What religion am I?

d.anthony

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

Seaneh

d.anthony wrote: »

So, my question is, what is my religion?

Greedy. Or Stubborn.
You know the truth but you choose to ignore it because it affects your lifestyle choices.

d.anthony

Seaneh wrote: »

Greedy. Or Stubborn.
You know the truth but you choose to ignore it because it affects your lifestyle choices.

Yeah, big help there. Thanks.

Can anyone give me a less preachy answer?

Seaneh

d.anthony wrote: »

Yeah, big help there. Thanks.

Can anyone give me a less preachy answer?

What were you looking for? Did you expect people on a Christian forum to tell you "arrah, sure it's grand, you can believe in Jesus and totally ignore everything he said, doesn't matter".

We all sin, and it's really tempting to live the way the majority of people between 15 and 50 do in this country, did it myself for long enough, but, really, if you believe in Christ why do you think it's ok to ignore his teachings?

Ush1

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

As an atheist I would say don't pigeon hole yourself too much. Just say a christian. I would imagine lots of people claiming to be roman catholic would actually be thinking the same as you.

d.anthony

Seaneh wrote: »

What were you looking for? Did you expect people on a Christian forum to tell you "arrah, sure it's grand, you can believe in Jesus and totally ignore everything he said, doesn't matter".

We all sin, and it's really tempting to live the way the majority of people between 15 and 50 do in this country, did it myself for long enough, but, really, if you believe in Christ why do you think it's ok to ignore his teachings?

No, but I don't believe that his 'teachings' are actually his, rather bits and pieces added on to the bible through time. For example, who came up with the artificial contraception thing?

I believe that a man called Jesus existed and that he was the son of god, but the whole thing has been hijacked through the years.



Thanks Ush1 for a helpful answer.

Seaneh

d.anthony wrote: »

No, but I don't believe that his 'teachings' are actually his, rather bits and pieces added on to the bible through time. For example, who came up with the artificial contraception thing?

I believe that a man called Jesus existed and that he was the son of god, but the whole thing has been hijacked through the years.



Thanks Ush1 for a helpful answer.

I personally have no problem with contraception.

As for the hijacking, it would have had to had happened really REALLY early on because we have copies of Mark's Gospel from as early as 50AD.

When you say it's ok to have pre-marital sex you are directly contradicting Christ's teaching. How can you say you believe he was the Son of God and still say you don't believe his teachings?

Also, if you don't believe that he actually thought the things the Gospels say he thought, then where are you getting your beliefs from, if not the Bible?

popsy09

d.anthony wrote: »

No, but I don't believe that his 'teachings' are actually his, rather bits and pieces added on to the bible through time. For example, who came up with the artificial contraception thing?

I believe that a man called Jesus existed and that he was the son of god, but the whole thing has been hijacked through the years.



Thanks Ush1 for a helpful answer.

i also think along the same lines as you so your not alone ,

id rather not say what i think of the cathlioc church :P:P

shall we start our own religion ??

d.anthony

Seaneh wrote: »

I personally have no problem with contraception.

As for the hijacking, it would have had to had happened really REALLY early on because we have copies of Mark's Gospel from as early as 50AD.

When you say it's ok to have pre-marital sex you are directly contradicting Christ's teaching. How can you say you believe he was the Son of God and still say you don't believe his teachings?

Also, if you don't believe that he actually thought the things the Gospels say he thought, then where are you getting your beliefs from, if not the Bible?

I'd call most of it blind faith, as most of religion is anyway.

As for everything else, I find it hard to believe that there was someone running around after Jesus 24/7 with a slate and scribe scratching down every single word he said, and even harder to believe that who was writing it wasn't paraphrasing and also, that a lot of it was lost in translation, pages lost etc...

They didn't have a storage unit or filing cabinets back then.

Onesimus

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

Sounds like you have come in here looking for someone to agree with you as opposed to disagreeing with you. Maybe you have come in here and built up this thread just to debate with people and satisfy your ego to knock them down? Just thought I'd throw that at you seeing as you bashed Seaneh for preaching to you and asking people to give you a ''less preachy answer''.

Christians dont tell you what religion you are, maybe your better off just keeping this to yourself or taking it to the philosphy forum or something, doesnt sound like it belongs in here to be honest.

d.anthony

Onesimus wrote: »

Sounds like you have come in here looking for someone to agree with you as opposed to disagreeing with you. Maybe you have come in here and built up this thread just to debate with people and satisfy your ego to knock them down? Just thought I'd throw that at you seeing as you bashed Seaneh for preaching to you and asking people to give you a ''less preachy answer''.

