]

So, is my faith in Him cool, or doesn't it matter as long as I confess my sins to a priest.

There are 3000 different sects because god isn't really there to tell them what the religion is.

faith is needed but but Jesus also calls us to repent.

Luke 5:32
32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Catholic teaching is the if you make a Perfect Act of Contrition you do not need a Priest to be forgiven. A Perfect Act of Contrition is when you are sorry for the right reasons and not just because you are afraid of Hell, for example.

However, it's very hard to know if you are making Perfect Act of Contrition and the using the sacrament of Reconciliation we can be forgiven and cleansed of mortal sin even though we make an Imperfect Act of Contrition.

I still don't understand how Jesus fits in to what you believe as a Catholic.

Jesus fits in the same way with other sects of Christianity. Everything we do is aligned towards Him. It's just there is a bit more structure/unity and have additional sacraments.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit flows down through the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and lay people who are a part of the body of Christ.

You kinda suck at this Jesus thing.

Please provide an argument for each of the above claims.

Thanks.

IMPRESSIVE USE OF CAPS, BY THE WAY!

Biblical Syllogism:

1. Love keeps no record of wrongs.
2. God is love.
3. God killed millions for doing wrong.

With that kind of utter nonsense contradiction, the stories can only be apocryphal. They are not truth and can't be. Besides, isn't it the blood drinking vampire cult that must have the ultimate truth?????? It sure sounds reasonable to the true believer who is incapable of reassessing.

Religious fanatics fall into three categories: the ignorant, the terrified, and the mime.

fyp

You omitted a fourth category: the enlightened.

Mythology-based doctrine and the accompanying dogma is anti-enlightenment, as everybody knows ... as are vampirism magic sects. It's a massive insult to the idea of enlightenment.

Of course there is a path along the Christian trail that is not fundamentalist / literalist that can encourage enlightenment. But believing whatever a magic book from centuries ago says is by definition anti-enlightenment.

Understand that the religion is one of many, and that all are attempting similar things, then the mind is open enough to pursue enlightenment, imo.

What path along the Christian trail are you referring to? and what do you mean by enlightenment?

We do understand that a particular religion is one of many and attempting similar things.

It is in our nature to seek something higher because we were created by that something. What we see and experience in this world does not satisfy this craving.

If this world did satisfy us than I reckon you would most likely not be posting in this forum.

I disagree that Christian doctrine is "mythology based." "Mythology" doesn't contain historical places and events confirmed even by SECULAR scholars.

1. What is a "literalist"?

2. What is a "fundamentalist"?

3. I don't know any Christians who believe in a magic book.

We finally agree on something: There are lots of religions.

Drinking blood for eternal life is pure vampire cult crap. It's pure magic, borrowed from Greek mythology by Christianity. Think, please.

Mythology of all ilks certainly does draw on real places and events. Then it mixes in its god stories. That's exactly how it works. Try taking a mythology or comparative religion classes. It will get you outside of the box if you have anything in you but clinging to dogma.

In your eyes, what separates Christianity from borrowing from Greek Mythology opposed to other monotheistic religions? Or is it all of them?

What do you believe about your existence?

I want food.
I find food.
I store food.
I want shelter.
I find shelter.
I clean myself.
I want to f**k.
I f**k.

I'm a squirrel with self awareness.

1. Religions certainly tend to build on other religions and myths. That's very evident. Christianity seems particularly guilty of this as they were in a feverish milieu of competing religions and saviors. So they adopt tenets that will please other religions. When they have no idea how the world started, they just borrow the origin story. Then the "Jesus is the only way" doctrine was a pure maneuver to garner market share.

2. I believe my existence is natural. As in I came from my parents naturally, life evolved naturally. All the way back to viruses, by the way. If viruses (and other microorganisms) were a step in the evolution of life, then we have a good explanation for them being here and killing people by the billions. But if Jehovah created life, then why are they here? He certainly could have created the world without them. For what reason did Jehovah want microscopic pathogens? To administer more of his death wielding righteousness??? That would be consistent, at least. Or is it the "he moves in mysterious ways" or "how are we to know the ways of god" option?

For me, the most glaring flaw in your posts as a whole, is that there is virtually no evidence that you have even a clue about what Christianity actually is, and what Christians actually believe.

One mind-numbing caricature after another.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

And now for what you believe about your existence. Is it: "Of the thousands of religions, I believe the one that I was born into, and the one prevalent in my culture, is the real one. Just like most of the rest of the people do in the different religions and cultures."

Is that it? Does that sound pretty reasonable?

See, now 45 can say he has faith in this drug or that, and that he has faith that injecting disinfectants in the veins could help ... and there is nothing under the sun that preempts that idea for as long as he is using faith as the standard. DUCY that is a problem?

What the blood of the lamb isn't the sacrifice that saves mankind? And we drink it. And we are eternal. And this isn't from the days when such magical beliefs and vampire legends reigned?

Fella, didn’t you admit that you used to be religious? So you were fooled also then? Are you a hypocrite?

Yes I was fooled. It's called thinking and changing ... individuating ... and not remaining in blind delusion. How could candidly saying I was once in the church and now am not possibly be hypocritical? Hypocritical is staying in it and giving it lip service. What I'm doing is the opposite of hypocrisy. Religion teaches people to deviously and facilely circumvent reality and honesty as a way of life, including this latest post of yours, and call themselves moral.

Look at what you said ... that I was "fooled also." So you know that you are fooled and you stay in?? One time a religious guy in an atheism class, raised his hand and objected, saying: "Look how brutal the world was before they made this god up." When he realized it had slipped out what most of his brain thought - all but the compartmentalized religious part - that is that the god was "made up," he backtracked like 45 on his disinfectant rant.

Everybody knows that drinking blood doesn't give you eternal streets of gold. However, you can simultaneously hold that position in faith until you put the reality test to it. But in pre-medieval dogmatism, reality is often the enemy. Dogmatism and addiction are both fear based; in fact, dogmatism is an addiction. You shouldn't have inspired me.

I used to be gullible. But THIS TIME, things will be different!