It’s Time For The Catholic Church to Lead The Way

[blü 2]

Well, I probably wouldn't be Catholic today if it wasn't for Vatican 2 and doing away with the Latin Mass. I have attended numerous ones of them and do not care for them. I want to understand what's being said, and I personally think it's beautiful.

That being said, I do like that we have numerous masses to choose from. We can find the one that suits us best. I have. My daughter attends the Latin Mass (most of the people who love the Latin Mass seem to be younger in my parish) and I want her to be able to do so.

Back in the days of Vatican II when Giuseppe Roncalli was in charge, one of the reasons they did away with the mass in Latin was because only a small percentage of their congregations spoke Latin.

Am I to assume that your daughter speaks Latin? If not, it rather gives the impression of listening to magic words whose actually function is unknown, as though it's all about feel and has no informational or intellectual content.

 

[blü 2]

Except one

So Jesus wasn't a human, you say, not H sap sap at all?

What was he then, some kind of fairy or goblin?

 

[Jimmy]

So Jesus wasn't a human, you say, not H sap sap at all?

What was he then, some kind of fairy or goblin?

Ok Dawkins

 

[Jimmy]

If I were to ask non-Christians If they think what I’m saying is correct about Christians they would say no because they wouldn’t want to offend Christians. So I’ll be the bad guy and say it. lol.

 

[blü 2]

Ok Dawkins

But to the best of my knowledge Dawkins is a human, standard model. So that would make Jesus a standard-model human too.

 

[Heyo]

If I were to ask non-Christians If they think what I’m saying is correct about Christians they would say no because they wouldn’t want to offend Christians. So I’ll be the bad guy and say it. lol.

I say about Christians (and other believers) that they don't know what they are talking about. One of the strongest signs that that is the case is that they don't agree on basically anything.
My hypothesis is falsifiable, the believers simply would have to get together and publish a joint paper with all their common beliefs. It wouldn't necessarily make the beliefs true, but at least it would show that their positions are convincing, and they know what they are talking about.
But I'm pretty safe in my assumption, as I don't see any efforts in that direction.

 

[Madsaac]

I think it’s time for the church to evolve with the times and the needs of the people and come out and say it instead of pussyfooting around it.

Yes

Think about it Christians. Are you blindly believing what the Church tells you?

Yes

I just wish they would be more honest

Yes

Are you finally seeing the truth?

 

[1213]

...They have never come out and said that ‘Jesus’ is alive in the flesh on earth today. Are they afraid they’ll lose followers?...

Maybe they take Bible too seriously when it says:

Then if any man tells you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or, 'There,' don't believe it. For there will arise false christs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones. "Behold, I have told you beforehand. If therefore they tell you, 'Behold, he is in the wilderness,' don't go out; 'Behold, he is in the inner chambers,' don't believe it. For as the lightning comes forth from the east, and is seen even to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For wherever the carcass is, there will the vultures be gathered together.
Matt. 24:23-28

 

[Glaurung]

I wonder how many people would believe that ‘Jesus’ is living in the flesh on earth if the church said so? I imagine quite many. That might be something that Christians would like to think about. I think it’s time for the church to evolve with the times and the needs of the people and come out and say it instead of pussyfooting around it.

Anyone who knows anything about Christianity would know that Jesus is not set to return until the second coming. When all the dead will be resurrected and judged. So, according to the Church, when Jesus returns people will notice.

Think about it Christians. Are you blindly believing what the Church tells you? Would you switch beliefs if the Church switched? The Church always and endlessly tells you Jesus is alive. Jesus is God in the flesh. They love driving this home. They have never come out and said that ‘Jesus’ is alive in the flesh on earth today. Are they afraid they’ll lose followers? It’s like the church is gambling with people’s hearts. They see it as a win because by not telling you their followers will not dwindle. I just wish they would be more honest. I love that people follow the church, but don’t be fooled my fellow peoples.

Nothing you've written here even approaches a rational point. This entire paragraph is an incoherent jumble of half-baked thoughts.

Another thing preachers do is call other religions false. The reason they do this I think so much is because they’re so bothered by the fact that they can’t really speak the truth so that’s their way of venting. It makes them feel better when they point out other religions are false because they know deep down that their own religion is false. They’re always looking for ways to feel better. It’s kind of pathetic really.

Christianity teaches that Christianity is true.

If I were to ask non-Christians If they think what I’m saying is correct about Christians they would say no because they wouldn’t want to offend Christians. So I’ll be the bad guy and say it. lol.

You haven't said anything.

 

[Kathryn]

Back in the days of Vatican II when Giuseppe Roncalli was in charge, one of the reasons they did away with the mass in Latin was because only a small percentage of their congregations spoke Latin.

Am I to assume that your daughter speaks Latin? If not, it rather gives the impression of listening to magic words whose actually function is unknown, as though it's all about feel and has no informational or intellectual content.

Well, she does speak Latin but there are also missalettes.

 

[Jimmy]

"Catholic Church Lead the Way"

I don't know why you are talking about Jesus being alive in earth today?

However on another level, much of Catholic theology must be examined so that one might we whether what they are believing is even true to start with. I have no stone to grind, not promoting any particular religion. I am refreshingly 100% unbiased and I encourage others to be also.

