quote:Ubuntu christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support.
The goal of Ubuntu Christian Edition is to bring the power and security of Ubuntu to Christians. Ubuntu Christian Edition is suitable for both desktop and server use. The current Ubuntu Christian Edition release supports PC (Intel x86).
Ubuntu Christian Edition includes more than 16,000 pieces of software, but the core desktop installation fits on a single CD. Ubuntu Christian Edition covers every standard desktop application from word processing and spreadsheet applications to web server software and programming tools.
Along with the standard Ubuntu applications, Ubuntu Christian Edition includes the best available Christian software. The latest release contains GnomeSword, BibleMemorizer, the e-Sword Installer with Module Manager, The Word Installer, Firefox Web Browser with Bible Fox Theme, and much more.
*blink* *blink *blink*
Cause apparently Christians need a special version of the operating system?
Mythbuntu Scibuntu Ubuntu Multi Media Devubuntu nUbuntu Ubuntu Studio
Including a particular set of Christian applications (plus the parental controls mentioned in the wikipedia article) seems perfectly in line with these types of distros.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The goal of Ubuntu Christian Edition is to bring the power and security of Ubuntu to Christians.
This is one of my new favorite sentences.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It could be a real boon for those seeking a higher power who are not ready to put their faith in the idea of a supreme being.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The Gnome Sword Bible also sounds like something that wouldn't go over real well with the Homeschool crowd.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
GnomeSword is a bible study tool; it is named that because it is an application for Gnome, which is a desktop environment for *nix, and has nothing to do with gnomes.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Swords, on the other hand, are just COOL.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This sounds a theOnion story. Sadly, it does not appear to be the case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could someone please explain why this is "sad" or *blink*-inducing?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If it were just a marketing scheme, with no extra software, that would be sad. If there were changes to the code, because somehow Ubuntu on it's own is not "good" enough for Christians to use, that would be sad.
The fact that it's an operating system packaged with applications for a specific market is not sad or *blink* inducing anymore than the fact that Hallmark makes a greeting card program targeted for Christians that includes religious images as Bible verses as choices for creating greeting cards.
And as Dag has pointed out, packaging specialty software with the operating system is nothing new.
Some of the marketing statements are a little sad -- implying that Ubuntu was not available to or usable by Christians without this package. But that's no worse than a lot of other marketing lunacy -- like the razor commercial that implies women are incapable of using soap or shaving gel and thus need a razor that dispenses them automatically (instead of just liking the convenience of it).
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
I think that when you go out of your way to label something Christian, especially something where religion doesn't normally come into play, it gets linked in my mind with lamer Christian stuff, like Tim Lahaye or Christian video games.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: no idea, it isn't to me. I think its a useful way to obtain a variety of good bible software, and a good way to introduce linux to people interested in bible software.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On a spiritual level, I find the list of "features" a bit tacky for lack of a better word. Web filtering/parental controls, whatwouldjesusdownload toolbar, daily Bible verses, a special theme for Firefox, etc. Not only does the thing seem tailored for indoctrination of children, even if I was an adult Christian, I would find it a bit condescending. As if simultaneously I needed constant tacky reinforcement for my beliefs in the form of popups and toolbars.
On a technical level, Ubuntu is based off of Debian, which is originator of the very excellent APT tool. This is a packaging tool which works really well, it connects to online repositories of software and allows one to install software and manage dependencies. Imagine Windows Update but much more useful since it can connect to arbitrary repositories with a massive amount of free software. Since the "Christian" content is really just a small handful of applications, it would be simpler to just create an APT repository and let the user pick and choose what they need. You would then get a newer version (and better support) for the OS itself and still get exactly what you need. New distros should really be reserved for big technical differences, ports to new hardware, maybe new languages, etc.
