Can You be Catholic and Not Pray to Mary or Saints?

He thinks the Marian and saint prayer thing is idolatry as well as angel prayers. He just goes to the Mass and doesn't participate in those 3 things. When he goes to confession, he omits the hail Marys and replaces them with Our Fathers.

This guy doesn't go to Evangelical churches because they're not intellectual enough and don't have enough reverence and ritual. He doesn't like the whole stadium as a church thing or rock music in church thing. He's also not into the anti-reasoning approach they have to life.

But doesn't go to Mainline churches because they're good with female pastors and divorce and obsessed with BLM, pro-abortion, and LGBTQ as topics for church teaching.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the point? "He" clearly thinks the Roman Church is full of shit, so why bother?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He doesn't want the pastor to be lecturing him on BLM all day in a church sermon but also doesn't want the church to be like a rock concert or stadium without reverence.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I notice btw this LARPer's obsession with aesthetics and culture war hot topics. You don't like Evangelical churches because of pop music and stadiums? "Not enough reverence and ritual"?? How about the fact that they deny the Transubstantiation or otherwise have grossly divergent views on the most important sacraments, or on apostolic succession and the ordainment of the clergy?
        You don't like the Mainline churches because BLM? How about because of the monstrosity that is Calvinist theology, or the Anglican church being the ad-hoc creation of some English Caligula?
        I don't know what the opposite of "touch grass" is but you're in dire need of it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't like their approach to worship?
          >How about their approach to theory about worship?
          Yeah lol no, worship is the issue here. Intellectual disputes don't cover it.
          Touch grass.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can't escape the culture wars in the USA so these are important. It doesn't matter what the person next to you believes as long as they aren't the ones lecturing you about being "pro choice" from the pulpit in the case of the Mainlines. You go to church to have solemn worship and to revere the Lord not to go to some theater with lights, hear rock music instead of hymns, and feel nothing but emptiness inside. How can you feel the power of the Lord in this way?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't matter what the person next to you believes
            Please stop pretending to be Christian, or religious for that matter. Churches have doors for a reason.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Aesthetics are also important

          • 2 weeks ago
            Narayana

            matthew 6:5

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              has nothing to do with gym or stadium churches that play rock and make you feel less close to God

              • 2 weeks ago
                Narayana

                The current age is kali yuga. There aren't hard and fast rules for devotion. The bible does not say on way or the other is correct for a lot of different practices. We are told to pray, we are told practice devotion not in a flashy way. So yes it does. Such practice I would say is flashy and not proper for that reason. They can do whatever though, progress towards God is never lost

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why does a stadium make you feel less close to God while a cathedral makes you feel closer to God? why does christian rock make you feel less close to God while orientalized Greco-Roman hymns make you feel closer to God?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's serious and reverent. It isn't some casual thing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Narayana

                It doesn't. Like I said there are no hard and fast rules. I feel it is easier to get caught up in the flashiniess of that, but if that is what helps you in devotion, then go for it. Any devotional service is never lost, and any effort is preserved.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because profane things are pretty much by definition further from God than ones where sacrality is the key concern every step of the building process lol
                Why does a swimming pool make you wanna swim more than a house where there's a bath tub hidden somewhere?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                because one is set apart for worship

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tell him to go to a bible-believing Reformed church.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Catholic church literally compiled and canonized the bible. The bible is a catholic book, which protties stole and REEE

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God created the bible, sir.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, and but God did not mention that the bible was a sacred book. He did not say write everything down. And the Christian church predates the compilation of the bible. And no, God didn't come down and say 'these books are God breathed and these aren't'. The canonization comes from the church, because Jesus gave authority to the church through Peter, and he breathed the Holy Spirit onto the apostles. It is through THIS authority that we determine which scriptures are God breathed and which aren't. This is the holy spirit that works through the church, as promised by Christ. Your wholly ignorant, and your prophet (who you follow rather then Christ) Martin Luther started with the unbiblical personal interpretation bullshit. A fat autist, who STILL believed in the eucharist, and the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother, and the veneration of Mary. Sorry that Pastor Jim brainwashed you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >He did not say write everything down.
                Not accurate.

                "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:" - Isaiah 30:8

                "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;" - Revelation 1:11

                >And the Christian church predates the compilation of the bible.
                The New Testament was written by those who are in the church, and it is given by inspiration of God. The cults, including the cult of Catholicism has nothing to do with that.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you're anti-social like me and don't really feel connection to other people to the point where you'd venerate and kiss them on the spot, there's nothing compelling you to do so with neither the living nor the departed members of the Church...
    > He just goes to the Mass and doesn't participate in those 3 things. When he goes to confession, he omits the hail Marys and replaces them with Our Fathers.
    ... except the Mass.

