CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Just...wow. I really can't believe this.

On another forum I go to, someone asked a question dealing with relationships. Basically asking people what they think about dating, when you should start, sex, etc.

For the most part it was ok, everybody answered and seemed to agree on the subject, but...then a problem outbroke. During my answer I mentioned the whole "don't mix with non-believers" bit from the Bible, and while nobody really had a problem, someone did.

One kid in there go really offended by this. Basically he says it doesn't matter if you don't marry a believer because his grandparents are like Catholic and Jewish and that it should be all about love. Myself and someone else explained why the Bible is against this idea (one of my answers including "who would want their spouse to go to hell?"), but...that's where the BIG problem came up.

He says everyone goes to heaven. Even the non-believers. Apparently this kid is Catholic and believes in purgatory, so he says those people just go there. I just couldn't believe it.

Furthermore he said that the whole "don't be yoked with non-believers" didn't matter because it wasn't said by God or Jesus, it was said by a human.

So in this post I have a question and a request. The question concerns the Catholic bit. Do Catholics really think everyone goes to heaven? Cuz I knew the church believes in purgatory, but I never heard anything like this until he said it. I mean...why the heck does hell exist then?! So answer for this would be nice.

The request on the other hand is because, even if that is the Catholic belief, there are still problems here. For him to ignore scripture and stuff is a really bad idea. I know we've butted heads before (him saying Genesis couldn't have happened even though I brought scripture to back it up), but he basically boiled down to "well then either Jesus was wrong or meant something else because the scientists prove Genesis didn't happen".

Just...gah. I really don't mean this to start some big debate, but I think this kid needs prayers badly. x_x

No, the Catholic church does not believe in universalism, and it does maintain a belief in the existence of hell.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#IV
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#IV (see 842, etc)

As far as creation and Genesis go, that is a matter of interpretation. The church does not have a problem with current scientific discoveries regarding the origin of man, or of the universe as a whole, since it does not regard a literal interpretation of the relevant passages as necessary.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#I

The same general theory of "God created the world and Science is in the business of discovering the details" is accepted by the Roman Catholics, by most Lutheran synods (and the Lutheran World Federation) and by the Anglican church. Note that for the Lutherans and Anglican/Episcopals, individual churches and synods may subscribe to Creationism instead, and individual believers are free to do so. Other denominations may also share this belief, but the above are the only ones which I am informed about.

Hell, however, I'm pretty sure is universally subscribed to by all of the above, and most other Christian faiths. I'm under the impression that Jews share this belief. Purgatory is unique to the Catholics, but IIRC, the idea is that only those who are baptized and have some reasonable chance of 'working their sins off' go to Purgatory. I don't know what the Catholic church uses as the scriptural basis of this belief.

EricTheFred wrote:Purgatory is unique to the Catholics,

Not entirely, the Eastern Orthodox also believe in something similar, which they term 'Final Theosis'. In this case however, the end result is the same: the soul is cleansed of its sinful nature.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
(also see 1030-1032 of the first link I provided)

[color="Red"](While I don't have an article or anything to back it up, I can tell you that my Youth Pastor was raised Catholic, and he says his mother told him, "Only Hitler goes to hell." I have no idea if this is the norm or not (judging from what others say, its not), but there are others like the boy who do believe that.)[/color]

Technomancer wrote:Not entirely, the Eastern Orthodox also believe in something similar, which they term 'Final Theosis'. In this case however, the end result is the same: the soul is cleansed of its sinful nature.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
(also see 1030-1032 of the first link I provided)

I've seen Catholic theologists compare the Orthodox versions of Theosis and the Jewish "Gehenna" to Purgatory before, and I am not personally qualified to state how appropriate a comparison it is.

What I do know about these (which is fragmentary) leads me to believe they are more a "Crossing the River Styx" concept than a Purgatory. In effect, the recently deceased (for the Jewish faith, this means within the last 11 months) can be assisted along in their journey of purification prior to entry to Heaven through prayers for the dead (the Kaddish in Judaism). (I am not a Jewish Theologian, though! Sadly, I am guessing we don't have any Rabbis here to correct my various, almost inevitable errors.)

In Purgatory, one is stuck until one is purified, or (literally) until Kingdom Come. The point of prayers for the dead is to shorten the time. I believe the purpose of the Kaddish is to lessen the difficulty rather than the time. It may be the case that those in Gehenna are in peril of failing to get in; I don't know enough to say. It is my belief that Orthodox Christianity has widely varying beliefs dependent on the synod, so some of them may in fact equate to Purgatory, but I am under the impression that most are more like Gehenna.

