If the Pope Dies, and goes to Hell..

[dmp]

Bully, if I had to be surrounded by that, I'd be Buddhist or atheist or wiccan too!

Narrow is the path...and only a few shall find it. Nothing I've written here conflicts with Scripture....

 

[onedomino]

Nothing I've written here conflicts with Scripture....

What an idiotic rationalization for this profoundly offensive thread. 2+2=5 does not conflict with scripture; does that make it correct? The fact that you started this thread as the leader of the Catholic Church lay dying is beneath contempt.

 

[Joan]

What an idiotic rationalization for this profoundly offensive thread. 2+2=5 does not conflict with scripture; does that make it correct? The fact that you started this thread as the leader of the Catholic Church lay dying is beneath contempt.

Thank you Onedomino - my sentiments exactly!

 

[dmp]

What an idiotic rationalization for this profoundly offensive thread. 2+2=5 does not conflict with scripture; does that make it correct? The fact that you started this thread as the leader of the Catholic Church lay dying is beneath contempt.

Okay - explained to you, domino...to make sure you understand:

The biblical concepts i've discussed are support by Scripture. Including the concept that there will be MANY who are spiritual leaders - who outwardly seem close to God, who will not enter heaven. Unless we are God, we don't know the true heart of ANY man. Therefore, it's quite possible for somebody to not have found Christ - in their heart - and still recieve praise and support and titles exclaiming that person's 'closeness' to God. If you don't like the thought that an otherwise "GOOD" man may die in his Sin, take it up with the Bible.

Again...I'm surprised at people like you, who are intolerant of discussing the spiritual state of religous leaders. In fact, there is no better time, than when a man or woman be on death's bed, to ponder their spiritual health. A few of us may have the luxury of slowly dying; a few will have time to ensure their spirit is in order. I'd suggest we all need to make sure we're squared away because death may come in an instand, and then, it'll be too late.

 

[Said1]

Okay - explained to you, domino...to make sure you understand:

The biblical concepts i've discussed are support by Scripture. Including the concept that there will be MANY who are spiritual leaders - who outwardly seem close to God, who will not enter heaven. Unless we are God, we don't know the true heart of ANY man. Therefore, it's quite possible for somebody to not have found Christ - in their heart - and still recieve praise and support and titles exclaiming that person's 'closeness' to God. If you don't like the thought that an otherwise "GOOD" man may die in his Sin, take it up with the Bible.

Again...I'm surprised at people like you, who are intolerant of discussing the spiritual state of religous leaders. In fact, there is no better time, than when a man or woman be on death's bed, to ponder their spiritual health. A few of us may have the luxury of slowly dying; a few will have time to ensure their spirit is in order. I'd suggest we all need to make sure we're squared away because death may come in an instand, and then, it'll be too late.

How about this; pass on the scriptural references, and get to the point. Could the Pope be a fraud? Is it possible he is as evil and/or corrupt as some that came before him, even though no one can say for sure. Everyone ignore the fact that many Cathloics and Christians in general hold the Pope in the highest regard, no one can say for sure what his spiritual state was as he was dying.

 

[Mr. P]

It's not me..It's the Bible...Take issue with Scripture. it's quite true, however, as described in the Word.

As -Cp stated to another person in this thread: I'm not asking you to like it, I'm just telling it like it is.

Yeah it is you. I hate that people point to a book and say "look it's true cuz it's here".
You have no more clue than anyone else whether "it's" true or not. I know ya hope so
but you don't, and neither do I. The problem with you thumpers is you can't admit you may be wrong, because then you'd be lost, dangling with nothing to hold on to..I think it's sad myself. You do nothing but give Christianity a bad name IMO. As far as telling it like it is goes, well, as our last Pres. said, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yeah it is you. I hate that people point to a book and say "look it's true cuz it's here".
You have no more clue than anyone else whether "it's" true or not. I know ya hope so
but you don't, and neither do I. The problem with you thumpers is you can't admit you may be wrong, because then you'd be lost, dangling with nothing to hold on to..I think it's sad myself. You do nothing but give Christianity a bad name IMO. As far as telling it like it is goes, well, as our last Pres. said, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Sorry, P, but this is an ignorant statement. On the one hand, how can you say you don't know what the Bible says, yet on the other hand, say neither does he? If you haven't read the Bible, then how do you know what it says? This applies regardless of what I believe. So if you read a manual on how to operate something and you say "you must do 1, 2 and 3" and -=d=- says, "no, you do 3,2 then 1" you would take umbrage with that. You would most likely reply, "but I have read the manual". What would you then say if -=d=- replied, "it doesn't matter, you just THINK you know what the manual says. I haven't read it, but it can't be right". You would tell him he is ignorant. Yet you, and others, don't apply the same logic to understanding the Bible. You've never read it (by your own admission) yet you try to tell those that have, they have it all wrong.