    In your personal practice you can choose whichever prayers, practices and even names for God work best for you. But the Mass isn't subject to personal preferences, changes etc. And neither the concept of idolatry is subject to personal opinions and impressions. Praying to saints isn't idolatry. Worshipping saints would be idolatry. Which isn't what's happening if you do things correctly. And I'm saying this as an Ortho who purposefully avoids prayers to Saints (including Mary) in my personal spiritual life... I understand where he's coming from! But sadly for him he over-estimates his discernment and understanding. In the words of a poet "Personalized Mass is ass."

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He thinks the Marian and saint prayer thing is idolatry as well as angel prayers. He just goes to the Mass and doesn't participate in those 3 things. When he goes to confession, he omits the hail Marys and replaces them with Our Fathers.

    This person needs to think through the claims of the Catholic Church, and could start by reading this pamphlet: https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

    Next, I would suggest he take an hour of his time and listen to this excellent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJWwqs0Ajs

    Christ and Mary are linked from the beginning - Genesis 3:15 - to the end - Revelation 12.

    There is an indissoluble bond between the two, prophesied of old, fulfilled in time. The Father willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by Mary's acceptance, so that just as a woman (Eve) contributed to the spiritual death of the human race, so to a woman would contribute to its redemption and life.

    Thus Mary is not only physically joined to her son, she is also joined to His saving work.

    When we are baptized, we are born again as a child of God. 1 John 3:1.

    As a result, Jesus, the Son of God, is truly our older brother.

    His mother, or course, is Mary. If Jesus is our older brother, what does that make Mary in relation to us?

    On the cross, Jesus literally gave His mother to us as *our* mother -- this is seen in His declaration to John, the beloved disciple: "Behold your mother."

    All Christians are 'beloved disciples' of the Lord. The Church reasons and teaches that the disciple John represented us all at the foot of the Cross. And Mary is now the spiritual mother of us all: "She is clearly the mother of the members of Christ," CCC 963

    In short, it's a family affair. That's the Catholic view, and it truly is consistent with the biblical view.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics twist Biblical Christianity into a form of idolatry. Just as the other cults, they are a great evil in this world, leading people astray and away from the Gospel, and into damnation. It's why we have this passage:

      "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
      7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
      8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
      9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
      - Galatians 1:6-9

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. The intercession of Mary and the saints is mentioned in the mass several times. There is no way you could participate without it, and I am pretty sure not doing the penitence after confession pretty much nullifies it, though I could be wrong on that point.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you confess directly to God or confess to a friend and have him pray that God forgives you it's not

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Narayana

    you pray to Mary for mercy. if he thinks he is good enough then he is ignorant. christians are fallen and don't follow the actual teachings of the bible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you pray to Mary for mercy
      >the actual teachings of the bible
      That's not in the Bible. I agree that you pray to Mary for mercy, but I myself also find other prayers better to focus on, especially those that indeed are Biblical.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Narayana

    I don't know any christians that have read the whole bible. All christians I know are materialistic and it gives followers of God a bad rep. For example I don't understand how someone could say that christians commited a hate crime. Obviously if they commited a hate crime they aren'tchristians and are imposters. If I said I am a black man and killed 10 people, do they report in the news as "Breaking News: Black Man Kills 10 People"? No, they don't. They would say "White Supremacist Claims To Be Black and Slaughters 10 Innocent People". Get what I'm saying? How can we label someone as something if they don't follow the criteria at all?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because the only criterion for Christian is to believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and savior. Many Christians believe that faith alone saves and that nothing you do can make you lose salvation.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Narayana

    in the new testament the only prayer jesus says to use is the our father. tbh im doing something and dont have time to look it up but you can look for it. he says god already knows what you need and simply by saying the our father is all we need.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think even if you end up being wrong, God will respect you for being based and holding to your convictions, as opposed to being a go-along-to-get-along homosexual.

    That's why He says, "I would prefer you be either cold or else hot, but because you are lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth."

    He literally says there, He prefer you be all the way evil or all the way good, but not wishy-washy. It's better to be fucking full-on EVIL than to be neutral, in God's eyes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Narayana

      christianity has taken a turn for the worse starting about 75 years ago.; We still had great christian minds then like Oswald Chambers. This is going to cause a lot of shit by me saying this, but Jesus isn't god. He is a perfect devotee. He is a perfect follower.I know that goes against what Christians believe today, but how do people just change the bible. Like do they really think they are smarter than previous acharyas? Oswald Chambers will give you the best understanding of what being a devotee of God truly entails.

