[Tj3]

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]

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]

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

[Tj3]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tj3]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have, I have.

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

[Wondergirl]

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]

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)

The point was not about God's character... but the character of the "Christian"

[CHSaint]

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]

Have you ever studied Albert Ellis's RET?

I think that you are on the wrong thread.

[Wondergirl]

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]

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]

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...