Given the large number of distros with superficial differences, it is not as if the Linux community needs *more* distros and to be more fragmented
Lastly (but not least), if you must insist on such software, targeted at an audience that wants an easy to use alternative, you should not be using Ubuntu, but rather a Live CD such as Knoppix which is the de facto standard in such areas, and then switch to a proper distro after you're familiar with Linux to get better performance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On a spiritual level, I find the list of "features" a bit tacky for lack of a better word. Web filtering/parental controls, whatwouldjesusdownload toolbar, daily Bible verses, a special theme for Firefox, etc. Not only does the thing seem tailored for indoctrination of children, even if I was an adult Christian, I would find it a bit condescending. As if simultaneously I needed constant tacky reinforcement for my beliefs in the form of popups and toolbars.
Your assumptions about why someone would install this stuff (for "constant reinforcing") seems ill-founded. There are many themes, quote of the day tools, and such for many different interests.
And why are web filtering/parental controls tacky? It should be pretty clear why they are relevant to at least some Christians. Moreover, it's not tool specific to Christians, and it's readily available in other places.
quote:On a technical level, Ubuntu is based off of Debian, which is originator of the very excellent APT tool. This is a packaging tool which works really well, it connects to online repositories of software and allows one to install software and manage dependencies. Imagine Windows Update but much more useful since it can connect to arbitrary repositories with a massive amount of free software. Since the "Christian" content is really just a small handful of applications, it would be simpler to just create an APT repository and let the user pick and choose what they need. You would then get a newer version (and better support) for the OS itself and still get exactly what you need. New distros should really be reserved for big technical differences, ports to new hardware, maybe new languages, etc.
To clarify, this is a criticism aimed at application-specific distros such as those I listed above, not just the distro at issue here? That seems reasonable (although I disagree).
quote:Lastly (but not least), if you must insist on such software, targeted at an audience that wants an easy to use alternative, you should not be using Ubuntu, but rather a Live CD such as Knoppix which is the de facto standard in such areas, and then switch to a proper OS after you're familiar with Linux to get better performance.
How is this the standard when there are specific Ubuntu distros for other specific interests?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's like Chess for Girls, except not a parody.
I somehow always forgot to mention on that thread how Checkers is called "damspiel" or "lady's game" in German. I mean, most of you all probably already know that.
Anyway, I guess I shouldn't make fun of it since you declared me not a Christian.
Gosh, I didn't realize I was so bitter about that. I'll pray for myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Anyway, I guess I shouldn't make fun of it since you declared me not a Christian.
Who is this addressed to?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dagonee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I did no such thing, and I would like you to publicly back up your claim or retract it, please.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There are many themes, quote of the day tools, and such for many different interests.
Indeed. I would find a "The Simpsons" quote of the day tool or a Wiccan Firefox theme about as tacky.
quote:To clarify, this is a criticism aimed at application-specific distros such as those I listed above, not just the distro at issue here? That seems reasonable (although I disagree).
Very correct. I think that the over-proliferation of Linux distros with superficial differences (e.g. a handful of different applications) seriously weakens its competitiveness with Windows.
Also, while a number of the distros on that list are pretty useless, a number are useful. Different distributions for different desktop managers, a different kind of computer, etc. These are the kind of substantive differences that make a new distro (a bit more) worthwhile.
quote:
quote:Lastly (but not least), if you must insist on such software, targeted at an audience that wants an easy to use alternative, you should not be using Ubuntu, but rather a Live CD such as Knoppix which is the de facto standard in such areas, and then switch to a proper OS after you're familiar with Linux to get better performance.
How is this the standard when there are specific Ubuntu distros for other specific interests?
I think you misunderstand. Standards do not preclude the existence of alternatives. The metric system is standard among scientists, but some American scientists do still use inches and pounds. (see the crashed Mars probe) Furthermore, Knoppix is not a Ubuntu distro. Both Ubuntu and Knoppix are derived from Debian but not AFAIK from each other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you for explaining all that, Mucus. I think I understand your position now.
Edit: I forgot to thank dkw for her well thought out post on the subject. Thank you!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Over ten years ago, there was another Christian-themed linux distro called something like Jesnix.
