but you have cherry-picked passages that "prove" your pov much like Southern plantation owners cherry-picked to prove that God approves of slavery. You have just demonstrated that anyone can use the Bible to prove anything they want to. The verses you chose are out of context and have nothing to do with conversion per se.

tawnynkids

Jul 23, 2008, 10:14 AM

Tj3

Jul 23, 2008, 11:13 AM

lolololol of course I do, but you have cherry-picked passages that "prove" your pov much like Southern plantation owners cherry-picked to prove that God approves of slavery. You have just demonstrated that anyone can use the Bible to prove anything they want to. The verses you chose are out of context and have nothing to do with conversion per se.

I chose those references because it is clear that we chose what God it is that we follow. We can choose for the true god or for a false god. There is not just one way that we can choose to go, as you suggested.

If you think that they are out of context, then demonstrate that by going to the context and let's discuss. I trust that you are aware that there is much more in scripture to refute the belief that we have no free choices.

Wondergirl

Jul 23, 2008, 08:22 PM

I chose those references because it is clear that we chose what God it is that we follow. We can choose for the true god or for a false god. There is not just one way that we can choose to go, as you suggested.

If you think that they are out of context, then demonstrate that by going to the context and let's discuss. I trust that you are aware that there is much more in scripture to refute the belief that we have no free choices.
If we claim to have chosen to believe in God by our own power, that is work righteousness.

Yes, we have free will--to do good or to do evil. Even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ have free will and can do good or evil.

Please read the entire passages and consider the context of the verses you quoted.

Tj3

Jul 23, 2008, 08:38 PM

If we claim to have chosen to believe in God by our own power, that is work righteousness.

That is your definition, but it is not what I see in scripture.

Yes, we have free will--to do good or to do evil. Even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ have free will and can do good or evil.

Please read the entire passages and consider the context of the verses you quoted.

I have. Perhaps you should know that I used to be a member of the Reformed Church. I know what I am talking about, and have studied both sides of the issue.

Wondergirl

Jul 23, 2008, 08:45 PM

That is your definition, but it is not what I see in scripture.
I'm sorry about that.

I have. Perhaps you should know that I used to be a member of the Reformed Church. I know what I am talking about, and have studied both sides of the issue.
And?

arcura

Jul 23, 2008, 08:49 PM

Tj3

Jul 23, 2008, 08:50 PM

And?

And having studied what scripture says, I have had to reject Calvinism as being as much in error as Arminianism.

Wondergirl

Jul 23, 2008, 08:51 PM

And having studied what scripture says, I have had to reject Calvinism as being as much in error as Arminianism.
Reject all you wish. I believe in neither.

arcura

Jul 23, 2008, 08:58 PM

Wondergirl,
As do I not believe in either of them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Jul 23, 2008, 09:22 PM

Reject all you wish. I believe in neither.

Good, but interesting since you were promoting one of the key tenets of Calvinism.

Wondergirl

Jul 23, 2008, 09:28 PM

Good, but interesting since you were promoting one of the key tenets of Calvinism.
Not so. Calvinism goes much, much further than that.

MoonlitWaves

Jul 24, 2008, 04:34 AM

Moonlitwaves,
If we look closely at what the bibles says about God it does tell us that we should loved God for many of His very good, kind, merciful and forgiving attributes.
That and also the fact that he tell us how to live this life with the 10 Commandments and others that Jesus gave us such as "Love one another as I have loved you."
Yes God does tell us of the consequenses of doing evil.
That. I think, is fair to to tell us both sides of the issue.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Absolutely, and I am not saying the understanding of consequences should be omitted.

There have just been so many numerous occasions where people ask if someone is going to hell for some type of sin. I can't help but wonder if these people are taught to be good people and do good things because of fear of the consequences rather than WHY they should be good people. I have spoken to many atheists who turn away from God because of the wrong ideas they have in their head about Him. The first impression that some got of God was cruelty. First impressions are hard to get rid of so guess what that means for those people?

It should be more along the lines of... This is why and how you receive forgiveness for that sin you mentioned... Instead of... That sin will send you to burn for eternity.

Everyone who has posted so far has agreed that attempting to get people to believe in God by using the fear of hell is shallow and it is NOT lasting.

But the truth still remains that it happens all the time and I feel it's just so wrong! We need to let God do the convicting! I don't know about everyone else but God didn't convict me to ask for salvation by threatening me with hell, but rather He convicted me by showing me that I am better than the sin that bound me down. Though I understood hell was the consquence of not choosing God, He didn't use that against me.

Conviction then and even from my sins now does not come from fear of the punishment, but it does come from the knowledge He instills in me that He created me to be better than that, and doing right and always being a good person is the only right and good way to be. When I fall sort of His expectation, that is my conviction!

My point is that's the way it should be and would be if people would let God do the convicting. But it doesn't always happen that way.

Tj3

Jul 24, 2008, 06:52 AM

Not so. Calvinism goes much, much further than that.

I agree that Calvinism goes further. That is why I said that it was one of the key tenets.

Wondergirl

Jul 24, 2008, 09:05 AM

I agree that Calvinism goes further. That is why I said that it was one of the key tenets.
And Calvinism twists what you call a "key tenet" into something very different.

Tj3

Jul 24, 2008, 11:46 AM

And Calvinism twists what you call a "key tenet" into something very different.

Agreed. Your earlier comment sounded very much like that Calvinist doctrine, but if you are saying that you reject the Calvinist belief that man cannot make a decision to receive Christ, then we are in agreement.

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 12:00 PM

There have been many questions of late that revolve around, "If I/he/she does (pick your sin and place it here), will hell be consequence?" Because of this, I can't help but wonder if all people are taught to love God by using the fear of hell.

That is a false impression. People are taught to love God by showing His goodness.

However, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. If one never learns to love God but he does learn to fear God, there is nothing wrong with that. Because, as Scripture says:

Hebrews 10 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I know the importance of knowing the consequences of actions taken. But why does instilling fear of the consequences seem to be the forefront of stopping bad actions?

I don't know why you have arrived at that conclusion. It might have to do with the fact that human beings seem to be drawn to the morbid and the negative. Many more good things occur each day than evil. Yet all we see on the news is the evil committed by man.

When you were a child and your parents told you not to pick on other children...Should it be, "If you do this you will receive such and such punishment" Or should it be, "It is cruel and wrong to put other people down. This is not how anyone should act." Are they both just as effective?

Yes. And my parents used both. Didn't yours? Although they also frequently said, "because I say so!"

Maybe both ways are just as effective, but if you choose people's fear of punishment, then they don't gain understanding of why such action shouldn't be done.

What if you explain first and they still disobey?

I feel that is what is most important. The understanding of why a bad action shouldn't be done teaches morals, it teaches us how to be good persons because that is how people should be and NOT because something bad will happen to you if you do the opposite.

When I was a child, before I could understand words, I reached to touch the fire on the stove because it was pretty. A quick slap on the hand prevented my being burned and I understood it more effectively than a whole volume of words.

In my own observations I see how people being taught to love God through their fear of hell causes them to equate God with hell. God should NEVER be equated with hell. Hell has nothing to do with any discriptions of God. I have seen too, that people seem to have a harder time understanding the whole point in Jesus' death. They also don't understand the "door of grace". Many of them think of God as cruel, stern, no sense of humor, stiff and even unfriendly. How can anyone ever be expected to grow close to God when these are the distinctions in the forefront of minds when thinking of Him?

It is unfortunate that many people have a misunderstanding of who and what is God. But that misunderstanding frequently comes from their own desire to do what they want instead of what God wills.

Yes, God is strict and He is the epitome of strength, as well as He should be. But He is more than that too. He is grace, mercy, kindness, forgiveness and LOVE like you've never been loved before. God is the only reason there is love and goodness because that is who He is. Without God there is no good in this world or in people.

Amen!

Why do so many people use hell to scare people into loving God instead of allowing God to truly shine through and be loved on His own accord, because He is deserving of it simply because He is God and not because you will go to hell if you don't?!?

Probably as a last resort. After they've tried to tell people of God's love and been ridiculed, then they try to warn people of the consequences of their actions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl

Jul 24, 2008, 11:01 PM

Agreed. Your earlier comment sounded very much like that Calvinist doctrine, but if you are saying that you reject the Calvinist belief that man cannot make a decision to receive Christ, then we are in agreement.
Man's acceptance is evidence of the HS already at work.

Wondergirl

Jul 24, 2008, 11:03 PM

That is a false impression. People are taught to love God by showing His goodness.

However, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. If one never learns to love God but he does learn to fear God, there is nothing wrong with that. Because, as Scripture says:

There's fear and there's fear. What's your definition of "fear of God."

arcura

Jul 24, 2008, 11:17 PM

MoonlitWaves,
I agree that is the way it should be and I do believe that the bible teaches that very way.
In short, those who forgive are forgiven in like manner.
That is what Jesus taught us to pray.
That is why I forgive everyone who has sinned against me via thought, word or deed whether I know about it or not.
I pray that God forgives me in like manner.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 11:40 PM

There's fear and there's fear. What's your definition of "fear of God."

Definitions of fear on the Web:

* be afraid or feel anxious or apprehensive about a possible or probable situation or event; "I fear she might get aggressive"
* be afraid or scared of; be frightened of; "I fear the winters in Moscow"; "We should not fear the Communists!"
* be sorry; used to introduce an unpleasant statement; "I fear I won't make it to your wedding party"
* an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight)
* concern: an anxious feeling; "care had aged him"; "they hushed it up out of fear of public reaction"
* be uneasy or apprehensive about; "I fear the results of the final exams"
* reverence: regard with feelings of respect and reverence; consider hallowed or exalted or be in awe of; "Fear God as your father"; "We venerate genius"
* a feeling of profound respect for someone or something; "the fear of God"; "the Chinese reverence for the dead"; "the French treat food with gentle reverence"; "his respect for the law bordered on veneration"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Almost every word in the dictionary has multiple meanings.

The term "fear of God" as used in Scripture also has multiple meanings. It may mean "awe or great respect".

Exodus 18 21 And provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, in whom there is truth, and that hate avarice, and appoint of them rulers of thousands, and of hundreds, and of fifties, and of tens.

It may also mean "fright".

Hebrews 10 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The Catholic Church uses both aspects of the word. She teaches that it is fine to do good because of the fear of hell. That means that one fears God's judgement.

But it is better to do good because one loves God.

So, there is fear and there is fear and both aspects of the word are acceptable in this case.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl

Jul 24, 2008, 11:57 PM

I repeat, De Maria: What's your definition of "fear of God"? Let's start with "fear" in the verse you quoted, "Hebrews 10 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

arcura

Jul 25, 2008, 08:26 AM

Tj3

Jul 25, 2008, 11:35 AM

Man's acceptance is evidence of the HS already at work.

I agree.

De Maria

Jul 25, 2008, 11:47 AM

I repeat, De Maria: What's your definition of "fear of God"? Let's start with "fear" in the verse you quoted, "Hebrews 10 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Hebrews 10 is speaking of the punishment for those who trample under the Son of God and His Sacrifice. It speaks of punishment and of God's vengeance.

Therefore, in Hebrews 10, "fearful" means "to be afraid of punishment for wrong doing."

29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now provide your definition of "fear of God". Lets compare and see which is Biblical.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 25, 2008, 11:52 AM

De Maria ,
I believe that fearing God is more respect than being afraid.
Yes a person can fear His wrath but because He is infinite and perfect love and mercy respect is more to my way of thinking,
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I respect your opinion Fred. Those of us who love God need not fear Him. But Scripture is clear that those who do not love God and trample underfoot His Son and the Blood of the Covenant which His Sacrifice provided for our salvation, they need to fear Him:

Romans 12 19 Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl

Jul 25, 2008, 05:11 PM

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now provide your definition of "fear of God". Lets compare and see which is Biblical.
Huh?