Christians dont tell you what religion you are, maybe your better off just keeping this to yourself or taking it to the philosphy forum or something, doesnt sound like it belongs in here to be honest.

Sorry if that's how it sounded, I really don't mean no offence to any of you. I just didn't know whether to call myself Christian or what considering what I believe. I thought here would be the best place to ask.

Was a genuine question is all, no offence meant.

jimmycrackcorm

Seaneh wrote: »

Greedy. Or Stubborn.
You know the truth but you choose to ignore it because it affects your lifestyle choices.

I think you are confusing Christianity with Catholicism.

Seaneh

d.anthony wrote: »

Sorry if that's how it sounded, I really don't mean no offence to any of you. I just didn't know whether to call myself Christian or what considering what I believe. I thought here would be the best place to ask.

Was a genuine question is all, no offence meant.

I don't think you've offended anyone in all honesty, don't be worrying about that dude.

But, seriously, start asking yourself if you really believe in Jesus, and if you do, what that should mean in your life.

If you don't believe, then your lifestyle choice doesn't matter. But if, as you claim, you actually believe Christ was the Son of God, then you have to start realising that the only basis you can have for that is the bible, and if thats true then you have to believe that the other things the bible says about Christ has to impact your life too.

Onesimus

d.anthony wrote: »

Sorry if that's how it sounded, I really don't mean no offence to any of you. I just didn't know whether to call myself Christian or what considering what I believe. I thought here would be the best place to ask.

Was a genuine question is all, no offence meant.

None taken. Many of us Catholics accept the teaching of the Church, but putting it into practice isnt easy, and God knows most of us are in the confessional more than others. Perhaps you should start with some books and learn how Gods law is one of Love and freedom. Right now it may seem to you that it is restricting you from all the desire you wish to entertain yourself with, so I suggest you read some books. I hear what your saying about scriptures, but you need to understand that St.Paul the biggest follower of scriptures said in scriptures ''all scripture is inspired'' the greek for which is ''Theosneustos'' which literally means God breathed, and just as God breathed life into Adam and Eve so too does he do the same with his scriptures and God cannot lie for he is divine Truth just as his scriptures are. However I'm not gonna debate with you the whole scriptures thing. You need to delve into Christianity with Faith and an open heart, not with a pre-conviction that its all wrong. If you approach Christianity with the conviction that its already wrong and the only reason your gonna research it is to prove your own convictions then its gonna prove to be useless. You have to ask yourself, St.paul who was the biggest follower of Christ himself said that Scriptures are Divine Truth, does this mean my views of Christ and his teachings and his scriptures are false?

As a Catholic I accept all of Christs teachings but it doesnt mean I do very well at putting them into practice, the big sinner that I am, God knows I'm down in that confessional box more so than anyone else. I reccommend you read the Gospels along with a book known as ''Imitations of Christ'' by thomas a kempis. Try and approach it with an open heart. I was once like you myself, so at least try to see where I am coming from.

you are in my prayers, and I have not taken offence my friend. And relax the lovely Christians of this board are not out to get you, just to help, however bitter it may look.

Seaneh

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think you are confusing Christianity with Catholicism.

Wait, what?

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, you do realise that...

Onesimus

Seaneh wrote: »

Wait, what?

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, you do realise that...

I think we should stick to the issue at hand, and not allow the arguer ( the devil ) to get into this. you know, the Catholic church is true...replie from other poster....''no its not protestanism is''....and blah blah blah

The Op is searching/struggling in his position, focus on that and the good advice I'm sure you have given him so far.

Onesimus

after looking at my last post I realised it looks a bit like back seat modding, to which I deserve my slap on the hand I'm sure. :pac:

antiskeptic

d.anthony wrote: »

No, but I don't believe that his 'teachings' are actually his, rather bits and pieces added on to the bible through time.

Picture your postion as one which involves tearing pages out of the Bible. "This bit I believe is added on so out it goes. Ditto that bit". After a while your left with a bit of a Bible. Question: what sound basis have you for supposing the remaining pages aren't add on's too?