My own church (Lutheran) has rejected Purgatory from the very beginning (the historically informed will be aware that rejection of the belief in Purgatory was the original case for the Reformation). In Lutheranism, the idea that human effort of any sort being required for salvation, before or after death, contradicts the principle of Jesus' sacrifice being the source of salvation. To Lutherans, humans must come to understand that they are indeed powerless to do anything but meekly face their own guilt and humbly accept God's grace. All questions of right living, avoiding sin, emulating Christ, engaging in particular religious ceremonies, etc. have nothing to do with earning salvation but are instead expected of us in order to keep ourselves reminded of our baptism and therefore of the Lord's Grace, to avoid hypocricy, to be good and faithful servants in the world. In other words, to please our Father as his loyal children.

I'd like to point out that the famous Anglican theologist C.S. Lewis believed in Purgatory, so it isn't unique to Catholics. There are Protestants who believe in Purgatory, rare though they may be.

In Lutheranism, the idea that human effort of any sort being required for salvation

Is this in relation to Purgatory? Purgatory isn't really a human effort, which is why I ask. o.o;;

From what I understand Purgatory is the process by which the inherent "sin nature" in the flesh is removed. All Christians believe this will happen, it's just that from my understanding Protestants believe it is an instantaneous occurrence. I think they use that verse where it says we will be transformed in the blink of an eye, or something. Catholics simply believe the process takes a bit longer.

I also know Purgatory is not a "lesser Hell," it isn't painful or punishing really, and everyone in Purgatory WILL go to Heaven, you can't "fail out" of Purgatory.

And that's all I know. XD

I also know Purgatory is not a "lesser Hell," it isn't painful or punishing really, and everyone in Purgatory WILL go to Heaven, you can't "fail out" of Purgatory.

Which is why I'm not afraid of it.

Nate wrote:Is this in relation to Purgatory? Purgatory isn't really a human effort, which is why I ask. o.o;;

Copied and pasted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

I draw your attention to the following phrases:

"have not fully paid the satisfaction due their transgressions."
"the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar"

Both of these phrases make clear reference to actions by humans before receipt of salvation. The first statement goes as far as to suggest humans must pay for their sins. Both are directly denied in Lutheran theology. Four hundred and ninety years later, Catholics and Lutherans are still divided principally on this issue. There are frankly very few other differences between the two.

Since the principle Sacrifice in Catholicism is the Eucharist, making this a slight difference in interpretation of the sacrament, at least the Catholic version points primarily, although indirectly, back to the Cross, but it still interposes human effort in the process of receiving salvation. In my own paraphrase, 'Christ died for everyone, but you have to redeem your salvation coupon through the appropriate procedures.'

Please understand, I am not criticizing or casting any aspersion on Catholicism. I am simply stating the Lutheran position, to explain why Lutherans reject the idea of Purgatory.

I am not familiar with Lewis' beliefs concerning Purgatory. If he believed in it, though, he was in disagreement with his church. I searched for an official version of the Anglican view, and didn't find it, but ran across a wonderful article The Anglican Church that had a couple paragraphs about Purgatory that could just as easily have been written within the context of Lutheranism:

Purgatory, as an intermediate state of purification between earth and heaven (CCC 1030-1032) is not a doctrine of the Anglican Church. What we teach is what the Scripture says, that “It is given to all men to die once. Then comes judgment.” (Heb. 9:27) Perhaps the clearest evidence of this is the man who died on the cross beside Jesus. He had lived a badly sinful life and was being punished for it. In his last moment of life he turned to Jesus and asked for mercy. Jesus’ response to him was, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43) Jesus does not say to him, “After you spend some time in purgatory paying for your sins, and if someone in the church will say enough prayers to get you through, maybe then I’ll see you.”

The ministry of the Church is to the living, not the dead. Our urgency about sharing the Gospel is born of the knowledge that after our loved ones die there is no more opportunity to minister to them. We had better do it now.

Lewis' belief in Purgatory (which, in his mind, was not the same as the Roman Catholic version) is perhaps best summed up in a private letter to his brother:

"Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, Sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you kinow'. 'Even so, Sir.'"

I think Lewis wrestled with the concept of that moment of transition between death and Eternal Life -- what would we become? How are we different? What will the resurrection body be like? And so on. And while the answers to the question of the physical body might be imagined, what of the mind/ego/self?

