Why would a God even need a hell?

[turzovka]

Yes. So has the Father drawn you to Jesus? Do you accept Him in EVERYTHING. Do you accept Him as your Lord and Savior?

In my belief , salvation has nothing to do with human acceptance ,its the future of all of humanity whether they accept it or not. Its our free destiny; its the unstoppable will of God. There is no choice in the matter. There are no choices with God , you just do as he wills , it will be what he wants; that is the real God ; its how it really is in heaven.

What religion is teaching you that? Or is this your own belief system?

Sorry, but it makes zero sense. We are not on trial here on earth for no good reason. God does not allow suffering for no good reason. God takes no pleasure in having someone pre-destined to an eternity of perdition.

Nor are your thoughts or theories on the Trinity of any sound value.

And where do you get the idea that everything that God has revealed must be in the Bible?

 

[Divine Wind]

...We are not on trial here on earth for no good reason. God does not allow suffering for no good reason. God takes no pleasure in having someone pre-destined to an eternity of perdition.

Nor are your thoughts or theories on the Trinity of any sound value.

And where do you get the idea that everything that God has revealed must be in the Bible?

Who says we're on trial? What religion is teaching you this?

Suffering is relative. There are only a few phrases in the Gospels which are repeated across most/all of them. One is this: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Mark 8:36

Matthew 16:26

Luke 9:25

Sending kids to school is hard. It's tough growing up, but, as the saying goes, "adversity breeds character". Life isn't punishment nor are we on trial. We've been given a great gift and it's up to each of us to decide what to do with it. Regardless if our life is long or short, joyful or painful, the fact remains, like high school, it's temporary. At the end is eternity in God's grace for those who choose to step into that light.

 

[Mickiel]

Yes. So has the Father drawn you to Jesus? Do you accept Him in EVERYTHING. Do you accept Him as your Lord and Savior?

In my belief , salvation has nothing to do with human acceptance ,its the future of all of humanity whether they accept it or not. Its our free destiny; its the unstoppable will of God. There is no choice in the matter. There are no choices with God , you just do as he wills , it will be what he wants; that is the real God ; its how it really is in heaven.

What religion is teaching you that? Or is this your own belief system?

Sorry, but it makes zero sense. We are not on trial here on earth for no good reason. God does not allow suffering for no good reason. God takes no pleasure in having someone pre-destined to an eternity of perdition.

Nor are your thoughts or theories on the Trinity of any sound value.

And where do you get the idea that everything that God has revealed must be in the Bible?

I don't learn from religions , they all are deceived in my view. I trust only what is in my mind and consciousness , and the bible. I could careless who agrees with me or not.

 

[turzovka]

Yes. So has the Father drawn you to Jesus? Do you accept Him in EVERYTHING. Do you accept Him as your Lord and Savior?

In my belief , salvation has nothing to do with human acceptance ,its the future of all of humanity whether they accept it or not. Its our free destiny; its the unstoppable will of God. There is no choice in the matter. There are no choices with God , you just do as he wills , it will be what he wants; that is the real God ; its how it really is in heaven.

What religion is teaching you that? Or is this your own belief system?

Sorry, but it makes zero sense. We are not on trial here on earth for no good reason. God does not allow suffering for no good reason. God takes no pleasure in having someone pre-destined to an eternity of perdition.

Nor are your thoughts or theories on the Trinity of any sound value.

And where do you get the idea that everything that God has revealed must be in the Bible?

I don't learn from religions , they all are deceived in my view. I trust only what is in my mind and consciousness , and the bible. I could careless who agrees with me or not.

Well it is of my opinion that you only pull from Scripture what lines up with your preferred beliefs.

Because much of what you contend can be disproven using the Bible alone. Although, nowhere am I taught that the Bible alone is our source for the Lord's revelations. Much else is given and comes from the Catholic Church, the Church established by Christ in Scripture.

 

[Mickiel]

Yes. So has the Father drawn you to Jesus? Do you accept Him in EVERYTHING. Do you accept Him as your Lord and Savior?

In my belief , salvation has nothing to do with human acceptance ,its the future of all of humanity whether they accept it or not. Its our free destiny; its the unstoppable will of God. There is no choice in the matter. There are no choices with God , you just do as he wills , it will be what he wants; that is the real God ; its how it really is in heaven.

What religion is teaching you that? Or is this your own belief system?

Sorry, but it makes zero sense. We are not on trial here on earth for no good reason. God does not allow suffering for no good reason. God takes no pleasure in having someone pre-destined to an eternity of perdition.