For example:

I believe that a man called Jesus existed and that he was the son of god

You'll find pages in the Bible indicating Jesus is the son of God and you haven't ripped those out - so presumably you don't believe they were add on's. But why not?

As for your 'religion'. I don't think you can call yourself a Christian at this stage. I mean, even the demons believe Jesus exists and is the son of God. And you can hardly call them Christians.


(for what it's worth, I don't think the Bible teachs that you can't wear a condom nor that you need to go to Mass. The issue of sex before marriage is at least open to debate - although personally I'd understand the Bible to teach us not to have sex before marriage)

antiskeptic

Seaneh wrote: »

Wait, what?

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, you do realise that...

A mere branch? Many of your brethern seem to think it's the root (ie: the one true church)

AudreyHepburn

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

Hi d.anthony,

I am in the same situation as you in that I believe in God, Jesus, the Miracles etc but I question other things as I'd wager most Catholics do nowadays.

I however made the mistake of airing my beliefs on the athiest section of boards and told very clearly what I could and couldn't call myself and what I had to believe (or rather what they thought I had to believe) if I was going to call myself Christian/Catholic. It actually got quite hostile.

I think that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that you can be religious yet able to think critically and for yourself.

And in the end I realised that the only one who can really decide what you are and who you define yourself is you. You alone know what you really believe and who you really so you shouldn't need to go looking to other people to tell what to define yourself as or what to believe.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like to talk more about this, I wouldn't want to clog up the thread!

And at the risk of sounding like a mod, a word of advice for other posters, responses like "Greedy or stubborn" or telling some-one they're actually in denial or they can't call themselves a certain thing really don't help in this situation and really just come across as pompus and condescending so don't hound d.anthony like some did me, just advise and help him.

ISAW

I think you need to look into a lot of the so called critical arguments you might haqve heard ion the pub.

Christianity is rooted in reason! You need to educate yourself about historicity and not deem the Bible as a conspiracy theory you thnk waqs added to over time. Also you need to look into some actuaql facts. I mean on question Time on BBC the other night discussing the Popes visit I believe a muslim referred to the cheek of Christian clerics when "ten thousand of them sexually abused children" This they of thing is touted a lot in the media! Go and lokk for the actual stats and you will find that of 100 abusers less than one was a priest. It doesnt make it right but if a priest murders someone why should you be saying you dont trust the church when another 99 murders are done by non priests? whom should you trust?
Also I am aware of NO catholic bishops engaged in child abuse. Threr have been tens of thousands of bishops over the last century or two. I am aware of one who had a child and used church money to fund that child and so resigned as a bishop but still practices as a priest. This was not child abuse but I don't know of any other Bishops in the Catholic church doing as bad as that.

thenh look at the last 2000 years. Was the church such an evil influence on society? Go get the figures! So how come you don't think the church is something you should belong to?

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And at the risk of sounding like a mod, a word of advice for other posters, responses like "Greedy or stubborn" or telling some-one they're actually in denial or they can't call themselves a certain thing really don't help in this situation and really just come across as pompus and condescending so don't hound d.anthony like some did me, just advise and help him.

Suppose someone came on and said that they believe the Bible (when correctly translated) and that they follow the teachings of Jesus - but don't think he was the son of God. And they asked what Religion they are.

Would you be pompous and condescending in saying that you didn't think they were a Christian and that they might like to consider the Mormon religion instead?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

It doesnt make it right but if a priest murders someone why should you be saying you dont trust the church when another 99 murders are done by non priests? whom should you trust?

I think you would be hard pressed to find any one who would trust a secular organisation that covered up sexual abuse cases. So why exactly would you expect the Catholic church to be treated any differently?

AudreyHepburn

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose someone came on and said that they believe the Bible (when correctly translated) and that they follow the teachings of Jesus - but don't think he was the son of God. And they asked what Religion they are.

Would you be pompous and condescending in saying that you didn't think they were a Christian and that they might like to consider the Mormon religion instead?

No. I was talking more about the way things were said rather what being said, for instance the comment about anthony being "greedy and stubborn".

I just don't think that kind preachy crap helps anyone, that's all.

Zombrex

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

Muslims believe Jesus existed but wasn't the son of God, they believe that the Christian New Testament is a misrepresentation of Jesus' message.

So you might want to check out Islam. Though they still believe sex before marriage is wrong.