De Maria

Jul 25, 2008, 06:34 PM

Huh?

The closest you've come to defining "fear of God" is in message #86.

There's fear and there's fear. What's your definition of "fear of God."

"There's fear and there's fear". That's not exactly a scholarly definition. So define your understanding of the term and lets see whose understanding, yours or mine is more Biblical.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl

Jul 25, 2008, 08:44 PM

The closest you've come to defining "fear of God" is in message
You were "Catholic Church says this" and "Catholic Church says that." I was curious as to what you say.

Now I am to define "fear" so you can decide if I'm correct? No, thanks.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 12:26 PM

You were "Catholic Church says this" and "Catholic Church says that." I was curious as to what you say.

I'm glad you recognize that. I, like Christ, do not carry my message, but the Church's message. And the Church carries Christ's message and Christ carries the Father's message.

That's how it works. If I were teaching my own Gospel, if I ever teach my own Gospel, I am anathema (Gal 1:8).

Now I am to define "fear" so you can decide if I'm correct? No, thanks.

Ok.

Bye!

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 12:58 PM

I'm glad you recognize that. I, like Christ, do not carry my message, but the Church's message. And the Church carries Christ's message and Christ carries the Father's message.

Actually, from what I see on here, you carry your denomination's message.

arcura

Jul 27, 2008, 08:44 PM

Wondergirl

Jul 27, 2008, 08:54 PM

The Church existed long before there were denominations so technically the Catholic Church is not a denomination but the mother Church of all those who splintered away.
That was the one thing wrong with Tom's comment. Denominations came along during the Reformation. And yes, the Catholic Church is the mother of all Christian churches.

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 09:15 PM

The Church existed long before there were denominations so technically the Catholic Church is not a denomination but the mother Church of all those who splintered away.
So the bible and history teach us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Fred,

It is a denomination by definition. The term denomination comes from the root word "nom" which means name. Once you have a group of churches combined together under one name, you have a denomination, and this happened in 325AD when Constantine created the Roman Catholic church.

You subsequently have splinters - the next being the Orthodox Church denominations.

Wondergirl

Jul 27, 2008, 09:22 PM

325AD when Constantine created the Roman Catholic church
Um, check your church history books, Tom. The Early Church of the NT became the Catholic Church.

arcura

Jul 27, 2008, 09:26 PM

Wondergirl,
YOU got that right.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 09:30 PM

Um, check your church history books, Tom. The Early Church of the NT became the Catholic Church.

Yes, it did - in 325AD Constantine commanded the churches to meet and combined the pagan Roman religion of which he was the high priest (Pontiff) with the churches into a single organization, which was the Roman Catholic Church.

arcura

Jul 27, 2008, 09:43 PM

Wondergirl,
Notice how some people like to twist history to say as they want to believe.
What the bible says is "The Church" was renamed years later the "Catholic Church" to identify it from some other groups that called themselves a church.
That is historically correct.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl

Jul 27, 2008, 09:44 PM

Yes, it did - in 325AD Constantine commanded the churches to meet and combined the pagan Roman religion of which he was the high priest (Pontiff) with the churches into a single organization, which was the Roman Catholic Church.
Please visit your local library and check in the 200s, Church History. In 325 Constantine summoned Christian churchmen to the Council of Nicea which established the doctrine of the Trinity and rejected Arianism.

What pagan Roman religion??

arcura

Jul 27, 2008, 09:47 PM

Wondergirl,
Congratulations... You are correct and history proves that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 09:51 PM

Please visit your local library and check in the 200s, Church History. In 325 Constantine summoned Christian churchmen to the Council of Nicea which established the doctrine of the Trinity and rejected Arianism.

What pagan Roman religion????????????

Read this quote from Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman

-------------------------
We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.2
--------------------------

I have thoroughly studied this period of church history. I suggest that you likewise. First, check out the history behind the pope's title:

Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus)

Second, grab book written by a Roman Catholic Historian called "Constantine's Sword".

Once you have done that, maybe you will understand a bit better. But even at that, it is only a start. It would be best to do your research first and then let's discuss this topic.

arcura

Jul 27, 2008, 09:57 PM

Tj3,
That quote dose NOT say what you are trying to twist it to say.
The New region spoken of is the Christian religion started by the Son of God.
Nothing you can say or infer will change that fact.

revdrgade

Jul 27, 2008, 09:58 PM

God has given the world both His Law and the Gospel.

It is not always easy to apply these properly to the needs of people. Those who are seeking God and aware of their own inability to hit the mark of perfection, need to hear of God's love and His free gift of salvation. Those who are self-righteous or secure in their sins against God and peole, need to hear the Ten Commandment fully explained and the consequences ("The wages of sin is death") explained also.

God speaks often enough in the Bible about His "wrath" and the "curses" He will visit on people who REJECT Him and His Laws for righteous living.

This is sort of the old "Carrot or the stick" application. If people do not seek and follow God because of His love for all, then they need to know that they will not spend eternity with Him unless they repent of their evil towards others.

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 10:01 PM

Tj3,
That quote dose NOT say what you are trying to twist it to say.
The New region spoken of is the Christian religion started by the Son of God.
Nothing you can say or infer will change that fact.

Fred,

It cannot be. Newman is referring to a religion into which Constantine brought pagan practices, and he could not have done that until after he stopped oppressing Christianity, which was in the 4th century. Further, once pagan practices were mixed with the Christians practices, iot was no longer Christianity as we find in the NT, but it was an adulterated religion which was changed to make it attractive to the adherents of Roman paganism.

Check out the history Fred!

Wondergirl

Jul 27, 2008, 10:13 PM

I have thoroughly studied this period of church history. I suggest that you likewise.
I have, I have.

Second, grab book written by a Roman Catholic Historian called "Constantine's Sword".
This was written by (per your old friend, Wikipedia) James P. Carroll, a former priest, who attributed to the Catholic Church a history of antisemitism and argued that this became the foundation for the hatred that led to the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis.

I won't even get into Eusebius and Newman.

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 06:54 AM

I have, I have.

Then you should be aware of the role of Constantine, and of the pagan Roman religion.

Wondergirl

Jul 28, 2008, 08:59 AM

Then you should be aware of the role of Constantine, and of the pagan Roman religion.
Have you ever studied Albert Ellis's RET?

DrJ

Jul 28, 2008, 09:11 AM

CHSaint

Jul 28, 2008, 10:45 AM

There have been many questions of late that revolve around, "If I/he/she does (pick your sin and place it here), will hell be consequence?" Because of this, I can't help but wonder if all people are taught to love God by using the fear of hell.

I know the importance of knowing the consequences of actions taken. But why does instilling fear of the consequences seem to be the forefront of stopping bad actions?

When you were a child and your parents told you not to pick on other children...Should it be, "If you do this you will receive such and such punishment" Or should it be, "It is cruel and wrong to put other people down. This is not how anyone should act." Are they both just as effective?

Maybe both ways are just as effective, but if you choose people's fear of punishment, then they don't gain understanding of why such action shouldn't be done. I feel that is what is most important. The understanding of why a bad action shouldn't be done teaches morals, it teaches us how to be good persons because that is how people should be and NOT because something bad will happen to you if you do the opposite.

In my own observations I see how people being taught to love God through their fear of hell causes them to equate God with hell. God should NEVER be equated with hell. Hell has nothing to do with any discriptions of God. I have seen too, that people seem to have a harder time understanding the whole point in Jesus' death. They also don't understand the "door of grace". Many of them think of God as cruel, stern, no sense of humor, stiff and even unfriendly. How can anyone ever be expected to grow close to God when these are the distinctions in the forefront of minds when thinking of Him?

Yes, God is strict and He is the epitome of strength, as well as He should be. But He is more than that too. He is grace, mercy, kindness, forgiveness and LOVE like you've never been loved before. God is the only reason there is love and goodness because that is who He is. Without God there is no good in this world or in people.

Why do so many people use hell to scare people into loving God instead of allowing God to truly shine through and be loved on His own accord, because He is deserving of it simply because He is God and not because you will go to hell if you don't?!?
"Perfect love castes out all fear". God is love, and what is not of love is not of God. Knowing God loves us without conditions is the source of our beliefs and strength to endure each moment. Without love, our faith is imperfect.

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 11:12 AM

Have you ever studied Albert Ellis's RET?

I think that you are on the wrong thread.

Wondergirl

Jul 28, 2008, 11:24 AM

I think that you are on the wrong thread.
Not at all. It has to do with your use of the word "should." Be careful. And yes, it's off-topic, but then we were anyway. Now, back to the topic on the table...

revdrgade

Jul 28, 2008, 03:49 PM

I don't believe that you can cause anyone to love someone through fear. You may be able to scare them into submission, to force them to respect your power and authority... but not love as God desires from us.

Fear is used RIGHTLY to restrain the wicked or lawless. Those people of the earth who do not love their fellowman need to run up against civil laws as if these laws were a curb or wall. The law and its warning of unpleasant consequence can have enough of a fear factor to hold most people from hurting others. At least for a time. Of course there are those who are not hindered even by fear of corporeal punishment.

God's Law was given for that primary effect too. It is not a "way of salvation" BECAUSE no one can do everything that His Law (His will) desires. No one born of man is perfect and so cannot keep the Law perfectly... and so can not come up to the state necessary to live with God in His eternal kingdom.

That's where the good news of Jesus Christ comes in. He DID live a perfect life and gives it to us as a free gift. And THAT is where love comes in. In Christ we see the greatness of the love of God for each of us. He died that we might enjoy the love of God now and in eternity.

But back to the fear factor; since we have been freed from the threat of the law we told NOT to go back to living in fear as we did when we didn't know God and were enslaved by sin.

Rom 8:1-4, 15-17
8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit...
15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear , but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
NIV

We who have been redeemed still have the Law of God because it does show the will of God for us. And it even "convicts us" (tweaks our conscience to warn us that we are moving outside the will of God), but the truth of God's love for those who have become His children through faith overcomes any fear.

The sad thing is that the people of the world who don't know/trust the love of God for themselves will continue to live in the fear of death and judgement.

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 04:57 PM

Not at all. It has to do with your use of the word "should." Be careful. And yes, it's off-topic, but then we were anyway. Now, back to the topic on the table....

If you are not prepared to discuss, and if you are posting off topic, then you should not be posting vague ill-defined comments.

I am involved in writing technical documents and documents which sometimes have a legal implication where such words are required to be use in specific contexts, and as such I use the word "should" and similar terms specifically as they should be. If you have any challenges, then they ought to be on topic, and no

Now back to our programming in progress...

Wondergirl

Jul 28, 2008, 05:01 PM

If you are not prepared to discuss, and if you are posting off topic, then you should not be posting vague ill-defined comments.
I was hoping you'd Goggle. Guess not.

Do you agree with DrGade's post?

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 05:04 PM

I was hoping you'd Goggle. Guess not.

Google what? Your comments were irrelevant to the topic. You even suggested as much. Once again, unless you have something to say, it makes no sense to fill up the thread with vague comments suggesting that you are thinking something but it has so little place on the board that you can't say it. My children used to do that, but it has no place in an adult discussion.

Wondergirl

Jul 28, 2008, 05:14 PM

Google what? Your comments were irrelevent to the topic.
Neither of us was on topic at the time.