      The reason being even a little devotion grants us mercy. We manipulate if use that mercy for material gain.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Narayana

    The trinity consists of The father (God), the son(living entities), and the holy spirit (material nature).
    It can be very frusturating to not be able to identify as a Christian because of how misled the masses are at the moment.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The father (God), the son(living entities), and the holy spirit (material nature)
      The Spirit is not material nature. "Spirit" is literally the opposite of "material". Please don't talk about what you don't understand.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Narayana

        Material is still spiritual.
        everything is of god.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Material CAN HOST the spiritual, but the Holy Spirit is not even close to being equated with neither material nor nature.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Narayana

            God is contained within everything. The holy spirit can act through anything. Also sorry for getting confused. Holy spirit is paramatma my bad. I was distracted.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No idea what pramatma is, but I'm glad we agree the Holy Spirit means nothing even close to "material nature".
              And the Son means nothing like "living creatures" either. If anything it's the Spirit that is the source of life as per the Nicene Creed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Narayana

                Paramatma is the localized part of God. We are all sons of God as we are told multiple times throughout the bible, mainly in the Old testament with David. David is a perfect example of a child of God because he follows his directives and rules. He has full faith in God.
                So why we are told that Jesus is God and not the son of God I do not understand. The Son are the living creation of God. A more clear term for The Son is jiva, or living entities.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >David is a child of God
                >So why we are told that Jesus is God and not the son of God
                Because David afaik never said that all that is God's is his. He never revealed the Father to anyone. He never said "Father and I are one". Again, some details might escape me but there's a good list of things why placing David and Christ into the same category doesn't really work as a reading.
                >The Son are the living creation of God
                The sons are living creations the Son is eternal. Just like the fathers are living masters. The Father is the eternal one.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Narayana

                >The sons are living creations the Son is eternal. Just like the fathers are living masters. The Father is the eternal one.

                There you would be wrong. The Father is eternal, but so are the living entities.

                As far as David is concerned he gets adressed by God as his son. It was not necessary for him to reveal himself as such, nor his duty. Jesus came to clear our sins. David also showed us devotion through his work just like Jesus did. Also David does promote God as being the father multiple times. David isn't considered the messiah because he isn't, he served a different purpose for God. The main problem I see with Christians now is that they rely on hearsay and not on revealed words.

                Also just because someone quotes the bible doesn't mean anything. A snake that touches nectar certainly turn it poisinous. We must get information not only from the source(the bible) but from someone who is authorized and competent to reveal such information

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The Father is eternal, but so are the living entities.
                Says who?
                >he gets adressed by God as his son
                I'm fine with that. The sons are living creations the Son is eternal...
                >[David serving God]
                Good for David. Doesn't explain away the list of things where Christ severely overshoots David's ranks. And that IS in the revealed words, Narayana.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Narayana

                Bro bro. We are told we will either spend eternity in hell or heaven. That enough proves it.

                And like I said, David served a different purpose. Also, when thinking from taht perspective doesn't it prove my point even more? If David wasn't on the level of Christ but was referred to as a son of God, that is good news. It means even the non perfect are considered to be the son of god.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We are told we will either spend eternity in hell or heaven.
                And the same Tradition that tells us that says we were created. So we're not eternal like the Son. We may live indefinitely, but we are 'granted' eternal life, we aren't eternal per se. So as I said:

                >>> The sons are living creations, but the Son is eternal. Just like fathers are living masters, but the Father is eternal.

                >It means even the non perfect are considered to be the son of god.
                I agree. We can be sons of God. But not the Son of God. That is Christ himself and he is part of the Godhead. Reasons listed above.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Trinity issue It's more an indictment of the legitimacy of the Bible itself for me. This is the perfect word of God why would Jesus have said things like "why do you call me good, only God is good", or "The father is greater than I", or "I did not come on my own initiative but only because it was the will of the Father", etc etc etc. This stuff is all over the Bible. But then you also see some evidence that Jesus is in fact God. John 1:1 is hard to get around, for instance.

      I'm just saying, if Jesus was God, why wouldn't he mention that anywhere in the original Gospels like Matthew or Mark? It's not until John and after that we start seeing this.

      But the very first original church in the first 100 years all accepted that Jesus was God besides the Aryans. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and all them had no problem saying that Jesus was subservient to the Father but nevertheless was God.

      So if I am of there same church I must also believe that Jesus was God.

      But why would he make this so confusing when it didn't need to be. Why didn't he just say I am God and that's that. No "I am" or something that could easily be confused with every other time someone said they are something.

      Jesus could have been very straightforward and no uncertain terms, but he didn't. And then further confuse matters by always explaining how subservient he was to God. And how glory should only go to God and not him, etc. You can't convince me that this is not confusing if you only have the Holy Spirit. That's just nonsensical.

      This is one of the many reasons I left Christianity. Too many plot holes. Someone truly seeking God will not accept these things, and continue searching.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But why would he make this so confusing when it didn't need to be.

        You're underestimating the capacity of people to screw things up.

        Jesus could have written a book, but He didn't. He used a very different approach -- training a select group of followers, and investing them with teaching authority.

        >This is one of the many reasons I left Christianity. Too many plot holes. Someone truly seeking God will not accept these things, and continue searching.

