RicOlie_2

Possessed said:

In my defense I’m only 22 now so in 2009 I would have been somewhere in the ballpark of 15.

That’s no excuse. 😉

If you teach your kids about Christianity, tell them why Christians believe various things. That way you won’t be brainwashing them, and they will be able to make a more informed choice when they reach that age. I’m not Catholic just because my parents are; I made that decision on my own.

I really liked that scene where Kylo Ren threw a temper tantrum rather than choking the officer, as it was implied he would do. Similarly, I like the giant Snoke turning out to be a hologram (and I like the fact that holograms are more advanced).

The level of humour felt perfect for Star Wars. The sets were great. The new stormtrooper design was perfect.

When I think about it, I think just about the only way it fell short was in the plot and the pacing. Visually speaking, it was fantastic.

The lightsaber thing didn’t bother me, but the quick succession of mind-boggling coincidences at the beginning did. They kind of took my out of the movie from the start.

DrCrowTStarwarsreborn said:

By Grabthar’s Hammer, he will be avenged.

Well this news makes me really sad and it came out of nowhere.

It reminds me of how shocked i was when Elizabeth Sladen died.

So sad😦

I lost one of my Grandfather’s to cancer when I was only five and I had only met him twice. Man I hate cancer.

Well, look who’s back. Or have you been around for several days already and I hadn’t noticed?

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Squash is great, especially butternut (and pumpkin’s good too).

Ugh, yuck, and disgusting.

You’ve done it – you’ve angered the Great Pumpkin.

Isn’t it more likely that I did that, given that I said I enjoyed eating his kind?

Neglify said:

Wait WTF you surpassed 40k and didn’t even notice?

JEDIT: And my math comes out to about 50 posts per day. (192 + 84) / 5.5 = 50.18

I was including the 30 posts he’d made since that one, but I guess that’s still “only” 55.

We were talking about the number of posts you’d made between your last two updates.

That was anticlimactic.

JEDIT: Holy carp, unless I’m doing the math really wrong, you’ve been posting about 60 posts per day! Have you no life?

If only…

Squash is great, especially butternut (and pumpkin’s good too).

No, but I dare say my eyelids do, especially when I don’t work hard enough on my homework until a couple days before it’s due and have to stay up till three two days in a row to get it done.

^^Yeah, that one always made me cringe.

I think I’d find it hard to enjoy watching the prequels simply because I watched them so many darn times when I was younger…

I don’t think priests are particularly exalted by being called father, and certainly not any more than was Abraham, so that argument is weak.

TL;DR: Nice try, but we’ve got this stuff figured out. ;P

EDIT: If you’re interested in continuing this discussion further, we should probably take it here.

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matthew 19:11–12)

“He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.” (1 Corinthians 7:38)

I’m not sure what passages talk about the individual churches being individually governed, but every church has a certain degree of autonomy, and dioceses have fuller autonomy, though they of course have to accept official Church teachings.

“Calling no man father” is arguably not referring to the word itself:

“I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me.” (1 Corinthians 4:14-16)

“And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran…’” (Acts 7:2)

There are also a few other New Testament passages that refer to Abraham as a spiritual father. So either Christians didn’t take Jesus seriously, or he meant something else: that we need to recognize God as our ultimate father and teacher, and not look up to people who adopt titles for themselves without putting into practice what they teach, or do not provide valuable guidance (Jesus also said to call no man rabbi/teacher earlier in the passage). Keep in mind that Jesus was a known user of hyperbole.

Baptism can be understood as superceding circumcision, which was performed when a baby was eight days old. It makes sense, therefore, to stick with that age. Additionally, a few passages make reference to people being baptized along with their “entire household.” Presumably, this would include children. After looking for them, I cannot find any Biblical passages that state that one must receive instruction of the gospel before baptism. (The Church does, however, require adults to go through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation), which includes instruction on the gospel and Church teachings, before being baptised). I have not come across a passage that states that one must fully understand the gospel in order to be baptised, only that this is necessary in order to be saved, which is not the same thing according to Catholic teaching (and the Bible).

When you say that the original manuscripts called for full immersion, I assume you are referring to the fact that that is implicit in the Greek word for baptism. I fail to see that as being sufficient reason to require full immersion, as it is the spiritual aspect of baptism that is most important, with the physical symbolism being secondary.

Possessed said:

Catholic teachings ignore the bible in quite a number of ways, so that’s not much of a surprise.

I would argue that they do not in fact ignore the Bible, but rather understand it in a different way. Instead of worrying about its historicity, Catholics are more concerned with the theological and moral implications of it all. Admittedly, that does mean we sometimes ignore the details, but it’s more a matter of deciding which details are important as opposed to lending equal value to them all.

To think I had almost forgotten our old friend, Mr. H. Sezni.

JEDIT: I love how the last name “Sezni” apparently means “wise.”

double post

FWIW, Catholic teaching allows for believing that the laws given in the Pentateuch were not given by God (or at least that Moses didn’t sit up on a mountain and memorize all the minutiae about God not being cool with eating pork), and that the events contained within those first books of the Bible have far more theological than historical value.

5.5-6/10 is pretty mediocre.

It isn’t the existence of those that bothers me, it’s the number and density of them at the beginning of TFA that I disliked. Had they been more spread out, and/or with a couple of them feeling less coincidental, it would have been far better.

Your points are fair and valid, and I agree with them for the most part. It just doesn’t bother me as much as some other parts of the movie.

Accidental post, sorry. It would be nice if that didn’t happen.