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 05:22 PM

Read this quote from Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman

-------------------------
We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.2
--------------------------

I have thoroughly studied this period of church history. I suggest that you likewise. First, check out the history behind the pope's title:

Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus)

Second, grab book written by a Roman Catholic Historian called "Constantine's Sword".

Once you have done that, maybe you will understand a bit better. But even at that, it is only a start. It would be best to do your research first and then let's discuss this topic.

Let us get a bit larger snippet of that same book. Lets try the sentence before it.

The example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously followed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

Obviously, the new religion being spoken of here is Christendom. If you want to equate "Christendom" with "Catholic Church", I agree.

And if we go back to the very first paragraph in Chapter 8, we see that Cardinal Newman is discussing the "rise of Christianity". So, if you equate Christianity with "Catholic Church", I also agree.

But if you are insinuating that St. Constantine established the Church of Christ, I disagree. Nor can you find that statement even insinuated in this treatise.

But if we go back to the very first Chapter we see that Cardinal Newman believes a more Catholic form of doctrine:
And sometimes the cultivation of awe and love towards what is great, high, and unseen, has led a man to the abandonment of his sect for some more Catholic form of doctrine....

Church of Rome:
Here is a development of doctrine into worship, of which parallel instances are obviously to be found in the Church of Rome.

But don't take my word for it. Read the whole treatise yourself.
Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 1 (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter1.html)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 06:41 PM

Let us get a bit larger snippet of that same book. Lets try the sentence before it.

The example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously followed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

Right - just as I said, the Newman was speaking of the 4 th century, contrary to what the Roman Catholics on the board claimed. I am, glad that you have conceded that point.

Obviously, the new religion being spoken of here is Christendom. If you want to equate "Christendom" with "Catholic Church", I agree.

It is what is claimed to be Christian, though it is now a new religion where pagainism is mixed with Christianity - that is the point. But calling something Christian is not the same as it being Christian. Read Matthew 7:21-23.

But if you are insinuating that St. Constantine established the Church of Christ, I disagree.

I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ denomination was started in 1830. Though interestingly they also claim to be the one and only true Christ started by Jesus, just as the Mormons do, the JWs do, and many others.

This illustrates the danger of placing your denomination or tradition above the Bible very nicely. If you place your denomination of tradition above God's word (the Bible), then you will think that you are right even when you are wrong. Just as each of these churches and cults believes that ONLY their church or organization is the true Church because their tradition or organization solely ordained by God teaches it.

But when Christians obey God and submit themselves to what the Bible teaches, then it is God's word which holds the authority, not the organizations and traditions of man.

arcura

Jul 28, 2008, 06:53 PM

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 07:03 PM

De Maria,
Again you are correct but notice that Tj3 continues to twist what was wriiten to fit that which he WANTS to believe.
That is not new. Many people over the years have done the same.
Accepting the truth is very hard for some people.
I pray that God will open there closed minds.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I see that once again you choose to use ad hominems rather than deal with the issue. If you were so sure of what you think you know, it would be more effective to put forward the evidence for what you believe. Falling back on ad hominems is typically a method used by those who have no other defense for what they believe.

I agree that accepting the truth is very hard for some people.

arcura

Jul 28, 2008, 10:01 PM

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 10:05 PM

Tj3,
Are you that guilty feeling?
I did not mention any names.
The shoe much have fit, for you put it on.
The issue was dealt with in what I said to De Maria.
It was NOt addressed to you.
Perhaps you did not notice that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Oh Fred, I cannot say if you it your eyesight or your forgetfulness which makes you unable to read or remember the first line of your post where you made a false accusation; which was subsequently followed up by your innuendo that perhaps it is my fault that you cannot remember your false accusations.

Perhaps you simply did not post personal attacks, remembering what you said would not be an issue. :D

BTW, even if you had not mentioned me, I am opposed to abusive remarks and false accusations made against anyone, by anyone.

revdrgade

Jul 28, 2008, 10:11 PM

Religions change all the time due to man's opinions, emotions and world's level of dislike of God.

God does not change (even though He many change a method when dealing with man).
His will and goal is that ALL should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. This was His goal with the first proclamation in the Garden of Eden of the one Who would crush the head of satan and thus give us access to the tree of life again.

What people like Constantine and many others who mixed secular things into God's kingdom did, did not alter the will of God.

God's people became and become God's people by faith through grace whether the saints of the OT, NT times or now. Being afraid of God does not save. Ignorant fear of God can only drive people to repent of their unbelief and seek His grace.

arcura

Jul 28, 2008, 10:39 PM

revdrgade,
It is nice and good to see you here.
As always I appreciate you thoughts an insights on Christian matters.
I very much agree with what you said as I quote you below here.
<<<+>>>
"God's people became and become God's people by faith through grace whether the saints of the OT, NT times or now. Being afraid of God does not save. Ignorant fear of God can only drive people to repent of their unbelief and seek His grace."
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

MoonlitWaves

Jul 29, 2008, 06:04 AM

Being afraid of God does not save. Ignorant fear of God can only drive people to repent of their unbelief and seek His grace.

I completely agree.
Am I the only one who notices this in some people though? Have any of you came across this same thought when speaking to either atheists or simply people who have been taught incorrectly... they have turned away from God because they have been taught unhealthy fear of Him?

arcura

Jul 29, 2008, 07:24 PM

Moonlutwaves,
I also agree with rev
Yes I have. God is love and is therefore to be loved.
An unhealthy fear of God is self injury by not understanding that God is infinite and perfect in love, mercy, and forgiveness attributes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

tawnynkids

Jul 29, 2008, 10:05 PM

I completely agree.
Am I the only one who notices this in some people though? Have any of you came across this same thought when speaking to either atheists or simply people who have been taught incorrectly....they have turned away from God because they have been taught unhealthy fear of Him?

You aren't the only one who noticed. I was once turned from God because of just that reason as were many people I know.

arcura

Jul 29, 2008, 10:29 PM

tawnynkids

Jul 29, 2008, 10:42 PM

tawnynkids,
As I mentioned here before, I also noticed that.
I have seen it with atheists and agnostics.
They can't seem to grasp that God is NOT a ruthless tyrant.
Rather He is love and created out of love.
All that is good and love comes originally from God.
Love and good are a part of the image of God in which we mortals were created.
Thank God for that and much more.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Yes, sadly I think that is because people are too busy teaching to fear hell rather than to love God, just like I was taught. Unfortunately the message can enter that way but God has miraculous ways of showing us what He wants us to see. It was a bit easier for me to understand though when I looked at my relationship with my own children and applied it to my relationship with God. I want my children to obey and love me (healthy respect/fear) because I love them not out of fear of me or the consequences (unhealthy fear). I want them to realize the consequences of disobedience yes but I don't ever want that to be the driving factor. That is how I view the difference between a healthy view of fearing someone versus an unhealthy fearing of someone.

De Maria

Jul 30, 2008, 10:35 PM

Right - just as I said, the Newman was speaking of the 4 th century, contrary to what the Roman Catholics on the board claimed. I am, glad that you have conceded that point.

Only if you don't know how to read English. However, I am confident that there are many reasonable people on this forum who can read the matter for themselves. It is obvious that Cardinal Newman is referring to Christendom as the new religion. And Christendom, by its very name is the Church of Jesus Christ.

In addition, the good Cardinal has not even used the terminology "Catholic" in this paragraph.

So, your interpretation is another example of how you read your presuppositions into everything. Not just Scripture.

It is what is claimed to be Christian, though it is now a new religion where pagainism is mixed with Christianity - that is the point. But calling something Christian is not the same as it being Christian. Read Matthew 7:21-23.

No. The accoutrements are simply the dressings. The doctrines remain Christ's.

We can look at Protestantism today and see that you aren't even dressed the way Luther dressed. Nor do your temples look as they did in the days of the Reformation. Yet, you continue claim the same faith.

Or perhaps you don't. I hadn't thought of that. There is no continuity between you and the past. You make up your religion from generation to generation don't you?

I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church.

Why yes, yes you did.

Message #101, you said,

Fred,

It is a denomination by definition. The term denomination comes from the root word "nom" which means name. Once you have a group of churches combined together under one name, you have a denomination, and this happened in 325AD when Constantine created the Roman Catholic church.

Well, you used the word "created". But the difference in meaning is negligible.

The Church of Christ denomination was started in 1830. Though interestingly they also claim to be the one and only true Christ started by Jesus, just as the Mormons do, the JWs do, and many others.

The difference is that they can't prove it. Whereas the Catholic Church can trace Her Popes, Bishops, Saints, Church buildings, Church history both at the universal and local level, all the way back to Jesus Christ.

And I'm not really interested in those denominations in this discussion as I am in yours. Although you've not revealed what denomination you profess, I KNOW that your beliefs can only be traced back as far Luther AT BEST.

This illustrates the danger of placing your denomination or tradition above the Bible very nicely. If you place your denomination of tradition above God's word (the Bible), then you will think that you are right even when you are wrong. Just as each of these churches and cults believes that ONLY their church or organization is the true Church because their tradition or organization solely ordained by God teaches it.

The Catholic Church places God's word above everything.

But when Christians obey God and submit themselves to what the Bible teaches, then it is God's word which holds the authority, not the organizations and traditions of man.

The Church holds to Scripture. And to Tradition in obedience to Scripture.

But when Protestants rebel against the Word of God by disobeying Scripture's command to keep the traditions and to obey the Church leaders, that leads to anarchy and division as has been proved. All we have to do is look at those who hold to the tradition of men known as Sola Scriptura.

Sincerely,

De Maria

arcura

Jul 31, 2008, 12:05 AM

De Maria

Jul 31, 2008, 05:26 AM

De Maria,
Excellent response to Tj3 though he will argue it forever.
You are right and he is wrong it is a simple as that.
Twisting the words of others and picky choosey Scripture to make the point one wants to make is the name of the game and has been for several hundred years.
For 30 years I was a Catholic basher until I started reading Scripture and history carefully to prove that Catholicism was wrong.
What happened was that the more I learned the more I found that The Church (Catholic that is) was right time after time after time.
I also came to realize that the more a person is zealously opposed to the Catholic Church the more that person harbors a deep seated (though hidden) fear that the Catholic Church is right and always has been.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Thanks be to God! I wasn't a Catholic Basher. But I had no love for the Church. Although I was born Catholic, I became Atheist in my early teens.

When I came back to Christ however, I was first approached by several Protestants who told me about Sola Scripture. I tried to believe it, but the fact is, I couldn't understand the Bible without help.

So, logically, Sola Scriptura didn't work. My standard for truth was teaching. Some person had to teach me or I had to gather the information I needed from books about the faith.

Anyway, I just got on to kill some time. I'll be leaving for a week. God willing, I'll be back to continue these conversations.

Peace and kindness,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:16 AM

Only if you don't know how to read English.

Heh heh heh - well if you have no other defense, go after the person, right?

No. The accoutrements are simply the dressings. The doctrines remain Christ's.

So pagan ritual's dressed up with Christian words thrown in is okay - is that your position?

We can look at Protestantism today and see that you aren't even dressed the way Luther dressed. Nor do your temples look as they did in the days of the Reformation. Yet, you continue claim the same faith.

No, I am not protestant.

Why yes, yes you did.

Message #101, you said,

What is it that you think that I was saying that I did not say. You appear mixed up. Constantine did indeed start the Roman catholic Church in 325AD - I have stated that consistently - why - you think that somewhere that I denied that?

The difference is that they can't prove it.

They have as much evidence as your denomination - empty claims on paper.