        With all due respect, wise persons have addressed the "plot holes," and if any remain, the weight of evidence favoring the Church far exceeds any perceived evidence against it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Will you make a good point. I consider just treating the Bible as the newspapers of the time, from his follower's perspective. That they're not inerrant. The problem is that leads to cherry picking. If I can toss one thing out then I can toss anything out. This inevitably leads me to be a deist.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Friend, I was raised Catholic and lost my faith. I never became an atheist, but I was definitely not a Christian.

            There is a very persuasive argument that turned things around me, and that is the case that can be made for the Resurrection. The evidence is much stronger than many realize. It is set out concisely and well in these two books:

            Green, Was Jesus Who He Said He Was? (Out of print, but inexpensive used copies are available: https://www.amazon.com/Was-Jesus-Who-He-Said/dp/0892836245)

            McDowell, More than a Carpenter

            They are both solid, well-argued books, short and to the point. You may find, as I did, that the case for the Resurrection is very persuasive.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I just don't get how you can think it's more likely that some guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago, rather than it.. didn't happen

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Check out one or both books. I don't say the evidence can persuade beyond a reasonable doubt, but there really is clear and convincing evidence of the Resurrection.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think it defeats your background knowledge, the inductive evidence for people not coming back from the dead?

                Like, you are probably already committed to the same beliefs as me. Such as the fact that people can be wrong, or make stuff up. (See -> Islam)
                You don't need anything more than that to explain all the evidence. I don't get why people feel rationally compelled to add this concept of "magic" to their ontology, in order to explain this.
                You can explain all of this on a naturalist model.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you think it defeats your background knowledge, the inductive evidence for people not coming back from the dead?

                I think there is a strong case to be made for the Resurrection. And it is quite different - fundamentally different - from the case for Islam, or the case for Buddhism or Hinduism, for that matter.

                >Like, you are probably already committed to the same beliefs as me. Such as the fact that people can be wrong, or make stuff up.

                Yes, I believe both those things. I said the case is not made out beyond a reasonable doubt because there *is* room for skepticism -- a reasonable, intelligent person could look at the evidence and the argument and conclude, "Nah, I don't buy it." Nonetheless, in my view the evidence is best explained and made sense of by the Resurrection, and the alternative hypotheses (delusion, mistake, fraud, etc) present a much less plausible explanation of that evidence.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the alternative hypotheses (delusion, mistake, fraud, etc) present a much less plausible explanation of that evidence.
                This just sounds insane to me. How do you assign a probability to a kind of thing you've never seen before, like magic (resurrection)? My credence in magic is so, so, so low, that I would find all kinds of weird naturalistic coincidences more likely, by which I mean a combination of the things you said, delusion, fraud.
                We know from human psychology, anthropology, that people makes stuff up, exaggerate about it, then eventually makes myths. And people can be convinced that these myths are true, like with Islam.

                I get that the book you read is convincing to you. But have you ever looked into any serious critique against it? I guess this what I'm most curious about.
                There's not a lot, I know of... three? Books that handles this. They are not best sellers. That's a problem, right? There is thousands of books that makes an argument for the miracle of the resurrection.
                There's like 1 book that makes an argument for a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection. Christians have made an industry out of churning out apologetic texts.
                While their atheist counterparts are writing more political -type stuff. And the empirical science stuff has never really moved from the topic of evolution.

                My longwinded point being, that the literature about this topic, is pretty uneven.
                Because nobody want to read a book that says: It was probably a combination of delusion + a cult environment that set up the foundations for Jesus myth-building. But I dunno, lol, just making stuff up. it was 2000 years ago, we may never be able to know what actually happened, but any naturalist explanation I can invent sorts it out.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >How do you assign a probability to a kind of thing you've never seen before

                It's in the nature of a jury question. You consider the weight of the evidence for and against a particular proposition, and reach a conclusion. And in the nature of the question at issue in our discussion, considerations of human psychology, coincidence, delusion, the human capacity for creating myth, etc, are factored into the analysis, as best one can. (Of course, not being on a jury, one always has the option to simply throw up one's hands and dismiss the matter as uncertain, or inconclusive either way.)

                >I get that the book you read is convincing to you. But have you ever looked into any serious critique against it?

                I came across a fairly detailed, carefully written critique online a few years ago. An article or review essay posted on infidels.org, if memory serves. It got in a few good shots, but on the whole I did not find it a convincing refutation.

                >There's not a lot, I know of... three? Books that handles this. They are not best sellers. That's a problem, right?
                I haven't spent a lot of time poring over counter-arguments. (I would note that both books address the best-known counter-arguments such as fraud, delusion and mistake.)

                > Christians have made an industry out of churning out apologetic texts.
                True enough. But with Hitchens and the rest there has been a cottage industry in atheist books, including many best-sellers, for the past 20 years or so. I can't speak to how many of them address the Resurrection, as such. Perhaps few, as you say. In any event, if you've read the case for a naturalistic explanation, you're well-situated to read either or both books with a well-informed and critical eye. If nothing else, both are blessedly concise.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the best-known counter-arguments such as fraud, delusion and mistake.
                I suspect that McDowell (I have not read his book) does not present these arguments in their strongest possible form. Of course, that's not his job. That's what the books I alluded to attempts to do.

                Goes something like; maybe 1 or 2 of the people closest to Jesus had a bereavement hallucination, and thought they saw Jesus after his death, or even just *felt* his presence. Like Mary and Peter. This is a common thing, in contemporary psychology.
                They then start talking about this experience with the other disciples and followers of Jesus. And now suddenly people are "primed" to have this experience. Now it's far less weird that people may think they have seen Jesus. Power of suggestion.
                They were a cult-like environment, right? That's fair to say? Maybe you eventually got this meme, were you were expected to say you've seen the risen Jesus, that it turned into sort of a creed.
                We see this in cults today, that they expect their members to give (false) testimony about some weird stuff they got going on, like their leaders miraculous ability to levitate. If they don't play along, they get removed from the cult.
                People got a desire to remain with the cult, there's an element of group conformity and intimidation at work too. Eventually people truly start to believe what they are saying.
                I genuinely believe there was true believers in Aum Shinrikyo. But I don't believe for 1 second that Shoko Asahara could fly.

                A hypothesis for how hallucination lays the foundation for myths to be invented, without there being a conspirator seeking to deceive anyone. Modest stuff. That gotta be more plausible than magic, yeah?
                All the evidence can be broken down and explained by ad-hoc naturalistic explanations like this.
                I get so sad, when people think a hallucination hypothesis amounts to: "The 500 witness just randomly had the same hallucination of the risen Jesus at the same time, herp derp."

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have read McDowell's book and I can tell you it's... a mixed bag.
                It introduces the casual reader to a vaaast collection of early Christian lore, and also to the gnomish and pagan reactions to said lore. If you're a lorefag autist, McDowell's book is gold for checking up on (say) the Apostolic Fathers. And Celsus. And Paul Schafer's work on the Talmud's reaction to Christ (Schafer was writing after McDowell).
                So, that's the good bit. As in: the bit that is most-difficult to refute. Jesus existed and worked miracles, and the Christians' enemies AT THE TIME agreed he existed and worked miracles.
                When McDowell totally fucks the dog is when he tries to shoehorn Old Testament Prophecy into Christian kerygma. This is simply not possible, except by the very circular logic he didn't even need when dealing with external evidence on gnomish history and Jesus' biography.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Jesus existed and worked miracles, and the Christians' enemies AT THE TIME agreed he existed and worked miracles.
                Yeah. I would just accept this.
                This is perfectly compatible with my naturalistic hypothesis.
                If by working miracles he means that people *believed* Jesus did miracles, not that he really did supernatural stuff.
                That's what the evidence is; what people wrote and thought about Jesus. People can be wrong/mistaken. And I think there is a good naturalistic explanation of why that could be.
                It's not like there is evidence of the actual miracles, like 5000 conjured fish being stashed away somewhere, or anything like that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To be clear: I'm just looking to explain why we have the *story* of Jesus feeding the 5000
                I don't want to explain how he actually did it. Because I don't think he did. I think that part of the Bible is not historical.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                >maybe 1 or 2 of the people closest to Jesus had a bereavement hallucination.... in a cult-like environment...an element of group conformity and intimidation...
                >Aum Shinrikyo...
                >A hypothesis for how hallucination lays the foundation for myths...
                >the evidence can be broken down and explained by ad-hoc naturalistic explanations...

                I see this hypothetical as telling a story that is not consistent with the known facts of Christianity. That is to say, it is not an insane cult like Aum Shinrikyo. Rather, it provides, I do not say entirely but in very substantial part, the foundation upon which western civilization largely rests.

                So, yes, as an abstract matter you can break down the evidence along the lines you describe, but to do so is to proceed on assumptions that are odds, in my view, with both the obvious gravitas and weight of the New Testament texts, as well as the historical fact that western civilization rests in substantial part on the teachings and practices of Christ and of the Christian Church.

                It is a question of how far one's skepticism reaches, for the human condition is such that skepticism need not and in some respects cannot be cabined. Is there any way, really, to disprove the hypothesis that you are a brain in a jar?

                Now, consider that you are a deist. There is something in the universe that puts a brake on your skepticism and keeps you from atheism. When I lost my faith, I too never became an atheist; the idea that everything somehow evolved out of nothing was just too implausible. My skepticism could not go quite that far.

