Lol at 6. I guess only the Vatican can become very wealthy.
I'd rather kill myself than be Catholic. No wait I'd go go to hell and "live" an even worse life than if I was alive and abided by Catholic guidelines.
Last edited by jord (2008-03-10 13:13:58)
That's why religeon is retarded. Because people beleive what suits them. Not what is morally right. See Pat Robertson for obscenely wealthy, and he thinks he is a prophet (more like profit).G3|Genius wrote:
I don't think wealth itself is sinful. I think that it can lead to selfishness, greed, folly, aggression, and other sinful behavior.
I think we are entitled to what we honestly earn. I think what the Church is saying is, those who "have" have a moral obligation to help those who "have not" rather than squirreling it away for selfish reasons.
It's in the Bible...I'll look it up and edit my post.
[edit]Luke 12:15-21 wrote:
15
Then he said to the crowd, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions."
16
Then he told them a parable. "There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
17
He asked himself, 'What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?'
18
And he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods
19
and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!"
20
But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'
21
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God."
Revising the conditions for not reaching Heaven seems completely silly.
Right then, God. We have some new rules that you'll be bound by when it comes to Heaven and Hell, sound good? What's that? Yes, we remember why you sent Jesus. Sssssssh. Then we wouldn't be important, so we have to convince them they need us in order to confess their sin. Huh? Contradicts the Bible. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. *prints newspaper*
Right then, God. We have some new rules that you'll be bound by when it comes to Heaven and Hell, sound good? What's that? Yes, we remember why you sent Jesus. Sssssssh. Then we wouldn't be important, so we have to convince them they need us in order to confess their sin. Huh? Contradicts the Bible. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. *prints newspaper*
Cmon, someone claiming that they have been sent new guidlines by god is no ridiculous than when it was said to have happened to certain people hundreds of years agoStingray24 wrote:
Revising the conditions for not reaching Heaven seems completely silly.
Right then, God. We have some new rules that you'll be bound by when it comes to Heaven and Hell, sound good? What's that? Yes, we remember why you sent Jesus. Sssssssh. Then we wouldn't be important, so we have to convince them they need us in order to confess their sin. Huh? Contradicts the Bible. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. *prints newspaper*
In other words a new set of rules is no more ridiculous than a set of rules made hundreds of years ago
Really there is nothing different between the new rules and the old ones, just that because the old ones were juring "holy times" they're supposed to make more sense and be more believable?
I don't like religion, but at least these guys are trying to get into the modern world
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-10 13:27:55)
Yeah, QFT.Stingray24 wrote:
Revising the conditions for not reaching Heaven seems completely silly.
Right then, God. We have some new rules that you'll be bound by when it comes to Heaven and Hell, sound good? What's that? Yes, we remember why you sent Jesus. Sssssssh. Then we wouldn't be important, so we have to convince them they need us in order to confess their sin. Huh? Contradicts the Bible. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. *prints newspaper*
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2008-03-10 13:29:13)
If you research the authorship of the Bible you will find it to be quite consistent. The "new rules" continue the idea that there are sins that God is unable to forgive, which is false. The old and new "mortal sins" set by the Catholic Church were off base from the beginning. Either God can forgive all sin or He cannot. Anything in the middle is not logical.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Cmon, someone claiming that they have been sent new guidlines by god is no ridiculous than when it was said to have happened to certain people hundreds of years agoStingray24 wrote:
Revising the conditions for not reaching Heaven seems completely silly.
Right then, God. We have some new rules that you'll be bound by when it comes to Heaven and Hell, sound good? What's that? Yes, we remember why you sent Jesus. Sssssssh. Then we wouldn't be important, so we have to convince them they need us in order to confess their sin. Huh? Contradicts the Bible. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. *prints newspaper*
In other words a new set of rules is no more ridiculous than a set of rules made hundreds of years ago
Really there is nothing different between the new rules and the old ones, just that because the old ones were juring "holy times" they're supposed to make more sense and be more believable?
I don't like religion, but at least these guys are trying to get into the modern world
Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-03-10 13:41:20)
they can shove it up their asses for all I care.
Where is the "do not fiddle with little boys" sin?
Where is the "do not fiddle with little boys" sin?
Nothing about internet porn, I'm set.
Sweet! I'm going to go to my neighbor's house, shoot the husband, rape the hot college student, and steal the BMW.
I've been waiting for this for years!!!
I've been waiting for this for years!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … wvat31.xml
From the link in same post. I really think the Vatican is losing it. Name of book: "It's a sin not to do it".
I can't wait to use this on my wife (she's catholic, I'm not)...
...that headache must be from you realizing you're going to hell.
...before we start, you know it's a sin to fake it, right?
...honey, Jesus wants you to give me a blowjob.
From the link in same post. I really think the Vatican is losing it. Name of book: "It's a sin not to do it".
I can't wait to use this on my wife (she's catholic, I'm not)...
...that headache must be from you realizing you're going to hell.
...before we start, you know it's a sin to fake it, right?
...honey, Jesus wants you to give me a blowjob.
That's a check list for shit I got to do in my life.
I think its strange that the vatican, the richest thing in the world, holding billions of pounds worth of art and gold in its vaults are saying its a sin to be obscenely rich.
On a lighter note the bbc news report just said
other numbers
Poverty
further numbers.
It made me go, wait what? As ot didn't say causing poverty, just poverty.
On a lighter note the bbc news report just said
other numbers
Poverty
further numbers.
It made me go, wait what? As ot didn't say causing poverty, just poverty.
Looks like 80% of the world is going to hell then. Heaven is now the ultimate exclusive club.IG-Calibre wrote:
4 - causing social injustice,
5- causing poverty,
6 - becoming obscenely wealthy
7 - taking drugs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j … can110.xml
thank God.. looks like i'm still hell bound .. oh noes!!
Exactly. Thats so fucking stupid.Gooners wrote:
6 - becoming obscenely wealthy
What!? You can't help it can you? If you've earned your way there, then how can it be a sin?
And pride?? I cant be proud?? Don't you think Noah was proud when he built that fuckin ark?
These 7 new ones are just... just...
fake sounding!
15 more years! 15 more years!
the eye of a needle was the name of a short gate in jerusalem that was hard for camels to get into, but it was still possible.CameronPoe wrote:
I think Jesus said something like a camel has more chance of passing through the eye of a needle than a rich man has of getting to heaven.G3|Genius wrote:
I don't think wealth itself is sinful. I think that it can lead to selfishness, greed, folly, aggression, and other sinful behavior.
I think we are entitled to what we honestly earn. I think what the Church is saying is, those who "have" have a moral obligation to help those who "have not" rather than squirreling it away for selfish reasons.
It's in the Bible...I'll look it up and edit my post.
there is no list of which sins are mortal and which are not, a mortal sin is when you do something and you're like "i'm doing this to reject God"Stingray24 wrote:
If you research the authorship of the Bible you will find it to be quite consistent. The "new rules" continue the idea that there are sins that God is unable to forgive, which is false. The old and new "mortal sins" set by the Catholic Church were off base from the beginning. Either God can forgive all sin or He cannot. Anything in the middle is not logical.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Cmon, someone claiming that they have been sent new guidlines by god is no ridiculous than when it was said to have happened to certain people hundreds of years agoStingray24 wrote:
Revising the conditions for not reaching Heaven seems completely silly.
Right then, God. We have some new rules that you'll be bound by when it comes to Heaven and Hell, sound good? What's that? Yes, we remember why you sent Jesus. Sssssssh. Then we wouldn't be important, so we have to convince them they need us in order to confess their sin. Huh? Contradicts the Bible. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. *prints newspaper*
In other words a new set of rules is no more ridiculous than a set of rules made hundreds of years ago
Really there is nothing different between the new rules and the old ones, just that because the old ones were juring "holy times" they're supposed to make more sense and be more believable?
I don't like religion, but at least these guys are trying to get into the modern world
i guffawed when I read these. Strangely, this article from Australia reads a slightly different list :
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23 … 09,00.html
this one cites pedophilia as one of the new sins, I guess 600 million in payouts put a blemish on the Vatican.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23 … 09,00.html
this one cites pedophilia as one of the new sins, I guess 600 million in payouts put a blemish on the Vatican.
Precisely my point, sorry if I was unclear.clogar wrote:
there is no list of which sins are mortal and which are not ...
Bah, this is the New Coke of religious laws. 7 Sins Classic will win out in the long run.
High five!too_money2007 wrote:
Nothing about internet porn, I'm set.
This just seems fitting for this situation:
I'm a (bad) Catholic but these 7 new deadly sins are getting out of hand...
I'm a (bad) Catholic but these 7 new deadly sins are getting out of hand...
Last edited by Rohirm (2008-03-10 17:57:21)
I was about to say "The church can go fuck themselves" But, I think you summed it up pretty well for me.usmarine wrote:
they can shove it up their asses for all I care.
Where is the "do not fiddle with little boys" sin?
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Time for Mitch's post.
Biggest load of bullshit ive ever, ever heard. I garentee some part of the gov. and lawmakers where behind this. It's so poorly made, that i honestly cant see how they expect to be taken seriously.
2 - carrying out experiments on humans
Thats too blatent to say. I can't experiment with Makeup on humans?
6 - becoming obscenely wealthy
Great, so now the church is teaming up with Socialists
7 - taking drugs
The same drugs that god created?
This is CLEARLY the government trying to use religion to make people obey.
FFS taking drugs is a law in America, and some other countries, its not a religious law. Religious laws are not restricted by boundries, and these sound like a bunch of laws throw together by liberal, socialist, hippies.
Biggest load of bullshit ive ever, ever heard. I garentee some part of the gov. and lawmakers where behind this. It's so poorly made, that i honestly cant see how they expect to be taken seriously.
2 - carrying out experiments on humans
Thats too blatent to say. I can't experiment with Makeup on humans?
6 - becoming obscenely wealthy
Great, so now the church is teaming up with Socialists
7 - taking drugs
The same drugs that god created?
This is CLEARLY the government trying to use religion to make people obey.
FFS taking drugs is a law in America, and some other countries, its not a religious law. Religious laws are not restricted by boundries, and these sound like a bunch of laws throw together by liberal, socialist, hippies.
15 more years! 15 more years!
I believe that may be a hint to girls to swallow.Poseidon wrote:
wait, wutdayarath wrote:
wait not taking drugs.
Doesn't the bible say somewhere "What goes in your mouth does not defile you, what comes out can."
So who made these rules =/?
...What would come o---oh I get it
I have a very dirty mind. :S