again the vatican says why f owners are siners

The "general consensus relays the message"? So you rely on the opinions of others to form your own?

I'm quite certain there are a lot of things you have not read, but the topic of this thread is not the "Bridge Hands Digest". You understand the distinction, don't you? So your point here, although superficially adroit, is essentially worthless.

Further, instead of thinking for yourself, you rely on the "general consensus". The irony is priceless because the alleged inability of Catholics to think for themselves is what you seem to find objectionable, e.g. "the cult" that you "escaped".

You wrote earlier about "babble", clearly you delve in it as evidenced above! By the way, you seem to be a slighly bound up in, and hung up on, your own "consternation" with the story. Do you find that amusing, or upon honest reflection, hypocritical?

 

Isn't gambling a sin????

Anyways...I have never met anyone who believes he/she is going to hell when they die. Everyone seems to have some sort of justification for how they act. In the end everyone, even serial killers, believe they are good people.

I do believe in some sort of power in the universe but as far as religion goes it appears to me religion was put in place for the rich to suppress the poor.

 

Ah, so true in most cases, and thus those who justify what they do have not actually read the Bible. While a real Christian believes he is going to heaven, he also believes that it has nothing to do with anything he has accomplished.

I cannot live a perfect life, it is simply not possible. Therefore, as God demands perfection, I will always fall short and in the end deserve hell. It is only through God's own work, freely given to me, that I may attain Heaven, if I accept His gift. If I do accept His gift though, you will see that I am a Christian because I will try to live a good and just life. Further, you will see that I try to accept my culpability in my faults. That is, when I do wrong, I will accept that I have done wrong, and not try to justify it. I will further accept the consequences of my actions. That is, if I were a serial killer, and I did become a Christian, I would accept that society must punish me for my actions, and freely accept those consequences. If I try to use my newfound "faith" as a reason to avoid my punishment, then most likely I have no real faith at all.

The reason it is said that few will enter the narrow gate is because few are willing to give up themselves, and their selfishness. All I have is not mine. Not my house, my money, my job, nor my wife, all are God's and I am to be a good steward of those things. Now, of course, I am not even very good at being that good steward. Frequently I fall into the traps of pride, vanity, and selfishness. But, I know that those things are wrong, and though I may resist at first, it is my duty to accept that I have yet again done wrong and to make amends for that wrongdoing.

It does seem that way, doesn't it! Man will always corrupt anything he gets his hands on. We are all guilty of it, aren't we? Think about it. Stop sign? No cop, no stop! Speed limit? Well, I only speed by XX, and if I get caught, it's really the XXshole cop who was "singling me out" because of the car I drive. At our jobs? How many of us (collectively) will stab anyone in the back if we think it will advance our career? At the grocery, the checkout girl misses an item, and we quickly stash it in the bag before she notices, then blame it on her. "Her fault, she wasn't paying attention. I even watched a nicely dressed, grown man stand on the dropped dollar bill of a small child rather than give it back. We all do these things, if not the exact things I articulated, then something similar.

Oh, I think the lottery was put on earth to suppress the poor, and it does so much better than any church!

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

JC said as long as you repent the gates of heaven are open.
As mortals we all have origignal sin, thats why we baptize in the faith, and then have a continuation of going to confession.

Hell technically is for all the non believers .........my argument at the risk of repeating myself (Cause i know Brain Stad loves it)....is the church gets involved in issues that really it shouldnt...and at times makes a mockery of itself. This just one of those cases. I really dont want to get into a religion debate of what , where or whom.....but i strongly believe that if the world followed the 10 laws Moses set down it sure would be a far better place ot live on earth....its just too bad everyone has a private agenda

PS...i said i would bet....i didnt say i bet

PSS : Here you Brain C. Strad : "We're guessing the pope had the "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road" drawn a day after one too many Vespas cut off his Popemobile in traffic."

 

See that is the quagmire right there...non believers in what? Who's right? does a Catholic go to hell because the Christian is the "right religion" There are so many choices it would be very difficult to pick the right one.

 

Thats why the vatican invited in 3 different sundays this year ,3 different Ferrari clubs into the Vatican square filling it up with Ferraris.It was also on the News twice!

I think if someone buys a Ferrari to make others envious ,is a b*llshi* remark.It means that they do not know anything about Ferrari Ownership.
Who spent $$$$$$$$$$$ to make someonelse envy,come on!!!!!!
If someone is envy about a Ferrari they must be poor minded and wasting their time,and should be doing something more in life to own one if intrested in Ferrari Ownership.
A Ferrari is an extra,Just look at all the skyscrapers ,Jets,Yatchs ,Villas ... Their everywhere and cost far more than a Ferrari.

 

This is why we have to wait and die to see who is right

Thats why its called FAITH

 

LOL big time

 

the vatican sure has come a long way since pope john paul II blessed the ferrari factory and race cars before the season starts......

 

This pope blessed already more than 300 Ferraris parked in The Vatican Square this year on 3 occasions ,and remember a 4th occassion end of last year

 

look at member ffg profile picture

Good old days!

 

Actually, hell is technically for satan and his minions. Mankind was created to live a perfect life but fell in the garden.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

Non-believer would be a misnomer. The unforgivable sin is the constant denying of the truth, even when you are sure of the truth.

The only definite way to heaven is through a belief in the atoning works of Christ. If you KNOW this to be true, and deny it anyway so as to better your position on earth; or if you KNOW it to be true and use the knowledge to rake in millions from people for your own personal gain, then there is a very real risk of hell.