How do you come to that conclusion if you don't know what the Bible says? The Bible is the most accurate document on earth. Not only historically, but also prophetically. If you haven't read it though, you wouldn't know that.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yeah it is you. I hate that people point to a book and say "look it's true cuz it's here".
You have no more clue than anyone else whether "it's" true or not. I know ya hope so
but you don't, and neither do I. The problem with you thumpers is you can't admit you may be wrong, because then you'd be lost, dangling with nothing to hold on to..I think it's sad myself. You do nothing but give Christianity a bad name IMO. As far as telling it like it is goes, well, as our last Pres. said, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

How does one admit they are wrong on something that you claim nobody knows? That would mean you are contradicting yourself in your own statement. "Nobody knows, so admit you are wrong". How STUPID.

 

[Mr. P]

Sorry, P, but this is an ignorant statement. On the one hand, how can you say you don't know what the Bible says, yet on the other hand, say neither does he? If you haven't read the Bible, then how do you know what it says? This applies regardless of what I believe. So if you read a manual on how to operate something and you say "you must do 1, 2 and 3" and -=d=- says, "no, you do 3,2 then 1" you would take umbrage with that. You would most likely reply, "but I have read the manual". What would you then say if -=d=- replied, "it doesn't matter, you just THINK you know what the manual says. I haven't read it, but it can't be right". You would tell him he is ignorant. Yet you, and others, don't apply the same logic to understanding the Bible. You've never read it (by your own admission) yet you try to tell those that have, they have it all wrong.

How do you come to that conclusion if you don't know what the Bible says? The Bible is the most accurate document on earth. Not only historically, but also prophetically. If you haven't read it though, you wouldn't know that.

Sorry Bud..you're mis-reading..I didn't say I didn't know what the bible said, I said no one can be sure it's true. Deal with it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Sorry Bud..you're mis-reading..I didn't say I didn't know what the bible said, I said no one can be sure it's true. Deal with it.

So if nobody "can be sure" sould he say he is wrong? it is still stupid.

 

[Said1]

Sorry Bud..you're mis-reading..I didn't say I didn't know what the bible said, I said no one can be sure it's true. Deal with it.

To me, certain things are questionable, and certain things just aren't because they have been proven with historical, anthropological and archeological proof which verified a lot of events ect. Not all, but some.

 

[Joan]

While I may not be able to quote scripture at will, I did study the bible, and was told by the instructor that the bible was written from word of mouth, not by Jesus himself. We were also taught that some things in the bible should not be taken literally - such as a man should not sit on the same chair as a mensturating woman - as she is unclean!

I was not objecting to the scripture itself, but to the timing of the whole post. It would be the same as saying on 9/11 - wonder if any of those poor suckers will see heaven - or will they not, since the majority were not born again christians!

I was raised a Methodist and converted to Catholicism when I married and was taught in both churches that baptism with holy water is being "born again".

This was a wonderful Holy Man who strived for world peace - may his soul rest in the hands of the Father.

 

[Mr. P]

So if nobody "can be sure" sould he say he is wrong? it is still stupid.

No, not at all. You, D and everyone else should believe as they choose to. Just respect the fact you may be wrong and admit others MAY be correct. It's easy. It doesn't mean he nor anyone else need to give up their belief.
Everyone just needs to face the fact that many don't believe the same and no one can prove they're right. So thump on, but it gets ya nowhere.

 

[freeandfun1]

No, not at all. You, D and everyone else should believe as they choose to. Just respect the fact you may be wrong and admit others MAY be correct. It's easy. It doesn't mean he nor anyone else need to give up their belief.
Everyone just needs to face the fact that many don't believe the same and no one can prove they're right. So thump on, but it gets ya nowhere.

If one admits their belief system may be wrong, then they are giving up their belief. Don't you get that? How can one say, "I am right, yet I might be wrong"? That makes no sense at all. Especially when you are speaking with a Christian. Christianity is based on faith and faith alone. To admit you "might be wrong" would mean you have no faith. Therefore, you would be giving up your faith and therefore, your beliefs. You have your beliefs, I have mine, -=d=- has his, etc., etc. One can say they believe the other is wrong without giving up their beliefs. But one CANNOT say, "I might be wrong and you be right" and claim they are still holding onto their beliefs. It would make no sense at all and then, people like you would tell -=d=-, "see, you don't know since you are admitting I might be right".

