By changing you religion you only change the perspective on who’s considered evil and who’s considered rigtheous. You’re just playing a mirror game.
Your focus should be instead on what can get you above this misery
My focus certainly is on that, and that is why I am no longer Catholic.
It’s a big mistake to assume that believable = true. On my opinion Jesus was relying truth and wasn’t trying to the sell the truth.
Sure, but ask yourself this: Would a just God make salvation dependent in a significant way on believing in a doctrine which no rational mind can conclude is coherent?
It’s my opinion that Jesus was a good person whose followers got carried away and decided that he was God. Then, they came up with a hasty doctrine so that they could still claim to be Jews. To consider how successful this doctrine has been in convincing Jews that the trinity is an orthodox concept, you need only ask an Orthodox Jew what the Jewish faith says about a God with a body.
(wars, mistakes, intolerance) - and they did all these mistakes too - if you carefully study their history.
The difference is that the history is juxtaposed. When Muslims had religious government, their society was the most tolerant of religious diversity of the two. When Christians had religious government, they fought endless wars over orthodoxy.
Now that Christianity does not govern anywhere, the religious wars are over. Now that Islamic governments have collapsed to be replaced by secularists, there is war in the Muslim world.
One society only found peace by giving up religious authority. The other found war by giving up religious authority. What does that tell you about the religions?
God doesn’t limit His substance but note that He only chose certain people to further His plans at the right moments in history - it wasn’t like everybody was entitled to de everything they pleased in His name…
Well, that’s certainly a convenient explanation. It’s always possible, but I am not inclined to believe God’s plan is to have a form of “spiritual intellectual property” over his grace.
Religions that have creeds that anyone can repeat to repeat the truth are one thing. This is a religion where the actual blood of God can only be brought about by certain, licensed individuals. It is restrictive in a way that other faiths are not.
The Church stands by it’s moral teachings regardless of the fashions of the day.
I disagree. The concept of holy war was once a moral teaching in Christianity; it has been discarded. The death penalty for heresy and apostasy was also once the moral teaching; it has been discarded. Officially blaming Jews for the murder of Jesus was once official teaching…it has been discarded. The idea that the Church commands all secular authority is also gone.
The Church’s program of action today is not something a medieval Catholic would recognize. I think it’s quite untrue to say that it hasn’t changed. The creeds are the same, sure…but the rules that come with them are so radically different I don’t see what’s the same sometimes.
You can accuse the Church of many shortcomings but not of compromising on its teachings reagardless of how vocal some of its members are.
With exceptions, the Church’s moral philosophy is very good. Instructions on how to live life modestly and encouragment to do so are excellent qualities of the Church’s teaching. I fully support it.
But I don’t think it possesses the full truth.
Thank you Alex, btw, for making this such an open and respectful discussion. I really appreciate it.