Have you asked yourself the question why you believe in Jesus at all if you don't trust the Bible (or the Quaran?). I mean, if you don't believe these books why do you believe Jesus at all? Where are you getting your information about him and why do you trust it over the Bible?

irishconvert

Wicknight wrote: »

Muslims believe Jesus existed but wasn't the son of God, they believe that the Christian New Testament is a misrepresentation of Jesus' message.

So you might want to check out Islam. Though they still believe sex before marriage is wrong.

Yes, we believe Jesus was a messenger from God, like Moses was.

Wicknight wrote: »

Have you asked yourself the question why you believe in Jesus at all if you don't trust the Bible (or the Quaran?). I mean, if you don't believe these books why do you believe Jesus at all? Where are you getting your information about him and why do you trust it over the Bible?

Good point Wicknight. The OP just cannot come up with his own version of Christianity without anything to back it up. D.anthony, I suspect you may have a problem with the catholic church rather than the message from Jesus. My advice to you is to go study the bible and try to find out what the teachings of Jesus actually were, rather than what the Vatican tell you to do. There are lots of different sects of Christianity, maybe one of the others would suit you better.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you would be hard pressed to find any one who would trust a secular organisation that covered up sexual abuse cases.

Care to list ten of them?

So why exactly would you expect the Catholic church to be treated any differently?

SO you assert the church covered up sexual abuse cases?
How many
What is your evidence?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

SO you assert the church covered up sexual abuse cases?
How many
What is your evidence?

The Murphy report for a start

Section 1.113

"The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities"

Then there are cases in Canada, England, America

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

The Murphy report for a start

Section 1.113

"The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities"


How many and how many were covered up?
How many non church ones at the same time?

THis it=s the typoe of thing i mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Report
the period from the 1940s to 2004 over 2,800 priests and religious served in the Archdiocese of Dublin

eleven either confessed to, or had been convicted of abuse, there was one clear case of false accusation, and two priests had not been accused of abuse but suspicions had been raised

eleven in 2,800. Now how many sexual abuse cases occured in dublin outside the church from 1940 to 2004? Were more then eleven people involved?

Then there are cases in Canada, England, America

Yes there were. How many? How many the church knew of? How many did they cover up?

What do you mean by "cover up" I am not aware of any Bishop ever saying "That priest never abused anyoine" when he actually knew the priest did abuse someone.

Can you give examples of that?


Let me just clarify. Im not saying bad things dint happen but Im trying to get across
1. relative to what was going on outside the church
i.e. how many abused over all and how many abusers and what percentage were priests
2. The conspiracy theory argument
e.g. that the Bible was cooked up by a committee
or that Aanumber of bishops sat down and planned to get nasty and dysfunctional women make them nuns and put them over a laundry staffed by unmarried mothers

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

eleven in 2,800. Now how many sexual abuse cases occured in dublin outside the church from 1940 to 2004? Were more then eleven people involved?

How is that your point?

Do we tolerate cover ups in non-Catholic organisations? No.

So why do you expect people to tolerate cover ups in Catholic organisations?

You sound like the kid in front of the teacher for doing something wrong protesting "But Miss Miss! Harry did it too!"

ISAW wrote: »

Yes there were. How many? How many the church knew of? How many did they cover up?

What do you mean by "cover up" I am not aware of any Bishop ever saying "That priest never abused anyoine" when he actually knew the priest did abuse someone.

Can you give examples of that?

You seriously want to debate the exact meaning of "cover up"

Are you disputing the Murphy Report?

ISAW wrote: »

Let me just clarify. Im not saying bad things dint happen but Im trying to get across
1. relative to what was going on outside the church
i.e. how many abused over all and how many abusers and what percentage were priests

Why are you trying to get that across? We don't tolerate sexual abuse in secular society, why tolerate it in the Catholic church?

Saying it happens in other places is irrelevant unless we tolerate it in these other organisations, then you would have a case for unfair picking on the Catholic Church and hypocrisy. But since we don't you don't have any case here.

prinz

Ush1 wrote: »

As an atheist I would say don't pigeon hole yourself too much. Just say a christian. I would imagine lots of people claiming to be roman catholic would actually be thinking the same as you.

You realise the irony in this position? Since it is this exact sort of "Christian" most often accused of representing hypocrisy by Christians and used as a stick to beat the religion with by atheists in particular? Make your mind up.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

You realise the irony in this position? Since it is this exact sort of "Christian" most often accused of representing hypocrisy by Christians and used as a stick to beat the religion with by atheists in particular? Make your mind up.

Just to clarify, Ush1 isn't the current high pope of atheism. His personal opinion doesn't have to reflect all opinions given by all atheists previously and his current views are not necessarily shared by the High Council of the Godless.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

How is that your point?

Do we tolerate cover ups in non-Catholic organisations? No.

So why do you expect people to tolerate cover ups in Catholic organisations?

i dont! Im replying to the OP point about losing all faith in the chuurch. If there is bullying in the Army or embezzlement in insurance companies we dont say "I never will put my moiney in a bank" or "i will never report anything to the Gardai"

You sound like the kid in front of the teacher for doing something wrong protesting "But Miss Miss! Harry did it too!"

Im not justifying it. Two wrongs dont make a right. But one has to understand the context. Just because of Watergate we dont say the whole republican party isnt to be trusted forever!

You seriously want to debate the exact meaning of "cover up"

Are you disputing the Murphy Report?

Havent read it. thanks of the link. What I have read is harrowing. From 1940 to 2004 it woudl seem to refer to 320 complaints and eleven certain abusing priests. about 20 to thirty victime a priest assumeing all allegations are correct.Four bishops were involved. It seems the first Mc Quade ( for whom I have in the past expressed rese4rvations for other reaasons) was in denial and didnt not believe abuse happened but the other three probably did have more evidence. There were also about a dozen senior clergy and half a dozen gardai. thats less than twenty people of the society. hardly widespread conspiacy but Ill admit a cover up to avoid scandal did take place. The question is how many more then 320 happened elsewhere in society? No it does not justify it but it DOES prove it isnt a church plan or instigated by priests alone and that iot was something that was happening throughout society.

Why are you trying to get that across? We don't tolerate sexual abuse in secular society, why tolerate it in the Catholic church?

I didnt say we should! I suggested the church didnt CAUSE it or plan it so using it as a reason to say "I am not a Christian" isnt really logical.

Saying it happens in other places is irrelevant unless we tolerate it in these other organisations, then you would have a case for unfair picking on the Catholic Church and hypocrisy. But since we don't you don't have any case here.

Actually we do since we arent discussing how the church should redress it. We are diuscussing if abuse happening in the past is a logically valid reason to desert the church. To answer that one would have to have something with which to compare the church.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

Just to clarify, Ush1 isn't the current high pope of atheism. His personal opinion doesn't have to reflect all opinions given by all atheists previously and his current views are not necessarily shared by the High Council of the Godless.

so if an atheist makes a hypocrictical argument your defence is that "atheism has not dogma" ? How does that resolve the hypocracy?

JimiTime

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

Not going to Mass or using condoms etc is related to the religion of Catholocism. So seperate those from the sex before marriage thing for starters.

As such I'll just deal with the issue of fornication. Unlike the Roman dictates on Condom use etc, Fornication is a moral lesson direct from the scripture. It is repeated and repeated. Faith is trusting God. Being a Christian is not about picking and choosing what we like and disgarding the bits that 'get in the way'. Its not about looking for something to suit your opinion, but rather truly seeking what God wants, and seeking his will rather than our own. Faith (trust) will lead us to know that his way is the best way. Those desires we like to indulge may feel good in the short term, but God as our creator, knows what we need, and what REALLY makes us happy.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

Then you should take it upon yourself to look to find Christ. You need to disentagle Christ from Catholocism. See what is from Christ, and what is from the papacy. You will also have to be prepared to have your lifestyle challenged, and decide who's will is more important, yours or Gods.

prinz

strobe wrote: »

Just to clarify, Ush1 isn't the current high pope of atheism. His personal opinion doesn't have to reflect all opinions given by all atheists previously and his current views are not necessarily shared by the High Council of the Godless.

Really, without your help I never would have guessed.

antiskeptic

ISAW wrote: »

What do you mean by "cover up" I am not aware of any Bishop ever saying "That priest never abused anyoine" when he actually knew the priest did abuse someone.

"Cover up" would imply the bishops knew priests were abusing but didn't report the crime to the police. That is what occurred. Furthermore, they also decided to respond by moving offending priests to other parishes where those priests continued to abuse. This isn't a cover up but is inarguably more abominable than a cover up - effectively aiding and abetting child molestation.

antiskeptic

ISAW wrote:

Im not justifying it. Two wrongs dont make a right. But one has to understand the context. Just because of Watergate we dont say the whole republican party isnt to be trusted forever!

Indeed not. But the response from the Catholic church has been such as to make one certain that nothing has essentially changed. The language being used bears all the hallmarks of a carefully crafted damage limitation exercise and there is an unmistakable sense that increasing levels of apology and contrition are being extracted at media/public outcry gunpoint.

The Church has in no way, shape or form led from the front on this. They still aren't leading from the front.

Which is no surprise: think of the disease involved in order to permit not only the abuse but the cover-up and hand wringing that went with it. What aspect of Church structure brought about the environment wherein such disease could flourish. How on earth does one root that corruption out? And how long would it take to dig it out? Difficult questions.

Until there are some clear hallmarks that the institution of the Roman Church has cured itself of such disease - and given what's a stake - then trust remains something that need be earned. The level of evidence required to support trust needs to rise to the quality of the evidence which has proven it cannot be trusted..


(Consider a husband caught in adultery. Consider the damage done. Consider how long it will take to restore that trust broken. A few mealy-mouthed statements of sorrow will not only not engender trust - they'll indicate that the person themselves hasn't really gotten around to understanding their wrongdoing. That is the sense one gets of the Roman Church)

bad2dabone

hi OP, i'd imagine there are a lot of people with similar belief structures to yours, I know the vast majority of my friends are "catholics" who have no time for the catholic church, abhor the scandals and the structure of the church and haven't been to a mass in years (save funerals/weddings/christmas/baptisms) but believe in god and jesus.

I think you should perhaps re-read the bible, get yourself more information on god and jesus and see what conclusions you draw from that. Again most "catholics" i know haven't read the bible since childhood (this is just in my experience btw).

Its a great read for helping you decide what to believe.

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

so if an atheist makes a hypocrictical argument your defence is that "atheism has not dogma" ? How does that resolve the hypocracy?

Do you know what hypocrisy means? There's your answer. Really ISAW this is very basic stuff.

Festus

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

I know of someone who knew God and Jesus personally.
He didn't agree with Him or His rules.
The Catholic Church didn't exist then so he wasn't a Catholic.
Went by the name of Lucifer.

I'm not sure anyone can help you define your religion unless you define who your god really is.

If you believe in God you must follow his rules whether you agree with them or not and be obedient to Him and His Church.

If yo put me to a decision my guess is you're a nominal Christian and you should be considering where you want to spend eternity.

bad2dabone

well there you have it d. anthony, Festus has laid it out for you in black and white.

Ghost Buster

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Hi d.anthony,

I am in the same situation as you in that I believe in God, Jesus, the Miracles etc but I question other things as I'd wager most Catholics do nowadays.

I however made the mistake of airing my beliefs on the athiest section of boards and told very clearly what I could and couldn't call myself and what I had to believe (or rather what they thought I had to believe) if I was going to call myself Christian/Catholic. It actually got quite hostile.

I think that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that you can be religious yet able to think critically and for yourself.

And in the end I realised that the only one who can really decide what you are and who you define yourself is you. You alone know what you really believe and who you really so you shouldn't need to go looking to other people to tell what to define yourself as or what to believe.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like to talk more about this, I wouldn't want to clog up the thread!

And at the risk of sounding like a mod, a word of advice for other posters, responses like "Greedy or stubborn" or telling some-one they're actually in denial or they can't call themselves a certain thing really don't help in this situation and really just come across as pompus and condescending so don't hound d.anthony like some did me, just advise and help him.

Ummmmmmm No they didnt and no it didnt!

bad2dabone

Festus wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone can help you define your religion unless you define who your god really is.

If you believe in God you must follow his rules whether you agree with them or not and be obedient to Him and His Church.

you should be considering where you want to spend eternity.

Ok I just have a question, and i'm not trying to be a pain in the behind or a troll, but for arguments sake lets say one was born in a Muslim country, to muslim parents and was a muslim all through their life. Never had access to any other religion. But they led a good life, were kind and generous and generally a good egg. When they die, because they believe in Allah, they're going to spend eternity in hell?
Am I wrong in that assumption?

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Hi d.anthony,

I am in the same situation as you in that I believe in God, Jesus, the Miracles etc but I question other things as I'd wager most Catholics do nowadays.

I however made the mistake of airing my beliefs on the athiest section of boards and told very clearly what I could and couldn't call myself and what I had to believe (or rather what they thought I had to believe) if I was going to call myself Christian/Catholic. It actually got quite hostile.

No we didn't, and no it didn't

I think that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that you can be religious yet able to think critically and for yourself.

While that may or may not be true, it has nothing to do with what sect of christianity you follow.

And in the end I realised that the only one who can really decide what you are and who you define yourself is you. You alone know what you really believe and who you really so you shouldn't need to go looking to other people to tell what to define yourself as or what to believe.

I find that ironic from a poster who insists they're a catholic despite sharing nearly no catholic beliefs.

Festus

bad2dabone wrote: »

Ok I just have a question, and i'm not trying to be a pain in the behind or a troll, but for arguments sake lets say one was born in a Muslim country, to muslim parents and was a muslim all through their life. Never had access to any other religion. But they led a good life, were kind and generous and generally a good egg. When they die, because they believe in Allah, they're going to spend eternity in hell?
Am I wrong in that assumption?

Allah is not God. Going further Allah is a false god.

There is much in the Koran that advises the followers of Allah to lead what we would, sorry - what Christians, would not consider to be a good life. There is much in the Koran that teaches hatred for example, specifically hatred of enemies. This conflicts directly with the teachings of Christ.
There is much in the Koran that teaches that what is paradise for a man who dies a martyr involves the infliction of hell upon women for eternity.
The assumption would suggest that for them to live a good life would be rather difficult. It might be a good life by their standards but not by Christian standards.

However, to actually answer your question would involve judgement and judging the persons you describe. This is something a Christian cannot do. In short your assuption is potentially wrong because we do not know.

Even if we were discussing a Christian sinner we would not know unless we were with them when they died and heard them declare their hatred for God and love of sin to be able to say whether or not they will go to Heaven or Hell.

Equally we could propose someone born into a Satanist family, if such a thing exists, or someone born into a Satanist community following one of their rituals, yet lived "a good life, were kind and generous and generally a good egg".

We may guess but we cannot judge or say for certain.

antiskeptic

bad2dabone wrote: »

Ok I just have a question, and i'm not trying to be a pain in the behind or a troll, but for arguments sake lets say one was born in a Muslim country, to muslim parents and was a muslim all through their life. Never had access to any other religion. But they led a good life, were kind and generous and generally a good egg. When they die, because they believe in Allah, they're going to spend eternity in hell?
Am I wrong in that assumption?

They spend an eternity in Hell because they hope that they can earn eternal life by their being a good egg (which is what believing in Allah entails*)**. They are relying on their own righteousness when they have no righteousness of their own.


*I'm assuming this Muslim believes the central tenets of his faith.

** Then again, this Allah-believing muslim might also know that despite his surface good-eggedness, he really is rotten in his heart of hearts. He would fully expect to be cast into Hell by Allah but could well find (to his surprise) that he is cast into heaven by God. "Poverty of spirit" is a key characteristic of the saved and an Allah-believing muslim has as much potential to be brought low by God as does the man who resides in a Christian country.

bad2dabone

thanks for replying.

I guess there are a lot of people not going to the afterlife that they believe in so.

antiskeptic

bad2dabone wrote: »

thanks for replying.

I guess there are a lot of people not going to the afterlife that they believe in so.

Not unless illogic reigns in fact and a number of contradictory gods are true. But imagine the look on our muslim who fully expects the wrath of Allah to be poured out on him only to find that he has the unrestrained love of God poured out on him instead. I'd love to see the look his ....oops, I actually will see the look on his face!!

dlofnep

Seaneh wrote: »

I personally have no problem with contraception.

As for the hijacking, it would have had to had happened really REALLY early on because we have copies of Mark's Gospel from as early as 50AD.

Um, it was written in 50AD.

Where are the exact copies of it from 50AD being held?

Fanny Cradock

Seaneh wrote: »

As for the hijacking, it would have had to had happened really REALLY early on because we have copies of Mark's Gospel from as early as 50AD.

Actually, this isn't quite true. The earliest known piece of the Bible is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 fragment which is dated sometime around the turn to the mid part of the second century. If you want to read the oldest complete copy of the NT approx (1600 yrs old) the British Library have made the Codex Sinaiticus available online.

I'm wondering, d.anthony, on what you base your belief that "the whole thing has been hijacked through the years"?