Croc

I'd like to, but CD/BP doesn't allow PMs. I therefore cannot send him PMs to keep things off the site.EDIT: It appears he's PM blocked me. No great loss there. Moving forward about RELIGION --------------------------- RE: RELIGION The idea is that Mary was such a pure woman and that God had chosen her to be the Mother of God, soshe had to be free of sin. This can make sense if you think that since God is eternal and does not function within constraints of time, he knew Mary was going to be the chosen women FOREVER. Therefore he guided her to be sinless and pure up through the birth of Jesus. Mary was a virgin up through then. I know nothing about the Church saying that she and Joseph had no further children...that seems pretty contrary to facts. According to Catholic doctrines, there would be nothing wrong with her having children with her husband Joseph.

No offense, but three users asked that the topic be steered back on course. So take it to PM.

Yea? What about it perplexes you? God impregnated Mary, hence her being a pregnant virgin.

Take it to PM.

Ugh...LIGHT JAZZ!

I hope you aren't riding it around naked this time...:AH-HA_wink:

Not too hard...you always have to perv a thread up. He's right. Back to the original topic.----------- I think being able to see multiple sides is a sign of maturity. You know, like that saying that says maturity is the ability to see the black and white are really varying shades of grey. The only time this ever works against me is when debating a fanatic, as they will pick up a conceded point and then use that as AH-HA!! I'M RIGHT!! When the rest of their thesis is very, very flawed. Otherwise, this makes you a great debator and writer.

Agreed.If someone wants a topic on homosexuality...go resurrect that one many-paged thread.

You don't put abused vehicles on an autoshow floor.

Yes, S-Series. That is officially what it means now. Just like CTS is C-Series Touring Sedan, not Catera, not Cadillac, but C-Series.

OK now that we've all agreed pedophilia is bad regardless of gender, orientation or denomination, let's get back to debating actual Christian issues. Seriously, the only way I would find this discussion relevant is if we were debating how the Catholic Church was handling the situation in accordance to Christian ideals, and we aren't exactly doing that soooooooo...

80s all the way...

That's a Cavalier/Sunfire.

That's sad. Things like this are why I am currently shopping around a little bit with Eastern Orthodoxy...

I'd say give it a dose of Valley Fever...

Firstly, of the Christians here (yes, Catholics are Christians), I see no rejection of the Bible.Secondly, warned of what? That there *might* be only one "correct" Christian sect and that there's a chance the ones we have chosen *might* not be it? Well, duh...everyone seems pretty well versed in the concept of odds. Personally, I find it a little bit insulting that you view yourself as "warning" us, like one warns errant children. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am accountable for my actions in this life, and to be honest, I regret very few of them as most of them have contributed to making me the person I am today. If God feels I am not living my life correctly, then it is His prerogative to do to me as He wishes. That said, you have no place whatsoever judging me as errant. Planks and specks. My faith is between God and me. You have done your Christian duty by sharng with us what you disagree with in our sects and why you feel your sect is closer to the truth. Fine. But I don't know where you come off with having the ability to speak to us of threats of moral condemnation; that right is reserved for God and God alone. I respect your different beliefs, and I am asking that you start showing a little more respect toward ours. This has generally been a very civil discussion, and I would like to keep it that way. Anyone who is unable to abide should excuse themselves from this thread.

Bingo. Actions speak louder than words, and you will convert far more people by setting an inspiring example than you will by quoting any amount of Scripture.It is far more noble to take the high road when everyone around you would go for the low blows than to talk about how Jesus would take the high road.

But that's just it...God doesn't operate on the level of time. Just like He knows what we are going to do in our lives He also will know about the marriage and whether it will last or not. Therefore the marriage "confirmation" is more of a human and church tradition than anything God actually needs...because it already exists if it is for real.

Sex before marriage: I believe that it can be permissable. If it is entirely consensual, it occurs as an act of love (i.e. not using someone) and both parties enter into it knowing this. I do not believe (for example) that one person can have sex with someone and it be wrong, yet have sex with that same someone a day later under the benefit of a marriage vow and suddenly it is moral. God operates outside of time. Time is a worldly commodity, and love is eternal. Eternity exists in both directions, so if one loves someone eternally, that love (and/or "Holy blessing") therefore existed before and after the marriage vow.

I see where you're coming from, but again...every sect commits its heresies. It's human, and as Christians forgiveness is very highly recommended. Now, I know I'm prolly coming across as Mr. Catholic, but I'm really not. At this point I'm trying to figure out which sect, Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is closest to what I believe to be true. Of course, I still know way too much about Catholicism to not share it here :AH-HA_wink:

I don't get it either, but then again I don't understand how a lot of people operate. I just look at it all as "whatever makes you happy" and go ahead doing things and living life to the best of my ability. That's really all you can do.

Dude, that's not gelled, that's "shellacked." Just a little FYI...using a lot of gel and wearing your bangs over your forehead will make your pores hate you and turn your forehead into Bosnia c. 1992. I had to learn that the hard way, so just passing it on...

Not really. This topic just doesn't appeal to the same people. I think if the same players were involved, they'd exhibit a similar debate style.

I see what you mean. At the same time, I understand why it was done. Catholic literally means "universal" and it really is a very outreaching sect of Christianity. I mean with Halloween, that's probably the most blatant example of this. Again, it is a harmlessly fun festivity, and adjusting it to "scare the demons away" for All Saints' Day is ludicrous...but again harmless. It is IMO as religiously neutral as celebrating birthdays.As far as the pagan "Saints" didn't that get addressed with Vatican II? I know St. Christopher was decommissioned...so I assume the blatantly pagan ones would have been too? Also...I don't see the harm in using the same calendar date as an existing holiday because that keeps the celebrations more accessible. I mean, yea, there are some pagan traditions, but the gods aren't worshipped anymore, so I don't see the heresy. I mean almost all Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th. That date was chosen because the Romans already had a holiday on that date and it made it easier to transition everyone when Constantine converted Rome.

Bob, don't take it personally. It's obvious he has never attended Catholic mass. I've most definitely attended many other sects' services, and I have been astounded at how similar they are in almost every way except one: length. C'mon, Bob, you know it's true! A good Catholic mass can get you in and out of there in a half hour, with most lasting 45 minutes and the long-winded priests taking up an hour or more. Any longer than that and the priest knows there will be 3 people left after Communion. :AH-HA_wink: