Log in

No account? Create an account

Josh-D. S. Davis

Xaminmo / Omnimax / Max Omni / Mad Scientist / Midnight Shadow / Radiation Master

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Josh 201604 KWP
"Mass" in the Catholic sense, comes from Lattin "missa", which means "dismissal". It's the part of the service where the unbaptized were dismissed from the assembly.

Ref: http://catholicfaqs.org

  • 1
(Deleted comment)

Well, according to the site, the age of the antichrist is documented in the bible as already happenning.

It's just that people believe that, because their church was granted authority by churches descended from Peter that they are actually following the teachings of said church.

On the flip side, many of the concepts about catholicism (big or small C) seem to be misunderstandings.

Anyway, I'm pretty happy with "Love God" and "Love your neighbor" as the stated and true basis for all of Christianity, with clarifications that God is the unification of the holy "pneuma", the breath of all things that exist, and the creator, and the teacher... and that your neighbor is anyone who you meet, especially if they truly need your help. We're not expected to be perfect, and we should learn to seek forgiveness for the bad things we do, while trying to do as little bad as possible.

All of that, you know, I'm pretty happy with. It seems to match with many religions. It's a pretty good way to live. It's not subservient, demeaning, or willing control to other imperfect humans.

(Deleted comment)
Yah, forgiveness *is* important, because ultimately it amounts to forgiving yourself and allowing yourself to move on.

Even in catholicism, only mortal sins require a priest. "Veneral Sins" can be prayed for (ie, you meditate, acknowledge, vow to do better, and allow yourself to feel forgiveness.)

Apparently, "Jesus died for our sins" only amounts to sins prior to baptism. There's no free ride for future sins, which seems to be something missing from many Christian branches.

Instant absolution for transgressions is a bad thing. There's a whole lot of text about how this doesn't exist, but it seems to be a purely scholarly distinction. Just as in Buddhism, Buddha is not a god. Well, that's the official stance, but if you ask the Thai Buddhists, they'll say he is their God. People believe what they want to believe.

So I'll completely accept that the antichrist came and destroyed Christianity. Much of what it has become is very much counter to his teachings. I can't accept the "because so and so is Christian" magic okayness that many people have espoused to me. I want to know exactly who someone is, exclusive of religious labels.

Maybe that's it. People hang on to labels and ignore the meanings. I have a lot of respect for people who study religious iconic history.

As for the book, I don't know. It's a reminder for people. But, really, there are only 3 books of the Bible that deal directly with Jesus. Then there are several that are Paul's interpretations and letters to church franchises he set up. Many of those directions were very very specific to the situations endangering whichever church was in question (Corinthians, Galatians, etc.)

But, ultimately, I find I have a lot more respect for people who have studied deeply, challenged their beliefs, and have sound logic behind their beliefs. There are some Christians who do this, though usually I see that with sufficient questioning, you run into "just because" or a couple of little illogical or inaccurate leaps that are made based on faith rather than sound backing.

In looking through the bibles and lots of counters, it looks like the New International Reader's Version is about the most accurate English edition available; however, even it uses some inaccuracies. I'm not REALLY willing to spend the time to learn Greek and Greek idioms and historical Greek customs, etc in order to be able to work directly in the most ancient texts available. There's a book called the "Diaglot" which has side by side translations, which might help some, but even that's a bit much.

The catholicfaqs.org has some good info, but as you said, the origanization isn't great. It's also just a few nit-picks by the guy and not an authoritative source. The Jehova's Witnesses have a whole lot of cross-reference material to justify a whole bunch of their teachings.

But, as you say, everyone takes their own preferred pieces and makes a personal religion out of it, except the big churches, who condemn you if you disagree with them.

Blasphemy as a mortal sin is really hard for me to accept.

I agree on the variations in the concept of love, but I have to say that it's I think the best thing that Christianity has going for it.

Striving for perfection in selfless love is, to me, a noble goal and probably the only thing that keeps Christianity from degenerating into a barbarous Crusade. Instead, only SOME Christians wage war for religion and profit. Not all of them.

(Deleted comment)
But, I WANT to harm you! It's your moral obligation to accept the pain I give you!

Otherwise, I ran out of religion and am full of failblog and notalwaysright. :)


We showed them Brits, eh!

or something stupid like that. I'm hungry and sleepy. Don't mind me.

  • 1