Nor are your thoughts or theories on the Trinity of any sound value.

And where do you get the idea that everything that God has revealed must be in the Bible?

I don't learn from religions , they all are deceived in my view. I trust only what is in my mind and consciousness , and the bible. I could careless who agrees with me or not.

Well it is of my opinion that you only pull from Scripture what lines up with your preferred beliefs.

Because much of what you contend can be disproven using the Bible alone. Although, nowhere am I taught that the Bible alone is our source for the Lord's revelations. Much else is given and comes from the Catholic Church, the Church established by Christ in Scripture.

I don't agree with the " Cherry picking scriptures notion", I cannot pick scriptures that are not there to pick. All scripture is open for use. I like those which give salvation to everyone. God can use anything he wants to reveal truth ,not just the bible, I agree with that notion. The Catholic church was not the church established by Christ, but the Church established by him did morph into the Catholic church.

 

[Clement]

The penalty was excommunication, as Arius eventually eventually was, although when he came back the Church took him back. Where do you get your history from?

Joan of Arc and the Nicene council are separated by 1300 years of history, get your facts straight. And trinitarian theology was "floating around" because the apostles floated it. But the heretics existed even then. You know, just because someone believes something other than orthodoxy, that doesn't make it valid.

An excellent dance. Obviously you're not a Baptist.

So, according to you, the Catholics never burned, killed or otherwise harmed anyone who didn't toe Papist line. So where did you learn your history? At Catechism?

We were talking about the fourth century, specifically, the divinity of Jesus, stay on point. The situation with Arius, one of the most notorious heretics (along with Valetinius) is exactly as I described, see for yourself. You're the one who is tap dancing around.

 

[Clement]

Number one, the Trinity group did NOT "eliminate the competition". What they did was make a convincing case, or perhaps you have not heard of Irenaeus, Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius, most of whom predate Nicea?

Disagreed. They declared those who didn't accept the Church view as being heretics and blasphemers. What was the penalty for these crimes in those days? Hint: What happened to Joan of Arc?

What about "Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius"? Don't you know that ideas floated around long before being canonized as official doctrine? Who and why did a church official turn Mary Magdalene into a whore?

The penalty was excommunication, as Arius eventually eventually was, although when he came back the Church took him back. Where do you get your history from?

Joan of Arc and the Nicene council are separated by 1300 years of history, get your facts straight. And trinitarian theology was "floating around" because the apostles floated it. But the heretics existed even then. You know, just because someone believes something other than orthodoxy, that doesn't make it valid.

The term Trinity is not even in the bible period! It exist only in the Christian mindset.

The idea that the Bible is the only thing you need is not in the Bible, either.

 

[Mickiel]

Number one, the Trinity group did NOT "eliminate the competition". What they did was make a convincing case, or perhaps you have not heard of Irenaeus, Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius, most of whom predate Nicea?

Disagreed. They declared those who didn't accept the Church view as being heretics and blasphemers. What was the penalty for these crimes in those days? Hint: What happened to Joan of Arc?

What about "Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius"? Don't you know that ideas floated around long before being canonized as official doctrine? Who and why did a church official turn Mary Magdalene into a whore?

The penalty was excommunication, as Arius eventually eventually was, although when he came back the Church took him back. Where do you get your history from?

Joan of Arc and the Nicene council are separated by 1300 years of history, get your facts straight. And trinitarian theology was "floating around" because the apostles floated it. But the heretics existed even then. You know, just because someone believes something other than orthodoxy, that doesn't make it valid.

The term Trinity is not even in the bible period! It exist only in the Christian mindset.

The idea that the Bible is the only thing you need is not in the Bible, either.

Well at least one sign you may be a free thinker .I thought you were bound.

 

[Clement]

Number one, the Trinity group did NOT "eliminate the competition". What they did was make a convincing case, or perhaps you have not heard of Irenaeus, Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius, most of whom predate Nicea?

Disagreed. They declared those who didn't accept the Church view as being heretics and blasphemers. What was the penalty for these crimes in those days? Hint: What happened to Joan of Arc?

What about "Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius"? Don't you know that ideas floated around long before being canonized as official doctrine? Who and why did a church official turn Mary Magdalene into a whore?

The penalty was excommunication, as Arius eventually eventually was, although when he came back the Church took him back. Where do you get your history from?

Joan of Arc and the Nicene council are separated by 1300 years of history, get your facts straight. And trinitarian theology was "floating around" because the apostles floated it. But the heretics existed even then. You know, just because someone believes something other than orthodoxy, that doesn't make it valid.

