Glad that worked for you and I can appreciate why.
What concerns me is when people surrender all responsibility for their actions and, thus, their lives to the will of God.
Figures! :evil:
Sorry to barge in, but noticed the label. I’ve seen this at the store but haven’t tried it. Anyone know if it’s any good? The label is definitely eye catching…just like most else old Lucifer throws at us to get our attention away from the bigger picture.
A long while ago, and it is very tasty!
He’s my kind of pope.
Now, if he’ll just approve shagging myself stupid like some of his predecessors did (I mean they shagged themselves stupid - if they’d approved it for me I wouldn’t be typing this as I’d be shagging 05 *) and if he can explain where all the souls of the unbaptised babies previously consigned to Limbo went when the Church abolished Limbo (which it didn’t actually abolish as Limbo was never actually part of Doctrine - they just taught it to us like it was :rolleyes: ), I might start to think about going back to the one true Church which predates all others in an unbroken line to Christ.
Apart from the Jews, who have a bit of a problem with Christ, which is a bit odd as he’s one of theirs anyway.
-
- Our legal alcohol limit for driving down here is .05 blood alcohol content. The cops used to give us a preliminary breath test with an inflatable bag, with the words “Blow into this, driver.”
Inevitably, in a nation noted for its sensitivity toward women, this caused some of us to refer to our wives as 05s.
Being the bag we blow into when we’re pissed. 
Which on one memorable occasion, and bearing in mind that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence, resulted in a seriously pissed driver getting off because the prosecution failed to prove that the preliminary breath testing device was inflatable. Good work, that man!
Well that is presupposing the guy actually existed?
http://forum.starwreck.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6680
also I can not work out exactly what you are saying about the Jews there, like e.g. one might say “Apart from the Catholics who have a bit of a problem with Martin Luther, which is a bit odd as he’s one of theirs anyway.”
Well that is debateable in that there is an argument that there were other christian churches which were concurrent or previous to Roman catholicism that disappeared.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Are you up to it?..if he does as you wish, he’d probably be killing you.
… and if he can explain where all the souls of the unbaptised babies previously consigned to Limbo went when the Church abolished Limbo (which it didn’t actually abolish as Limbo was never actually part of Doctrine - they just taught it to us like it was :rolleyes: ), I might start to think about going back to the one true Church which predates all others in an unbroken line to Christ.
And what about eating meat on Friday, wasn’t that a sin or was Brother wotsisname fibbing?..if it wasn’t, why isn’t it a sin any more?
Apart from the Jews, who have a bit of a problem with Christ, which is a bit odd as he’s one of theirs anyway.
And how was Paul able to usurp the church of Peter, which was meant to be the church of Christ?..Paul never even met Christ, but he does seem to have been pretty keen on Aristotle.
That’s a really bizarre comment. One might as well say that there is an argument that the position of Pope pre-dates Christ…which wouldn’t surprise me.
There were Christian groups which pre-date Paul, perhaps this is the basis of the argument to which you refer. Peter and Paul were at odds with each other, but it was Paul that really founded the Christian faith and Catholicism in particular. Peter was more concerned with reforming the Jewish faith inline with Christs teachings.
I was more thinking along the lines of these folks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Do I care?
It’s half way to my ideal death, which is shagging myself to death in a barrel of beer.
Um, I don’t mean shagging myself in the sense that I’m alone (or that 05 will be present unless she wants to watch) but in the sense that I’ll be shagging someone else and that that’s how I’ll kill myself. Or drown in the beer while I’m puffing away on the job. Either way works for me.
It was a sin, and a mortal one as I recall, along with not going to mass on Sunday. I committed both countless times. Now they’re not sins any more, or maybe the Sunday mass one is depending upon one’s interpretation of the current requirement to attend if you can. I think my normal Sunday morning hangover is sufficient reason not to attend, so I should be off the hook for not attending since I was about 17.
But, do I go to hell for the childhood offences, and eating meat on Fridays as an adult, or did those offences get wiped when those sins were abolished?
