But child molestation is OK

Even I've heard of how the English controlled 'white' Christian churches spurned Ghandi.

It's a thing to ponder : had the early Jesus followers known that even though he was opposed to the Roman rulers, that he would never lead an uprising, would as many of them have followed him?

Faith for thought : today's children have a rather rigorous training to go through for Confirmation. Many parents are upset, as it takes between 2 and 5 years (depending on the diocese) of between 8 and 12+ nightly meetings, requiring homework.

PLUS mandatory "minimum" at Church participation. The children hand in a Token when the Padre invites them up to the front, for the Our Father prayer.

The Catholic Church has known for years that barely 10% of goings are actually practitioners. With the new generation of kids, and in some 10+ more years, and the great die off of the boomers, what's left will be true Christians.

I've talked to many parents that have complained on the hardship. I've been through it myself as a father of 2, who are now adults. They are "believers" but as a working couple cannot commit to being at Church 12 times out of 52 weeks (what's considered a minimum).

The new Church prefers having 20 good new members than 50 reciters that won't show up ever after Confirmation, or on rare occasions.

Meanwhile, parishes are closing, being sold, merged, etc. Far from dying - just adjusting from some 100 years of over inflation.

 

kinda like the economy.

 

1) they did know
2)confirmation should not be driven by age.
3)you wouldn't need a die off to be left with true belivers if #2 above.
4)it's the work of the holy spirit to convict people that jesus is God.

 

Actually, confirmation is driven by age. For Roman Catholics, the minimum is the age of reason, being 7 yrs. Each diocese & Church decide from there, based on tradition.

Protestants do the 'complete' rite at baptism for both children and adults.
Other non-Roman Catholics follow one or the other.

. . .

Whenever I need volunteers, especially retired adults that are 'fit' enough to drive back & forth to Church, I rarely get anyone. Our Church has a 'strong' attendance.
At 9am is the adult choir, and 10:30am is the children choir and a nice mix.

At the 10:30 choir I always get volunteers, across all the age groups. The 9am one? ZIP NADA. Most leave early! As in, not waiting for the celebrating priest to make his way to the front doors to greet everyone leaving.

Also guess which of the two groups is decreasing and the other increasing.

. . .

A priest friend told me on how they stopped two for just one celebration, so he can do two different churches, and some old women complain that small children that cry & yell out have no business being there. Imagine that attitude broadcast to the mother.
Sad. Children are the life of the Church.

I also don't like those 'separate' rooms on the side for toddlers. Let them play with the old lady's hat...
(though they are useful for a diaper change and other child related emergencies)

 

Holy Mother of Freud. Did you mean to say 'convince' instead of 'convict'?

 

no, the spirit convicts. look it up. convincing is an argument based on persuasion.

 

That's OK, I'll take your word for it. Sorry, I thought you'd made a typo and I was trying to find some humour in it. As you can probably tell, I'm neither convicted (in the religious sense) nor convinced.

 

sorry, missed it. read the book, you'll never be the same!

 

I have, thanks. I've been a confirmed atheist ever since.

 

see.

 

Even Jesus was not perfect. Of course, Christians are fond of claiming that he was.

I worked for five years as a volunteer in a homeless shelter in Moorhead, MN (just across the river from Fargo, and for all practical purposes one city with Fargo). Some of the homeless men we served were Christians. And many of them traveled around the country, either by rail or by hitchhiking. It was not all that unusual to hear of a homeless guy walking into a church, only to be kicked out because the good Christians considered him "undesirable." This is right now. Many "Christian" churches will not allow a homeless person to worship in their church.

I'm not convinced, but I've been convicted (in the legal sense, not the religious sense).

Let's see. I've read all four of the Gospels plus Acts; I've read Genesis and (of course ) Daniel, and I've read other parts here and there from both the O.T. and the N.T. I've also listened to several lecture series from The Teaching Company relating to Christianity, the Bible, and the life of Jesus.

The more I learn about Christianity, the more "convicted" I am (and convinced also) that it's all a load of hogwash, all except for Jesus's idea (rejected by Paul and most mainstream churches) that we should be nice to each other.

So if it's the holy spirit's job to "convict" us, it sounds like he/she/it is laying down on the job. Eh?