The term Trinity is not even in the bible period! It exist only in the Christian mindset.

The idea that the Bible is the only thing you need is not in the Bible, either.

Well at least one sign you may be a free thinker .I thought you were bound.

You think a lot of things that aren't so.

 

[Divine Wind]

We were talking about the fourth century, specifically, the divinity of Jesus, stay on point. The situation with Arius, one of the most notorious heretics (along with Valetinius) is exactly as I described, see for yourself. You're the one who is tap dancing around.

Ahh, so you finally admit there were differences of opinion and the one opinion eliminated the competition. Why did it take you so long to admit the truth?

As for your denial the Church hurt people, here's a link you are free to deny:
In case you missed it... Your 60-second guide to heresy
In case you missed it... Your 60-second guide to heresy

Thousands were burned at the stake for heresy in the 11th and 12th centuries. But what were their crimes, and how did these individuals – often known as Cathars – fall victim to this terrible punishment?

BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5

Professor Bob Moore, a scholar of medieval religious heresy, is to explore the Cathars at a lecture at the University of Nottingham.

In an interview with History Extra, he reveals everything you need to know about heresy

Q: What was medieval heresy?

A: Heresy was an opinion about the teaching of the Catholic church, which was condemned by the church as inconsistent with it.

From the early 11th century, many people accused of heresy were burned at the stake as a result. In 1022, people who were considered heretics were burned for the first time since antiquity.

Q: Who were heretics?

A: It’s impossible to group them over such a huge time period, but until around 1160 only a small number were put to the stake. And they would have been alleged to be leaders of heretic groups.

From then onwards, you start to see ordinary people being put to death too.

Q: How many people were burned for being heretics?

A: Again, impossible to say, but we do know that on many occasions heretics were burned in large groups – sometimes 200 at a time. That gives you an idea of the scale.

Q: What did heretics believe?

A: Every group believed different things.

There is a widely held assumption that heretics who were burned in southern France were part of a Europe-wide heretic movement, who believed there were two gods: one good, and one evil.

But this is not my view – I will be expanding on this in my lecture.

Most heretics – the ones we can identify, that is – tended to believe a very simple form of Christianity, based on literal readings of the New Testament.

They placed high value on chastity, and were opposed to any ostentatious wealth and to the wealth and power structure of the church.

That’s where they came into conflict with the church.

Q: How were heretics treated?

A: This changed over time. The usual assumption is that the Middle Ages was the ‘age of faith’, when people hated heretics. But I don’t think that’s true.

There is no indication that they did not get on and coexist with Catholics until outsiders such as crusaders and inquisitors came in.

For example, the 20-year Albigensian crusade, which began in 1209, was accompanied and followed up by persecution.

Q: Who were the Cathars?

A: If you visit the south of France today, you’ll see there’s huge tourist activity that rotates around the word ‘Cathars’ [a Christian sect that believed the devil made the world and everything in it, and that the sacraments of the church were not true sacraments of Christ, but devilish frauds of a church of the wicked].

But people who were called heretics were not called Cathars in the Middle Ages.

There is a disagreement between historians about whether it’s right to call these people Cathars. Why does that matter? Because if you simply call all heretics Cathars then you are implying that they are part of a European-wide movement – an ‘anti-church’ group pitted against the Roman church.

I argue that this idea of there being a link between heretics in this region and the rest of Europe is complete fantasy and nonsense.....

....
Q: Where and when did religious heresy originate?

A: From the early 11th century, but slowly at first – then, more and more people were accused of holding heretical beliefs. There are two major reasons for that.

Firstly, it may have been the case that people accused were in conflict with the ecclesiastical authority – ie priests who were causing problems for their bishops by being outspoken about the shortcomings of the church. In this case, being accused of heresy was about ecclesiastical discipline.

Secondly, lay people who were accused may have been in conflict with the church over property or revenues. From the late 11th century, the Roman church went through a process of reform – based, in the first place, on the demands that its appointments should be made without the intervention of secular authority, and that its priests should be celibate.

The first meant that considerable wealth – ie land – was at the disposal of the church. That was acceptable to the lay nobility on the basis of clerical celibacy, so that churchmen could not use church land to found rival dynasties.

However, there were those purists who didn’t want to compromise, and so they had to be weeded out. For example, priests who refused to compromise were condemned. This was the main source of accusations of heresy in the 12th century.

