RicOlie_2

Carp. I see what you're doing now. Ah, well, I can deal with it.

S-3b

Leonardo said:

I do believe we have a revelation ova here.

 I do believe you're right...

Hold on a minute...wait, what!?

Possessed said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Possessed said:

darth_ender said:

celibacy

 Some churches say that,  but the bible NEVER in the new testament commands anyone to be celibate.  Never.  Not priests, not teachers, nobody.  The old testament might, but that's for judaism not christianity.  But anyways, that was off topic of me, but I felt it important...

 Celibacy in the Catholic Church is only a discipline that allows priests to focus all their attention on God and their parish. Also, in my Church, the Bible isn't considered the highest authority. Priests in other rites of the Roman Catholic Church can be married when they are ordained, and this is possible for converts to the Catholic Church as well. In my religion it doesn't matter if it doesn't say something in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that everything must be based on Scripture so I don't believe that.

 My only problem with that idea is that if it's not in the bible, it's something a person made up.  Sure, many believe that the entire bible is made up by a person.  But I, and many don't believe that.  I'm sure you don't believe that either.  So my problem is that if it isn't from the bible, you're putting your trust in something somebody came up with, not in God.

(PS. The bible talks about a time when all continents on the earth were together as one.  the idea of pangea.  It's in the bible.  Also that the earth is round.  Well they didn't have globes back then, it's not like they could just look at the landforms and say "Hey, they fit together like a puzzle.  Teehee." So how did they know? Hmm...")

But anyway.  As long as things are taken as 'advice', I have no problem with that.  What I have problems with is when humans say something HAS to be that way.  Something MUST be that way, or it's wrong.  What is absolutely right or wrong we don't have the authority to dictate.  Advice on what we should do to better live our lives is different, of course.  But when you absolutely FORBID somebody to have a mate in order to fit into a (usually man-made) position with no basis in scripture, well I disagree.

 What Reegar said.

Also, I believe that God speaks through the Pope and the Magisterium, so it isn't just coming from humans. The scriptural basis for this is found most prominently in Matthew 16:15-17 (I think it ends at seventeen):

"Jesus said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah [or John]. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you alone, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld [or hell] will not prevail against it."

Please ask further questions on my Catholicism thread so we don't drag this one off topic.

Possessed said:

darth_ender said:

celibacy

 Some churches say that,  but the bible NEVER in the new testament commands anyone to be celibate.  Never.  Not priests, not teachers, nobody.  The old testament might, but that's for judaism not christianity.  But anyways, that was off topic of me, but I felt it important...

 Celibacy in the Catholic Church is only a discipline that allows priests to focus all their attention on God and their parish. Also, in my Church, the Bible isn't considered the highest authority. Priests in other rites of the Roman Catholic Church can be married when they are ordained, and this is possible for converts to the Catholic Church as well. In my religion it doesn't matter if it doesn't say something in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that everything must be based on Scripture so I don't believe that.

Yes, it would, and I suppose I could easily find out about the other religions on the internet. I guess I haven't had a real interest in other religions until recently, which is why I haven't made many previous inquiries. Fairly recently I began reading the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an, but I have yet to read up on most other religions.

I had no idea I had mentioned my uncle's religion on this forum... :)

Well, I have no problem with liking a person, but not what they do. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but since I am capable of doing it, I believe it is possible.

I sort of have pets...they're not really the same as cats and dogs (I like them better), but I have over three hundred fish, aquatic snails, and shrimp varying in size from tiny guppy fry to 9 inches long. They live in three aquariums (5, 6, and 10 feet long). Oh, and I have a ring-necked dove as well.

Same here. I hardly know a thing about it. I know a decent amount about Mormonism and Islam, and a fair bit about Atheism and Agnosticism, and quite a bit about Christianity, but not much about Buddhism or Taoism or Sikhism or Hinduism, etc. so it would be interesting to learn more about them.

bkev said:

TV's Frink said:

bkev said:

I won't say I don't find it strange, but - to coin a phrase from the Man of the Year - who am I to judge?  Especially when I'm already gay.

 Did you just come out?  Or are you saying the Pope is gay?

 Coming out.

 Good for you!

FunkyDays said:

Well, I'm Buddhist, so I truly no longer have a horse in this race.

 So, when are you starting your question and answer thread about religion? ;)

The world was still thought to be flat though.

FunkyDays said:

RicOlie_2 said:

FunkyDays said:

 But he's completely on the money about Lucifer being a reference to the planet Venus (yes, even in Isaiah) and not some supernatural boogyman.

 Sure, maybe he is, but he doesn't seem to understand that just because the devil was not thought of as an individual until later doesn't mean that he can be discarded as a fantasy on that basis. Just because the earth was thought of as being flat for so long doesn't mean that we can still say it's flat because it was only commonly accepted as being round a few hundred years ago. Our understandings of things change over time, but that doesn't mean the former ideas were correct.