This Roman Christian form of "monotheism" (really not) is basically caused by the Roman Empire and their goal of unifying the empire under one religion. The system was able to convert Greco-Roman pagans but not the Jewish people.

Jesus was used as a human-like ‘god’ figure to help a huge population of Greco-Roman pagans convert to Jewish monotheism. The pagans believed in human-like gods. By using a human-like form (Jesus) as an image of the true God, the pagans could transfer their thinking from the pagan gods to the true God. It's a parable but it's not true. It went too far for Jewish people to accept, even though the Bible also has elements that are meant to attract Jewish people such as saying that Jesus is the messiah.

If one looks sincerely at the New Testament, there are profound teachings of Jesus. However, evidence abounds that many other writings are stories/parables/fibs designed for a range of religions including Greco-Roman and Jewish.

So, the Catholic Church can take baby steps in the right direction and we can see a few of those (can discuss). However, they can't lead the "way" as long as a majority of Catholics keep accepting these untrue stories and practices that frankly appear disrespectful to God and we can also discuss those.

Because there is a man on earth today who’s life, along with gods life is the reason existence is here at all imo. The church has a pretty good foundation of followers so they might as well just call him Jesus. I don’t personally call him Jesus. I don’t know his real name.

 

[Jimmy]

They say that Jesus was a threat to the church. Ain’t that the truth. Haha

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They say that Jesus was a threat to the church. Ain’t that the truth. Haha

The Christian church didn't even exist in Jesus' time.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced second temple Judaism. It was not his intent to create a new religion. He dealt strictly with Jews. The debates he had with the Pharisees were a normal part of Jewish life.

 

[Jimmy]

The Christian church didn't even exist in Jesus' time.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced second temple Judaism. It was not his intent to create a new religion. He dealt strictly with Jews. The debates he had with the Pharisees were a normal part of Jewish life.

Yeah he was a threat to the Pharisees. But he’s a threat to the church now,

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah he was a threat to the Pharisees. But he’s a threat to the church now,

Nah. He was no threat to the Pharisees (who went on to establish the form of Judaism that has lasted to this very day.)

If you read the actual teachings of Jesus (not his claims about himself) they are certainly Pharisaical. They line up with the school known as bet Hillel. During his ministry, the Sanhedrin was dominated by a much stricter interpretation of the Law known as bet Shammai. The Talmud records many disputes between the two schools -- it was absolutely a normal part of Jewish discourse.

Jewish culture embraces the notion that debate helps to reveal truth. Two rabbis can have a heated debate about some aspect of the Talmud, and then they go out a friendly lunch together. It's not personal.

 

[metis]

Nah. He was no threat to the Pharisees (who went on to establish the form of Judaism that has lasted to this very day.)

If you read the actual teachings of Jesus (not his claims about himself) they are certainly Pharisaical. They line up with the school known as bet Hillel. During his ministry, the Sanhedrin was dominated by a much stricter interpretation of the Law known as bet Shammai. The Talmud records many disputes between the two schools -- it was absolutely a normal part of Jewish discourse.

Jewish culture embraces the notion that debate helps to reveal truth. Two rabbis can have a heated debate about some aspect of the Talmud, and then they go out a friendly lunch together. It's not personal.

Yep, it appears it was a "family argument", and they can be the nastiest.

Shabbat Shalom

 

[Jimmy]

Nah. He was no threat to the Pharisees (who went on to establish the form of Judaism that has lasted to this very day.)

If you read the actual teachings of Jesus (not his claims about himself) they are certainly Pharisaical. They line up with the school known as bet Hillel. During his ministry, the Sanhedrin was dominated by a much stricter interpretation of the Law known as bet Shammai. The Talmud records many disputes between the two schools -- it was absolutely a normal part of Jewish discourse.

Jewish culture embraces the notion that debate helps to reveal truth. Two rabbis can have a heated debate about some aspect of the Talmud, and then they go out a friendly lunch together. It's not personal.

Yup Jesus was a rebel. I’m glad they’re having lunch nowadays instead of crucifying people. Lol

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yup Jesus was a rebel.

I disagree. As I said, debate was normal Jewish discourse. It's not being a rebel.

I’m glad they’re having lunch nowadays instead of crucifying people. Lol

Excuse me? Wasn't it Pilate that had Jesus crucified? Or are you the sort that believes Jews are communally responsible for the death of Jesus?

 

[Jimmy]

I disagree. As I said, debate was normal Jewish discourse. It's not being a rebel.

Excuse me? Wasn't it Pilate that had Jesus crucified? Or are you the sort that believes Jews are communally responsible for the death of Jesus?

According to the gospel accounts, Jewish authorities in Roman Judea charged Jesus with blasphemy and sought his execution, but lacked the authority to have Jesus put to death (John 18:31), so they took Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the province, who authorized Jesus's execution (John 19:16).

 

[metis]

Yup Jesus was a rebel.

I disagree. As I said, debate was normal Jewish discourse. It's not being a rebel.

To an extent, I believe both of you are correct. Yes, he parroted Hillel the Elder but not entirely so.

I gotta go until Monday.