The Catholic Church places God's word above everything.

Then why are we having this discussion? Let's examine your tradition using God's word.

De Maria

Jul 31, 2008, 08:39 AM

heh heh heh - well if you have no other defense, go after the person, right?

Come now? You've essentially lost all credibility.

First you claim that Newman said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. But you conveniently left out the sentence right whereby Newman identified the New Religion as Christendom.

Then you claim that Rev 17 1-6 is about the Catholic Church. But a simple reading of Scripture reveals it is Jerusalem.

Then you claim that the keys to hell and death are the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

I was doing you a service by assuming that you couldn't read English. Otherwise I'd have to assume that you are twisting and spinning the written word intentionally.

So pagan ritual's dressed up with Christian words thrown in is okay - is that your position?

No. These are Christian rituals. And Christian rituals are the truths of God lived and portrayed in order to re-present, to make present what God has done for us.

So, just as you now worship in a formerly pagan language, English. The rituals are Christian but the language is of pagan origins.

In the case of the attire, you also worship in a formerly pagan attire. The rituals are Christian but the attire is pagan is of pagan origins.

No, I am not protestant.

If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. You show every sign of being Protestant.

What is it that you think that I was saying that I did not say. You appear mixed up. Constantine did indeed start the Roman catholic Church in 325AD - I have stated that consistently - why - you think that somewhere that I denied that?

Oh, sorry, there's a period there:

I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church.

You are correct, you continue to claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church even though your claim has been proven false from the very document you presented.

they have as much evidence as your denomination - empty claims on paper.

The Scripture is also on paper. Is it empty?

So claims aren't empty simply because they are on paper are they. Another one of your non sequitur conclusions.

The fact is, the claims of the Church are verifiable because the paper on which they are written are ancient. Far more ancient than your new version of Christianity.

Then why are we having this discussion? Let's examine your tradition using God's word.

Certainly. I believe we've started doing so already in these various threads. We'll also continue to hightlight that your pillar, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is nowhere in Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture.

In addition, all the doctrines which have been derived by Sola Scriptura which contradict the Catholic Church also contradict Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Wondergirl

Jul 31, 2008, 08:53 AM

the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is nowhere in Scripture
Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?

De Maria

Jul 31, 2008, 09:17 AM

Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?

Apocalypse 12 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

Note that this woman's child is Jesus. And Jesus' mother is Mary.

In addition, Mary has always been known by Christians as the New Ark of the Covenant. Why? Because in the Old Covenant, the Ark contained the Word of God in the Ten Commandments, the Rod of Aaron, representing the Levitical Priesthood and the manna, bread, from heaven.

Mary, being Jesus' mother, held in her womb, the Word of God made flesh, the eternal Priest, and the Bread of Life.

In addition, the Shekinah cloud overshadowed the first Ark,

Leviticus 16 2 And he commanded him, saying, Speak to Aaron thy brother, that he enter not at all into the sanctuary, which is within the veil before the propitiatory, with which the ark is covered, lest he die, (for I will appear in a cloud over the oracle,)

And the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

Luke 1 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

If we look at the very last verse in Chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, and keep in mind that the Bible was originally printed without Chapter designations, we see:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.

In other words, these two sentences were originally side by side:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

Therefore, St. John was telling us, the woman with the twelve stars which he saw in heaven is she who is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 11:53 AM

Come now? You've essentially lost all credibility.

In your eyes perhaps. That does not bother me.

First you claim that Newman said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. But you conveniently left out the sentence right whereby Newman identified the New Religion as Christendom.

Sigh - we went through this once already. Mormons say that they are Christian. JWs say that they are Christian. Some Wghite supremacist say that they are Christian. Just claiming it does not make it say. I already agreed that he said that the new religion which mixed pagainism with the church was Christian, but nonetheless it was a new relion because once you mix pagaism into the church, it is not the same. Indeed even it's leader became the Pontiff (the pagan title for their priest).

Then you claim that Rev 17 1-6 is about the Catholic Church. But a simple reading of Scripture reveals it is Jerusalem.

Really? All 7 hills?

Then you claim that the keys to hell and death are the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

We dealt with that already. Perhaps if you have difficulties understanding this point, we should discuss how scripture describes the gospel.

No. These are Christian rituals. And Christian rituals are the truths of God lived and portrayed in order to re-present, to make present what God has done for us.

That is what I said - you are saying that once pagan rituals are wrapped in Christian decoration or mixed with Christian words, it becomes Christ - right? I disagree because we find a solid thread in scripture where God would not permit any adulteration of His people or teachings with paganism.

So, just as you now worship in a formerly pagan language, English. The rituals are Christian but the language is of pagan origins.

In the case of the attire, you also worship in a formerly pagan attire. The rituals are Christian but the attire is pagan is of pagan origins.

If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. You show every sign of being Protestant.

Would uyou like to go through the appearances of pagaism in your denomination?

You are correct, you continue to claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church even though your claim has been proven false from the very document you presented.

Your claim does not make it so.

The Scripture is also on paper. Is it empty?

No, and that is the crux of the issue. Scripture is the word of God. The claims of your denomination are words of men.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 12:10 PM

Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?
While De Maria shows that the teaching is not contrary to scripture and is inspired by the Bible, you have to remember that as a Catholic, we believe in the development of doctrine -- that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Jesus promised as much in John 16:13. Non-Catholic Christians/Protestants, however, believe that the Faith is static -- frozen solidly in the pages of a recorded document (sola scriptura).. . And that this recorded document is all we have.

Well, if that's the case, then it necessarily follows that you MUST be able to show that your interpretation of this document is consistent and repeatable for anyone (in whatever age) who reads the Biblical record... there MUST BE an objective standard for interpretation or else all you have is Biblical relativism.

arcura

Jul 31, 2008, 06:46 PM

Tj3,
You ARE a Protestant. Period.
I know of no one who protest more against the Catholic Church than you do.
That MAKES YOU a Protestant whether you admit it or not.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:09 PM

Tj3,
You ARE a Protestant. Period.

