To Christians - The Pope says there's no hell, what do you think?

[2ndpillar]

What may be "false teachings" is highly subjective since almost all teachings are unfalsifiable. If I say that our universe was constructed by 1001 deities all working together while whistling "Dixie" out of their butts, prove me wrong?

The land of "Dixie" (Johnny Reb's land) didn't exist at the beginning of creation. In the "beginning", there was only light and darkness.

 

[metis]

The sacrament of confirmation is at around the age of 7. Give me a break.

I have known some 7-year-olds who seem to have more morals and intelligence than some adults that I know.

Does you double mindedness lead your mind to skip a beat or two?

What are you talking about?

You might as well ask the pope for forgiveness and start attending Catholic mass everyday.

Maybe it's best to mind your own business.

BTW, I noticed that you didn't mention the fact that the Bible verse I quoted goes against what you claimed in regards to the forgiveness of sin, so it seems that you really can't seem to be willing to admit you were wrong. By chance, are you taking lessons from Trump?

Anyhow, ...

 

[metis]

The land of "Dixie" (Johnny Reb's land) didn't exist at the beginning of creation. In the "beginning", there was only light and darkness.

 

[2ndpillar]

I have known some 7-year-olds who seem to have more morals and intelligence than some adults that I know.

What are you talking about?

Maybe it's best to mind your own business.

BTW, I noticed that you didn't mention the fact that the Bible verse I quoted goes against what you claimed in regards to the forgiveness of sin, so it seems that you really can't seem to be willing to admit you were wrong. By chance, are you taking lessons from Trump?

Anyhow, ...

As Peter is the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, who doesn't feed the sheep, but "leaves the flock" (Acts 15:7), and Acts was written by some unknown author, possibly Luke, an associate of the false prophet Paul, your reference has little merit. As for your non apostolic mother Roman church, instituted by the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, and officially dedicated as the official Roman church by another Roman Emperor, Theodosius, they baptize infants, who apparently do not "repent" or receive the Holy Spirit, as they apparently require confirmation, and they are baptized in the "name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost".

7 year olds are generally children of God and do not need baptism nor the need of some confirmation. It is the "lost" adults, who are "hanging" on to the pope, who live in "hell" on earth, who need the "repentance".

 

[metis]

In Acts, it cites an entire family that was baptized together, although we don't know what their ages were. However, we do know that there was some infant baptism that was done during the 2nd century but it wasn't the norm. It did become more common later, especially when one of the plagues hit, thus an estimated 1/3 of Europe's children died.

What the Church did was to recognize the family as a child's source of morality when young, so whereas the father was baptized Christian, the rest of the family followed suit. However, because of the profession of faith that's needed, that was created by splitting baptism into two ceremonies: baptism and confirmation, whereas the latter repeats the baptismal vows.

The Church is and was "apostolic", thus following the lineage of what we call "apostolic succession", and that is rather easily verified by doing some homework. Here, I'll help: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

That process one can see rather clearly in Acts and some of Paul's letters whereas the Twelve begin to appoint leaders and, later, successors. That process continued on through the ages even though there were political splits that took place, with the big one taking place in 1054 c.e.-- the Great Schism.

Finally, if one truly regards themselves as being "Christian", then I would assume they would at least try and follow Jesus' teachings, but unfortunately all too many ignore those, such as those who ignore his teaching of "judge ye not...".

Therefore, the idea that those whom are Catholic and whom acknowledge the Pope as their earthly leader are somehow "lost adults" is to stick one's thumb in Jesus' eye. It was that kind of church that taught such bigoted judgmentalism that I left almost 50 years ago because of this and also its anti-science and its racist agendas.

Meanwhile, as we've seen all too often, many self-professed "Christians" do what Paul and Jesus said not to do, namely to attack other Christians, thus causing divisions while strutting around as if they've got all "the answers".

 

[2ndpillar]

In Acts, it cites an entire family that was baptized together, although we don't know what their ages were. However, we do know that there was some infant baptism that was done during the 2nd century but it wasn't the norm. It did become more common later, especially when one of the plagues hit, thus an estimated 1/3 of Europe's children died.

What the Church did was to recognize the family as a child's source of morality when young, so whereas the father was baptized Christian, the rest of the family followed suit. However, because of the profession of faith that's needed, that was created by splitting baptism into two ceremonies: baptism and confirmation, whereas the latter repeats the baptismal vows.

