“Joe Allen is a fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees.”
it is accurate from a biblical context, from a historical context I seriously have my doubts. From healing wounds with his hands to rising up from the dead to realistic depictions of Satan symbolising all that is evil… I’ll suspend my disbelief.
I’m not stating for sure that I’m correct, however Islam, Judaism, Christianity, historical accounts and documentation present within the middle east at the time have yet to come to a consensus.
Jesus Christ likely did exist, and chances are he was crucified. There is little in the way of archeological evidence to suggest he was a real person, however he was a peasant and peasants rarely leave a historical trail of significance behind in their name.
The most detailed account of his crucifixion and resurrection is the new testament. However this is religious scripture, and whilst I’m sure such scripture can be used as a base to extrapolate upon historical events; I heavily lean towards taking such accounts with a grain of salt as religious interpretations are likely to be biased and events present are likely to be taken out of context.
However with that being said, various historians alive during the time and shortly after the death of Christ detailed accounts of a man named Jesus Christ who was trialled by the Sanhedrin and ultimately sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate if I recall correctly. There is documentation of a religious movement consisting of his prior followers springing up at his wake, yet no detail of resurrection is brought to the table.
Which has me asking… To anyone who does believe… Why do you believe? What pushes you to have faith in a historical account that cannot be backed through any account aside from Christian/Catholic scripture of which at the time was by/large scripture designed to govern the population?
What makes you believe in a symbolic representation of good and evil, how do you believe in the manner by which Jesus Christ was conceived when there has never been a single documented case of immaculate conception.
I happen to believe religion serves as a means to provide one with structure, routine and a sense of perceived control over the unknown. It provides comfort to have a sense of security “those who do bad will burn for eternity, those who stay virtuous go to heaven. This is how it is and always will be”.
With the vastness of the world and all that makes up the universe I have my doubts… A symbolistic representation of good and evil serves as a deterrent, and religious fundamentals back in the day prior to the advent of organised, massively populated societies, technological and scientific advancements and ‘big government’ would have probably served as an effective means to control the masses akin to how politicians, judges and law enforcement command society today.
A large portion of the core values preached through religious foundations stand the test of time today. However I don’t believe someone needs religion in order to be morally apt. It does help (within reason) provided someone doesn’t delve too deep down that rabbit hole, but it isn’t a necessity per se.
I’d like to clarify that I do believe in “god”. But my variation of God differs from that of contemporary religious scripture. I don’t know what God is, but I know there is something out there beyond my understanding, beyond my ability to comprehend.
That’s what I call god. However my rationale for trying to be a good Samaritan has little to do with religion. Rather I believe we need to try treasure what we have as life is short and we represent a mere speck of what is, was and will be. In the grand scheme our lives mean nothing, therefore we need to focus in on the here and now. Create memories, have fun and live life; but at the same time try to make the world a decent place for others around you… Because it’s not all about you, collectively it is about everyone
Not advocating for collectivism, I’m an individualist and a modernist. However individualism has its own pitfalls, my individualistic motto is that I ought to be able to live MY life on my own terms yet at the same time I will excise caution over my actions as to try avoid disrupting or negatively affecting the lives of others. I wouldn’t push my ideals regarding how I live life towards others as I feel as if my circumstances are somewhat unique/foreign to most.
You raise good questions, deserving of thoughtful answers. I’ll reply after I’ve slept and thought about them.
1 Like
Can you speak or read Latin?
Why chose the latter over the former?
Same religion, same values etc.
I don’t think the difference is going to be as substantial relative to a lubavitch synagogue (what I used to attend) vs a reform synagogue.
Church only lasts around an hour correct? Synogague used to go on for 2.5-3+ hours depending on the Torah portion being read.
Not to say I didn’t enjoy it, however understanding the Hebrew would have been helpful. I could read Hebrew at one point in time; but I could not speak or comprehend it
Oh, it is.
I go to an SSPX chapel.
2 Likes
It is longer than an hour and for some occasions two hours.
Modern mass is considerably shorter.
If I may ask
Is there anything about Catholicism that pulls you in over Judaism, other Christian denominations, secular Islam, Buddhism etc.
Or is it inconsequential and rather the construct of community, moral fundamentals and familial dynamics imposed through religious principles is desired.
Another question
Do you believe in Jesus Christ was the son of god, conceived through immaculate conception? If so, why?
Not trying to be facetious. The Torah contains the old testament and preaches many of the same values seen within the bible yet the new testament is absent. Rather I’m curious as to what drew you to Catholicism in particular.
Had your wife been Jewish, or of a different denomination within Christianity would you have still chosen Catholicism?
As to Satan, what is your representation of this construct? Is Satan supposed to resemble vice, evil and sin or is he an omnipresent entity to you?
I’m referring to what the scripture says, I’m asking what you believe because I’m curious. Your situation is rather unique in that you were born (and raised?) Jewish and converted.
I believe the Catholic Church is the true church.
It is not inconsequential.
Yes! Otherwise I wouldn’t have gone through with conversion. If I did it to be part of some social club, that would have been insincere! To have a priest, deacon, and a volunteer educate me on a weekly basis and go out of their way for me without truly believing in me would’ve been awful.
It contains the five books of the Torah and others.
This is a “what if” question and I usually don’t get into what if’s. I would not look into Judaism any further if my wife was Jewish for reasons that cannot be discussed online. I cannot even mention specific authors who have educated and inspired me, including some Saints.
And many modern day Protestants would be shocked if they read some of Martin Luther’s writings. Or they know and block it out.
An omnipresent entity that corrupts mankind.
If an author is legitimately a saint, chances are you can bring them up on here. Perhaps our definitions of “saint” differ. A saint is virtuous, a saint goes out of their way to help others, to impart kindness. A saint does no harm, never indulges in (and never has) any form of low-brow activity.
A mythical entity of sorts, as it’d be immensely difficult for a human being to achieve this status. There are NO modern individuals I know of who could meet this criteria.
Was there a particular process that led to this revelation.
Is this because the Roman catholic Church represents the oldest solidified form of Christianity? Therefore it is the “truest” form in that “christianity” as we know today didn’t exist before the advent of Catholicism.
Before that it was the Jewish Christians…
.
1 Like
Are there different variations of Catholic churches in the US, e.g, more conservative vs liberal? There aren’t any where I live. All get their orders from the local Archbishop IIRC.
Comment not relevant to the discussion above but relevant to the overarching topic
I (personally) believe there are both positive and negative aspects and variables that can be taught or learnt through religious affiliation. This depends on how deep one goes down this rabbit hole. A little bit of religious influence probably serves to better society.
Religious fanaticism on the otherhand is a shit show steeped in toxicity that has been used as justification over various historical atrocities… not to mention the degree of conflict it has caused
I’m not massively "pro religion’’ and I’ve made my stance on this clear in the past. Predominantly as I believe the (probably) pure foundations of religion have been exploited to control, exploit or conquer those who think differently. I happen to believe religion was created to instil a sense of law and order within a more primitive, barbaric society that needed something to believe in; a reason not to kill, rape, pillage and steal.
This isn’t a bad thing, as the alternative was 10000x worse.
Take all the conflict out, and toss the prevalence of fanaticism aside and I don’t think religion is a bad thing. The degree of societal influence needs to be graded and I certainly don’t think people should be forced to participate.
However an overarching, omnipresent push for family values, strong morales (separate from politics), performing basic civic duties, being polite etc… that’s not a bad thing
I don’t really care whether others look down upon my narrative presented here, this is what I have to say and chances are it won’t change.
However I am interested to hear what others have to say, and why they believe what they believe.
What religions are present throughout SE Asia?
Surely it deviates from the Jewish/Christian/Islamic norm?
Malcolm X also had some… troubling views
I’m not sure what you’re talking about in relation to Mr King, however I’ve found history tends to gloss over disturbing revelations made about otherwise famous public figures revered for work in the fields of human rights and ‘sOcIaL jUsTiCe’
I think most Novus Ordo churches are liberal, though the members might have different outlooks. There are Traditional Catholic societies that are truly conservative, including SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, and ICKSP. They provide Latin Mass.
I go to an SSPX chapel. SSPX is in irregular status with the Vatican. They respect the Pope but disobey him for what they believe is not Catholic.
SSPV is sedevacantist, meaning they believe there has not been an actual Pope since the 1500’s if I recall correctly. To them, the Vatican is simply a location. They are ultra-conservative.
Of possible interest:
1 Like
I’m not talking about MLK. I’m talking about Martin Luther, Protestant reformer, who MLK was named after.
Whoops…
My bad…
Oops…
I’m not an expert on these matters… but that is an embarrassing one on my part 
Edit:
And BRICKHEAD or @dt79 says
“It’s okay, you couldn’t have possibly known who I/he was talking about”
And just like that the humiliation goes away and Unreal gets up for an overnight snack. I’ve taken a liking to grapefruits. They can screw with all sorts of meds though, fairly potent cyp3a4 inhibitor.
A saint, in the religious sense, needs to be canonized by the Church.
This would not be accurate.Sinners can become saints. St. Paul and St. Matthew are two famous examples.
Ahhh, ok
Whoops…
Dammit…
I don’t quite understand this construct. There are many who lives full of sin who don’t deserve to be forgiven.
Murderers (first degree without premeditation), rapists (usually, but depends on context), people who willingly abuse or neglect children come to mind.
I don’t see how one can be forgiven for the lives they’ve needlessly taken or ruined. If one is to believe in the concept of a soul, surely the Jeffrey Dahmer subtypes are born without one?