It's not ignorant. I have studied a lot of religious history, and have had huge debates with a lot of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. I know a lot about various religions and their philosophies. Go through history and see how loving and tolerant Christianity is. See how many died in the name of Christianity, see how many victims it has made throughout history, both believers fighting in self-righteous (and inherently hypocritical) crusades and the persecuted non-believers. See how the original words of prophets were twisted to serve other purposes.

See how their missionaries forcefully converted unknowing tribes to steal their land from them, take their resources, plunder them. Did you know one of the first big economists was a Christian missionary that said it's faster, and more cost effective to convert the people of a country and thus gain their cooperation / mercantile goods / resources than to wage war on them or attempt to influence them with heavy propaganda? In other words, this advisor to the Pope at the time, actually sat down and made calculations to discern how much it cost to do these various things, and coldly weighed them against each other.

Aside from all that, let me say this - sure, some of the core tenets of Christianity are good and harmonious and all that, but you cannot keep separating the philosophy behind a religion (even though, by the way, Christians would make a big point out of how religion is not philosophy nor should it be considered such) from its' practise when looking at it. Sure, the ideas might be good, and they might have been perverted over the years by nefarious men, but hey, that is what happened. You can't look at the validity of the church by treating it as purely a harmless idea that got abused by a few.

The whole premise of original sin is riddled with guilt complexes, as is the whole idea of Christ dying for your sins. Aside from that, Christianity is riddled with instructions for life that go against everything that's a natural part of being human and leads to true growth as an individual - sexuality and sexual urges, emotional openness, questioning things, open discussion free of preconceptions and rigid rules of conduct. All these things are lambasted by the church, and are seen as a bad thing. "Questions are of the devil" is a line that comes to mind, and I have heard from many Christians.

The main ideas it propagates are - respect authority, do what you're told (OR ELSE!), accept old truths, regardless of their current validity or not, do this blindly and unquestioningly, study loads, discuss little, and keep that sexuality and other quite normal urges part of human nature pent up while you're doing it. It encourages seeing such urges as "of the devil" and to be avoided. It encourages people to be ego-based in their view of the world, to think of themselves as isolated, unique individuals that have their own, unique relationship with God, rather than promoting and focusing on the few good things Jeebus himself said, that center around the idea of always seeking harmony, doing the best for the greatest group of people, being compassionate, and seeing all as equal under God. Again, sure, those ideas are also part of Christianity, but they are vastly overshadowed by its' current practise and methods of study.

Oh, so he was forced to use it, my bad :)

The one who was object of a potential murder was John Paul II

So, what it is about is first saying "God has an infinitely complex plan for us all", then turning around and saying "but even though I am the Pope, one of his most important agents here on earth, if I were to be assassinated, that wouldn't be right or God's true intention"?

I get what you mean, but that doesn't solve the paradox of what I said just now. If you have faith in God, so too should you have faith in whatever he has in store for you - to sequester yourself off from people in a safe little box would seem to be taking your life into your own hands a little too much to reconcile such actions with the idea of "fate", wouldn't you say?

By the way, your post is self-defeating anyway. If you truly have faith in God, and don't want to test such, shouldn't the most logical course of action be to live your life freely, and simply avoid needlessly reckless and dangerous situations - that part is personal responsibility. To ride around in that Pope mobile goes far, far further than simply avoiding such situations - it's creating your own line of fate, where you control whether you can die or not.

Let's think for a moment. Why does the Pope mobile even exist? Because any time the Pope goes out in public, there's a risk of attempted assassination, due to how many people are anti-church nowadays, conspiracy theorists, crazy people, etc. Wouldn't you say then, to go out in public like that to begin with is testing God? That doing that exposes you to unnecessary risk and is thus reckless? And you're simply trying to, through more means designed by mortal men, to work around that risk? Even though, again, maybe your assassination is part of his plan?

I'm simply saying that the sheer weight of that car turns it into a tank. How many people drive around in tanks? You don't think that's pushing it just a little bit Castiglia?

No need to ever closely babysit people on an internet forum really. People that cannot have adult conversations deserve to get butthurt or to be ignored.