coral reefs take millions of years to grow

darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
i agree that some people like it handed to them, but i personally like going to church on sundays to see what the priest has to say about the bible, just like i discuss it with my hubby. It's nice to hear other viepoints. I do not, however, take what the preist says as absolutely right. I make up my own mind about what it means.
That is what should be done. Man is not infalable, so I believe even my percepectives may be wrong and do not in no way ask others to perceive my view as the correct ones. Just my interpretations. I can understand how others come to different views.....I just remember to use some common sense when trying to understand or decifer things.
But to take the bible literally I beleive is completely wrong as it was written in a different time where things meant something different.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
i agree. And although i am catholic, i agree with you about a lot of the traditions, such as priests not being allowed to marry, the pope being infalable, not being able to eat meat on fridays during lent, etc. They're all stupid IMO, and were created by people...
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
i agree. And although i am catholic, i agree with you about a lot of the traditions, such as priests not being allowed to marry, the pope being infalable, not being able to eat meat on fridays during lent, etc. They're all stupid IMO, and were created by people...
Well for instance, Lent, was created by a church about 400 years A.D. the bible does not refernce this nor should it. It is a practice created by man as a way of remembering. But it in no way should hinder your relationship or salvation with God or Christ as it isn't a doctrine or practice decreed by them.
I can understand the original reasonings behind priests not marrying but as we all know there are shortcomings to it and this practice was again created by the church and NOT decreed by god.
The Pope being infaliable is just the perception of his many followers...blind loyalty essentially. No matter who is Pope, they are infalliable is the view...which is wrong in my opinion, not only because no man is infaliable, but because someone like Hitler might become pope.
Are you sure you're Catholic?
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
Originally Posted by Kablamo
Ahh the teleological argument, keep in mind caomt, complexity and redundance is not the goal of a good design.
If you design something you want it to be a simple and efficient as possible. Existance is chock full of redundancies and is infinitely complex. An omniscient god would not have created such a universe as this one.

I have to give some bonus points here for throwing in the word "teleological" in this thread. Ugh. Teleology. I had a prof who went on and on about it. Anyway, I agree with this idea. I worked on a group with 2300 species or so, in particular on a group of about 90. Those species were different, but often by the position of an arm spine or similar. That doesn't seem very "glorious" all in all. Did He get bored or run out of ideas or something? Studying them so closely one can't help but to think that. To me evolution and adaptation are better arguments for such diversity. Otherwise, well, it seems quite dull even coming from a brittlestar fanatic like myself. And lets not get started on microscopic worms.
On a different note, and not directed at any single person in particular (honestly!) I do want to remind everyone that this thread has been able to remain "productive" (I may add the "cough" sound effect here) for some time. It is quite remarkable and people deserve some credit for that. But it is time to once again remind people to remain civil and not resort to name calling, etc. People often have different interpretations of what they read, and why you are free to exchange these differences, it should basically stay at that...
Thanks.
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Thanks ophiura.
I apologize for saying the following earlier. I sometime have a hard time checking my comments or sarcasm.
"See this is were people fall short. When reading the bible...actually ponder it. Use some common sense when doing this. Here is the entire Leviticus versus regarding this. Then I will explain it USING common sense. Something some fall short of.
"
I apologize.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
I was just going to give thanks for keeping this discussion civil but I see Ophiura has already done that. Good job folks!
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
I was just going to give thanks for keeping this discussion civil but I see Ophiura has already done that. Good job folks!
We do it for the kids...

Just to add to the mix about priests and marriage; I believe that originated from I Cor. chapter 7 where Paul talks about it being better to be single.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
i also apoligize for name calling, as i stated in my post, i didn't mean any offense from what i said, but i do retract the "idiot" and "moron" and replace them with "person"... how about that?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
That is what should be done. Man is not infalable, so I believe even my percepectives may be wrong and do not in no way ask others to perceive my view as the correct ones. Just my interpretations. I can understand how others come to different views.....I just remember to use some common sense when trying to understand or decifer things.
But to take the bible literally I beleive is completely wrong as it was written in a different time where things meant something different.
Great points Tang.
I firmly believe the Bible is written by God through man. Sometimes though, we selfishly expect that to mean it wasn't written for the original audience thousands of years ago... that's false. That's why it is so important to study the context of what is written.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
i also apoligize for name calling, as i stated in my post, i didn't mean any offense from what i said, but i do retract the "idiot" and "moron" and replace them with "person"... how about that?

Darth, would you please control your worshipper please?
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
You are right in a sense. It wasn't a decree however. Just a comment the way I interpret it that a man of God without a wife is more likely to serve god first where as a man with a wife is more likely to serve the wife first and God second. This is in reference to Corinthians chapter 7.
I would control JD, but then what is the fun in having a worshipper that can't exercise freewill......
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Just to add to the mix about priests and marriage; I believe that originated from I Cor. chapter 7 where Paul talks about it being better to be single.
yeah, but that's where we have blown it out of proportion. Paul says it's better to be single, so that means every priest cannot marry. It is my belief that every priest should have that choice. They can decide whether or not it is better to be single...
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
and i cannot be controlled!!!
MWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA... *ahem*

Be quiet underling, before I am forced to show you the true power of the force........
Uh, ahem, what? Oh, where were we before that unforseen out burst occurred?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jdragunas
yeah, but that's where we have blown it out of proportion. Paul says it's better to be single, so that means every priest cannot marry. It is my belief that every priest should have that choice. They can decide whether or not it is better to be single...
Exactly..
I'm Baptist, so no problem with marriage (Just NO Dancing..) :notsure:
No idea where the early Baptists came up with that one. Sad, for a denomination that's only been around for a few centuries how quickly "perversion" can creep into the "church".
Anyway, all denominations have their flaws, misinterpretations, quirks, etc.
Personally, I blame you dang Catholics
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
That is why I will not belong to a "church". They can get political and then they start making rules which aren't fitting with my interpretation.
 
hagfish

hagfish

Active Member
Originally Posted by Apathy
Ok how about the chronicles of narnia, a book that was loosley based on the christian religion anyways seeing as how c.s. lewis was an atheist.
REgardless of what I pick, it is all just s story. So your saying that if a muslim person had an account with jesus and that was in the bible it wouldnt be true? Only christians can write christian heralded material?
Umm... C.S. Lewis was no atheist. He was a very devout Christian. And he was a Christian when he wrote The Chronicles of Narnia.
 
J

jdragunas

Guest
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Exactly..
I'm Baptist, so no problem with marriage (Just NO Dancing..) :notsure:
No idea where the early Baptists came up with that one. Sad, for a denomination that's only been around for a few centuries how quickly "perversion" can creep into the "church".
Anyway, all denominations have their flaws, misinterpretations, quirks, etc.
Personally, I blame you dang Catholics

actually:
roses are red
violets are bluish
if it weren't for Jesus
we'd all be jewish...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top