                Likewise, I think the very real and substantive role of Christianity in the history of the west tends to gainsay the hypothesis that that substance rested on hallucinations. There is, too, grit and detail in the NT that I think is inconsistent with a, in my view, strained "naturalistic" explanation that rests almost entirely on dubiously inferred hallucinations. But your skepticism may vary.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it is not an insane cult like Aum Shinrikyo
                It doesn't need to be.
                Look at Pentecostals. I don't believe it's the holy spirit that is entering them and causing them to convulse on the flour, speaking in tongues. I believe there is nothing supernatural going on here.
                But I don't think all of them are just knowingly pretending, maybe a few. I think they inhabit an environment were they fool each other into thinking this kind of behaviour is expected, and there is something spooky going on with themselves while getting high on emotions.

                Or something even milder, the millions of people today that claim to see and talk to Jesus. These people are not a part of some insane cult.
                And still I think they have been fooled into hearing and seeing things that are not really there, through psychological priming. It doesn't take a lot.

                >Is there any way, really, to disprove the hypothesis that you are a brain in a jar?
                Is there a reason to believe I am a brain in a jar? I don't think so.

                Is there a reason to believe there are no such thing as magic? All my background knowledge. Makes and inductive case for this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's simple, you read propaganda that argues for a position you already hold/want to hold

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No. I am talking actual evidence, and a reasonable argument based on that evidence. It's not propaganda, and the argument is not based on appeals to emotion.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you not think a persons willingness to grant the existence of stuff like miracles, their subjective credence, is influenced by their emotional need for those things to exist? Giving people's lives meaning and purpose, etc
                I've heard the title of one of those books multiple times before, and it's always been brought up by Christian lunatics, so I'm super fucking sceptical to it not being "propaganda".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                >Do you not think a persons willingness to grant the existence of stuff like miracles, their subjective credence, is influenced by their emotional need for those things to exist?

                In some cases it probably is. But I think some people, for various reasons, have an emotional reason *not* to believe, and those emotions can influence the strength of their skepticism.

                >I've heard the title of one of those books multiple times before, and it's always been brought up by Christian lunatics, so I'm super fucking sceptical to it not being "propaganda".

                Yeah, probably the McDowell. The book is very well argued, in my opinion, but it is written in a kind of golly-gee-whiz style that seems to be designed to appeal to certain kind of mythological teenager -- say, the kind of teens who appear in Archie comic books. And I can see how that style could appeal to those persons you characterize as "Christian lunatics." When I characterize the book as being strong on evidence and argument but weak on style, and *not* propaganda, that is a very considered opinion. I am no genius, but I have been to law school and passed a couple of bar exams and practiced at a large firm, and that experience informs my opinion in this matter. Of course, your mileage may vary.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >why wouldn't he mention that anywhere in the original Gospels like Matthew or Mark?
        This is mentioned in the Gospels. John is an original Gospel.

        "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"
        - Mark 1:1

        "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
        - Matthew 28:19

        >It's not until John and after that we start seeing this.
        It's in the entire Bible. In Genesis 1:26, we see God saying, "Let us make man in our image". That speaks to the Holy Trinity.

        >Why didn't he just say I am God and that's that.
        He claims divinity throughout the entire word of God. People who wish to deny it will always come up with excuses no matter what it says, but there are countless identifications of Jesus Christ with divinity in numerous ways.

        "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
        Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
        - Philippians 2:5-6

        "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
        For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
        - Colossians 2:8-9

        You just mentioned John 1:1. The Lord Jesus also states Himself directly that He is eternally pre-existent again in John 17:5.

        "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)

        >No "I am" or something that could easily be confused
        It's really not confused. He is Jehovah, the one who said "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14. He says so again in John 8:24 and John 18:6,8.
        >And then further confuse matters by always explaining how subservient he was to God.
        That's because of the Holy Trinity. He is willing to submit to the Father in all things, but that doesn't make Him lesser in any way, as pointed out in the Scripture.
        >And how glory should only go to God and not him, etc.
        Where?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Mary and the saints are in heaven, with extraordinary grace. Their prayers are more efficacious because they are extra holy. If you pray for something, but God, knowing you don't deserve it because of his mercy but also perfect justice, can be swayed by the prayers of for example Mary and the Saints. They are closest to God and want other souls in heaven. Their goal is to help you in every single way, even going against some of the hard knocks God should put you through because of how much you sin and refuse to get close to him and live the path God wants for you.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Narayana

    "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"
    God allows for himself to be revealed to us.
    There are three types of soul:
    1.Liberated
    2.On the path to liberation
    3.stuck in the material conception

    We are chosen by God to know him. Even someone that hears the name Christ is on that path to liberation.