In addition Bible study software and the like, the big difference with this distro is that it had had no references to daemons, zombies, gnomes, and the like, because those were demonic/magic/evil creatures.
I never was able to tell if it was a parody or not.
No, I never tried downloading it to see how spiffy it was.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Very correct. I think that the over-proliferation of Linux distros with superficial differences (e.g. a handful of different applications) seriously weakens its competitiveness with Windows.
Amen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Over ten years ago, there was another Christian-themed linux distro called something like Jesnix.
That's awesome. My favorite distro name was Jailbait - it was targeted at resource-constrained devices. It was named Jailbait because it was under 16 (megabytes).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that the over-proliferation of Linux distros with superficial differences (e.g. a handful of different applications) seriously weakens its competitiveness with Windows.
Of course, there are a lot of people in the linux community who don't care about its competitiveness with Windows. And with the GPL being what it is, nobody can force them to act in ways that will help linux's competitiveness.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I did no such thing, and I would like you to publicly back up your claim or retract it, please.
quote:Generally Mormon baptism does not count, but there's no official Church-wide teaching - each bishop decides. As far as I know, all at least perform a conditional baptism for conversions from LDS, though, so I don't know any Bishops that actually accept it. It's just that some don't think it's definitely unacceptable.
I mean, I guess it gets into the relationship of baptism and "Christian". And as I said on that thread, I'm fine with not being considered Christian in some respects. I guess I was more upset at the time because I felt like I was trying to stake out some common ground and you shut down the discussion thus:
quote:Pooka, would you mind starting a thread if you want to hear justifications for particular Catholic doctrines? There's not anything wrong with that, but this thread is more about what Catholic teaching is, rather than whether it's right or wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph:
Force?
Who said anything about force? I hardly think my perception of these things as being tacky is going to force anything on anyone (beyond my individual contribution to supply and demand).
Also, while such people as those you describe exist (and people with a contrary view too), I do not see why my view should necessarily be influenced by them (unless they actually have an argument why Linux would be more useful/effective when it is less competitive...which would be a debate/thread unto itself).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I mean, I guess it gets into the relationship of baptism and "Christian". And as I said on that thread, I'm fine with not being considered Christian in some respects.
What I said in that thread does not say that Mormons are not Christians, especially using the distinctions that were at issue (that is, OSC's preferred means of analyzing the question).
Moreover, it surprises me that you would be made bitter by this type of statement. You belong to a faith that specifically requires a baptism for converts who have been baptized in the Catholic Church.
If you are going to interpret a teaching that requires new baptism upon conversion as meaning that the convert was not Christian prior to such new baptism, then your faith calls me and every other Catholic "non-Christian." Why would it make you bitter if others take you at your word that you belong to very different faiths that should not share the same name?
Again, for clarification, I do not interpret my restatement of Catholic faith as saying you weren't Christian.
quote:I guess I was more upset at the time because I felt like I was trying to stake out some common ground and you shut down the discussion thus:
I wasn't trying to shut down discussion. In fact, the entire request is about how to have that other discussion without diluting the specific purpose of the thread, which was to communicate something to OSC.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Force?
Who said anything about force?
I did. I was pointing out that a) some people don't care about linux's competitiveness and b) nobody can stop them from decreasing linux's competitiveness. It's all part of combined strength and weakness that is the gpl model.
quote:Also, while such people as those you describe exist (and people with a contrary view too), I do not see why my view should necessarily be influenced by them
Neither do I.
quote:(unless they actually have an argument why Linux would be more useful/effective when it is less competitive
I've never heard of anybody saying that it would be better if it were less competitive, but there are many people who simply don't care about its competitiveness, and the possibility that doing what they want to do (like making a niche-themed linux distro) might dilute linux's competitive power is no deterrent.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The point you were arguing was that OSC was mistaken about Catholics believing protestant baptisms were invalid. And that's fine, it was a bit of lettuce in the teeth that you are pointing out to someone who would rather not sport that. But to further clarify that Mormon baptisms are invalid seemed unnecessary to me.