Then you must be a Mormon since in the past you have defended Mormonism.

arcura

Jul 31, 2008, 07:34 PM

Tj3,
Wrong again.
I am not a Mormon.
I have defended their RIGHT to believe as they want to just as I have defended your right to believe and you wish.
Never-the-less the fact remains that you ARE a Protestant as I explained why you are.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:39 PM

Tj3,
Wrong again.
I am not a Mormon.

And I am not a Protestant. BBut if you persist on calling me something that I am not, I would be in my rights to call you something that you may not be, but that you convinced several people that you were through your defense of several key Mormon doctrines.

I have defended their RIGHT to believe as they want to just as I have defended your right to believe and you wish.

Fred, I don't know of anyone who has attacked my right to believe over the years as I wish more than you. Some perhaps equally, but no one more.

Never-the-less the fact remains that you ARE a Protestant as I explained why you are.

And you therefore are a Mormon.

Wondergirl

Jul 31, 2008, 08:12 PM

we believe in the development of doctrine -- that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles.
In other words, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 08:15 PM

In other words, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible.

Neither, BTW, is the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, which was "developed" afterwards by men.

Wondergirl

Jul 31, 2008, 08:16 PM

Neither, BTW, is the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, which was "developed" afterwards by men.
I was taking it one piece at a time. Thank you, though, for mentioning that as another instance.

arcura

Jul 31, 2008, 08:28 PM

Wondergirl,
The Assumption of Mary is based somewhat on the bible and is a Church teaching.
In the bible we see that Jesus was a perfect person, of great power and the son of God.
Being perfect He was/is a perfect son who loved and honored His mother perfectly.
If I had the ability to take my earthly mother into heaven rather than letting her body rot in a cold lonely grave I would do so.
The Church believes that Jesus did that.
It makes sense to me and a great many other people.
So The Assumption of Mary has become a feast day in The Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 08:29 PM

Wondergirl,
The Assumption of Mary is based somewhat on the bible

Really? Where is this found in the Bible. I'd love to see the reference so that we can look at the context.

Wondergirl

Jul 31, 2008, 08:39 PM

rather than letting her body rot in a cold lonely grave
Well, that sure says a lot about the rest of us Christians who end up rotting in cold lonely graves! Why didn't Jesus want to bring all of His dead children immediately to heaven?

arcura

Jul 31, 2008, 08:43 PM

Wondergirl

Jul 31, 2008, 08:44 PM

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 09:05 PM

Tj3,
Please re-read what I said.
It is based on who and what Jesus was and is as I explained.
Don't try to read something into my post that was not there.
Your habit of twisting things continues to get you into trouble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I read it, as I have the hundreds of other times that you posted this on this and other boards. BTW, your false accusations and abusive comments do not enhance the credibility of you argument. Scripture, on the other hand, would.

I note that you did not respond to my request for your claimed Biblical backup. That tells me that you cannot find it either.

inthebox

Aug 1, 2008, 12:07 PM

Absolutely, and I am not saying the understanding of consequences should be omitted.

There have just been so many numerous occasions where people ask if someone is going to hell for some type of sin. I can't help but wonder if these people are taught to be good people and do good things because of fear of the consequences rather than WHY they should be good people. I have spoken to many atheists who turn away from God because of the wrong ideas they have in their head about Him. The first impression that some got of God was cruelty. First impressions are hard to get rid of so guess what that means for those people?

It should be more along the lines of...This is why and how you receive forgiveness for that sin you mentioned...Instead of...That sin will send you to burn for eternity.

Everyone who has posted so far has agreed that attempting to get people to believe in God by using the fear of hell is shallow and it is NOT lasting.

But the truth still remains that it happens all the time and I feel it's just so wrong!! We need to let God do the convicting! I don't know about everyone else but God didn't convict me to ask for salvation by threatening me with hell, but rather He convicted me by showing me that I am better than the sin that bound me down. Though I understood hell was the consquence of not choosing God, He didn't use that against me.

Conviction then and even from my sins now does not come from fear of the punishment, but it does come from the knowledge He instills in me that He created me to be better than that, and doing right and always being a good person is the only right and good way to be. When I fall sort of His expectation, that is my conviction!

My point is that's the way it should be and would be if people would let God do the convicting. But it doesn't always happen that way.

This is a good follow up to your OP :)

There is no doubt that God is to fear, be afraid of - OT is full examples of people dying just being close to the tabernacle or in Acts when the contribution was not enough. :eek:

I think we have to understand the perfection and holiness of God that is incompatible with sin and imperfection.

Hell is Biblically real! And it I think it legitimate to acknowledge this.
What good is the cure if you don't know your sick:confused:

Demanding perfection whether religious or secular is cruel - no one can measure up, Rom 3. and it leads to hypocrisy. :(

I think God in His infinite wisdom and mercy knows this and it hurts Him to know He would be alone in Heaven and that His creations would be eternally separate. - Hell if you want.

In the OT especially Hosea there is a cycle of rebellion punishment and forgiveness. God is merciful! And John 3 :)

I do have a problem with Christians bringing people to Christ and then not showing them how to live - NT. Grace, love, mercy, forgiveness Galatians and 1 John for example.

Tj3

Aug 1, 2008, 04:22 PM

I do have a problem with Christians bringing people to Christ and then not showing them how to live - NT. Grace, love, mercy, forgiveness Galatians and 1 John for example.

This is a very important point. Scripture tells us to make disciples,

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

And yet I see people being led to the Lord and then not being helped to get grounded in a church where they can get sound teaching, nor are they helped to get solid grounding in God's word, and as a result, they are left to fall away from their faith or to perhaps be deceived by false teachings or cults.

There is much more to making a disciple than simply giving them the gospel.