₦airaland Forum

@Olaadegbu

you urself have interpreted scripture that is very much in line with purgatory as you posted it above. But abeg instead of copying and pasting and making persoanl comments why don't you answer the questions posted for you?

you quoted me, yet you did not reply to my post, please answer the questions thank you.

Please sahel lady lets be honest here, what was Abraham about to do to his son? Is there anywhere in the bible where it says that is what happened or you are just asserting, back to the bible now

the laws were not in place during Abraham's time, or did you forget that the Israelites came from Abraham?
and even at that God stopped him

Its quite clear for you to see sahel, why would they lament if she went to the temple to be a virgin
Please give us a more concrete answer, he did to her according to his vow, and please what was his vow again?

lamentations do not have to take place because of a death, it just has to be something sorrowful. Isaiah speaks of Israel lamenting because salvation is far from them (a prophecy). To lament is to regret sorrowfully, for one to regret a death does not have to occur.

In this case she would lament to enter the temple as a virgin because she will never get to marry and because her father's lineage ends with her. She is lamenting because her father made a vow without thinking about the consequences.
For a woman to be taken into the temple as a virgin, especially if she dreamed of being married, that is enough to lament over.

His vow was general and in assumption of him offering an animal. Sahel lady already went into details on it. Human sacrifices were forbidden so there is no way that he could have offered her as a burnt offering.

lolololol

de man na true lover.

unfortunately he likes them very young.

shoo he's got the money to take care of 25 wives and he will. he still wants babies.

i respected him until he became too disrespectful and showed me how much of a liar he is.

I would sincerely like to meet Chrisbenogor and advidylan

I finally put the pic of me and my baby girl, carl.

if u r my friend on facebook u should be able to see the pics, lin oby

the things some parents do actually justify the actions of some of the kids.

it is an intricate balance for sanity to prevail

yup true indeed.

Oby1:
Very Serious, goodness me at that age. God have mercy.
Training children over there is a 50/50 chance.
My sister thumbs up, e no easy at all.

this is why my children will not be trained here o. hubby better pack up his bags we're going home.

Carlosein:
my children had better not try it with me because them go see fire (i think i am good sha )

i'm ok sis.

lolol, i don talk am sey dem go tell me who born dem sef, whether na government o or na me. bcus if dem want govt make dem tell me make i carry dem comot for this world make govt bring dem back. na de ting wey my mama tell me o, i fear no be small o.

Carlosein:
indeed

lololol, indeed.

Carlosein:
na so e be everywhere o. there, they are just more organised and have places to make complaints.

here the kids just become agberos with no one to complain to.

lololololololololololololol, u have killed me lafta.

that respose was not for you. But i wasn't meaning to insult or offend u i'm neither catholic nor prostant. I'm orthodox. ands orry many romman cathloic think the same way when cocerning the OT. But there are diverse opinions within that camp so it isn't a universal thing in the cathloic church. Sorry if i offend you.

No offense taken, I know that some Catholics think that way, but it is not a teaching of the Church. My point is unless it is a teaching of the church it shouldn't be said that catholics do this or do that. It is quite complicated because to be catholic one has to be in full union with the church and her teachings, so regardless of someone saying that they are catholic if they are not in full union with the church and her teachings they are not catholic.
example, when a catholic sins, they are no longer catholic until they go to confession and reconcile themselves to the church and to God.

@chrisbenogor

i replied you in the other thread, i am too lazy to copy and paste, but check it there, i hope others check it too.

I loved your analogy about the child beating scenario, it was really really good but I think the mistake we keep making is that God is responsible for all this, and this is not about boxing God into what I think he should be but because those murders were plain wrong

see this is why i keep asking you why you bother when you have already made up your mind. you completely missed the point. the point is that the girl was not murdered but given to the temple of the Lord as a virgin to serve the Lord in the temple and in the temple she died naturally as all humans end up doing.

the point of my analogy was not just to get you to see that you are taking the Old Testament out of context, but also to show that the girl really was taken to the temple instead of being murdered.

and here you are talking about God ordering the murder, when that didn't even take place. also God didn't request the girl, the father of the girl made a vow, that is a lesson to be learned there. God has said numerous times be careful the vows you make, don't just make vows randomly as if they are nothing. But the man did, and not once did God speak, he didn't lay a command. It was the father that did the speaking, the father made the vow, and the father told his daughter that he cannot go against his vow, and the daughter willingly accepted, not God.

This story is a lesson to be learned. Don't make vows for the sake of making a vow.

Murder is a grey area, it is taking somebody's life, it is a serious issue

murder isn't really a grey area.

Let me give you an analogy, if say I was born in calabar when the killing of twins reigned supreme and my wife gave birth to a set of twins who were murdered, it does not make it any less wrong because it was the culture of the town. It is plain and simply wrong, whether or not we should blame them becomes another issue entirely that bears on this one because they were men who believed they were doing the will of the gods just as you believe moses and his goons were doing the will of God, it does not make the issue any less wrong.

First of all this is the wrong analogy. The murdering of twins is not the same as punishment under law. That is where the problem comes in. You think that those people were put to death for no reason, they were put to death for breaking the law of the land, for voluntarily breaking the law of the land. if this is the case then the death penalty for a man who rapes and kills a 6 yr old girl is also considered murder (the church fights against the death penalty although so that all may be given the chance to repent). Giving birth is involuntary, it was the belief that the evil one is trying to come into the world through the birth of children. It is a superstitous belief. However, being pounished for breaking the law isn't superstitous belief.
The law of the land at that time was that crime basically is punishable by death, it was barbaric. That was the law. not just the law of God, but the law of the land. So whatever Moses said went, especially since he was the friend of God. God didn't come up with the punishment, the men of the land did, God just let them know what they were to be punished for. When someone breaks the rule, the men came up with the punishment.
It's like this, the government makes a rule and says that you will be punished for it, the judge comes up with the punishment. God is the government, Moses is the judge.
The government said thou shall not steal, kill, blah blah blah, the judge says oh you've stolen, killed, blah blah blah here is your punishment.

So these same things are still punishable today, it's just that the punishment today is different than then. You still get punished for murder, and steal, blah blah blah. But you just don't get punihsed the same way.

Welcome to nairaland, please can you tell me what jephtah was supposed to do to the first thing that comes out of his house?

he was to make a sacrifice to God. don't make the mistake of thinking that a scarifice must include blood, because my mother makes a sacrifice everyday for her children and she hasn't shed any blood.
sacrifice is giving something up. plain and simple and it comes in different ways. jephtah sacrificed his bloodline when he gave his daughter to God. You know very well that that is the pride of men. That is why men want sons to carry on their name and legacy, back then women could do the same.
his sacrifice wasn't to cut his daughter's throat.

that is so a catholic and prostant way of think inf it is foolish. Christianity is just a universal form of judaism that why we must leran about the wriitens in the OT. Without the OT the the relgion is incomplete. Before the NT canon was produce what did u think the early christains read

I'm sorry but it is not a catholic way of thinking. I am catholic look above yours and see my post, thank you. Catholic Church does not put the old testament aside. I said something about the old is the new concealed and the new is the old revealed, that is a saying from the Catholic Church. So please know before you speak. Thanks.

The Catholics claim Simon Peter was the first Pope. Granted! How come he had a mother-in-law, and then the Catholics say priests are not to be married. (Mark 1: 29-31)

um hello he was married before he met Christ. What did he do after meeting Christ?

Matthew 19: 27-

27 Then[b] Peter [/b] answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? 28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. 30 And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.

I was looking up a lot of research on Catholicism and back in the old days. Centuries ago a Catholic priest was encouraged to marry. They said to be a leader of a church you should have to receive all the sacraments which is including Marriage

Actually this is half true. There were those who were married but they were married before entering the Priesthood, fights broke out and all as to who would succeed a priest from his family as was done by the Isrealites in the Old Testament. It came to clarification how the Priesthood was going to be. But, the celibacy thing had always been in effect, the apostles were also celibate. For the work that they did it was impossible for them to not have been celibate. They traveled everywhere and their mode of transportation was not as advanced as ours so it took them weeks even months to travel, that is months without wife and children, and then they were being thrown in jail like no man's business, their wives and children were not with them. So the practice of celibacy has always been there and it was there for those who were not already married.

Be careful where you get your information concerning the Church, I have found some websites that do not hold true to actual church teaching or history. When searching make sure it is a credible site. The vatican site is the most credible site. To be safe, check there or with your priest.

@ all

I will give you my own personal experience with it. Maybe you will better understand this issue.

It is not a matter of being allowed to marry but a matter of the person wanting to marry. In the Catholic faith there are vocations, as in calls in life. There are people that are called to marriage and those that are called to celibacy, after all Christ did speak of those who are celibate for the kingdom of heaven saying whoever can bear it should bear it, he also asked that his apostles (everyone really) should give up everything for the kingdom of God, and the apostles did talk about leaving their families and following Christ, meaning they left their parents, children, and wives to follow Christ, the apostles themselves were celibate. I see some people quoting St. Paul when infact St. Paul himself boasted of his celibacy for the kingdom of God and told us that those who are married are concerned for the things of the world, how to please their husbands and wives, and that those who are celibate (virgins) are concerned about the things of God, about how to please God. He encouraged them to be like him, but that if they cannot bear it they should marry, only if they cannot bear it. The fault doesn't lie with the Catholic Church, it lies with those religious who cannot hold it but chose to become Priests. It lies with those who after knowing the vows that they made allowed the devil to get into their heads. See 1 Cor 7.

I said I will put my own experience into it. For about a year I was discerning on becoming a religious (sister or nun, yup there's a difference btwn those two). I wanted to give up everything for the kingdom of God, if I had done it I would most likely have been a cloistered nun (those who live a monastic life). But something that I had always dreamed of all my life is being a mother, and holding my own children in my arms. I prayed for one year and I wanted to know why I had this yearning for religious life. One thing I had to think of was whether I could sustain being celibate for the rest of my life. Quite frankly I know I can do it, and it can very much be done with God's help. But I realised that I did want that union with a man, and I do want to have a blood family, and that's why I chose not to enter the convent.

It is not by force that one does it, actually the convents or religious life is the place for those people who wish to leave everything for the Kingdom of God.
Joining the priesthood is not by force and it literally takes 10 years. So these people are celibate for 10 years and they have 10 years to decide to stay or leave, and even after 10 years they have the option to leave instead of taking their last vows and becoming married to God. For women it takes about 3 to 5 years to make up your mind. There is room for one to leave, there is room for one to know whether he or she can take this upon herself.

The celibacy in the Catholic Church is a choice thing. No one is forced to take that vow, but those who wish to take that vow must adhere to the rule. It leaves room for them to not be concerned for the things of this world. If you all worked with a priest before you will know just how demanding the job is. With what they have to do,, they don't have time to be concerned about their wife and children.
This rule leaves room for them to truly be concerned for the Kingdom of God.

Now there are some who are married, they were mariried before taking their vow. These are usually former pastors who convert to Catholicism, especially after reading the faith of the early christians (fathers). They are not allowed to remarry if their wife dies.

The issue always remains that if they were allowed to marry then they wouldn't be committing these crimes, when in reality that isn't so, and statistically that isn't so.
There are plenty of married pastors who cannot maintain with their wives. There are plenty of married men who cannot maintain with their wives. Child molestation or abuse usually occurs within the family, I know people make it seem like it's the priests that are the ones doing the molestation, when infact making priests marry isn't going to reduce child molestation as the perpetrators are usually related to the family. Now this is not an excuse, and such acts whether from a priest or family member should be condemned by all not just the Church.

The issue of well because of all the molestation men don't want to become priests anymore, well that is untrue. The problem is that Catholics are having less children (lol) and that the religious life isn't as austere as it used to be. Back in the day the norm was a child leaves home and enters the religious life or priesthood, now there are no children left . I know a lot of men who wish to enter the priesthood to redeem its image, I commend them for it really. The priesthood is a wonderful vocation and they sacrifice so much.

auwal87:
Poverty, Illiteracy, Corruption are the main causes of Problems in Nigeria

Thank you, I don't know what he means by that crap. People are always trying to cause a division and be the instiller of hatred.

