(May 18, 2015 at 5:10 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Transubstantiation.  Really, Catholicism is batshit crazy.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR BEGINNERS 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1973674/posts

Ugh. Seriously, Randy? didn't we just go over this?
Literal transubstantiation is unsupportable and high school level chemistry can show you just how much of a complete lunacy it is.

As for your link.... a lotta history, a lotta preaching. Same old same old

(May 15, 2015 at 11:09 pm)Aroura Wrote: ...

As an adult, I look back and think how childish so much of that belief system really is.  No different than my 8 year old daughters deep desire to believe that Hogwarts is real, and she'll get to train dragons some day. 
...

Which parts of Catholicism seem most ridiculous to you now?

Did you ever consider joining a different church or religion, or did God just become a total non-starter?

(May 18, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 4:23 pm)Aroura Wrote: No, everyone I know also dropped their belief in the Catholic nonsense (except one childhood friend who also thinks her childs food allergy autism was caused by a vaccine...and she spent 2 years in a psychiatric ward, really, so she's not a great one to go by), even my mother dropped it, though she still believes in God, just not the catholic version anymore.

I understood Catholic theology well enough to know it makes no sense of the real world, is obviously inspired by man and not a "god", whatever that even is, and yes, I've read more about religion since my deconversion than before it, including Catholic "dogma".

I'm very sorry you have been so thoroughly brainwashed, but my mind is open and I know I could be wrong, so I'm always looking for more and better information about the world around me.  I just learned a long time ago that ANY religion wasn't the place to find it.  still, I study other religions. I'm currently researching eastern religions with my daughter to help her understand all the differing belief systems in the world.

So stuff your "closed minded" crap you mentioned in another thread.

Best of luck to you in life, though.

Could you give an example of how Catholic theology does not make sense of the real world?

And as you are looking for "better information about the world" around you, are you also finding information about the next world...the one you will face after you die? 

What has your search turned up so far?

1) Every single aspect of it fails to explain the world, and it also give people false tools for dealing with the real world.  In sort, all of it. 

2) Which on is that?  The one where I'm reincarnated as a worm?  Or perhaps the one where I go to the great hunting ground in the sky?  Yes, I know all the afterlife myths from around the world.  Yours is just as silly as any other.

3) Everything (real) that we've learned points to no afterlife, so why would I worry about it?  I worry about THIS life, and making it better for my child, myself, and the world around me by being as positive an influence as I can.

Could you give an example of how Catholic Theology DOES make sense of the real world?

---

(May 18, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Did you ever consider joining a different church or religion, or did God just become a total non-starter?

Total non-starter. I went from Catholic, to deist, to atheist.  I looked into some eastern philosophies after admitting to myself I was an atheist, and I still like some of the philosophical bits of things like Taoism and Buddhism, but I would never join them as religions.

I basically reject woo on all levels. 

---

(May 18, 2015 at 5:52 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(May 15, 2015 at 11:09 pm)Aroura Wrote: ...

As an adult, I look back and think how childish so much of that belief system really is.  No different than my 8 year old daughters deep desire to believe that Hogwarts is real, and she'll get to train dragons some day. 
...

Which parts of Catholicism seem most ridiculous to you now?

Oh my goodness, where to start!!!???

The Pope.  The Pope is the most ridiculous to me, even more so than transubstantiation and the holy trinity (although both of those rank right up there), IMHO.  It's so clearly a position created by man to control the populace, I cannot fathom why people take anything that asshole (even the current less asshole-ish one) says seriously. He has no more moral authority than any other human.  It reminds me of L.Ron Hubbard.  Guy admits religion is a scam to make money, people still follow said guy.  It's utterly baffling to me.

(May 18, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 5:52 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Which parts of Catholicism seem most ridiculous to you now?

Oh my goodness, where to start!!!???

The Pope.  The Pope is the most ridiculous to me, even more so than transubstantiation and the holy trinity (although both of those rank right up there), IMHO.  It's so clearly a position created by man to control the populace, I cannot fathom why people take anything that asshole (even the current less asshole-ish one) says seriously. He has no more moral authority than any other human.  It reminds me of L.Ron Hubbard.  Guy admits religion is a scam to make money, people still follow said guy.  It's utterly baffling to me.

Created by man? Well, let's see...I know you don't believe in God, but the office of Pope was established not by man but by Jesus.

Peter – The Royal Steward

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Quote:Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity -- despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Quote:Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Quote:Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

Quote:"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

Therefore, if Jesus is God and He established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then don't Peter's successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that all before.  I've had priests explain it to me, and a priest I cared about and respected too.  If he couldn't convince me with bible babble, neither can you/

You see, the problem is, there is no evidence Jesus (the miracle worker version) even existed, and little evidence even of a purely "historical" Jesus, enough that I highly doubt he existed except as a composite of a bunch of itinerate preachers of the day.  So your entire retort is based on a flawed premise. 

The rest is just trying to back up your book with quotes from your book.  Circular logic at it's finest.

Now, shoo...

(May 18, 2015 at 10:59 pm)Aroura Wrote: Yeah, yeah, I've heard that all before.  I've had priests explain it to me, and a priest I cared about and respected too.  If he couldn't convince me with bible babble, neither can you/

You see, the problem is, there is no evidence Jesus (the miracle worker version) even existed, and little evidence even of a purely "historical" Jesus, enough that I highly doubt he existed except as a composite of a bunch of itinerate preachers of the day.  So your entire retort is based on a flawed premise. 

The rest is just trying to back up your book with quotes from your book.  Circular logic at it's finest.

Now, shoo...

If no one named Jesus of Nazareth ever lived, then who was Tacitus referring to when he wrote the following:

Tacitus (c. 116 AD)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate [Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat]. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race [odium humani generis]. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals 15:44; Van Voorst, page 41-42)

It probably wouldn't bother you to learn that Christ and Jesus were not synonymous in Tacitus' time, would it? 

Even if the passage is authentic and not something patched in later by a Christian liar (as has been shown to be the case in other instances of old texts), all it means is that the story was being spread by circa 116.  Obviously, Tacitus did not witness anything directly beyond the fact that there were members of a bizarre cult, who made various claims.  So it just means that Christians were making such claims in circa 116 about Christ, nothing more.

In other words, this is not evidence that anyone existed at all, just evidence that there were such stories in about 116.

One can read old texts in which Apollo and Zeus are discussed as existing, too.  They may have as much reality in them as Jesus.

Also, this is not the proper place for this stuff; it belongs in another thread.