Ultimately, though, I think Lewis would say of his personal doctrine of Purgatory the same thing he said of much of his system of beliefs about things uncertain:

"I believe this not in the sense that it is part of my creed, but in the sense that it is one of my opinions. My religion would not be in ruins if this opinion were shown to be false." (Preface to The Screwtape Letters)

Not to undercut all the theological debating, but it doesn't sound like this kid is believing in purgatory because it's a Catholic thing. More like it's a personal thing: if he doesn't WANT people to go to Hell (especially if he's got family members who aren't Christian) then he'll cling to a belief that denies it. That's not to say that he may not have been brought up being taught this view, but I would doubt that putting a list of church doctrines in front of him will change his mind. It'll definately take prayer and conviction from the Holy Spirit to affect his heart.

I just want to point out that not all catholics believe in purgatory. I'm one that has a hard time in believing in it, but I don't think that it's immediately dismissable also. Tell you the truth, I never every remember my church talking about it.

The request on the other hand is because, even if that is the Catholic belief, there are still problems here. For him to ignore scripture and stuff is a really bad idea. I know we've butted heads before (him saying Genesis couldn't have happened even though I brought scripture to back it up), but he basically boiled down to "well then either Jesus was wrong or meant something else because the scientists prove Genesis didn't happen"

Tell you the truth. I think this kid is far from being a christian really. You should ask him, if he even is catholic, if he just throws that his grandparents are, then you will know your answer to that. To go and ignore scripture is not right, even if all of us have different beliefs, we don't go and ignore the scripture or I hope we don't.

[font="Book Antiqua"]
[color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

Speaking only for myself, the concern I was taking on wasn't the other guy, but Momo-p. She was clearly bothered by the idea that a fellow Christian faith was espousing a very strange belief system


He was, after all, representing these things to her as what Catholics believe, not as simply his personal belief. I wanted to clarify for her what the Roman Catholic teachings actually were, and then, (speaking from a Lutheran point of view because that's the only Protestant theology I am well versed in) I went on to explain why a Protestant would not normally believe the same. I know that the Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopal theologies do not subscribe to Purgatory, and it is my belief from fragmentary knowledge that neither do Methodists. I'm clueless beyond these (the Calvinist denominations have never been my forte) but I have never heard a Presbyterian or a Baptist espouse a belief in Purgatory.

If the kid says he's a Catholic, I'll take him at his word until proven otherwise. I've run into a lot of Catholics with appallingly poor knowledge of their denomination's theology, even when they attend regularly. I've met lots of very well instructed ones, too, but this kid is by no means unusual in walking around with a strange take on the position of his church.

I'll be praying for that kid, but I would like to say that the book of Maccabees (sp?) contains a verse like this: "It is holy and wholesome to pray for the dead." Luther removed this book when he was making the Protestant Bible because he didn't agree with it and some other things.

But my understanding was that Luther left because of the corrupt officials who were in charge of the local church at the time, and he decided to change the things he didn't agree with as he began his own church.

Finally, the Eastern Orthodox are actually a branch of Catholics; they split off the one Catholic Church sometime before the 10th century (maybe even before the 5th century) due to a conflict over where the Pope should reside: Rome, or Constantinople (today known as Istanbul). They hold pretty much all the same beliefs as Catholics, although their priests can be married and their Masses are filled with singing (which sounds quite nice).

AsianBlossom wrote:Luther removed this book when he was making the Protestant Bible because he didn't agree with it and some other things.

As I recall, Luther also wasn't very fond of James, due to his "salvation by faith only" stance, and he didn't like what James had to say about works being important. He also didn't like Revelation, saying that he could in no way detect that the Holy Spirit had a hand in its writing. I think he also didn't like Jude either, because of the weird stuff in Jude that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible (like Satan and Michael fighting over Moses's body).

Constantinople (today known as Istanbul)

Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul

EVEN OLD NEW YORK
WAS ONCE NEW AMSTERDAM
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way!

AsianBlossom wrote:Finally, the Eastern Orthodox are actually a branch of Catholics; they split off the one Catholic Church sometime before the 10th century (maybe even before the 5th century) due to a conflict over where the Pope should reside: Rome, or Constantinople (today known as Istanbul). They hold pretty much all the same beliefs as Catholics, although their priests can be married and their Masses are filled with singing (which sounds quite nice).