But it’s important to note that heresy wasn’t just about the church. In fact, the people who moved fastest against accused heretics were lay rulers, not churchmen.

And it’s not just about religion – from the 12th century onwards, persecution became more extreme against lepers, sodomites, prostitutes and Jews. And that sort of thing has been going on ever since.

 

[Clement]

We were talking about the fourth century, specifically, the divinity of Jesus, stay on point. The situation with Arius, one of the most notorious heretics (along with Valetinius) is exactly as I described, see for yourself. You're the one who is tap dancing around.

Ahh, so you finally admit there were differences of opinion and the one opinion eliminated the competition. Why did it take you so long to admit the truth?

As for your denial the Church hurt people, here's a link you are free to deny:
In case you missed it... Your 60-second guide to heresy
In case you missed it... Your 60-second guide to heresy

Thousands were burned at the stake for heresy in the 11th and 12th centuries. But what were their crimes, and how did these individuals – often known as Cathars – fall victim to this terrible punishment?

BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5

Professor Bob Moore, a scholar of medieval religious heresy, is to explore the Cathars at a lecture at the University of Nottingham.

In an interview with History Extra, he reveals everything you need to know about heresy

Q: What was medieval heresy?

A: Heresy was an opinion about the teaching of the Catholic church, which was condemned by the church as inconsistent with it.

From the early 11th century, many people accused of heresy were burned at the stake as a result. In 1022, people who were considered heretics were burned for the first time since antiquity.

Q: Who were heretics?

A: It’s impossible to group them over such a huge time period, but until around 1160 only a small number were put to the stake. And they would have been alleged to be leaders of heretic groups.

From then onwards, you start to see ordinary people being put to death too.

Q: How many people were burned for being heretics?

A: Again, impossible to say, but we do know that on many occasions heretics were burned in large groups – sometimes 200 at a time. That gives you an idea of the scale.

Q: What did heretics believe?

A: Every group believed different things.

There is a widely held assumption that heretics who were burned in southern France were part of a Europe-wide heretic movement, who believed there were two gods: one good, and one evil.

But this is not my view – I will be expanding on this in my lecture.

Most heretics – the ones we can identify, that is – tended to believe a very simple form of Christianity, based on literal readings of the New Testament.

They placed high value on chastity, and were opposed to any ostentatious wealth and to the wealth and power structure of the church.

That’s where they came into conflict with the church.

Q: How were heretics treated?

A: This changed over time. The usual assumption is that the Middle Ages was the ‘age of faith’, when people hated heretics. But I don’t think that’s true.

There is no indication that they did not get on and coexist with Catholics until outsiders such as crusaders and inquisitors came in.

For example, the 20-year Albigensian crusade, which began in 1209, was accompanied and followed up by persecution.

Q: Who were the Cathars?

A: If you visit the south of France today, you’ll see there’s huge tourist activity that rotates around the word ‘Cathars’ [a Christian sect that believed the devil made the world and everything in it, and that the sacraments of the church were not true sacraments of Christ, but devilish frauds of a church of the wicked].

But people who were called heretics were not called Cathars in the Middle Ages.

There is a disagreement between historians about whether it’s right to call these people Cathars. Why does that matter? Because if you simply call all heretics Cathars then you are implying that they are part of a European-wide movement – an ‘anti-church’ group pitted against the Roman church.

I argue that this idea of there being a link between heretics in this region and the rest of Europe is complete fantasy and nonsense.....

....
Q: Where and when did religious heresy originate?

A: From the early 11th century, but slowly at first – then, more and more people were accused of holding heretical beliefs. There are two major reasons for that.

Firstly, it may have been the case that people accused were in conflict with the ecclesiastical authority – ie priests who were causing problems for their bishops by being outspoken about the shortcomings of the church. In this case, being accused of heresy was about ecclesiastical discipline.

Secondly, lay people who were accused may have been in conflict with the church over property or revenues. From the late 11th century, the Roman church went through a process of reform – based, in the first place, on the demands that its appointments should be made without the intervention of secular authority, and that its priests should be celibate.

The first meant that considerable wealth – ie land – was at the disposal of the church. That was acceptable to the lay nobility on the basis of clerical celibacy, so that churchmen could not use church land to found rival dynasties.

However, there were those purists who didn’t want to compromise, and so they had to be weeded out. For example, priests who refused to compromise were condemned. This was the main source of accusations of heresy in the 12th century.

But it’s important to note that heresy wasn’t just about the church. In fact, the people who moved fastest against accused heretics were lay rulers, not churchmen.

