SWA sucks

[turn&pull]

Congrats Mega...
My wife stays at home with our kids because she wants to. If she wanted to work, so be it.

I would rather have kids see a mother being true to herself, than have them see a mother who is resentful because she flushed a career she loved.

Best of Luck,
Turn

 

[135fr8r]

Sorry, but I have more respect for myself than to go work for a company that doesn't offer health care benefits to new hires.

Not to mention the crappy first year pay, PBS and crappy hubs.

So yes, I turned them down to wait for something better. Hopefully it will come.

Hey you're a Pilot, you are supposed to be healthy, not to mention, it's only a short wait for insurance to kick in.

Crappy first year pay? Mind telling the class what you made first year at XJT?

Crappy hubs??? You mean the ones you are affiliated with now? Ahhhh, I see you can't commute since none of these guys will allow you to j/s.

 

[FlyUnited]

And get beat up for the rest of his life for being a dork!

I love that name.

Or she can just name him Michael and play it safe.

(I like Torsten & Hunter too.....call me unconventional)

 

[71KILO]

I think if I met a Xander, I would kick his butt just on general principle. Slap yo momma...

On second thought, I'd bet Xander would probably by huge and competeing on the Ultimate Fighting Championships...

BECAUSE HE'D HAVE TO!

Sorry Flyunited, Xander sucks, really

 

[capt. megadeth]

Congrats Mega...
My wife stays at home with our kids because she wants to. If she wanted to work, so be it.

I would rather have kids see a mother being true to herself, than have them see a mother who is resentful because she flushed a career she loved.

Best of Luck,
Turn

Thanks man!


On the name note.....
I suggested Tristan but got a big fat NO from da da.
How bout Kyle?

 

[FlyUnited]

Wow, I remember thinking that was a really nice name. The kid I know has NOOOOOOOOOOOOO trouble getting beaten up or picking up the pretty girls, so there goes that theory. (Good boy, he's away this week choosing which Ivy league school he'd like to go to next year....I'll keep you informed)

 

[Phaedrus]

Well, its a shame about the problems with the Catholic church, as it says right in the bible you need to have celibate priests, and cardinals, and popes, and lots of fancy rites. Its all written down in....hmmm....hang on a sec....I thought I could find it here in Matthew, but hmmm...maybe John?...hang on...shoot! I know it was somewhere....hang on I'm sure I'll find it in a second...

Albie, there are many things that aren't in the Bible (or are not fully supported or are otherwise contradicted) that the protestants also hold sacred such as Sola Fide, and the belief that all of Christian tradition is contained within the pages of the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura).
Much of what you posted as examples can however be inferred from the Bible. For instance, as it pertains to celibacy, Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew, "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 heaven."
OK, just had to poke my nose into this and I'm not even Catholic....

 

[humuakalaka]

Well, its a shame about the problems with the Catholic church, as it says right in the bible you need to have celibate priests, and cardinals, and popes, and lots of fancy rites. Its all written down in....hmmm....hang on a sec....I thought I could find it here in Matthew, but hmmm...maybe John?...hang on...shoot! I know it was somewhere....hang on I'm sure I'll find it in a second....

(okay---ducking for cover from my Catholic friends...)

Okay, Albie. Here you go. Incoming fire. I'm surprised. Normally, you seem so level-headed. Last I checked this is an airline forum, not an apologetics forum. But, I'll bite on this one.

The core issue that you are addressing in your comments is one of spiritual authority. Specifically, you are implying that if a belief or practice isn't in the Bible, then it isn't worth believing or practicing. To begin with, let me ask you this: do you believe in the Trinity? If you are Christian, the answer is yes. Where in the Bible is the word "Trinity"? It's not in the Bible. Not everything that is to believed by Christians is directly mentioned in the Bible. I think we can both agree on that.

Furthermore, why do you assume that everything about the Christian faith has to be found in the Bible? In other words, does the Bible itself support the notion of sola scriptura (the Bible alone)?

Let me begin by asking you this: for Christians, what does the Bible itself say is "the pillar and foundation of the truth?" (NIV) According to the Bible, is the Bible "the pillar and foundation of the truth" or is it something else? Well, the answer that the Bible gives us is that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) That's very interesting. John 8:32 says "the truth will set you free." The church, then, has an indispensable role in salvation: the role of upholding and under-girding the truth. If you can't know the truth with certainty, then how can you be set free? Thus, according to its Biblical role, the church plays a critical part in setting people free because it is the defender and bearer of the truth. If the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" aren't we as Catholics right to listen to the Church in matters of faith and morals?

My next question for you is this: why do you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians? Where in the Bible does it say that? If you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then the Bible ought to say that it is the sole rule of faith. Right? But the thing is, nowhere in the Bible does the Bible say that the Bible should be used as the Christian's sole rule of faith. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NKJV) Amen. As Catholics, we believe 100% of what this verse is saying. Notice two things about this verse. 1) It says Scripture is "profitable". It does NOT say Scripture is sufficient. 2) Nowhere do we see the word "alone", as in Scripture "alone" is profitable. All that this verse is saying is that Scripture is inspired and "profitable" for leading a Christian life. Think about what Paul is really saying in this passage and not what you want Paul to be saying.

Then review 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” What does Paul mean in this passage? Why does Paul feel the need to distinguish between oral teachings (by word) and Scriptural teachings (epistle)?

Paul also emphasizes the need to adhere to oral teachings in 2 Timothy 2:2: “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” Why didn’t Paul instead say, “And the things you have read in my letters entrust to reliable men…?” Alternatively, why didn’t Paul say, “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will write it down?” Why didn’t he say those things? What we have here in 2 Timothy 2:2 is an instance, in Scripture, of the passing on of oral Tradition.

Paul didn’t stop there. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, he praised the Corinthians because “you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV) Now, let’s think about that for a moment, Paul is commending the Corinthians for following the traditions that he passed on to them. He is not scolding them for following those traditions. If the Bible alone were the sole source of authority, then wouldn’t Paul be scolding the Corinthians for following extra-Scriptural traditions?

Let’s take a look at 1 Thessalonians 2:13. It says, “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” The Thessalonians accepted the word of God which they heard and not simply that which they read in Scripture.

Finally, in Acts 2:42, Luke describes the early Christians as continuing “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” To clarify this passage a little bit, the Greek word that is used for “doctrine” is didache. Didache is described in the New Testament Greek lexicon as: “in religious assemblies of the Christians, to speak in the way of teaching, in distinction from other modes of speaking in public.” Luke doesn’t attach any condemnation to the fact that the early Christians were adhering to the apostles’ didache. In fact, he appears to be commending them for adhering to the apostles’ spoken teachings. If the Bible commands us to follow only the Bible, shouldn’t Luke be condemning these early Christians for following spoken teachings?

Well Albie, it’s very late. I could keep going on for quite a while. However, I’m getting tired. The Catholic Church is well-grounded in the Word of God.

 

[humuakalaka]

Double post

 

[Phaedrus]

The church is indeed the pillar and foundation of truth and the truth shall set one free, but that of course begs the question, "Which church?"
I post this only because it is the logical follow up question...I know the answer..."Upon this rock..."
Humuakalaka: have you ever read Radio Replies by Rumble and Carty?