We sing a lot at mass too. :<

AsianBlossom wrote:I'll be praying for that kid, but I would like to say that the book of Maccabees (sp?) contains a verse like this: "It is holy and wholesome to pray for the dead." Luther removed this book when he was making the Protestant Bible because he didn't agree with it and some other things.

Note that although this is apparently somehow part of the Catholic case for Purgatory (it is pretty obviously a reference to the Jewish practice of kaddish) it in no way would have been a problem to Protestant theology. We 'pray for the dead' too, but we do it in the sense of giving our thanks for their lives and commending their spirits into God's care (which doesn't suggest he needs us to hand them over. 'Commending' means in this context recognizing that those spirits are in his hands now.) So, they are not depending on us to pray for them. We are depending upon ourselves to recognize, through the act of witnessing it before God, the gift from God of their lives in service among us and their salvation as they departed us. In other words, a prayer for the dead is necessary for our souls, not the souls of the departed.

The Catholic church tried to paint the Protestant canon as Luther cherrypicking the Bible for his own vile purposes, but this is a basically a crock. Luther was a devout Bible scholar, in fact had a Doctorate on the subject, and wouldn't have made any decision so lightly or for such a selfish reason.

The real story: It wasn't a unilateral decision on the part of one man to reject Maccabees. Luther was not the only scholar to reject the various Apocryphal texts. The reason had nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with specific items but with the fact that none of these texts are found in the Hebrew canon, (i.e. the Jewish Bible) but came from other early canons. The Jewish faith, the Roman church and the Eastern churches had all settled on different lists, in some cases including text added to various books, after many centuries of debate and wrangling. During the Reformation, Protestant scholars wanted to un-muddy the waters.

Luther, Calvin, and other Reformation thinkers all came to the same conclusion around the same time: that the correct canon should be the one composed of books they believed to have been considered scriptural by the Jews in the time of Jesus. Of course, then you have to agree on what this was. To this end, they turned not to the Septuagint (which Rabbinical scholars do not recognize as authentic) but to the older Hebrew canon (although for some reason I don't know, the Protestant canon and the Jewish canon use the same books but a different order.) Whether this decision was the correct one or not is still a matter of debate, with plenty of passionate opinions on all sides.

As the business of Bible translation into vernacular languages and the printing industry were largely done for centuries in Protestant countries, the Protestant version is the most likely to be found in most languages.

AsianBlossom wrote:But my understanding was that Luther left because of the corrupt officials who were in charge of the local church at the time, and he decided to change the things he didn't agree with as he began his own church.

Not the local church, sorry. Also note, he didn't set out to start his own church. That part largely happened at the direction of others. He continued to consider himself a Catholic up until the day the Pope excommunicated him. Only then did he leave, and only much later did he accept a preaching position again.

His disagreement was with the Pope himself. Under orders of the Pope, officials of the German church were selling indulgences for the purpose of raising money to build a magnificent and splendid domicile for the congregation in Rome. You know this building today as St. Peter's Basilica. In essence, the Pope had his operators in Germany squeezing peasants out of every pfennig they could cough up, by terrifying them into believing their dead relatives would suffer in excruciating agony if they didn't, just so he could live in a pretty new palace. Note that he was not putting a similar squeeze on his next-door neighbors in Italy.

This is a very well documented matter of history. I invite you to read up on it. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject.

AsianBlossom wrote:Finally, the Eastern Orthodox are actually a branch of Catholics; they split off the one Catholic Church sometime before the 10th century (maybe even before the 5th century) due to a conflict over where the Pope should reside: Rome, or Constantinople (today known as Istanbul). They hold pretty much all the same beliefs as Catholics, although their priests can be married and their Masses are filled with singing (which sounds quite nice).

First, there is no 'The Eastern Orthodox Church', per se. The Greek Patriarch is typically the most prestigious executive, since he has the clearest descent from the old Byzantine Patriarch, but he is not an "Orthodox Pope", and he is not the only executive. He specifically heads up the Holy Synod of the Greek church. Russians, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, and several other nationalities all have their own hierarchies and their own executives. The position and authority of these posts resemble much more the Archbishop of Canterbury (head of the Anglican Catholic Church) than that of the Pope.

Frankly, the Orthodox synods are not former Catholics, they are that part of the original pre-schism church that never recognized the existence of such an authority as the Papacy, while the Catholics are the portion that did. The only churches that can be accurately described as 'former Catholics' are the Protestant denominations, who indeed did secede.