As far as I know, Mormon leaders have always referred to Catholics and Protestants as Christians, despite the requirement for baptism by priesthood authority. I mean, if we want to be perfectly clear, you can't very well be "re-baptized" if a second baptism is even necessary (cases of excommunication excepted).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You'd think that someone would come out with a Jewish distro called Jewnix. I'm just saying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pooka, if Mormons believe that Catholic baptisms aren't valid or authoritative, why would you mind that Catholics don't consider LDS baptisms authoritative or valid?
How is it different?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(That was for Lisa)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You'd think that someone would come out with a Jewish distro called Jewnix. I'm just saying.
Too easy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: pooka, if Mormons believe that Catholic baptisms aren't valid or authoritative, why would you mind that Catholics don't consider LDS baptisms authoritative or valid?
How is it different?
Because we don't consider anyone else's baptisms valid, whereas you consider the protestants, but not Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventist, IIRC) valid. It's not equivalent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So our requirements are actually less exclusive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point you were arguing was that OSC was mistaken about Catholics believing protestant baptisms were invalid.
You've misstated my point. It was that the differences between Catholic beliefs and those of Dr. Mohler were qualitatively and quantitatively different than the differences between LDS beliefs and Dr. Mohler's beliefs.
quote:As far as I know, Mormon leaders have always referred to Catholics and Protestants as Christians, despite the requirement for baptism by priesthood authority.
Once again, you are the one interpreting my statement as saying Mormons aren't Christians. That isn't what I said, and it isn't what I meant.
quote:And that's fine, it was a bit of lettuce in the teeth that you are pointing out to someone who would rather not sport that. But to further clarify that Mormon baptisms are invalid seemed unnecessary to me.
Considering it was in response to your post, which while not a question certainly seemed to be asking for clarification, I find your statements that it was unnecessary for me to write that perplexing.
YOU made it an issue in the thread as to whether the Catholic Church accepts other baptisms, not me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, the original issue was whether protestants are going to hell. Neither of us favored that description of the significance of "acceptance" in the Catholic church.
My argument in bringing baptism up then is the same as what I am arguing now. You can say Catholicism is more inclusive, when that inclusion doesn't go right up to and then stop just at your doorstep. The whole context for the thread was from the discussion of whether Mormons were Christian, so I didn't just leap there from nowhere.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Because we don't consider anyone else's baptisms valid, whereas you consider the protestants, but not Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventist, IIRC) valid. It's not equivalent.
I don't see how the validity of different forms of baptism constitutes a sleight against you or your religion. He simply stated what the Catholic church does and does not consider to be a valid baptism according to their doctrine.
They consider some other church's ordinances to be equivalent to their own and some to not be. The LDS church happens to accept no other church's ordinances as being equivalent to their own. The Catholic church says "some other churches have got it wrong" while the LDS church says "all other churches have got it wrong."
In neither case is a judgment being made about what constitutes a "Christian" unless your definition of Christian includes a specific baptism rite.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: Actually, I've heard of a number of arguments why Linux would be better if it was less competitive (as in less mainstream), I just do not happen to agree.
My argument is that a more competitive Linux would lead to the development of better Linux applications and hardware support, which would be better for everyone using Linux, niche or not.
Perhaps you could address the point that I made before my point about competitiveness, which was really my major point. What is better about making a new Linux distro rather than an APT repository when it comes to a handful of Christian applications?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I do think baptism is essential to being Christian, as it is the means by which we take the name of Christ on ourselves.
Maybe that's why there is this whole misunderstanding. What do Catholics and protestants believe baptism accomplishes? (It accomplishes more than that, but in terms of being Christian in name, as I said, it is essential.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So you don't think that Catholics are Christians?
Just trying to make sure I am following this; it is a bit confusing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Perhaps you could address the point that I made before my point about competitiveness, which was really my major point. What is better about making a new Linux distro rather than an APT repository when it comes to a handful of Christian applications?