I admit the title of the thread was, in my opinion, confrontational. But just because the title was confrontational, that does not mean you have to attack everybody that is Christian because of what one Christian wrote or asked.

 

[dmp]

no one can say for sure what his spiritual state was as he was dying.

Exactly.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Further....If I were in Korea, and my Korean friend's parents, who are Buddhist, wished to pray a 'blessing' on me, I'd sit and allow them. It'd be more important to me to 'not' offend them for the sake of something they wanted to do in good spirits. I'd know they are praying useless prayers - according to my faith. However Christ would rather us show love and respect to others, than to insult them by refusing a harmless gesture.

If I was asked to pray to another god, however, I'd politely refuse.

Just to put in my 2 cents, that's what I think Pope John Paul II was doing. It was just diplomacy. From what I know about the men that came before him, Pope John Paul II did more to appeal to people outside the Cathlolic church than any Pope before him. I guess I can understand why some people mght have a problem with some of what he did, but personally I don't see anything wrong with it considering the potential benefits of the ends results.

 

[Annie]

If one admits their belief system may be wrong, then they are giving up their belief. Don't you get that? How can one say, "I am right, yet I might be wrong"? That makes no sense at all. Especially when you are speaking with a Christian. Christianity is based on faith and faith alone. To admit you "might be wrong" would mean you have no faith. Therefore, you would be giving up your faith and therefore, your beliefs. You have your beliefs, I have mine, -=d=- has his, etc., etc. One can say they believe the other is wrong without giving up their beliefs. But one CANNOT say, "I might be wrong and you be right" and claim they are still holding onto their beliefs. It would make no sense at all and then, people like you would tell -=d=-, "see, you don't know since you are admitting I might be right".

I admit the title of the thread was, in my opinion, confrontational. But just because the title was confrontational, that does not mean you have to attack everybody that is Christian because of what one Christian wrote or asked.

I've been avoiding this thread today, after all I upped my post count quite a bit last night. However, wasn't -=D=- doing just this?

that does not mean you have to attack everybody that is Christian because of what one Christian wrote or asked.

As you wrote above, at the very least it was confrontational. Some might even say that he was insinuating that the Pope was 'a false prophet.' Then there was the wtf remark of his opening post.

Seems like it's ok to bash Catholics, whom btw ARE Christians.

 

[dmp]

If one admits their belief system may be wrong, then they are giving up their belief. Don't you get that? How can one say, "I am right, yet I might be wrong"? That makes no sense at all. Especially when you are speaking with a Christian. Christianity is based on faith and faith alone. To admit you "might be wrong" would mean you have no faith. Therefore, you would be giving up your faith and therefore, your beliefs. You have your beliefs, I have mine, -=d=- has his, etc., etc. One can say they believe the other is wrong without giving up their beliefs. But one CANNOT say, "I might be wrong and you be right" and claim they are still holding onto their beliefs. It would make no sense at all and then, people like you would tell -=d=-, "see, you don't know since you are admitting I might be right".

Indeed - Christianity makes NO allowances that it is not the 'only way'. For me to suggest Christ is anything but 100% correct would mean my faith in Him is useless.

I admit the title of the thread was, in my opinion, confrontational. But just because the title was confrontational, that does not mean you have to attack everybody that is Christian because of what one Christian wrote or asked.

It wasn't meant to be confrontational - It was meant to foster discussion, and to pose a very important statement:

"The leaders of our Faith have no greater assurances of Salvation than we do - Unless they follow the teachings of Christ, in faith, their works - however good, are useless in securing eternal life with God".

 

[freeandfun1]

Just to put in my 2 cents, that's what I think Pope John Paul II was doing. It was just diplomacy. From what I know about the men that came before him, Pope John Paul II did more to appeal to people outside the Cathlolic church than any Pope before him. I guess I can understand why some people mght have a problem with some of what he did, but personally I don't see anything wrong with it considering the potential benefits of the ends results.

Is equating Christianity with other religions providing benefits to Christianity? Nope, not in my opinion. In my opinion, it waters down Christianity.

But hey, that is JUST my OPINION.

 

[dmp]

I've been avoiding this thread today, after all I upped my post count quite a bit last night. However, wasn't -=D=- doing just this? As you wrote above, at the very least it was confrontational. Some might even say that he was insinuating that the Pope was 'a false prophet.' Then there was the wtf remark of his opening post.

Seems like it's ok to bash Catholics, whom btw ARE Christians.

Insinuation is uncontrollable. (shrug). That happens on the part of the reader.

It would seem you label 'disagreement' as 'bashing', eh?