The famous mutual excommunication of the Pope and the Byzantine Patriarch was simply the final shot in a political and theological struggle that had been going on for centuries, not the start of the schism as it is usually simplified into in Western-biased history books.

Nate wrote:As I recall, Luther also wasn't very fond of James, due to his "salvation by faith only" stance, and he didn't like what James had to say about works being important. He also didn't like Revelation, saying that he could in no way detect that the Holy Spirit had a hand in its writing. I think he also didn't like Jude either, because of the weird stuff in Jude that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible (like Satan and Michael fighting over Moses's body).

A lot of scholars wonder about James, which seems to contradict other Epistles on certain subjects. Modern Biblical Historians speak of a split between James and Paul, with the modern church being descended from the Paul faction.

However, unlike the decision to change over to the Jewish bible for the OT, Luther decided to stick with the same 27 books the Roman church and the Greek church had settled on. (The differences in those canons are all in the OT) The reason was, he had no reason to disagree with their inclusion, he simply didn't understand why they had been included in the first place. He therefore deferred to the ancient authorities and their evident agreement with each other, and left the NT alone.

He may not have been aware that other Eastern churches did not share the Greek church's opinion. For example, the Syriac Bible has never included Revelations, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John or 3 John.

Really, the Bible doesn't go into very much about the afterlife, be it Heaven or Hell. We (Christians) talk about it a lot, but there just isn't a lot of scriptural substance beyond inferences and the occassional "vision", which is seldom to be taken literally. For example, we often talk about Heaven having streets of gold. Why? What, like we are going to walk down a street in Heaven?

I personally find it counterproductive to worry about Hell, because in doing so you are focussing in the wrong direction. Telling someone they need to follow Christ or else they will go to Hell is only going to work on the very spiritually immature person; people tend to avoid folks who threaten them with sticks.

Let's get back to the core prayer thread here: Momo-P has someone that needs prayer. Actually, I think both need prayer.

Let's be careful not to dump our personal beliefs on someone else as doctrine. That includes marrying someone of a different faith. Someone, some minister, probably married these people, and didn't have a problem with it.

EricTheFred wrote:The Jewish faith, the Roman church and the Eastern churches had all settled on different lists, in some cases including text added to various books, after many centuries of debate and wrangling.

Yeah, it's a mess. I know Eastern Orthodox has 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, and a 151st Psalm. And the Ethiopian church has those and Jubilees and Enoch.

Fun fact: The original 1611 King James Bible included the Deuterocanonical books. Despite what "King James Only" supporters would like you to believe, this was a minor event that helped the Puritans decide to leave England.

Revelations

This isn't meant to be rude, or anything... ^^;; But it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people do that. It's Revelation, no s on the end. I know, I know. It's weird that I don't even like the book and I'm bothered by that. XD;;

my simplest thing about the whole scientists have misproved Genesis is that you can go back to the big bang theorem...you can tell me up the atom part, but then who created the atom...well GOD DID! My neighbor used to be catholic, and they certanly believe in hell, so I think he might be combining his parent beliefs, although I think jews believe in hell, correct me if I'm wrong, but anyways with the whole marriage thing, I think having different religions sort off messes it all up, because if your in a time of trouble and need some advice, your spouse is going to come up with some stuff to council you that you may not even believe in, but I'm not sure, I would try to marry someone of my faith, just you be on the safe side you know?... so yeah...

12praiseGOD wrote:my simplest thing about the whole scientists have misproved Genesis

Oi, sit back kids, it's gonna be a long one. XD

First. Scientists have not disproved Genesis, nor have they claimed to. Science rarely proves anything, because it's hard to prove anything completely true. There are some things that are considered to be proven, for example, the laws of thermodynamics.

Most things in science are theories, that is, things that are held to be true simply because they have not yet been proven false.

Second. Even keeping that in mind, scientists wouldn't have proved Genesis wrong. They merely would have proven certain interpretations of Genesis wrong. Some people have a flexible view of Genesis that fits science easily. I would be one of those people.

So yes, scientists have not, nor will they ever, "disprove" Genesis.

is that you can go back to the big bang theorem...you can tell me up the atom part, but then who created the atom...well GOD DID!

If you believe in God, yes. The problem with this is, that it's a matter of what to believe has always existed, and a thing called "infinite regression."