The Church is and was "apostolic", thus following the lineage of what we call "apostolic succession", and that is rather easily verified by doing some homework. Here, I'll help: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

That process one can see rather clearly in Acts and some of Paul's letters whereas the Twelve begin to appoint leaders and, later, successors. That process continued on through the ages even though there were political splits that took place, with the big one taking place in 1054 c.e.-- the Great Schism.

Finally, if one truly regards themselves as being "Christian", then I would assume they would at least try and follow Jesus' teachings, but unfortunately all too many ignore those, such as those who ignore his teaching of "judge ye not...".

Therefore, the idea that those whom are Catholic and whom acknowledge the Pope as their earthly leader are somehow "lost adults" is to stick one's thumb in Jesus' eye. It was that kind of church that taught such bigoted judgmentalism that I left almost 50 years ago because of this and also its anti-science and its racist agendas.

Meanwhile, as we've seen all too often, many self-professed "Christians" do what Paul and Jesus said not to do, namely to attack other Christians, thus causing divisions while strutting around as if they've got all "the answers".

The process of appointing leaders and teachers was clearly stated in the false prophet Paul's supposed epistle. Of course, this was in direct disregard of the teachings of Yeshua (Matthew 23:8-9). As for babies repenting, well, that is kind of a problem. As for families, a child is not responsible for the sins of the father, or the father responsible for the sins of the child (Jeremiah 31:30). As for one being called "Christian", I would not be among them. It would be silly to take on the name taken on by the followers of the false prophet Paul, who has nailed the "Word of God" to the cross.

As for rebuking the wicked, well, that is something rewarded by God. (Proverbs 24:25). As for those who remain in the "daughter of Babylon", well, they "receive of her plagues" (Rev 18:4).

 

[metis]

The process of appointing leaders and teachers was clearly stated in the false prophet Paul's supposed epistle. Of course, this was in direct disregard of the teachings of Yeshua (Matthew 23:8-9). As for babies repenting, well, that is kind of a problem. As for families, a child is not responsible for the sins of the father, or the father responsible for the sins of the child (Jeremiah 31:30). As for one being called "Christian", I would not be among them. It would be silly to take on the name taken on by the followers of the false prophet Paul, who has nailed the "Word of God" to the cross.

As for rebuking the wicked, well, that is something rewarded by God. (Proverbs 24:25). As for those who remain in the "daughter of Babylon", well, they "receive of her plagues" (Rev 18:4).

It's virtually impossible for me to respond to the absurdity of the above, so I'm not even going to try.

 

[2ndpillar]

It's virtually impossible for me to respond to the absurdity of the above, so I'm not even going to try.

If you had spent less time reading from unknown authors, Acts, false prophets, Paul, and the tomes of those who think they are "wise and intelligent", who God chose to hide "these things" (Mt 11:25), you would be in better shape to respond to post.

 

[Deidre]

A truly inaccurate post, and just a reminder that I say this as a non-Catholic.

The Nicene Creed, which is the most basic statement of faith for the RCC, is as follows:

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

They teach a lot more than that.

 

[Apologes]

With regards to the rumor of Pope Francis denying the existence of hell, I voiced my reasons for why I consider this just a very implausible rumor in another thread, but I'll repeat it here.

In order to believe this story you'd have to believe that the pope has denounced a doctrine that has been consistently and infallibly embraced for centuries by the institution he represents, that has been established and reaffirmed as an unquestionable dogma and was defended against annihilationism (the view the article attributes to the pope) which was condemned as a heresy. Such a turn of events would cause huge shifts in the landscape of the catholic faith and we're supposed to believe that such a thing has happened in a brief comment during an obscure private meeting and then reported in a single article with no evidence what so ever backing it up, all the while the entirety of Vatican openly denies it while the pope himself hasn't shared anything about it with the general public.

Unless and until the Church officially denounces the doctrine with a clear and unified stance on the subject this article remains yet another misrepresentation of Catholicism and it's teachings.

Basically, if you're ready to believe that the pope just did all that an implicitly abolished the doctrine of papal infallibility, therefore tearing down the authority of the Catholic Church on doctrinal matters down effectively changing the face of Catholicism forever in such a brief, almost casual-sounding and entirely unsupported (not to mention openly denied) comment then you might as well believe anything.

As for whether there is hell or not, I am a Catholic so it goes without saying that I believe in the existence of hell and reject both the view of universal salvation which would include those who rejected God as well as the view that those who rejected God simply cease to exist.