What God's plan is for those who never really KNOW his truth, though they may search, I cannot say as He has not revealed it to man. I will say that, as far as I understand it, that person is also a risk for hell, though God may have another plan for these people that He has not revealed. I also cannot say who might be going to hell as it is not mine nor anyone else’s place to judge. Only God can judge.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

If anything, I use the opinions and hysteria, within context, of others to gauge relevance of something to myself, and whether I want to spend time, or even thought on the issue. There may be great excitement about Britney's latest, but it's easy enough to determine, by just scanning the vaunted opinions of collected idiots, that it's a waste of.....well, everything.
As for the alleged inability of catholics to think for themselves, you've just illustrated my point of "interpretation", while negating your argument that I choose to let others think for me - if so, I would simply accept that your opinion is now mine. Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, are certainly capable of thinking for themselves. It's the ability to rationalize any illusion, contradiction, or excuse that's selectively promoted by those who have the most to lose and gain by a devoted populace - in the case of catholics, that would be the pope/Vatican. For some reason, questioning anything handed down from someone who claims all manner of privilege with the similarly claimed ultimate being, is highly discouraged, apparently unable to withstand objective scrutiny. People chose to follow this rule blindly because the rule itself says so, as demanded by the ruler, who points back to the rule, because the rule.....(there's that silly circle again).
That's the cult I escaped.
Now do you see the parallels to Brian's "You've repeated that several times now in this thread... each time as if it is fact. Could you please cite your evidence?........"

I'm guessing that you've missed the inference that babble = bible. My interpretation, easily caught in the absence of religious blinders. This is rapidly devolving into a religious debate between those who believe that faith shouldn't be questioned under any circumstance (I can see the altar boys running for cover already, belting-on that extra set of pants), and those of us who recognized certain things for what they are.
BTW - that "original" work, handed down directly to the epistles and often self-contradicting, is a plagiarised version of several other, predating, religious parables, which were themselves subject to interpretation (there's that word again), and sourced from everything from Greek mythology to Hinduism and Buddhism, many of the basic precepts taken directly from its Bhagavad Gita, some parts of the Torah just about step-by-step, concept-for-concept. Just never question the origin of the collection of stories put together several centuries (O.K., about 12-15 centuries) later...... It's all great reading if you enjoy history, just with less of an agenda.
But I digress....

I have no "consternation with the story", as it has all the weight and far-reaching effects of the "Vatican's New Revelation - Declares Water Wet" prediction over everyone who's already made that discovery.
Your inital, and continuing, reaction to my post(s) mostly appears to be of the defensive-attack type against a perceived threat against your own belief, not my view of the overblown importance of a major headline about a religious regime's imagined direct attack on Ferrari owners. As an attorney, IIRC, I expected better than a personal attack, and if anything, understanding the absurdity of giving such validity to an interpretation of a story on a jugemental list of commandments handed down by the self-important cousin of the brother-in-law-of the chldhood friend of........hopefully you get my point.
And you've taken it way-y-y-y-y-y-y too seriously, considering the original post's subject, and my post's dismissive tone towards the significance of potentially being judged by a git in a tent-hat who enjoys a good power-trip himself, made even more special by denying any sense of non-approved (by guess who!!!!) enjoyment to all those who fall in line.
Some folks just need a little prod to look outside the cell.

 

Religion is merely a mental prison used to control and manipulate a populace.

 

All kind of good things come with being a sinner and driving a Ferrari is just one of them !!

 

A text book non sequitur although predictable given the source. The question is whether the document in question has any merit, not whether you like or dislike the person writing it. You admitted you have not read the document and instead you rely on the “vaunted opinion” of another kind of idiot, e.g. the “general consensus”.

You cleave to that particular idiot because, let’s face it, it fits within your preconceived, deep seeded, and bitter notions about the Pope.

Read what you wrote above and tell me whether this makes a wit of sense. With all due respect, I think you’re a little mixed up. Fact: you failed to read a document and you instead relied on the general consensus of others and, therefore, you failed to think for yourself. Ironically, that’s your beef with Catholics.

No, I picked up on the inference but applied it back to you. BTW, I’m not religious but I do take issue with those who are bold in their opinions and yet incapable or unwilling to back their opinions up with fact.

You speak of “objective scrutiny” but you fail yourself to pass that test. You speak of those who "rationalize" but obviously you have issues yourself in that regard.

Then why respond at all? You’ve gone to great lengths to explain -- in vain -- your uneducated position, as your word count alone proves. You claim I'm taking this "way too seriously", are you sure that does not apply to you?

 

While many churches these days seem to agree with you, real religion actually encourages you to think.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

Uneducated? There you go with the personal attacks again. Counseling might help.

I guess the excess verbiage comes from having too much exposure to too many contracts - sorry about that. If you don't get it, you don't get it. I have no particular grind against the catholics, just the zombie-state perpetuated by most religions.

I didn't take this seriously until someone placed me in his sights. Read my first post in this thread without the thin skin, and you'll be hard-pressed to apply the "serious" label, unless you really want to try. Again.

Oh, well.

 

The position you take is uneducated, by your own admission. No comment was proffered regarding your education, or lack of it. Understand?

BTW, the counseling comment hurts man, it cuts deep!

Look, I'm just happy you were able to escape the cult and live to tell about it!