    The old testament similar to the vedas explains God, but also provides information on things such as liberation and material benefits. For example the offering of animals in the old testament is the same in the vedas, it is an offering to god for benefit.
    The offering of animals is not necessary to gain devotion to God. He simply asks us for his love. How can someone love with an ulterior motive of liberation? That is another problem I have with modern christians, they focus too much on liberation. With love of God it comes automatically, but when we focus on it we cannot truly love God because we are seeking relief and ultimately enjoyment. This is not the correct path and should be avoided, rather we should seek to love God.

    Prayer, church, devotion... it is all for HIS enjoyment. If we are searching for Our enjoyment we cannot please the Lord.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"
      >God allows for himself to be revealed to us.
      You know that verse is not about the Father revealing himself, yes? It's about Christ's identity being revealed. So yes, God, but I thought that's what you're arguing against lol.

      >they focus too much on liberation. With love of God it comes automatically, but when we focus on it we cannot truly love God because we are seeking relief and ultimately enjoyment.
      They seek healing. Which is a completely acceptable mindset. Christ came to heal.
      If you fake loving God just to be healed, that's perverted, but I don't think you see so deep into people's hearts to make that judgement.
      >Prayer, church, devotion... it is all for HIS enjoyment.
      In Eden there were no Churches, was God less joyful? Churches are for our healing, Anon. You can't omit that element of Faith or place it beneath love. Health and love can't be placed into a dichotomy.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Narayana

        >>You know that verse is not about the Father revealing himself, yes? It's about Christ's identity being revealed. So yes, God, but I thought that's what you're arguing against lol.

        the Father reveals to Peter that Jesus is his Son. That doesn't contradict this because you don't seem to have this knowledge either.

        Regardless of this, we are told to love Jesus.

        >>In Eden there were no Churches, was God less joyful?
        Giving the supreme human emotions are we? Lol. I know no pure devotees. You are right I can't judge someone's heart or thoughts, but I can judge their actions, which show corruption due to material desires.

        In no way am I here to discredit anyone, and beyond this I have little to no hope to change someones mind over LULZ. If I was fully surrendered I would be chanting on my rosary, not having a silly debate on LULZ that will lead nowhere.

        I am no better than anyone here. No better than anyone actually, because we are all sons of God.

        All I can ask as humbly as possible is to read the bible yourself. If not the bible then books by Christian minds from 75 years and back, since this is when the main widespread corruption started. Thank you for discussing with me and I thank God for association with people who are attempting God Consciousness.

        Very well then,
        Narayana B

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Giving the supreme human emotions are we?
          Human?
          > If I was fully surrendered I would be chanting on my rosary, not having a silly debate on LULZ that will lead nowhere.
          Based. Same with me.

          God bless you in the name of the Father, Son and the Spirit

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So like when you venerate an idol, what do you do?
    You just look at it and feel happy?
    I don't get it

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    I agree that Catholicism would be pretty good if it didn't have the Mary and idol worship thing. I mean it has some other problems but they're not as bad as that one. Things like Lutheraniam and Calvinism have much much worse things going on.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's wrong with Lutheranism?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The once saved always saved thing is very dangerous teaching. The Bible talks about how one can depart from the faith. You can't depart something if you were never of it. And telling people they don't have to worry about it anything and so long as they were saved once at an altar call, it's extremely dangerous. Probably worse than Mary worship.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you leave and die an unbeliever, you were never saved. Not one of God's true flock will leave.

          …27My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.…

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you leave and die an unbeliever, you were never saved. Not one of God's true flock will leave.
            Well I know that's the mantra but again, the Bible talks about departing the faith. People can know his voice and then rebelling against him and become children of the devil instead.

            I know you're not going to agree with me. But I don't think it's a way around the Bible illustrating having departed from the faith. You can leave the faith, per the Bible. Which means there's somebody who can truly believe and follow Jesus perfectly and yet still depart the faith. Saying they were never saved in the first place is rooted in hypercalvanism. An attempt to circumnavigate free will. Also very dangerous stuff.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You don't trust God's will to save you. Salvation is of the Lord, not in anything you do. Many of the people who "fall away" have never been completely transformed as a new person. If you aren't transformed Jesus has not saved you at all and you're just under an illusion.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't trust God's will to save you. Salvation is of the Lord, not in anything you do.
                Well the Bible says we will be justified or condemned by things even as seemingly minor as our words. What we say. And that's just the start of it. This is another reason why Lutheranism and Calvinism is so dangerous. And neglects the free will God gave us, so it is so easy to fall into a sinful life.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you fall into an evil life you aren't saved because God has not transformed you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay but the Bible, again, says that one may depart the faith. You view salvation as how God sees it; that he already knows what we will choose to do in life. God already knows those choices, but that does not take away from how it is still our choice to make.