 

on the contrary, paul believed and reinforced all of jesus' commands. to paul, it is all about the love! don't harden your hearts my friends, keep reading, no other answer makes sense.

 

It's the old works vs faith argument. Jesus preached works. Paul preached faith. For Paul, works didn't matter. Also, Paul discarded all the O.T. laws which Jesus specifically said he was not changing.

 

OK

No... we do know, there is more than one book talking about it; and we understand a bit about the time-lines of historical reference regarding equines in general... it couldn't be a hybrid.

Mule would be a re-write from what was said in the old books... they were quite specific as I recall... he rode in on an nice person. In the current day, more english speakers use the term donkey... which is not sterile, a mule is, and that fact has some significance with trying to understand early cultural religious adherence when referencing this event, which is celebrated in christendom, and understanding what was happening during/back in the day...

Say donkey or nice person... when speaking english anyways... it wasn't a mule, those are a smarter less-aggressive stronger critter...

And an nice person is a perfectly good critter too, especially if you have cattle and coyotes living near each other... or as in this case need to show some distinction as you arrived.

 

When you say "Jesus specifically said" - you don't mean that in historical sense, right ? There is no record of what he said ...

 

You are correct that there is no extant record of what he actually said, and even no extant copies of the original works from which the Bible is compiled. But there is extensive material available for scholarly studies, and reasonable conclusions about what he probably said are possible. That is what I am referring to. What is clear is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalypticist who believed that the world would end within the lifetime of his contemporaries, and that certain BEHAVIORS (not beliefs) were necessary for salvation. You needed to love god and your neighbor as yourself; you needed to sell your worldy goods and give the proceeds to the poor; you needed to repent your sins (it's not repentance if you don't change); you needed to give no thought to the future; you needed to do good unto those who hurt you or stole from you (if someone hits you, let him hit you on the other side as well, if someone steals from you, give him even more than he has taken); etc., etc., etc.

Paul agreed with the love part, but discarded the rest, and invented the idea that BELIEF was what got you into heaven. A few hundred years later, when Rome became officially Christian, it was more convenient to decree that belief was what mattered. Allowing people to hit you and take your stuff was a lot less appealing than killing them. And belief is easier than making yourself poor by giving all your wealth to the poor. So Paul, rather than Jesus, became the authority for Christianity.

We don't have Jesus's actual words. But we do have sufficient material for scholars to determine the thrust of what he taught. And mainstream Christianity today is 180 degrees removed from what Jesus taught.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Christian. I do not live the life Jesus preached. The difference between me and most Christians is merely that they claim to believe in him, while refusing to live as he commanded, while I do not believe in him.

Second disclaimer: Some Christians look to Jesus's words in the Bible, rather than Paul's, for guidance. But these are very few. My criticisms are directed against the dogmas of the major churches, not against all Christians.

 

From my readings, there is no contemporary writings on Jesus at all - even though occupying the Temple would have been very noteworthy event, if it happenned. Anyway, if you have some reference secular scholarly book, I'd like to read it.

Contrast that to Budha. We don't expect any contemporary writings on Budha since India was not literate at that time and yet we have reasonable historical records. Israel was highly literate - as were Roman occupiers during Jesus's (possible) lifetime.

One interpretation is that the zealous sects were hoping for an end of Roman occupation rather than actual end of the world.

Anyway, coming back to topic, :focus:, most of sacred texts are composed by various people over centuries - and interpreted by various people over centuries. So religions are not known for consistency.

Catholic church is basically like any other private organization where its clergy ("employees") are likely to be protected, ignoring ethics and such. Just like BP

 

The Five Gospels. Subtitled What did Jesus Really Say? By Robert W. Funk, Roy W Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar. Published by Harper Collins. 1993. ISBN 0-06-063040-X (Paperback. Also available in cloth.) List $28 USA, $43 Canada. Amazon price $18.48. About 550 pages.

 

jesus said "no one comes to the father except through me" and paul was instructed by jesus to preach this and of course, expound on many of his teachings which you will find he did if you read 'romans' and his letters to the other churches.

 

Thx, not what I had in mind - but looks interesting.

BTW, the idea that Jesus Christ started out as an entirely divine being, just like all the other gods in all the other religions of the day has to be seriously considered.

"The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus : Earl Doherty"

Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle