100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: New sins? ... weren't there enough? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the pope just rules the catholic world, why the rest of the people is concerned by what he says or he does not say. with all my respect and admiration for the OP. 
This is true. But it's still fun to emulate George Carlin. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that most of the people who would care about avoiding harmful actions are already in line with most of these new sins (excluding the birth control and medical research ones which are actually positive things IMO).
As for the people who do pollute and are greedy and have no care for the poor, etc. I guess those are the sort of people who do need rules to tell them what not to do so I suppose that is why this religious leader decided he had to inform them that their actions were not approved. I wonder if mulit millionaire and billionaire catholics will suddenly be moved to wipe away their sin by donating some of their excess wealth to a charity of some kind.... hmm... wonder who they might donate their excess money to? Gee. I wonder if they would end up donating to the catholic church... Peace,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There’s a deficit of sins! We’ll generate some more! We’ll proclaim a sexy woman to be nothing but a whore A man who shows his lust by gazing at her bust will be condemn to using condoms engraved “In God we Trust” Little babies born of sin will be anointed on their chin with contaminated holy water much to their chagrin All judgments will be passed by a Holy Congregation and the victims will be cast into fits of masturbation The Pope will oversee the act of this decree and all the nasty sinners will be shown in a marquee We’ll have a burning at the stake of the atheists who ache to cuddle in a puddle of the sins that they partake No sensual love permitted! Our spirits must be saved! No souls will be acquitted for the lusting that they’ve craved The only purpose of religion and the churches that are built is to serve as an establishment of perpetuating guilt Don’t trust your primal instincts Don’t trust your loving heart Just say attuned to Channel Church till they proclaim it’s sin to fart Then when the gas has passed and the stench of judgment clears we can finally live our lives in joy without these silly fears speechless, but with anger. I'm sorry u r a good friend, but i have to be sincere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
speechless, but with anger. I'm sorry u r a good friend, but i have to be sincere. Can you not give it "comedic license"? It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Although, now that I've thought about it,... 4. Polluting the environment Maybe farting is a sin after all. 
Sorry, Miguel, I'm just having a comedy fit here. Maybe I should have posted this in the humor section. I only ask that you give a little license for comedy and don't take it seriously. It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that most of the people who would care about avoiding harmful actions are already in line with most of these new sins (excluding the birth control and medical research ones which are actually positive things IMO). I’m in agreement with you DD. And I’m also in agreement with Miguel about the Pope only speaking for a particular religion. If Catholics wish to refrain from having sex for another other reason than birth control. Then so be it. Just don’t be trying to push that onto the average person on the street by opposing the education of birth control methods. In fact, to be perfectly honest about it, I think that way of thinking actually causes people to do stupid things. For example, my best friend’s father was Catholic and he didn’t believe in birth control. So he ended up having nine children. In other words, he didn’t REFRAIN from having sex. All he did was refuse to be responsible about planned parenthood. How many Catholics are going to have only one or two children and then refrain form having sex altogether to avoid having more Kids. In all honestly I think this was ploy of the original church just to try to get it’s congregation to have MORE OFFSPRING! Because they KNEW no one would refrain from having sex altogether. So if they make birth control a sin they’ll just end up with larger families in their congregations. It’s the epitome of proselytizing!!! Just have families who already believe have more kids!!! They won’t win any respect from me until I seem them actually ABSTAINING from sex. Only then will there be any merit to their moral claims. Otherwise, all they are really doing is just refusing to employ responsible family planning. They’re still having sex because they enjoy it!! They’re just refusing to do it responsibly. I think that’s a bigger sin than using birth control to be perfectly honest about. Just looks like hypocrisy to me (sincerely it does). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend Rabbit Sings "A Deficit of Sins",...
(7th song down on the page) http://www.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rainbow.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20080310/hl_nm/pope_sins_dc.html
I have read this article before. It is on the topic, but all it was was the news asking the cardinal, the one in second command to the pope, what "he" thought were todays new sins. No where does it state that the church decreed this to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, if this is true then people are gonna hate us Catholics more than usual
Poor Bill Gates, he is gonna go to hell if he doesn't go confess that he is excessively wealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor Bill Gates, he is gonna go to hell if he doesn't go confess that he is excessively wealthy.