 

[metis]

They teach a lot more than that.

Of course they do, such as can be found here:Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, not all teachings are at the same level. Also, a Catholic has the right of discernment and whether they choose to go with a specific teaching. An excellent book that covers this from a Catholic perspective is "Let Your [Informed] Conscience Be Your Guide".

 

[allright]

The pope is a dope

 

[metis]

The pope is a dope

 

[Muffled]

Did Pope Francis say there is no hell? Not quite, the Vatican insists

I believe Francis seems to make edgy statements that don't always mean what people think they mean.

I believe there is a Hell.

 

[Muffled]

Hell as a place of burning and torment, has no legitimate foundation in the Bible.

The Bible itself clearly states, “the dead are aware of nothing / conscious of nothing / know nothing at all.” — Ecclesiastes 9:5; the dead go “back to the ground.....(their) thoughts perish.” — Psalms 146:3-4; compare Genesis 3:19.

The Bible further states that everyone (reading Ecclesiastes 9:10), goes to hell when they die.....
“Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.” It applies to all. (So don’t read it! LOL!!)
Please note the different renderings on the Biblehub website:
Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom..
Notice, Hell is simply rendered the grave in most versions.

Peter said that even Jesus, at his death, went to “hell”, ie., the grave, for 3 days before his resurrection. (Jesus was in Hell, He just wasn’t “left” there.) — Acts of the Apostles 2:30-31; compare the prophecy at Psalms 16:10).

Christendom has been scaring people for centuries with this nonsense, trying to control the masses with fear!

Any future life prospects only come in the Resurrection (John 5:28-29), which happens “in the Last Day.” — John 6:44

I believe people should beware even more so as we get closer to the time people are sent there. I believe you are calling the Bible nonsense and don't think your cherry picking represents Hell. It doesn't.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it! (It's nothing I came up with on my own....I was taught this by Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Your last question, "are they metaphors", puts you on the right track! The first Scripture you mentioned, Revelation 20:14, says "death (was) hurled into the Lake of Fire."
Can death be 'burned'?

No, but the Bible promises that death (due to sin - Romans 5:12) will be gone forever. [Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians 15:26; and my favorite, Revelation 21:3-4. It's my favorite because it says "the tent of God is with mankind...and death will be no more."; it's like the fulfillment to the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-10, the Our Father), where we pray, "Thy will (i.e., purpose) be done on Earth."]

Sorry, got carried away. Back to fire: it's just symbolic of complete destruction...whatever is hurled in, will be gone forever! And isn't that what literal fire does? I mean, if you put something in fire, you ain't getting it back!

I hope I made sense. It's late here, and I'm tired.
But torment is different, too. Something to think about... Remember the three Hebrews in the book of Daniel? Thrown into the fire (literal fire, this time), but what saved them? An angel! Was the angel hurt from the fire? Why would we expect Satan to experience pain from fire?

The Bible is awesome, when you can tie Scriptures together!

More on torment, tomorrow? Ok?

Goodnight.

I believe being taught by JW's is the blind leading the blind.

 

[Deidre]

Of course they do, such as can be found here:Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, not all teachings are at the same level. Also, a Catholic has the right of discernment and whether they choose to go with a specific teaching. An excellent book that covers this from a Catholic perspective is "Let Your [Informed] Conscience Be Your Guide".

I personally don't see the need to have the CCC, when the Bible suffices.

 

[metis]

I personally don't see the need to have the CCC, when the Bible suffices.

It was the CC that chose the canon of your Bible in the 2nd half of the 4th century, so if the CC wasn't needed then maybe the authenticity of your Bible should be questioned. It was that church that selected the Bible, not the other way around.

 

[Deidre]

It was the CC that chose the canon of your Bible in the 2nd half of the 4th century, so if the CC wasn't needed then maybe the authenticity of your Bible should be questioned. It was that church that selected the Bible, not the other way around.

The CC is merely a messenger not the message. That’s where it loses itself.

 

[metis]

The CC is merely a messenger not the message. That’s where it loses itself.

Except that the "mark of the true church" was were your overseers appointed by those who could trace their appointments back to the apostles and to Jesus? It was that way because other groups were claiming they were the "true church" with the "true gospels".

And supposedly where did the CC "lose itself"? The church of the apostles was never perfect as the gospels attest to even when Jesus was alive. Also, as part of Canon Law, the CC can not have any dogma that is disallowed in the Bible.