This is a typical christian way of practisng insertionism when you begin to insert words or phrases that werent in the original verse! Where did the passage state that she would be given up as a temple virgin? Mind you i would paste the verse again and point out your obvious errancy

that is why you need to know the culture of that time. the old testament weren't written as an instruction book for us, they weren't even written as an instruction book for them. it is a collection of their history. and while ebing written it is written in the assumption that it is for the jews and the jewish culture. the author is not going to give a side note as : she really won't die she'll just be given as a temple virgin. the author did not write it in assumption that we would one day pick it up and read. it is written to a people that know their cultrue. a jew at that time reading it wouldn't come to the same conclusion that you did. he would understand how it is the girl would die a virgin, he would understand that the girl would be given to the temple of God.

Just like if I were to stand in front of an american and tell her my mother beat me, which i did, here's the story.

One night I was up really late watching T.V. and my mother caught me. SHe decided to teach me a lesson and beat me. I went to school the next day and was in gym class and my classmates saw a mark on me while I was changing. They asked me what happened and I told them my mother beat me (I just got to the U.S. and didn't know anything about their culture and law on beating children). Thet immediately reported it to the guidance counselor who then contacted child protection services. They wanted to take me away from my mother. Point of the story, in america they assume if you beat your child you are trying to harm her or possibly kill her. In Nigeria it is the right thing to do as this is seen as a way of correcting the child.
In order for my classmates to understand what I meant, they had to understand the culture. You as a Nigerian automatically knew that when I spoke of my mother beating me, I didn't mean it in the sense of her trying to kill or cause harm to me. You know this because you know the culture, so you automatically know what I mean. I don't have to start explaining it to you with side notes. But I will have to explain it to an american with side notes.

It is the same thing with the old testament, the reader assumes it will be read by Jews and especially those living at that time. So to him he doesn't have to have a side note explaining the jewish culture.

I don't know why christians take it upon themselves to defend Judaism(old testament) when our faith was revealed to us in the new testament. Even Jesus christ himself discredited prophets that came before him.

bcus if we don't listen to the old testament the new testament will be untrue. the old is the new concealed and the new is the old revealed. Jesus Christ did no such thing. He did not discredit Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, and more. He spoke of those "prophets" who have turned to gods themselves, who no longer listened to God. REMEMBER the Jews weren't always faithful to God, the Old testament should very much be paid attention to by Christians, it gives us a graphic picture of God's wrath.

A careful observer will note and learn from the conversation between the rich man and Abraham here.


1.  That Hell is a place of everlasting torment.
2.  That there is no purgatory where sinners can suffer awhile, atone for their sins and then be transfered to heaven.
3.  That there is no transmigration where a soul passes from one body to another.
4.  That the usual means of passing the gospel to sinners for conversion is by the saints on earth. (Lk.16:29-31; Acts.10:1-6,34-44). 
5.  That unless sinners, whether rich or poor, healthy or sick, repent they shall all likewise perish. (Lk.13:3).

well then according to your interpretation, the Bible is contradicting itself. Your interpretation of the other verse proves purgatory because those whose works were burnt up during judgement were still saved, and since they were saved after judgement they were already dead.
But now your interpretation of this shows that there is no purgatory? please choose a side and stand.

the verse you quoted doesn't even speak against purgatory, the parable was there to show that those who do only evil works and do not believe will not make it to heaven. the verse only shows that no one can be saved in hell, which supports the concept of purgatory in that those souls who were saved after judgement were not in hell, as no one can be saved from hell and those in heaven do not need any saving.

the former passage speaks of having good works and bad works, but because he or she still has bad works they have to suffer (yet only as through fire) for the bad works that were burnt up. if that verse isn't speaking on purgatory where are they then. if one cannot be saved in hell and that verse shows that they are saved still after judgement, then where are they? they can't be heaven because those in heaven don't need saving, so where are they?

sorry. how long will he be gone and how old is he?
i am wondering if they put minors (if he's one) in jail and for how long considering the offense.