That’s an interesting thought. The success of Bill Gates was not due to his great business skills but rather it was due to a serious mistake made by both the government and the computer industries such as IBM. I couldn’t believe they were letting Gates get away with it from day one. And even today people don’t seem to understand what actually happen. The computer manufactures must have been complete idiots. And the government had no clue either. Computers can’t run without an OS (Operating System). It’s almost like gasoline is to cars. My first thought would be that the computer manufactures would want to own their own Operating Systems. I can’t believe they allowed a private individual to write the gasoline for their computers. What were they thinking???? And the movement was just as clueless. Had they realized the bigger picture they could see that to allow any company (much less an individual entrepreneur) to have the copyright to an OS would be like allowing some company or individual to have the exclusive patent rights to gasoline. Thy would never even dream of allowing just one company or person to have the exclusive paten rights to gasoline. Yet this is virtually what Bill Gates got away with. He wrote the OS for IBM PCs and was allowed to copyright it. Now many will argue that other could write their own OS if they wanted to. And some did try. But that would be like everyone trying to sell a differnet kind of fuel for cars to run on. BECAUSE all of the applications software is going to be OS-dependent. So ultimately only one OS is going to win in the marketplace and whichever OS wins also basically wins a free ride for all of the applications software. This is why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. He got away with creating a monopoly and the Government never had a clue what he was getting away with. It’s only the OS that’s important. All the government had to do was to step in early and say that no one can own the copyright to an OS, and that all Operating Systems must be open-software in the public domain. And then they could allow private enterprises to copyright specific applications. That would have put the computer software on a level playing field. As it actually went down the playing field was not level at all. It was tilted in favor of Bill Gates to the point where it was virtually impossible to compete with him in any major way. I still can’t believe that our government stood by and allowed that to happen. They had the right to proclaim that an Operating System of a computer must be in public domain. You can write one, but you can’t copyright it. That would have put the computer software industry on a level playing field. Their failure to do that is what allowed Bill Gates to monopolize the computer software industry and basically get away with financial murder. Is he guilty? Or is the government guilty of being idiots? Can’t blame Gates for taking advantage of an opportunity to rule the software world when there was no LAW against it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the pope just rules the catholic world, why the rest of the people is concerned by what he says or he does not say. with all my respect and admiration for the OP.
well george bush just governs the united states why the rest of the people is concerned by what he says or he does not say could it be because it effects the rest of the world as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
speechless, but with anger. I'm sorry u r a good friend, but i have to be sincere. Can you not give it "comedic license"? It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Although, now that I've thought about it,... 4. Polluting the environment Maybe farting is a sin after all.
Sorry, Miguel, I'm just having a comedy fit here. Maybe I should have posted this in the humor section. I only ask that you give a little license for comedy and don't take it seriously. It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Fair enough. I apologyze. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the pope just rules the catholic world, why the rest of the people is concerned by what he says or he does not say. with all my respect and admiration for the OP.
well george bush just governs the united states why the rest of the people is concerned by what he says or he does not say could it be because it effects the rest of the world as well If I'm not a catholic, I would not give a dime about what the pope says. I'm a catholic, so I care and respect about what he says. Nevertheless, I have the right not to agree. My church teaches me how to love God and my brothers, yet my church does not teach me how to think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
s1ow wrote:
watch it, the jury at the holy see has not ruled yet on jsh posting.... I'm not worried about my jsh posting s1ow ... I'm already going to hell for driving an SUV 
TLW wrote: the pope just rules the catholic world, why the rest of the people is concerned by what he says or he does not say. I suppose none of us would be concerned if it didn't ... on some level ... affect all of us. Nothing happens in isolation Miguel.
I am not an American but I sure care about what the guy in charge of your country is doing. Anoasis wrote: It seems to me that most of the people who would care about avoiding harmful actions are already in line with most of these new sins That was my thought as well. Not only do I wonder about the redundancy of the new sins ... I wonder of the need for them at all. Wouldee Thank you for your thoughts. All wonderful questions and comments that have me curious too.
I admit that I am suspect about these new sins that the Pope seems to have declared out of thin air (it is nicer than saying that other place ) What 'real value' do they have? Could these ideas not be reinforced through the teachings ... in fact, I am sure they are ... without naming new sins.
It seems very strange to me... Abra ... you seem to be a playful brat!!!! Stirring up the pot with your lyrical satire ... 
I agree with your sentiments in that I feel sin is used as a way to control. ...I have always believed in the notion of 'inspiring people to greatness' rather than 'beating them into submission'. People who live from their heart have an inherent appreciation for all life because they see the interconnectedness of all things. From that vantage point, notions of sin become moot ... But that is just my idealistic artsy side talking ... what was I thinking? 