 The Earth was known to be a sphere since at least ancient Greece. This few hundred year idea (and that Columbus disproved it) is a myth, as is Lucifer as a being.  "Lucifer" was never kicked out of heaven. The verse in Isaiah is speaking of the fall of a Babylonian king and comparing him to the planet Venus.  All New Testament talk of Lucifer/Satan/War In Heaven  is based solely on a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12

All Old Testament references to 'Satan' (Job) depict him as a being with free access to heaven, and having absolutely zero power/influence that doesn't come from g*d.

 The earth was known to be a sphere from the time of Ancient Greece, but not commonly known to be such. Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, as I said above, that our understandings change over time, and people may have thought the earth was flat in ancient times, but this doesn't mean they were correct. We now have a better idea of what the earth is and I think the same goes for Satan/whatever you want to call him.

Don't worry, I think Frink just has trouble wrapping his head around the idea that a person can disagree with homosexual acts and still like homosexual people (even if they engage in such acts).

DominicCobb said:

Neglify said:

- I still don't know how to properly hyphenate ages. "Forty-two year-old" or "Forty-two-year-old"? Shirley it comes across wrong when I say "I like having sex with forty two year old women."

I think the one with all the hyphens. Unless, of course, you are an infant rapist.

One thing that really annoys me is when people say you can't end sentences with prepositions. Yeah, you can.

Also, people who think that it's incorrect to respond to "How are you?" with "I'm good" are just plain wrong.

 You can end a sentence with a preposition (though I prefer not to). It is WRONG to reply to "How are you?" with "I'm good." You feel well; you are a good person. The words are not interchangeable.

I know someone who's nicknamed Fred (his real name is Frederick).

409 to go...

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

I...ok, whatever. You don't agree with it but you don't have a problem with it.

Some of you people are even weirder than me.

Is it weird for a conservative/liberal person to support another person's right to be conservative/liberal even though they don't support conservative/liberal politics?

 Frink tends to have trouble with analogies, so you may want to explain that to him. ;)

^I very much agree with that.

bkev said:

I won't say I don't find it strange, but - to coin a phrase from the Man of the Year - who am I to judge?  Especially when I'm already gay.

 Nice try, but you can't coin a phrase that's already been coined. ;)

I'm back now. Hopefully you didn't miss me too much!

Alright, I'm back. I have to go again for a couple hours though, so see you.

P.S.: I'll miss you all.

EDIT: Well, most of you anyway.

I'm going away for lunch, but then I'll come back. See you in half an hour.

FunkyDays said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

 Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.

 See Bingo here is why I question your research.  If your research was really complete and non-biased you'd understand how the Catholics view Mary without RicOlie_2 having to explain to you.

Also Bingo, not all Christians view Mary the way Catholics do.

 But he's completely on the money about Lucifer being a reference to the planet Venus (yes, even in Isaiah) and not some supernatural boogyman.

 Sure, maybe he is, but he doesn't seem to understand that just because the devil was not thought of as an individual until later doesn't mean that he can be discarded as a fantasy on that basis. Just because the earth was thought of as being flat for so long doesn't mean that we can still say it's flat because it was only commonly accepted as being round a few hundred years ago. Our understandings of things change over time, but that doesn't mean the former ideas were correct.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

If God did not provide in the above the specific details for the means by which the Midians were to be dealt with, where might be found His countermand? Specifically, where might the displeasure of God over the corruption of His commands be in evidence?

This is one I can't answer. If I find an answer I will post it, but now that I've had a bit more time to look at this chapter, I can see where the seeming inconsistencies come in. Well, you stumped me...I could give a speculative answer, but it likely wouldn't be satisfactory.

That isn't to say that there is no answer, but if there is, I don't know it.

I appreciate all your questions, they were very thoughtful and respectful. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm any match for you in a debate, so you're coming close to backing me into all sorts of corners and I don't think I will be able to satisfy your answers myself.

Also, there is nothing said about forced sex, and the virgins may have been taken as wives (or not, I didn't see any mention of what happened to them), in which case they would have become part of the Israelite's religion and perhaps spared the fate of any Canaanites who went to hell. If that is the case, then I see it as an act of mercy.

Essentially, what alternate purpose might have served the command to save for themselves every female virgin from the campaign? How different may have been the forcing of marriage upon a young nubile--who may have recently witnessed the butchering of her mother by the very soldier now set to claim her as bride--from that of outright rape? Was her permission sought in the matter?

You have a point. :)

Finally, is it your view that a forced conversion (perhaps under pain of death) might be preferable to allowing a dissenting individual the possibility of stumbling into Hell?

 Because I believe in free will, I don't think anyone should be forced to do or believe something. I also believe it is impossible to actually force someone into a true conversion, but some of them may have made such a conversion and their descendants would have belonged to that religion.

Your humility and candor do you great credit. I have gained in insight through this discussion...surely if all Catholics might be as honest and forthright many a misunderstanding might be avoided!

 Thank you, I appreciate that! I used to avoid questions or refer to higher authority when I didn't know the answer, but I found that it only gained me more criticism. I know how frustrating it is when someone won't admit that they're wrong or that they don't know the answer but just give a "because" or a "why does it matter" answer and expect you to be satisfied.