RicOlie_2

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.

Mavimao said:

Count me in as one of those who liked the Rathar scene! It’s not worthless since it: shows us that Rey is not infallible, saves Han and Chewie, gets Han and Chewie back into the Falcon and kind of forces him to take them to the Resistance. It also re-establishes the fact that Han is a shoot first, talk later kinda guy when he punches the henchman and throws him into the mouth of the beast. (Better him than me!) Perhaps it was JJ’s middle finger to Greedo shooting first?

I understand that it may have seemed a little Men in Black-ish, but I liked that it did something different than other large creature encounters we’ve seen in the other films.

Those are my thoughts as well. That is one sequence in TFA that I enjoyed.

For the helmet design, I would look at some of the concept art for it. I’d also make it look slightly more primitive, maybe, so that the OT Vader looks like an improvement. Maybe some sort of combination of Luke and Vader’s headgear in this image (you could have tubes coming out the side of Vader’s helmet, and have some sort of oxygen tank on his back, like Luke does in the picture):

I thought it was pretty good too, but I still prefer the original TRON (though I haven’t seen it in ages…).

Nice to see you back, Leo!

Lucas’s story treatment was discarded and a new story was written instead.

John Doom said:

How comes it reminds me of this? 😄

That never gets old. 😄

A Happy New Year to all of you!

Padme said:

I have met carrie fisher, Mark hamill, Billy dee williams, Ray park, anthony daniels, Peter mayhew, jj abrams, Jake Lloyd and Ahmed best. I think that’s it. Will post some pix next time. 😃

Lier. 😉

SilverWook said:

And Vader never held a blaster bolt in mid air like that. Ren’s potential is actually frightening.

Unlike many who dislike the film, I had no problem with that. I don’t think of Ren as being more powerful because of it, though. Perhaps different Force users tap into the Force in different ways. We never saw Vader zapping people with lightning, or Palpatine/the Emperor choking people. What cheapened him for me was his lack of proficiency with a lightsaber–against people who had never held one before.

You can be great at swinging a baton around, or shooting a gun, but be totally out of your depth with a sword. Finn and Rey had very little to no training with a sabre, while Ren almost certainly had some, yet he and Rey were equally matched, and even Finn held his own for a little while.

You’re not serious, are you?