RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Gwynvyd -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 12:19:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

No discussion like this on CM would be complete without a mention of
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

http://www.thesisters.org/


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd

I went to a fetish ball that had Latex nun and priests running around doing all sorts of hellacious things... I still get all warm and tingly when I think about it.

Gwyn,




That is just awesome... Good Gravy... I didnt know if I should save it to my Spiritual faves or my Gay Stuff faves.. damn.

*chuckles*

Thanks for the link.

Gwyn



Mercnbeth -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 6:57:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
From where I sit, "Once a Nazi, always a Nazi."

Okay fargle - are you consistent? Is "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim." also part of your lexicon? There is no Nazi equivalent in Islam. The colloquial usage would be 'Radical Muslim'. In a country such as Iran where their political and religious leaders speaks with the same hatred toward the west, and Israel as Hitler did of the Jews and other "inferior races"; should all people practicing Islam be labeled and considered similarly to your Nazi reference?

I don't believe this is so, however Islam is the modern day equivalent of the Church currently under discussion. Its members are kept in fear of any alternative view, its leaders have total power, and to defy them results in a death sentence. Even the penalties for 'sinning' resemble old school Catholicism; dismemberment, stoning, whipping, etc.
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
If leaving the church would ease the ills of the world, I would leave tomorrow. If every Catholic left the church tomorrow, the only result would be the loss of the many good things done by the church, while the ills of the church would remain, moved to another venue.

caitlyn,
That is predicting a conclusion that fits your theory. The opposite conclusion is just as reasonable an outcome. The ills of the church would disappear while the good works of individuals within the church would be expanded without the encumbrance of hypocritical dogma.
quote:

 Original GoddessDustyGold:
And I truly would hate to consider the condition of the world if there was no basic moral rule.

GDG,
Exactly! Your statement is the crux of my personal issue with the Church. How can you represent morality when the leaders don't practice moral dogma? Professing goodness and virtue while at the same time focusing on money and accumulating wealth within the organization points to the hypocrisy of which I speak.

The issues regarding the sexual conduct of its priests, moving them instead of RE-moving them, is the most obvious. The Church's policy and actions regarding the poor is also counter intuitive. Generating more children without being able to take care of the existing ones is never a good idea. Combating AIDS is developing nations but having dogma in place making the use of condoms a sin makes the words, and the attempt, hollow.

You know pragmatically everyone does really want the same thing. Each person should have the opportunity to achieve all that he can within his/her capability. How you treat your fellow man should be how you want to be treated. People CAN do that. Following religious dogma - not just Catholic religious dogma, ALL organized religious dogma; make that impossible.

Its not religion that I condemn its the industry of religion that humanity can no longer afford to practice.

Thanks GDG and Gwyn for your thoughts concerning beth. Today we return to the Doc to remove the stitches and see where we go from here. We hope she'll be back and walking in her high heel thigh high boots by the time Folsom rolls around.



wankerforuse -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 7:00:09 AM)

I personally think that the current pope is a discrace.



thompsonx -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 7:58:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen1968

I believe in hell and I don't consider myself simplistic.

Aileen:
That is sooooo kewel...now I know I will have the company of a totally hawt kinkster babe for all eternity.[;)]
thompson








Mercnbeth -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 10:36:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen1968

I believe in hell and I don't consider myself simplistic.

Aileen:
That is sooooo kewel...now I know I will have the company of a totally hawt kinkster babe for all eternity.[;)]
thompson

Thompsonx,
You provide an interesting situation.
Your vision of 'heaven' may be Aileen's vision of 'hell' - [8|] Just saying...



RealityLicks -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 10:50:12 AM)

General point -

There was a reference to the Catholic church's issues over paedophilia made together with the release of these cnew "sins" but I can't find it right now - so you'll all just have to take my word for it! Something about "highlighting the churches' fragility and failings".

I can understand the "recovering" Catholics having a go at them but not all the other folks.  I can't imagine that with another church or faith.  I think its unfair.  They've been heavily lobbied on issues like the environment - like all religious leaders but when they make a pronouncement on it - they get slated!  The Southern Baptists said more or less the same today; where's the outcry there?

Just my take on it...



mhawk -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 1:06:45 PM)

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww shit..................just when i had my corner in hell decorated now i have to go and decorate again..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  maybe that stockade my Owner made me will be a fitting piece...........



popeye1250 -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 1:15:46 PM)

Hey, how about the Pope makes' "anonymous posting" and "internet bullying" sins too?
He'd be real popular in Kentucky.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 1:21:22 PM)

quote:

The Southern Baptists said more or less the same today; where's the outcry there?

RL -
In case this point wasn't clear...

"...pragmatically everyone does really want the same thing. Each person should have the opportunity to achieve all that he can within his/her capability. How you treat your fellow man should be how you want to be treated. People CAN do that. Following religious dogma - not just Catholic religious dogma, ALL organized religious dogma; make that impossible."

...let me crystallize my sentiments. It is the generic industry of religion that needs elimination. There may be 100 different brands of toilet paper, but when people use it the difference between Scott and Charmin is negligible.



kittinSol -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 1:22:23 PM)

A survey shows that while 83% of  catholics believe in hell, only 0.4% of them think they've been bad enough to spend the rest of eternity down in the freezer.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20815_1.html



popeye1250 -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 2:22:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

A survey shows that while 83% of  catholics believe in hell, only 0.4% of them think they've been bad enough to spend the rest of eternity down in the freezer.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20815_1.html


One thing for sure, no-one knows what "happens" after we die.
Where were we before we were born?
I just don't think we'll be "worshiping saints" after we die.
Zero percent of Jews believe in hell.
So who knows?



farglebargle -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 3:13:05 PM)

quote:


Okay fargle - are you consistent?


Yes.

quote:


Is "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim." also part of your lexicon?


Well, if you're asking if I *agree* with the sentiment? No.

quote:


There is no Nazi equivalent in Islam.


That's because one is a POLITICAL PARTY and the other is a RELIGION. They're not exclusive in any way...

Excepting maybe the hardcore Nazis might object-of-face to the Muslims, but that's another issue.

To try to compare them is pointless. Now, If you were to ask, "Do you hate Muslim-Nazis and/or Nazi-Muslims?"

Yes, I would hate Muslim-Nazis and/or Nazi-Muslims.

...
quote:

should all people practicing Islam be labeled and considered similarly to your Nazi reference?


I wouldn't, but I'm sure some would.




caitlyn -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 3:21:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
If leaving the church would ease the ills of the world, I would leave tomorrow. If every Catholic left the church tomorrow, the only result would be the loss of the many good things done by the church, while the ills of the church would remain, moved to another venue.

caitlyn,
That is predicting a conclusion that fits your theory. The opposite conclusion is just as reasonable an outcome. The ills of the church would disappear while the good works of individuals within the church would be expanded without the encumbrance of hypocritical dogma. 

I would agree with your reasonable outcome, and even call it probable, but would like to point out that I never said that good things would be lost ... only that good things done by the Church would be lost ... as there would no longer be a church.
 
This may seem like a play on words, but would be a play based on the notion that the Church does in fact currently exist, so there is very little, "probably" in her good acts, while your possible outcome is generally probable, but by no means sure.
 
It could also be that the mantle of these good acts could be taken up by those even less palletable than the current Catholic church.



farglebargle -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 3:21:59 PM)

quote:

Only not joinging the Hitler Youth would get not only you, but your whole family killed.


Being Jewish, the surviving members of my family were worried about other things at the time than *Do I not join the Fucking-Hitler-Youth?"

And Believe me, I'm watching the Loyal Bushies *very* carefully, and our family is ready to bail if he starts rolling out the surveillance technology used to bust Spitzer for Greenberg, and if it looks like more people are disappearing than what I think of as the Nixon-Ratio, we're-the-fuck-out-of-here....




Mercnbeth -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 3:41:26 PM)

quote:

That's because one is a POLITICAL PARTY and the other is a RELIGION. They're not exclusive in any way...
In the context of the State of Germany 1941 and the State of Iran 2008; can you point to a clear distinction? Using the example provided by Pope Ben; how would a 14 year old boy who renounced Islam and said he wanted to convert to Catholicism be treated in Iran?

As a reference here is how its addressed by Muslim Prophet Muhammad: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Sahih Bukhari, 9:84:57).

quote:

To try to compare them is pointless. Now, If you were to ask, "Do you hate Muslim-Nazis and/or Nazi-Muslims?"

Yes, I would hate Muslim-Nazis and/or Nazi-Muslims.
You'll need to differentiate the terms for me. But to this point; there were German's who weren't 'Nazis'. Is there a Muslim who doesn't practice Islam and therefor subject to the above statement of law provided by its Prophet?

I'll stipulate that Pope Ben at 14 had a similar decision to make as my modern day 'what-if' Iranian boy. Ben chose life as a Hitler youth, I propose that many 14 year old boys in Iran choose under similar conditions. Therein lies the consistency I see in both the Nazi "political party" and the "religion" of Islam. If the end result is no different the political/religious distinction is immaterial. It made no difference to the 14 year old boy in 1941 nor would it to the 14 year old boy in Iran today. 



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 4:53:16 PM)

General reply: having read probably 2/3rds of the post so someone may have already stated this.

Aren't all massive organization more "evil" than "good". Why should the Catholic church be any different. It's based around diffusion of individual responsibility, the more people that might do the right thing, the less likely the individual is to do the right thing. It's a documented psychological fact. Groups make for less moral people as a general rule, and the larger the group/organization the more likely immoral acts will take place within that group/organization, and less good potential.

It's the organization itself, and the larger the organization the more of a chance that one will rely on another person, or branch, or division, or region, to correct the wrong. The end result is it requires a person of superb character to do the right thing in such situations and most likely it will not be rewarded if it cost the organization time,money, or prestige. Though it is still correct for them to do so.