Now, you said "who created the atom." You say "God did" as if this is absolute assurance. But then the atheist will say, "Then who created God? And who created that being? And who created that being?" This is infinite regression, the fact that everything has a cause, therefore God must have had a cause too, and that cause must have had a cause, and so on backwards infinitely.

Since obviously this can't happen in reality, there must be a cause for which there was no previous cause to halt the infinite regression. We presume God to be the beginning cause, the start of all things. He created everything else. Atheists don't believe in God, and see Him as merely an unnecessary regression in the creation of everything. God didn't need a cause, He always existed. To atheists, matter, the universe, always existed. It didn't need a cause. Nothing created matter, it simply always existed.

You can say "But someone had to create it!" all you like. The atheist will respond "Something had to create God too."

So as you can see this really isn't a very valid argument for the existence of God. Much like we have faith that God always existed and needed no cause, so atheists have faith that the universe always existed and needed no cause.

although I think jews believe in hell, correct me if I'm wrong,

I think Jews believe in Hell, though it's called Gehenna, named after a garbage dump outside Jerusalem that was constantly burning. I don't know, the Old Testament really doesn't talk about the afterlife very much...that was mostly Jesus's department.

I agree with you nate, Now that you mention it I remember about Gehenna, and also I think the old testament must explain hell, because why else would they sacrifice so many things to get their sins forgiven, but they must have expected something from the afterlife I think. I agree with what you said about the misproving of Genensis, I can fit things pretty loosely, but rather not to worry about how we got here, but more on how I am walking in HIS ways. You made a very good point of the Atheist, I had not known that point of view exactly...I guess the best thing still remains the same, personal testimony!...thanks for the clarrification Nate. huggles =)
GOD BLESS YOU!!!

I myself don't believe that a purgatory exists and its not just because I'm Protestant, SDA ( mind you). I firmly believe what Daniel And Revelation have to say, that the first resurrection will involve the living going to Heaven and the second resurrection right before Armageddon involving the wicked to face their punishment with Satan and his fallen host.

Sorry If I mis-wrote anything, I'm still recovering from the Flu. God Bless and may you all enjoy this blessed day.

I too will be praying for this child.

12praiseGOD wrote:Now that you mention it I remember about Gehenna, and also I think the old testament must explain hell, because why else would they sacrifice so many things to get their sins forgiven, but they must have expected something from the afterlife I think.

I think maybe they did, but I'm not exactly sure. If anything it seems like the sacrifice of animals to account for their sins seems to be a way of avoiding the wrath that God seemed to be constantly pouring out in the OT, rather than anything involving the afterlife.

Using Bible Gateway to search, the first mention of Hell in the Bible is in Matthew 5:22, when Jesus says that anyone who is angry with his brother is in danger of Hell. That's the first time it's specifically mentioned.

BUT, Jesus's words wouldn't have had much meaning to anyone who heard Him unless they believed in Hell and knew what it was, so obviously it's in the Jewish manuscripts SOMEWHERE, just not in the OT. The word Jesus used there may very well have been Gehenna, due to what I said earlier, the Jews would know what that was. I don't have an original manuscript. XD At any rate, it supports my belief that the OT doesn't really talk about the afterlife at all, at least, not in any sort of great detail. That was the department Jesus specialized in.

but rather not to worry about how we got here, but more on how I am walking in HIS ways.

That's how I feel about it, the interpretation of Genesis you believe in really isn't applicable to how to live the two greatest commands that Jesus gave, to love God and other people. I know to some people it's of great importance, but eh, I'm more concerned with how to show God's love to the world.

I agree Nate, I am glad I'm not alone in these beliefs! huggles! Oh and Grabriel what are you talking about...You totally lost me! I pray for you to get better for the flu by the way. What is pulgatory? My vocabulary in english is pretty good, but not that good.
Anyways thanks for the clarification Nate!
GOD bless you!!!:jump:

Oh and Grabriel what are you talking about...You totally lost me! I pray for you to get better for the flu by the way. What is pulgatory?

Its no problem.
Purgatory is this belief : http://www.answers.com/topic/purgatory

Thanks for the prayers:).

Hey Momo,

Lifting up the situation. As far as the Genesis stuff, I'd recommend doing some reading at this site:

http://answersingenesis.com

It's designed to equip Christians information with information to defend and strengthen their faith, using scientific findings to back up the Bible. Hope this helps.

Puguni wrote:We sing a lot at mass too. :<

That's absolutely correct; we do sing a lot at Mass...but from what I had heard, most of the Orthodox Mass is song.