I really don't know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My argument in bringing baptism up then is the same as what I am arguing now. You can say Catholicism is more inclusive, when that inclusion doesn't go right up to and then stop just at your doorstep.
I didn't say Catholicism was more inclusive than LDS beliefs. I said Catholicism was more inclusive than OSC had said Catholicism was.
quote:The whole context for the thread was from the discussion of whether Mormons were Christian, so I didn't just leap there from nowhere.
You might not have leaped to that subject from nowhere, but you certainly didn't leap to the conclusion that I had called you non-Christian from anything I actually said.
In my very first post, I said, "And your use of those differences between Baptists and Catholics and their ability to find some acceptance of each other as a model of better understanding and cooperation between Mormons and other Christians is well-taken." I'm including Mormons in the word "Christian" in the italicized section.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Cathlix would be cool, too.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So you don't think that Catholics are Christians?
Just trying to make sure I am following this; it is a bit confusing.
I'd say we consider Catholics, Protestants, and others who practice baptism and consider the sacrifice of Jesus necessary for salvation to be Christians in the same way that Christians in general (I'm guessing here) still consider Jews to be God's chosen people, while considering themselves heirs to the kingdom.
P.S. So what do other Christians think baptism accomplishes; alternately, what does "Christian" mean?
[ September 21, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure what that means. I don't understand the analogy. It sounded like it was a "sort of" rather than a yes or no?
But the baptism equivalence remains. You consider our baptisms invalid and we consider your baptism invalid. From what I understand, you consider our baptisms invalid because there is no priestly authority that you recognize (please correct me if I am mistaken). We don't consider any baptism valid unless a Trinitarian form is used. LDS are one of several groups that don't use a Trinitarian form. We aren't singling you out for exclusion.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You'd think that someone would come out with a Jewish distro called Jewnix. I'm just saying.
I think they tried that, but its uptime sucked. Seems that it wouldn't work one day out of seven.
Oh, and it wouldn't touch anything in a shell.
Which is too bad, since GNU is totally kosher.
-Bok
PS- The irony is that Lisa might not read this until tomorrow night Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I'm not sure what that means. I don't understand the analogy. It sounded like it was a "sort of" rather than a yes or no?
I believe I clarified what I'd define as Christian:
quote:I'd say we consider Catholics, Protestants, and others who practice baptism and consider the sacrifice of Jesus necessary for salvation to be Christians
What was "sort of" about that?
P.S. I guess the issue as I'd see it is that baptism is essential to being called a Christian in my view, so for Dagonee to say my baptism is invalid was the same as saying I wasn't Christian. To me, the words of the baptismal covenant have some weight even if said without authority, and more particularly, one's belief in Christ has effect. Part of the other thread was explaining that even though Mormons might say "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" we don't really mean it, since we have a heretical view of God. And I guess that's the difference. We say you are apostates. You say we are heretics.
[ September 21, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This part:
quote: in the same way that Christians in general (I'm guessing here) still consider Jews to be God's chosen people, while considering themselves heirs to the kingdom.
I don't understand that qualification. I don't particularly consider Jews to be God's chosen people (any more so than anybody else) or us to be heirs of the kingdom (any more so than anybody else) so I don't know if what you said was a big qualifier or not.
It sounds like it should be followed by and "in other words not really" but I don't think that is what you meant it to sound like.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I don't know how other Christians feel about it. If you don't feel yourself to be an heir of God's kingdom, are you sure you are a Christian?
For a Mormon, Jews are absolutely still God's chosen people.
(Point of order: I P.S.ed my last post not seeing that the page had turned. Sorry about that.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: We say you are apostates. You say we are heretics.
I would say being called apostate is worse.
I think that God has chosen all of us and that we are all heirs of the kingdom.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: For a Mormon, Jews are absolutely still God's chosen people.
Still? I know they once were, but are they still God's chosen people?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
From the fervor a lot of fundamentalist Christians show regarding our defense of Israel, I imagine many of them support the idea of "chosen people".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They might. So they might have understood your qualifier.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:P.S. I guess the issue as I'd see it is that baptism is essential to being called a Christian in my view, so for Dagonee to say my baptism is invalid was the same as saying I wasn't Christian.