Anyway, if God is speaking through the dago in the Vatican (okay, we’ve had a couple lately who weren’t, but they’re not the ones who made the original rules), and God’s laws are immutable through time, how can they be changed?Either the pope cocked it up with the original proclamation of sin or when abolishing the sin. In the former case there’s nothing to worry about. In the latter, there are going to be some mightily pissed off souls heading southwards when they thought they’d be going northwards.
Sorry for butting in with youre convetion, but dont you feel this is odd.
The pope is suppose to be a good roll model, but the new pope was in the Hitler youth.
Well, I think it was pretty much compulsory to join the Hitler youth.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
I don’t know. 
It’s half way to my ideal death, which is shagging myself to death in a barrel of beer.
A little sexual deviation is healthy for a relationship.
Um, I don’t mean shagging myself in the sense that I’m alone (or that 05 will be present unless she wants to watch) but in the sense that I’ll be shagging someone else and that that’s how I’ll kill myself. Or drown in the beer while I’m puffing away on the job. Either way works for me.
Steady, lad…Steady!!!
It was a sin, and a mortal one as I recall, along with not going to mass on Sunday. I committed both countless times. Now they’re not sins any more, or maybe the Sunday mass one is depending upon one’s interpretation of the current requirement to attend if you can. I think my normal Sunday morning hangover is sufficient reason not to attend, so I should be off the hook for not attending since I was about 17.
But, do I go to hell for the childhood offences, and eating meat on Fridays as an adult, or did those offences get wiped when those sins were abolished?
Bit of a paradox. This is why I began to lose it with Vatican 2. When the rules and regs were rigid and unwavering it was okay. But once they were relaxed it opens the debate regarding all of the sins that were sins but are no longer sins and, of course, the question of Limbo etc. etc.
Anyway, if God is speaking through the dago in the Vatican (okay, we’ve had a couple lately who weren’t, but they’re not the ones who made the original rules), and God’s laws are immutable through time, how can they be changed?Either the pope cocked it up with the original proclamation of sin or when abolishing the sin. In the former case there’s nothing to worry about. In the latter, there are going to be some mightily pissed off souls heading southwards when they thought they’d be going northwards.
My point exactly! If the church was wrong on any of these things, why isn’t it wrong on all of them?
Quite seperately, I have an empty rain barrel if you would care to use it (bring your own beer), and I’m certain BoxerRick might be able to fix you up with some old doxy from his previous life.
But I’ll miss your posts!
If you remember the religious instruction we little micks got, the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.
So, if it’s an ex cathedra pronouncement, he can’t be wrong. I suppose this applies even if he’s reversing something a previous pope said ex catherdra.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
If Christ is the only mediator between man and God, then Chrisitian churches and religions are a waste of space and time as they cannot mediate between God and man.
But, as with so much in the Bible, pulling a few lines of text out of context to prove a point is often undermined when the full context is presented, even without introducing external arguments. The relevant passage, in what Christians believe to be Paul’s letter to Timothy, is;
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; ) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Isn’t it a bit absurd for Paul to assert that Christ is the only mediator between man and God, and then go on to claim to be a preacher ordained by God who, inevitably, interposes himself between man, Christ and God?
Thewre is historical proof in Jesus existance.The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius wrote " And the tribe of christians grows stronger every day,
much because of their leader Christos ( as christ was called by romans)
who , if he can be called a man, because of the many miracles and spectacles he performed." this is in Roman history, not the bible.
I’m not a Christian in any conventional or even an unconventional sense, and am generally opposed to organised religion, but I think that when one removes the organised religion element subsequently superimposed on Christ’s teachings they’re as good a set of rules as will ever be devised for sound personal and community living. Not that he had the exclusive franchise on what is just common sense for rational people who treat each other respectfully as equals.
Despite my hostility to organised Christian (and all other) religions, as for denying or even questioning Christ’s existence, that is as baseless as denying the existence of Nero and his persecution of the Christians, Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, the first Roman-Jewish War and Masada, the Roman invasion of Britain, the Catacombs, the various martyrdoms in the Colosseum and other Roman amphitheatres, Domitian’s Second Persecution of the Christians, and so on. Christ’s existence and that of his early followers is amply documented independently of religious texts, which might be about the only aspect of Christianity’s major texts that is.