The concept of hell and eternal damnation is a form of control.

reply to post by wildtimes


Well actually, there's a very good chance that had Luther not married, he probably could have become the next Pope. The Pope who excommunicated him died in debt and a failure. He was from a long line of popes going back some time. That pope was actually trying to make things better, but he was doing it in a heretical way. Luther pointed this out, and they kicked him out.


It was not because of power and control. It was because of fear. The New World had been discovered, and they were afraid of loosing control of the religious leaders there. Basically the kings wanted salves and gold and the church did not believe in slavery and obviously wanted that gold. To the East, the Ottomans and others were hoarding up their power for a war, and there were tons of pressures everywhere.

The church was afraid. They did not know how to proceed without loosing power. And many of the popes wanted to be looked on as warriors, not religious men. Many of the cardinals and bishops disagreed with this, but had no power to stop it.

So like a dumb animal, it cornered itself, and died for some time.

Don't blame them for being evil. Blame them for being human. Most of those popes were more interested in sex and drugs than what God wanted. The Borgia pope Alexander VI had 2 children...who committed incest with each other. Weird times.


When it all died down, the church returned to where it should have kept: religion. Things got progressively better after that until the most recent scandals. Now the church is just repeating the same mistakes of the past and doomed to fracture yet again.

Alas. Such is man.

reply to post by Gorman91

Don't blame them for being evil. Blame them for being human. Most of those popes were more interested in sex and drugs than what God wanted. The Borgia pope Alexander VI had 2 children...who committed incest with each other. Weird times.

When it all died down, the church returned to where it should have kept: religion. Things got progressively better after that until the most recent scandals. Now the church is just repeating the same mistakes of the past and doomed to fracture yet again.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I was offering historical information to colbe, who seems to be unaware of the "first Protestant men to revolt."

Things did NOT get progressively better...it just went underground. The Church was FURIOUS with the Kings of England who tried to limit their profits, their power, their absolute monopoly, and it was going on WAY before Henry VIII. The medieval, feudal times were rampant with this back-and-forth bickering and warfare, and Rome was always ALWAYS involved as a player.

Yes, they are doomed again.....or are they STILL doomed? It's called "secrecy" and "spin."

But thanks for your response, gorman.

Don't blame them for being evil. Blame them for being human.

I blame them for being GREEDY LIARS, manipulating the system for their own gain, and changing rules at it suited them. They were NOT happy when King James ordered an English version...it meant that people were no longer subjugated to the "elite clergy" -- the only ones entitled to the so-called knowledge and power.

reply to post by wildtimes


But I'm not too sure it was a monopoly. I think they tried to become a monopoly, and then the rebellions started.

The church stopped being a religion and started being a conformity. Essentially trying to still be Rome after Rome died. When Rome fell, it was basically the Apocalypse for their times. And the church, along with a few powerful land holders, were the only place left for safety and security. At this time this was a good thing. But as books like "Canterbury Tales" shows, they became just as deviant as everyone else.

Still I wouldn't call that evil. I'd call it a failure of their morals. And honestly, up until the Borgia, I'm not all that sure the Popes had much of a monopoly. Italy was more like a confederacy, with the pope being kind of sort of a king, but not really.

The church got really bad under the late 1400s popes. See you can say things like the crusades were bad, but that's only because Spain had thousands of soldiers on Italy telling the Pope to do what they want or get replaced. The late 1400s and early 1500s popes were just plain awful people. Poisons, murders, death, incest, rape if I recall, and tons of other things. THAT was when they tried to have a monopoly.


See, why didn't any of those rebellions happen before that time? Their societies weren't that different the 1000 years before hand.

It's because they did not get stronger as a result of the rebellions, but rather, their attempts to get stronger and become a power triggered the rebellions. They were afraid of the new world that was coming. And for that, they burned.

reply to post by Gorman91

See, why didn't any of those rebellions happen before that time? Their societies weren't that different the 1000 years before hand.

They did happen. Repeatedly. I am currently reading about the middle ages...from the 10th to 14th centuries...in a book called "Sarum" by Edward Rutherford.

The Church was absolutely and inextricably entwined with the monarchs. The Church was simply at that time so powerful they could squelch the monarch's rebellions.

Look into the reigns of Edward I, Henry II before him.....

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MrUncreated

 

Why do you wonder, when your thread title has the answer?

Control my friend... Control over the populous.

And that control still exists in the churches today.

thats what i was thinking exactly lol!

reply to post by wildtimes


Entwined or part of it? And what were the reasons? Power? Power for what? An old man that lives for 10 years is not going to do much with power.


I would also ask you do your own research. I don't trust books. I trust facts provable with sources.

And at the end of the day, was it for good or evil?


Se I don't mind being entangled with the monarchs. There are good monarchs and bad monarchs. I care if they killed thousands of people for stupid reasons. I care if they produced art over war.

reply to post by Gorman91

I would also ask you do your own research. I don't trust books. I trust facts provable with sources.

?? I actually DO do my own research. I trust books that I have chosen based on the topic and the author's knowledge. Then I go online and look into the resources available that offer educated reviews of those books. I also look online. What, gorman is your point ??
Where do you find facts if you don't trust books?

I care if they killed thousands of people for stupid reasons.

Like the Roman Catholic Church did?

L'enfer, c'est les autres

reply to post by wildtimes


I think my point is not to judge things that are not suppose to be judgable. And definably doubt. Doubting everything.

I can't blame the church. I blame individuals. All nations have stole land, killed millions, and done horrible things. They have also saved millions, done great things, and progressed mankind.

You judge the individual, Not the flag he flies. The Church is no different than Germany or America. One generation you have Hitler, the next you have Washington.


As for sources, I'm just saying. I suppose I doubt everything. That's just me. I especially doubt history from the late Roman era to the Renaissance. I just can't trust a bunch of backwards peasants to properly write history. as far as I am concerned exacts of that time are lost forever beyond a few houses of knowledge. I can trust the Muslim sciences at that time. I can trust a few people who were known to write truthfully. But overall, it's a great big blur that unless absolutely provable, I just doubt.

reply to post by Gorman91

I can trust the Muslim sciences at that time. I can trust a few people who were known to write truthfully.

Would you be interested in sharing those sources that you believe wrote truthfully?

reply to post by rom12345

L'enfer, c'est les autres

Translation:
Hell is other people.

Would you care to expound? .

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by MrUncreated

 

Yes. Because not everyone wants that. Hell, believe it or not, there are a very rare few that would actually want to be tortured by demons in hell.


Focusing on the good and ignoring the bad is a one way ticket to ignorance. You can't have perfection without imperfection in its shadow. Otherwise it is just there, existing.

Once in what I can only suppose was a dream I experienced my own sort of view of hell. Total nothingness. No input. It was rather mind boggeling and troubling. But a light appeared and gave me back myself. It uttered "I am what I am, you are who you are, we all are who we all are.



Point of all this is this. If hell doesn't exist, why love? And that doesn't mean you should be forced to love out of fear. That is to say, if it isn't better than something else, why put the effort forward TO love?

edit on 2-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Hi,

I completely agree...

HEAVEN and HELL exist are REAL! THEY are BOTH within the "ONE" GOD!

reply to post by wildtimes


I named a few there. To be honest I don't write them down. I hear something, I look it up. I look up where the sources came from. If I remember the person as truthful or a liar I make a bit of an assumption, but even then I go and look at the language and concept, and then if there's anything in the region that makes sense to this claim.

Come to think of it let me give you an example.

I played Assassin's creed brotherhood recently. In it, they claim that Ceasre Borgia killed his father, the pope. This little piece of history is a bit interesting. Now I'm not saying that I believe a video game claim. I'm saying that there is no explanation to this event, and that I am interested, in realistic terms, if what the game said makes sense. Obviously the fact that the game has an alien artifact makes it totally preposterous to think it real. However, the event itself: One Borgia killing another. Is there any credentials to that?

So I looked up the tie period, I saw the politics, and I came to believe that this little open question to this time period, while interesting, is probably not what the game claims. It makes far more sense that the pope's successor tried to kill them both. His successor said that this pope was damned to hell, and few in Rome liked this pope.

Now I even now don't remember the sources I looked up. It's already passed from my mind. But I remember what I read from those sources. I remember reading what his successor stated, and the politics of Rome at the time.


And that's what I do with really any claim.

reply to post by neotech1neothink


God cannot have hell.

That would make him evil.

reply to post by Gorman91


HEAVEN and HELL - they each cancel the other out - they combine to BECOME an even GREATER power that CONTAINS yet is BEYOND "GOOD" and "EVIL" !

reply to post by neotech1neothink


No, they don't cancel each other out. Love always wins. Evil has no love.

reply to post by Gorman91


Wait. Maybe I'm confused, but didn't you say earlier that your hatred destroyed the lives of other?

reply to post by wildtimes


yes. But I also said that hatred can drive love in a very very very rare time.

Imagine person A loves person B. Person B betrays person A. Person A hates person B, but because of that hate, for God knows what reason, they can only forgive and love person B all the more, hoping and praying they turn from their ways. Out of love, they help them in their hatred to become someone else entirely. Why does person A do this? They hate Person B. Yet they cannot help but continue loving them and pushing them forward.

reply to post by Gorman91


I agree LOVE always wins. GOD is GOOD. but that does not mean that HELL does not exist as an infinite universal energy realm that is "part of us" and thus which we ALL must pass through/experience if only for the tiniest INSTANT while alive on Earth or before going to Heaven. Its analogous to "spending a night (Dark) and a day (Light) here on Earth".

reply to post by neotech1neothink


Hell appears to have some influence in our world. But why call it another universe or realm.

I view it much more in terms of just something else. Not definable.


I suppose if we want to go scientific, think of it like this. We now know you can suck a photon out of space time. This and other things makes it very evident that space time can essentially be compressed to form energy and light. Demons and angels are said to be creatures of light. Doesn't this make sense if they are pressing upon the walls of reality? But I do not think they can enter. Just press.


Furthermore, experiencing hell here in some way does not mean it is part of God. God is separate from heaven. Heaven is not eternal. It will end. "The old Earth and the Old heaven will pass away."

I think God is separate from even heaven. I don't want to think of him as some guy on a throne in clouds. I want to think of him as something entirely else.

Perhaps not so much separate from heaven as not contained by it.