They already took him out of jail, but he can't come back to the house I work in. They asked me if I want him to do community service or probation, I told them probation, community service he won't do anything but sit in an office bcus he's a minor. They took him to a "kiddie jail" after the jail cell. SO now he has to do everything for himself and defend himself, yup they can beat him (that's where i need to work)

Carlosein:
great morning everyone.

how was your break?

morning Carl.

Oby1:
Most of the kids over there are something else, very stubborn.
You dey try o, how do u manage with them (well i know is never by your own strength, because with your strength you can never handle them), well i know there are good ones anyway.

Sure all the kids all over the world needs our prayer with the high rate of decadence all over the world.

Yup very stubborn, I can't imagine a kid calling the government on their parents. If my kids ever try that they will tell me who gave birth to them, me or the government?

There are good ones, the ones left are better than they were because the other kid was the instigator of all problems. He would tell his cousins to go fight someone.

I really couldn't handle it anymore with him, he cursed me out too many times, and tried to fight me a lot. The things he did, I never imgained anyone could do. He's 12 and was already masturbating and leaving it in the bathroom, we walked in on him several times and that made me very uncomfortable. He would get up in the middle of the night and urinate on his cousin's clothes and on his cousin while he's sleeping. The kid needed to go.

Hence I don't even bother to argue with a guy who tries to "help" me to regain my roots because he and I know he is doing it so he can maintain his status

What makes you think african women hate their culture. I love my culture, and would defend it from the westerners. I have never seen a culture that values women more. What we think may be right for us may not be so.
The american women wanted their liberation and in with that came deadbeat dads and STDs off the ying yang. Stay there thinking that american women or westerners have it better. There is a reason their women are fighting us for our men.

what happened with your kids and JAIL!!!

one of them attempted to beat me up. he put his hands on me and so i pressed charges. it broke my heart to do it, but it's the rule. i called my supervisor and my director and they said call the sherriff's office and tell them you're pressing charges. so he's gone. i think about all the things he has said to me (f*** u b****es) and the times he has tried to get me fired, and what he has done to other kids (if this boy isn't already a sociopath, he is on his way to becoming one) so that made it easier for me.

please pray for him.

the other kids are quiet now that he's gone.

it's either you and me or the thread is really no longer sticky

here is another sample of seun's magic

for immaculate conception, i could not attend mass for some reasons beyond my control.

but i tried to make with prayers to our Lady and especially the rosary.

A_K_O, mukina2 what's happening?

oh glad to know it's not just me. i want to know what's happening too.
well i am glad u didn't just brush Our Lady off to the side, some people would have done that.

lady, you and david

i see something in your futures together

lol, and what is it that thous sees?

me thinks, I might be his sponsor into the catholic church, his baptism and confirmation may be on its way.

lolololol@ may kelly

You already have your answer, that if such a place exists there isn't scripture that teaches it outright, and not enough to prop it up so it doesn't fall. Biblical verses generally don't imply. They speak. A verse talks about 'testing a man's work by fire', a verse that could easily mean any number of things,and you hinge something as doctrinally detailed a teaching as purgatory on that.

Purgatory isn't for sinners then,it's for Christians who are in a state of ungrace when they die, and are unfit to enter heaven immediately. So men intecede for them, and their ungrace gradually diminishes until they're fit to enter heaven. Perhaps it's there and perhaps it's not. The quoted bible verses obviously hasn't convinced anyone purgatory exists excepr those who already believe in the existence of the place

Well then according to your reasoning the Trinity must not exist, the scriptures doesn't outright tell you. It only implies it. Besides Olaadegbu gave the same interpretation that the Catholic Church has given for 2000 years. It only shows that he believed in it, but just didn't know it.

davidylan:
Are you having an enema or something? You're forever bitter.
Stop chewing bitterleaf . . .

LOLOLOLOL, CHEI IF ONLY I CAN EASILY FIND BITTERLEAF (FRESH) IN THE U.S. I FOR DON MAKE SOUP FINISH.

liberate from who?

liberate u from urself?

since when is southern naija in bondage?

ppl who are unproductive should keep quiet.

DavidDylan:
i asked a simple question, you went around foaming in the mouth, writing unrelated stuff about "keys" or "kingdoms" and then veered to talking about hate . . . then hypocritically ended your tirade with the word "peace".

Are you mentally ok?

Oh I am mentally fine, I just stopped your madness in its tracks.

there were african popes early in the catholic church. of course it's now an european only club

It is not an european only club, the last time a Pope was decided Cardinal Arinze was seriously being considered, we really thought he was going to be Pope, and it's not because he's black or African, but because the man is brilliant and truly inspired by God, truly a servant of God. But it was not meant for him to be the Pope and quite frankly, I love Pope Benedict XVI, this is the man we need today with the challenges the Church is facing. I like that he is very traditional and is setting things straight in the Church. Some of our practices are becoming "watered down" all in the name of moving with the times. But truth be told people are attracted to mysticism. What's the challenge in knowing everything?

I love Pope Benedict XVI

Is it me or is our thread no longer sticky?

Yes o it's the immaculate conception o, make una go mass. Una get holiday sef. You know that this day is a holiday for us too, so make sure you treat it as the sabbath.

Omenuko:
@OLAADEGBU

Lol. . . .and they say we Catholics are in the business of making up doctrine.  No where in that passage does it talk about rapture (huh), judgment in heaven, or the second advent.  Lets look at verse 15

1 Corinthians 3: 15
It says: the person will suffer loss and will be saved (the operative word here is will, not is or has been saved) . . . .Note also, it doesn't say that the person is in heaven, or between the rapture (what ever that is) and the second advent.  You are right in regards to the final place of where the person will be (heaven), but before he enters heaven he will suffer loss.  You read too much into the passage by entering such things as rapture (?), second advent, and such.

you see how it turns out to be that his interpretation is the Church's interpretation?
People don't realise that purgatory is their belief also. If they realise what purgatory is, they will see that they've been fighting themselves.

The difference between a catholic and a non-catholic?
The Catholic believes in sacred tradition and knows it, the non-catholic believes in sacred tradition and doesn't know it.

Is that some sort of joke? Let me give you some figures: Of 250 members of the Royal Society polled, only 3% professed a belief in Christianity. In the National Academy of Sciences (the US version of the RS) 7% professed a belief. Out of the hundreds of winners of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, only 2 were found to be religious Christians. A study found that "among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from". A "way longer list" of devout Christians? You have no idea what you are talking about

so those who do not hold beliefs are the intellectuals?

i always wonder how it is that men of intellect are not able to understand mere fishermen writings.

Carlosein:
can u imagine i dey work right now?

thank God sha. my people i hail o.

eya sorry.
why r u there anyway?

if i tell u wetin happen for my work last night, u no go believe me. i just feel sorry for all these kids that i work with, except the one that went to jail last night.

@lady
I am saying the concept of God and an afterlife is all about beliefs nothing more or less, there is no way to support those claims with credible evidence beyond doubt.

ok one more time r u trying to fight with me for agreeing with you?

as for evidence the ones documented are enough for anyone, it is up to you to choose to believe. if for you the experiences of others are sufficient, then great, if not then sorry. you will have to find out on your own.
religion is not an experiment, spirituality isn't physical. you want physical evidence or evidence that can be calculated with human reasoning and definitions.
well that is not in religion. so if you can only believe from physical evidence then so be it. the evidence i have are the physical evidence of others and i believe them. i believed before my own experience. my experience did not cause me to believe, it definitely erased all doubts.

do u want to examine the experiences of others?

Below are 10 reasons why the spirits here is referring to angels

First of all do angels have salvation?

1. They sinned in the days of Noah (Gen.6:4)

I thought Noah was human, and that the people that died in the flood were human and not angels

1. They sinned in the days of Noah (Gen.6:4)
2. If these where human souls it would not specify only those who sinned in the days of Noah
3. Human beings are not called spirits in scripture but rather spirits of men, spirits of all flesh and spirits of the prophets (Heb.12:23; Num.16:22; 27:16; 1Cor.14:32; Ps.104:4; Heb.1:7,14)
4. There is a special prison for angels that sinned before the flood (2Pet.2:4; Jude 6-7)
5. The greek for preached is kerusso, meaning to proclaim as a public crier, or to announce something whether it be good or bad (2Cor.1:19). It is not the greek evangelizo, meaning glad tiding of salvation as it would be if salvation had been preached to human beings
6. The gospel is never preached to human beings after they die, and there would be no special message for only one generation of Noah's day or God would be a respecter of persons. Human beings are appointed to die and after this the judgment (Heb.9:27), not more preaching intended for their salvation
7. There is no special prisons for human beings who sinned in Noah's day and another prison for all other human beings who have sinned. All go sheol and hades until the judgment (Rev.20:11-15)
8. Christ made no announcement to human souls in hell that we know about. He did liberate the righteous souls (from Abel to Christ) taking them to heaven with Him when He ascended on high Eph.4:8. He left the angels in hell until the judgment (2Pet.2:4; Jude 6-7)
9. Christ Himself, not Enoch, Noah or some other man went to 'preach' to these spirits. This could only be while He went to hell (Ps.16:10; Acts.2:27)
10. Whoever the spirits are they were in prison when Christ preached to them (1Pet.3:19). [li][/li]

All these facts indicate that they were angels and not men.

"For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1Pet.4:6

The verse above means that in order to judge all men justly, the gospel has been given to all alike. Those who are now dead had the gospel preached to them while they were alive, just as those who are now alive are hearing the gospel. It was preached to Abraham Galatians 3:8 and to Israel (Heb.4:1-2). Even Abel, Enoch, Noah etc had the gospel (Heb.11). In cases where men have not had the law or the gospel, God will judge them on the basis of the light they have had and according to their living up to the conscience (Rom.2:12-16).

This again shows that there is no case for the doctrine of purgatory in Holy Scriptures and this only proves that it is a pagan ideology imbibed by the RCC.

Ok seriously, when Christ descended unto the dead, were they human or were they angels? Because that's what Peter is talking about here.
He is telling these people about Christ being put to the death in the flesh and then being brought to life in the spirit, when he was brought to life in the spirit he was descended, and he freed those who were in prison. So please once again when Christ descended did he go to the dead humans or the dead angels?

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

I will be starting from verse 11 so as to get the whole picture in context. And this verse bursts the RCC's bubble in that it shows that Christ Jesus, not Peter is the only foundation of the church upon which men must build (Eph.2:19-22). The works here are compared with these materials, some of which become more pure than others in the fire and others are completely burnt up by fire. It shows that fire will try every man's works. If his is gold, silver and precious stones they will abide the fire and he will receive a reward for his works. But if they are wood, hay and stubble his works will be burnt up, yet he himself will be saved from loss of his soul. This is basically talking about the rewards and loss of believers' works, otherwise called the judgment of works taking place in heaven between the Rapture and the second advent and the result would be either a reward or a loss of their works but not of the loss of their souls for any wrong doings that they have properly confessed and have been forgiven.

Wow, ok first of all, it doesn't put any burst in the RCC's bubble of Peter being the rock that Christ built his church. Christ has always been the foundation, but upon Peter he built it up. That verse went something like this . For thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church. There is only one word for rock in aramaic and that is Kepha, aramiac is the language of Christ.
Christ wouldn't name Simon (Kepha) and then tell him that his name meaning rock is irrelevant. So why was his name changed? Christ was just in the mood for changing names? Please.

But if they are wood, hay and stubble his works will be burnt up, yet he himself will be saved from loss of his soul

I believe this is purgatory.

I have always stated that people should know what they are standing against before they take that stand, they might just be standing against their own beliefs.

I am not even going to touch on the issue rapture as you yourself have already supported the doctrine of purgatory, and that's all I cared about.