Which is fine if that's how you want to interpret it. Just realize that 1) it's not what I said, 2) it's not what I meant, and 3) that you say the same thing about us.
So why are you bitter are someone else doing what you do?
There's no call for bitterness from either of us. We believe different things. If I believed what you believed, I'd be baptized into the LDS church.
quote:To me, the words of the baptismal covenant have some weight even if said without authority, and more particularly, one's belief in Christ has effect. Part of the other thread was explaining that even though Mormons might say "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" we don't really mean it, since we have a heretical view of God. And I guess that's the difference.
pooka, are you trying to misinterpret everything I say? Because it does not appear that you are making any attempt to honestly interpret my posts in the other thread or this one.
When Mormons say "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" they mean something different than what Catholics and most Protestants mean. I made no comment at all about you "really mean[ing] it.
quote:We say you are apostates. You say we are heretics.
And apparently the latter makes you bitter, but we shouldn't be bitter about what you think because you exclude everyone.
Finally, you keep changing what it is making you bitter. You said it was my bringing it up when it wasn't necessary to my point, then never acknowledged that I only brought it up because you stated you didn't know how the Catholic Church treated Mormon baptisms.
You accused me of shutting down discussion.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
If it makes you feel any better, pooka, my non-denominational church doesn't think you need to be baptised at all. It's just an outward expression of your inner committment. But we take Communion symbolically, too.
Our laisez-faire take on it is that if you love God and you love Jesus, we're talking about the same thing. We don't agree with everything everyone else believes, but we don't care enough to get riled up about it, either.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, it wasn't Dagonee's intent to offend me, just as it wasn't OSC's intent to offend Catholics. I mean, he was probably just trying to offend Baptists at the time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's it, I'm done with you on this pooka.
OSC made a factual error about Catholic beliefs. That's very different from you being bitter about others believing something that you also believe (with the roles switched, of course).
You clearly want to be offended. Be my guest. Just realize you're being offended by something you made up.
Edit: And for the record, I wasn't offended by OSC's article. In fact, I expressed admiration for it. I was a little depressed by the propagation of such a common misperception of Catholic beliefs.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:If it makes you feel any better, pooka, my non-denominational church doesn't think you need to be baptised at all. It's just an outward expression of your inner committment. But we take Communion symbolically, too.
Our laisez-faire take on it is that if you love God and you love Jesus, we're talking about the same thing. We don't agree with everything everyone else believes, but we don't care enough to get riled up about it, either.
I'm Baptist, and that's what I always got out of the baptismal ceremony as well: an outward expression of an inner commitment. It's a beautiful and touching expression, but it doesn't matter to one's salvation.
Same for all the rest of the little details - I mean, as long as you've got the whole "Jesus for my sins" thing going, the rest is really just icing on the cake.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There's clearly a tone I meant for my last post to have that didn't come across, in that I was agreeing that Dagonee didn't mean to offend me. Oh well. I really didn't think OSC was trying to offend Catholics, and I guess I'm glad to hear none were.
I've wondered a lot over the precise necessity of ordinances over the years. I guess I'm not in a very good position to discuss it at the moment, though.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Pooka, if your last post was meant to agree with Dag, you need to edit it because it came off extremely snarky. Personally, as someone with no dog in this fight (as I'm neither LDS nor Catholic) I think you have been incredibly rude and unreasonable in this thread toward Dag.
Edited because I cannot apparently tell the difference between "your" and "you're". And I is an English major too. Sad.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I was an English major too, and I make that mistake all the time. And I do know better.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just wanted to post that I'm ashamed of my behavior. I tried to apologize in the other thread before and I guess I wasn't sincere. I think you're a good guy, Dagonee, and I am sad we've never met in person. Since you're probably not going to see this here, I'll post it in the gossip thread on Sake.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(That was for Lisa)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)