Miles wrote: we can not figure out what the scriptures are telling us for sure anyway. How can someone who is not immortal come up with his own set of extra sins? Miles Thank you Miles! That is what baffles me the most about the new sins! Thank you all for your sharing here 
I am curious of the process ... what does it take to have a new sin declared? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TheLonelyWalker
on
Sat 03/15/08 08:17 PM
|
|
My dear sherrie:
A huge correction you said: "The guy in charge of YOUR COUNTRY." I live here, but this is not my country. My country is that little spot in South America which I long everyday. Love and light for u. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My dear sherrie: A huge correction you said: "The guy in charge of YOUR COUNTRY." I live here, but this is not my country. My country is that little spot in South America which I long everyday. Love and light for u. I knew you were going to say that
... but ya know what I mean
Love and light to you always ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My dear sherrie: A huge correction you said: "The guy in charge of YOUR COUNTRY." I live here, but this is not my country. My country is that little spot in South America which I long everyday. Love and light for u. I knew you were going to say that
... but ya know what I mean
Love and light to you always ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pope announced 7 new sins which include ... 1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control 2. "Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research 3. Drug abuse 4. Polluting the environment 5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor 6. Excessive wealth 7. Creating poverty While I absolutely agree with notions of treading gently upon the earth for my own reasons ... not the least of which is that live on it and am sustained by it. I don't feel that naming it a 'sin' will change my relationship with mother earth at all. And if naming it a sin does change people's behaviour toward the earth, will that not then show that change came from a place of guilt and fear of punishment...rather than from an empowered sense of love and what we inherently know is right? For the record, I am not Catholic...nor do I ascribe to any religious doctrine. I find this all quite curious though ...and would be interested in other's opinions. I clearly do not have an understanding of how this works. I was under the impression that the list of 'sins' came from God. What do you think of the 'new' sins? Do you think it appropriate to label them as sins? Or could they have been shared with the fellowship another way? The Bible says "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" follow the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word........not the Pope. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pope announced 7 new sins which include ... 1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control 2. "Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research 3. Drug abuse 4. Polluting the environment 5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor 6. Excessive wealth 7. Creating poverty While I absolutely agree with notions of treading gently upon the earth for my own reasons ... not the least of which is that live on it and am sustained by it. I don't feel that naming it a 'sin' will change my relationship with mother earth at all. And if naming it a sin does change people's behaviour toward the earth, will that not then show that change came from a place of guilt and fear of punishment...rather than from an empowered sense of love and what we inherently know is right? For the record, I am not Catholic...nor do I ascribe to any religious doctrine. I find this all quite curious though ...and would be interested in other's opinions. I clearly do not have an understanding of how this works. I was under the impression that the list of 'sins' came from God. What do you think of the 'new' sins? Do you think it appropriate to label them as sins? Or could they have been shared with the fellowship another way? The Bible says "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" follow the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word........not the Pope. The Pope has a purpose among us (Catholic). I follow the Lord Jesus Christ. The pope is a Rock, the same as the Lord named St. Peter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pope announced 7 new sins which include ... 1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control 2. "Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research 3. Drug abuse 4. Polluting the environment 5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor 6. Excessive wealth 7. Creating poverty While I absolutely agree with notions of treading gently upon the earth for my own reasons ... not the least of which is that live on it and am sustained by it. I don't feel that naming it a 'sin' will change my relationship with mother earth at all. And if naming it a sin does change people's behaviour toward the earth, will that not then show that change came from a place of guilt and fear of punishment...rather than from an empowered sense of love and what we inherently know is right? For the record, I am not Catholic...nor do I ascribe to any religious doctrine. I find this all quite curious though ...and would be interested in other's opinions. I clearly do not have an understanding of how this works. I was under the impression that the list of 'sins' came from God. What do you think of the 'new' sins? Do you think it appropriate to label them as sins? Or could they have been shared with the fellowship another way? The Bible says "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" follow the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word........not the Pope. The Pope has a purpose among us (Catholic). I follow the Lord Jesus Christ. The pope is a Rock, the same as the Lord named St. Peter. There's only one way to the Father and it's not through the Pope...it's through Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pope announced 7 new sins which include ... 1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control 2. "Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research 3. Drug abuse 4. Polluting the environment 5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor 6. Excessive wealth 7. Creating poverty While I absolutely agree with notions of treading gently upon the earth for my own reasons ... not the least of which is that live on it and am sustained by it. I don't feel that naming it a 'sin' will change my relationship with mother earth at all. And if naming it a sin does change people's behaviour toward the earth, will that not then show that change came from a place of guilt and fear of punishment...rather than from an empowered sense of love and what we inherently know is right? For the record, I am not Catholic...nor do I ascribe to any religious doctrine. I find this all quite curious though ...and would be interested in other's opinions. I clearly do not have an understanding of how this works. I was under the impression that the list of 'sins' came from God. What do you think of the 'new' sins? Do you think it appropriate to label them as sins? Or could they have been shared with the fellowship another way? The Bible says "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" follow the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word........not the Pope. The Pope has a purpose among us (Catholic). I follow the Lord Jesus Christ. The pope is a Rock, the same as the Lord named St. Peter. There's only one way to the Father and it's not through the Pope...it's through Jesus Christ. agreed. I'm not saying anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that the pope fulfills the same function as St. Peter after our Lord Jesus Christ named him, the rock in which He was going to base His Church. |
|
|
|
|