And it’s not just about religion – from the 12th century onwards, persecution became more extreme against lepers, sodomites, prostitutes and Jews. And that sort of thing has been going on ever since.

Straw man argument, you lose. We discussed nothing of the sort, that's all in your head.

By the way I read BOOKS, not websites, if anything is good enough for a print book you know it will hold up for a while, unlike websites, which are here today and gone tomorrow. You Internet "scholars" crack
me up.

 

[Mickiel]

Trying to take hell from a Christian is like trying to take candy from a crying baby. They act like they can't do without it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
That's right , that space is sacred , I am not about to let Christianity into my head; I already see what it has done to yours.

Why do you quote the Christian Bible then?

You seem, confused.

 

[Mickiel]

[
That's right , that space is sacred , I am not about to let Christianity into my head; I already see what it has done to yours.

Why do you quote the Christian Bible then?

You seem, confused.

Please think with me ,IF you can; there is no such thing as the Christian bible. The bible has no copy rights , no group owns it. Christianity just has the super selfish gall to think they do. Really Christianity is confused by this . The bible has about 40 authors , only 7 can be considered as Christians ;

Hello!

 

[Clement]

Trying to take hell from a Christian is like trying to take candy from a crying baby. They act like they can't do without it.

I can do without it, I hope YOU can.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Please think with me ,IF you can; there is no such thing as the Christian bible. The bible has no copy rights , no group owns it. Christianity just has the super selfish gall to think they do. Really Christianity is confused by this . The bible has about 40 authors , only 7 can be considered as Christians ;

Hello!

Son, the Council of Nicea established the Christian Bible - it absolutely is a Christian book. The Christians created it - you simply misunderstand and misinterpret it.

 

[Mickiel]

Please think with me ,IF you can; there is no such thing as the Christian bible. The bible has no copy rights , no group owns it. Christianity just has the super selfish gall to think they do. Really Christianity is confused by this . The bible has about 40 authors , only 7 can be considered as Christians ;

Hello!

Son, the Council of Nicea established the Christian Bible - it absolutely is a Christian book. The Christians created it - you simply misunderstand and misinterpret it.

Most of the bible was written before Christianity was born; 39 books penned by non Christians , your religion cannot steal authorship from the bible . The monster pride of Christianity has assumed it controls the bible ; that book was written for humanity ,not you pious Christians.

 

[Divine Wind]

Son, the Council of Nicea established the Christian Bible - it absolutely is a Christian book. The Christians created it - you simply misunderstand and misinterpret it.

I agree that the Council of Nicaea established the Christian Bible. However, 1) since there are over 30,000 Christian denominations, it appears even the canonized Bible is subject to interpretation and 2) There are a lot of books excluded by the Council of Nicaea which give a fuller picture of the times.

 

[Divine Wind]

Straw man argument, you lose. We discussed nothing of the sort, that's all in your head.....

Lying doesn't make you a winner.

Number one, the Trinity group did NOT "eliminate the competition". What they did was make a convincing case, or perhaps you have not heard of Irenaeus, Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius, most of whom predate Nicea?

Disagreed. They declared those who didn't accept the Church view as being heretics and blasphemers. What was the penalty for these crimes in those days? Hint: What happened to Joan of Arc?

What about "Clement, Anthony, and Ignatius"? Don't you know that ideas floated around long before being canonized as official doctrine? Who and why did a church official turn Mary Magdalene into a whore?

The penalty was excommunication, as Arius eventually eventually was, although when he came back the Church took him back. Where do you get your history from?

Joan of Arc and the Nicene council are separated by 1300 years of history, get your facts straight. And trinitarian theology was "floating around" because the apostles floated it. But the heretics existed even then. You know, just because someone believes something other than orthodoxy, that doesn't make it valid.

 

[Mickiel]

Son, the Council of Nicea established the Christian Bible - it absolutely is a Christian book. The Christians created it - you simply misunderstand and misinterpret it.

I agree that the Council of Nicaea established the Christian Bible. However, 1) since there are over 30,000 Christian denominations, it appears even the canonized Bible is subject to interpretation and 2) There are a lot of books excluded by the Council of Nicaea which give a fuller picture of the times.

There is no such thing as the Christian bible, 75% of the book was written before Christianity and the council of Nicaea even existed. But the intense pride of Christianity cannot see this true history. Produce to me any Christian copy rights that give them ownership of the bible ; I challenge you Christians to prove you have legal rights on the bible.

Prove your legal rights.