RicOlie_2

The reason given in the Bible is that humankind had gone bad, so God wanted a fresh start. He used a natural event to deliver his judgement, but allowed Noah and his family, who were good, to be saved. That's what it says in the Bible, but whether that is literal or not, I can't say. Maybe that was the reason, maybe it wasn't, but I think God had some hand in it.

I don't suppose this makes it to your "Classic LOL Moments" thread?

Well, I have to admit he had me fooled. I never thought I would debate my father on an internet forum, but now I have.

R-3d

P-8f

Bx2b

That was probably predictable, but oh well. :)

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.