                If you want to talk about it from a predestination standpoint then that's fine, but I find that the reason people do that is because they want to take away their own responsibility for the choices they make. It all comes from that Calvinist stuff.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              >People can know his voice and then rebelling against him and become children of the devil instead.
              Said people were never saved. That's why John says in Scripture, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John 2:19)

              >You can leave the faith, per the Bible.
              If you're talking about places like Matthew 7 or Hebrews 6, that's talking about people who were never saved. It says in Hebrews 6 for instance, they tasted of the word of God, but that doesn't mean they received or gladly accepted it. It just means they knew what it was when they rejected it.

              >An attempt to circumnavigate free will.
              What about where the Bible says this:

              "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
              - Acts 13:48

              "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"
              - 2 Timothy 1:9

              "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"
              - 2 Thess. 2:13

              "To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
              Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
              - 1 Peter 1:4-5

              "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
              - 1 John 5:13

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And just one more point about your scripture there. Of course nobody can be snatched out of his hand if they are in the faith. Walking away from Jesus is not someone snatching you out of his hand. You are leaving.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >
    No. You must pray the hail Mary, or you are not a complete Catholic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No. You must pray the hail Mary, or you are not a complete Catholic.
      This is one reason Catholics have a major problem on their hands. Catholicism has so much right but this is such a glaring problem It's horrible to see. My brother could be following Christ and living a holy life but if he does not accommodate this unbiblical idolatry, he is rejected by Catholics. This must mourn God greatly.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bros, I think I may have accidentally worshipped and icon
    what do I do? I'm so scared right now
    I don't want to go to hell idon't hwanna go to hell idontwanangotoHELLTOHELLL

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus said Peter was rock, therefore; whatever (and I mean literally anything) the Bishop of Rome says goes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And you might as well be saying Xenu is Lord. It would be equally as rational.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You MUST pray to the holy cuckerino

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I never understood how you get from the evidential case of the resurrection to Christianity.
    The resurrection seems to be equal evidence for Jesus being a powerful wizard.
    Or demonic deception (to trick the Hebrews into breaking the 1st commandment, by worshipping multiple God, the Trinity)
    Seems so pointless unless you already are a Christian and think God is motivated to do certain things.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, it's called Confessional Catholicism or Evangelical Catholicism. That is, Lutheranism.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Y o u
    Must
    Pray
    To
    The
    Holy
    Cuckerino

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholicism teaches that Mary is a co-redeemer, but the Word of God plainly states that Jesus Christ is the *only* way.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >he
    >he
    >this guy
    Just say "I". Are you from a country where you casually speak in the third person of yourself?

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Become Muslim

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Islam comes with its own fragilities akhi.
      >the Quran is questionable such that if someone finds a whole sura is out of place, that reflects poorly on every Muslim who has endorsed the exact Hafs bin 'Asim orthography.
      >the monotheletism of Allah makes difficult a separation of security from information. innovation in the sciences are a problem when some caliphal pretender or even a low-level imam gets a HERESY veto. Islam is great for mathematics, and even for engineering to a point; a disaster for the theoretical sciences.
      >the cousin fucking. seriously, the cousin fucking. i am told Shafi'i preached against it but he was only 1/4 of Sunnism, let alone Shi'a and the Ibadis.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look at your bible, Gospel of Luke
    This is the Magnificat

    Mary’s Song of Praise
    “My soul magnifies the Lord,
    47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
    48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
    For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
    49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
    and holy is his name.
    50 And his mercy is on those who fear him
    from generation to generation.
    51 He has shown strength with his arm,
    he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
    52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
    and exalted those of low degree;
    53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
    and the rich he has sent empty away.
    54 He has helped his servant Israel,
    in remembrance of his mercy,
    55 as he spoke to our fathers,
    to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

    If you pray the hail Mary you fulfill the prophecy in the Magnificat "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed"
    Hundreds of millions of people every day fulfill that prophecy, no other person has been called blessed as much as Mary. I think every Christian should fulfill it.

    I also recommend you read what Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about Mary as Second Eve or New Eve, to understand her role in salvation

    This article about Mary as Ark of the New Covenant is good

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      >I think every Christian should fulfill it.
      Everyone who worships a false god is thrown into the fire.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ALHAMDULILLAH

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes you have to assent to the teaching authority of the church. If you are a liturgy queen, consider the episcopals. (Like dirk)

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you want a traditional liturgy, conservative values, respect for the body of Christ (down to the altar rails and receiving on the tongue), and no Marian or saint prayers begome conservative Lutheran. In the US this means LCMS or WELS.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >down to the altar rails and receiving on the tongue
      Disgusting and popish.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes they occupy a very funny spot where Protestants call them popish while at the same time you will hear them affirm louder than most Protestants that the Pope is the literal anti-Christ.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Protestantism is pointless if the pope isn’t the anti-Christ

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally me. I only pray to Jesus and God, but go to traditional Catholic mass because its simply amazing. Could never go to a pr*tty "church"
    Orthodox have the same problem right?

Your email address will not be published.