Thus, it is not religion that is evil but the largeness thereof that promotes evil.

Smaller organization wherever possible will be less apt to bad behaviour. They may still do bad things, but it is less likely because the diffusion of responsibility is less and also the potential for blame is greater(same thing really).

This is why I'm against big government, and for moving anything that could be practically managed at a lower level, to the lowest level possible. I've seen only a few exceptions to this rule, and not firsthand, and those companies presidents or founders, where the exceptions not the rule. I'm also against Big religion, and Massive international Corps. By that I mean I try not to support them, via my actions, but people may select to partake in them if they like. I can't imagine why when there are in 90% of the circumstance an alternative that is less destructive.




farglebargle -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 5:03:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

That's because one is a POLITICAL PARTY and the other is a RELIGION. They're not exclusive in any way...


In the context of the State of Germany 1941 and the State of Iran 2008; can you point to a clear distinction?


Well, there are MUSLIMS in the State or Iran, and it is an "Islamic State". I don't think Germany was a Religious State. Wasn't Hitler into all that weird Hollow Earth bullshit?

I live somewhere where the separation of Church and State is fundamental, so I don't worry about fundamentalists getting HONEST control. But as we've seen from the Department of Justice spies, Religious Fundamentalist Crazies are everywhere.

quote:


Using the example provided by Pope Ben; how would a 14 year old boy who renounced Islam and said he wanted to convert to Catholicism be treated in Iran?


Pope Ben *could have* conducted Guerrilla Warfare against the Nazis. He was a pussy, who didn't stand up for Freedom and Liberty when it was important.

It's a sad statement when a piece of shit like that gets rewarded because of some back-room dealings and becomes some sort of Moral Authority. But there we are.

Try to enjoy the show!

You know, he could vote with his fucking feet and moves out. If he's lucky, he gets out with what he wants to ship, rather than only what he can carry...

quote:


You'll need to differentiate the terms for me. But to this point; there were German's who weren't 'Nazis'.


By Definition: Membership in the Hitler Youth makes you a Nazi. You wear the fucking flag, and your membership isn't cover for your resistance cell blowing up bridges in the middle of the night, you're a Nazi.

Some things you can't gain absolution for. Being a Nazi is one of them.

So, how does it feel for Catholics to have to kow-tow to someone damned to Hell, forever?



thompsonx -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 5:04:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen1968

I believe in hell and I don't consider myself simplistic.

Aileen:
That is sooooo kewel...now I know I will have the company of a totally hawt kinkster babe for all eternity.[;)]
thompson

Thompsonx,
You provide an interesting situation.
Your vision of 'heaven' may be Aileen's vision of 'hell' - [8|] Just saying...

Mercnbeth:
Being an atheist I don't believe in god,heaven or hell.  In the off chance I am wrong I would most likely wind up in hell in which case I would be comforted by the presence of a "hawt babe" like Aileen whom I could perve for all eternity.[:D]
thompson



Mercnbeth -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 5:34:25 PM)

Well fargle, it would have been nice to see you answer the question posed about the comparison of Pope Ben with a boy in modern day Iran, but in truth, your lack of a response was a response. You just don't like Catholics in general or Pope Ben in particular.

I have a disgust for the religious industry, be it Muslim or Catholic; but I can defer to personal interaction with the individuals and can try to reason through individual past actions with consideration to age and indoctrination. The Pope is just trying to generate profit for his business with these rules. Yeah, he could have run, joined the underground, and/or taken many other options including the ideal Catholic way to go out - martyrdom. Because there is no difference currently in modern day Iran, as a group, their similarity to your hated Nazis is obvious.

Take care!



pupofMoGa -> RE: Pope - "New 'sins'; more ways to go to hell!" (3/11/2008 6:14:02 PM)

In my beliefs, these just seem like an attempt to suppress the scientific and technological advancements that could provide for a better life for all humanity. I mean come on, polluting the environment! Since humans have been developing cities, we have been dumping our waste and waste water DIRECTLY INTO rivers and streams AKA: Pollution. So if this is true, practicaly everyone in the past has sinned. But all sins are forgivable, even matter if a priest goes nuts, sexualy assults 50 children and then murders them. Upon his deathbed if he repents his sins and accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, then he would be forgiven. In case anyone wants to challenge this, this passage comes from www.justchristians.com:

But what do God’s people do when they sin (and they will). Is it necessary to be baptized again and again? No, the Bible tells us that God’s children may repent of that sin, confess that sin and prayerfully ask forgiveness. Upon so doing, God will forgive that sin:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” 1 John 1:9
So, no matter what a person does, as long as they confess thier sin and pray for forgiveness, they will be forgiven. If Hitler confessed his sins and prayed for foregiveness, he is in heaven right now with God. I do not understand how this system can work because there is essentialy no punishment for sin. If anyone can answer how Christianity can punish sins and sentance people to hell without them getting off by confession, they deserve $1,000,000 . But wait, if someone answers, that would be a sin. I guess the world will never know.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875