This is the problem with them Buffaloe. They dont understand that in order to make a choice of free between evil and good that both have to exist in order for a person to make that choice.
Hi Tuno, I am just curious about the information you put under your “religion” section. I’m not being judgemental or critical or anything, I am genuinely curious! And maybe confused.
Very irrational indeed.
I would love it if they did, h_c. We would yet conclude that the list above did exist. And history is often proved to be a figment of someone’s imagination, say, like the honor heaped on Columbus, who murdered, raped, pillaged, hunted, etc the natives of the islands he governed after his high praises of them. Our Church even has a Society of Knights named after him! And you are claiming that no other faiths use reason and logic to support their viewpoint? I will leave that silliness right there. And trust is a wonderful virtue. How useful is it as a synonym for knowledge?
The deposit of faith is uniquely protected by the Paraclete.
So true.
You present yourself as “a former well catechized RC”, …you may or may not have been but it seems you haven’t reflected such that I have seen nor your intimacy of Scripture to determine that a valid claim. You also display what you are not, when it comes to beliefs, yet seem reluctant to disclose what supporting entity you share your beliefs with.
as many as four years after Jesus’ alleged physical or likely spiritual resurrection and possible departure for points East with his Mother. Thus even Josephus second and more likely reference to an historic Jesus is not eye witness. As to his calling him the “one who was called Christ,” I do not dispute that there may have been such a person, but claim that the teachings attributed to Jesus are ancient and esoteric ways, not the religious practices of the Church we know today. This is indeed the crux, if you will, of the matter: mistaking the exemplification of parables for history.
Looks like another Catholic leaving the faith without really knowing what they were leaving.
I find it interesting that for whatever reason there is something obvious that you are missing.
Interesting…. And what do you determine to be your credible support for your reasoning and logic in the acceptance of this viewpoint? Lets look at your choice of positions so as to gain a proper prospective. You theorize as though fact the invalidity of scripture and related proofs that support Christianity, but you accept that according to your words; “…Columbus, who murdered, raped, pillaged, hunted, etc the natives of the islands”. You seem to have an obvious double standard when it comes to your acceptance of “facts”. It would be a benefit to you to step out of the box and recognize you base your opinions on selectively adhered to principles with what seems no other motivation other than bias. Not a good way to come to terms with subject matter if you truly seek the truth in any subject.
lending verity to many factors in history and philosophy that ought not be discounted by “virtue” (heh) of faith by itself, particularly cradle faith. It is not a matter of my not believing despite “proof,” h_c, it is that you and others may not have the emotional or intellectual distance to consider alternative and congruent readings of the same or more widely researched data.
Like I said, “former.” The Catholic high school I attended still has a 3’ high 1st place trophy with my name on it. I helped win that in a state-wide competition in Catholic theology. I was at that time capable of stumping priests with related questions. Up to the point of my radical insight, I could and did have answers for those.
Sometimes it is easier to point to something that is by defining what it is not. If you aren’t familiar with this idea, you are displaying a large gap. My “supporting entity,” if the phrase applies, is the same as yours: God.
I hazard it wouldn’t matter to you, as you have not even come close to naming proponents of my standpoint. Since you don’t know them or those ideas, I wonder is it would be any use to name them. You seem a bit dismissive of ideas outside your ken.
None of that applies to me.
It is not a proof, it is an indication. Jesus’ resurrection is in the Bible, therefor it is alleged and is a point of faith, not knowledge. And there are libraries of work relative to the doubts about Jesus’ existence and the origins of the Church, all at least as credible as any “proofs,” perhaps more so. There are also linguistic and mystical traditions congruent with the language of the Bible that would easily lend its stories an entirely different rendition in meaning. Those tend to be lost in translations in English and other Indo-European languages. As for going East, there are at least two authors who claim evidence that after Jesus rose from the dead, He traveled East with his Mother and settled in Kashmir, where the one of author, Faber-Kaiser, claims there are place names that match the “Land of Milk and Honey.” There are as well ancient places that claim to be the tomb of Mary and the place Moses died, and people who call themselves “Beni-Israeli” or “Sons of Israel.” Are they the lost tribes that Jesus was to reclaim? Beats me, but it sure is fascinating. And like I said, possible, not proved.
I look to the exegesis of my own mystical experience as correlated with that of Saints and Mystics of both the Catholic and other traditions. You have access to those yourself, as you are clearly an avid researcher.
I do not maintain that Scripture is invalid, but that it is misinterpreted by the standards of the Church as put forth in LB’s useful post above. Scripture is patterned on deep fundamental Truths. The Church itself as above described as well appears to base its “opinions on selectively adhered to principles with what seems no other motivation other than bias.” Very strict ones that are booby trapped.
Wow. That was a mouthful. Yes, some may be “misguided and or the equivalent to being brain washed,” as those same might be in any organization they fell into. I’m guessing that the rest of that is a short bio relative to your qualifications. Those are respectable and worthy of praise. I trust you will give my several decades without a break in trusting Divinity and including of many levels of research and scholarship similar credence.
That, as impressive as it might be, is yet one sided and doesn’t include by your own admission the relevant 3500 years BCE. If there is any shame, it might be in the omission of jihad like activities on the part of the Church which originally got it a foothold in the West, including death camps for non-Christians and the burning of libraries along with the torture and murder of their attendants, and so on and so forth. But all religions do that, so that’s nothing special.
My stance has nothing to do with statistics or faith, though both of those are commendable in their areas of application. It is just that I’m at “odds” with the interpretations of the Church when, as well meaning and useful as they may be, they are yet incomplete and as well explained by a congruent and also more profound, IMHE, understanding. I’m not saying you are wrong, twb1621; you’re maybe just not done yet.
Tuno, you have misunderstood and misinterpreted the context of my previous posting thus misrepresenting the Pope. The Pope and his Scientific Advisory Committee aren’t biased! vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/pasacademicians.html
1. I am a Christian who tries to follow Christ as represented in the Sermon on the Mount. At the same time, I am sympathetic to most other religious faiths when its adherents seek to follow the golden rule, a concept found in most other major religions.
2. Christianity was born in an age of almost universal superstition, and in my mind it was heavily influenced by 'pagan' beliefs and practices, often borrowed from Zoroastrianism, from Egyptian, Greek or Roman mythology, or from mystery religions like Mithraism that were strongly competitive with early Christianity.
3. Many of the stories found in the gospels seem to me to have mythical aspects. For example, the nativity story parallels stories associated with other leaders of the mystery cults (Virgin Birth, the angels, the star, etc.). And I have trouble believing some of the miracles - such as devils in pigs, the transfiguration, cursing the fig tree, and others. The healing miracles may be closer to reality in that faith can play a major role in healing, and Jesus often said "your faith has healed you".
4. The four resurrection stories differ in detail. Now, if the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God, surely these discrepancies should not exist. An angel accompanied by an earthquake met Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" in Matthew. One young man (no earthquake) met Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome in Mark. Two men in dazzling apparel met "the women who had come with him from Galilee" in Luke. Only Mary Magdalene is mentioned as coming to the sepulchre in John, and she ran and told Peter "and the other disciple" who then came - plus the story of Christ appearing to Mary in the garden. Little inconsistences. Now if God were guiding those who wrote these gospels, as generally alleged, should these inconsistences be there?
Have to go. My main point is that much in the gospels was influenced by superstitions, exaggerated miracle tales, and by the beliefs of other faiths of that time. This, however, doesn't diminish my admiration of Christ and my desire to live by his message. I regard much of the other material as attempts to make him into God. The religion as taught by Christ became transformed principally into a religion about Christ. Theology became more decisive than godly living. People could be forgiven for their evil deeds (confession and other sacraments), but if they were heretics, they must recant or be 'eliminated'. This is where Christianity got off on the wrong track, Sadly, many CAFers seem to reflect that dogmatism which sometimes has led Christianity to be more of an enemy of human freedom and dignity rather than their champion and friend.
But Christ told us to love, and I try my best to do that, even love those who would consign me to the fires of hell because I have been exposed to 'the truth' but do not respond by accepting all of it as both Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism require. In contrast, I believe that God honors open and honest minds as long as we follow the two commandments affirmed by Christ - love God and one another.I would encourage you to research the matter more closely, as many of your stated beliefs are demonstrably false, particularly the influence of pagan religions on Christianity. I and others touched on this before, but that is an exploded hypothesis from the early 20th century that only sees currency with ignorant youths, many of them atheists. Most of the pagan parallels are totally fabricated, and I can recommend several books on this topic if you would like.