Rejecting Catholicism???

[WinePusher]

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected catholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

[The Tongue]

Well, just a few things. You do realize that 'parthenos' does not mean exclusively virgin.

I do. As you yourself mentioned, there is not a word in Hebrew that means virgin exclusively, so the idea is implied by context. Parthenos has been likened to the English term 'maiden', which does not explicitly imply virgin, but that is usually assumed of the term.
(The passage was originally understood and taught as a messianic prophecy during the days of the Second Temple and the time of Christ.)

And, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, the sign is not the woman getting pregnant, but the child's conception to the time period of being about 2 or so being a 'timer' for certain things to happen. The 'child' and 'mother' is specifically identified as Isaiah's wife and son.

Specifically identified where?

+++

Let me, for a moment, play devil's advocate.

Supposing the text does not and never did mean 'virgin', but simply that a woman shall conceive a child.

Then why would the author of Matthew, an educated Rabbi steeped in the Hebrew tradition, claim a virgin birth at all, if it means nothing in the context of Hebrew history?

And why does Luke, an educated Greek, make the same claim?

Whether your audience in Jew or Gentile, the claim to Virgin Birth would be contentious, so why make it? If you were going to fabricate a story to boost your popular appeal, virgin birth isn't it.

God bless

Thomas

[TomD wrote].........I do. As you yourself mentioned, there is not a word in Hebrew that means virgin exclusively, so the idea is implied by context.

Excuse me TomD, but the Hebrew does have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN�, which is “BETHULAH� a term that is used in the Old Testament in every (Repeat) “EVERY� instance where a woman who has had no sexual contact with a man, is referred to.

If the Lord had wanted his prophet to imply that the woman who is pregnant was still a virgin, Isaiah would have used the specific Hebrew term for “VIRGIN,� which is “BETHULAH,� which he did not, instead, he used the Hebrew term , “ALMAH� which, according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female,)

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.�

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

“Many scholars consider the New Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament, and in the NRSV. Isaiah 7: 14; is translated, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Look, The young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.�

The Greek word parthenos (πα�θένος) used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah� that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as “virgin� is absolute, and according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,� carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

The New Revised Standard bible, translates the Hebrew “ALMAH,� in Proverbs 30: 19; as “GIRL.� “The way of a ship on the seas, and the way of a man with a girl.�

The Good News Bible: Catholic Study Edition: Proverbs 30; 19; likewise translates the Hebrew term “Almah� as woman. “And a man and a woman falling in love.�
And even the KJV, which erroneously translates the Hebrew “ALMAH� as “VIRGIN� in Isaiah 7: 14, correctly translates the same word in Proverbs 30: 19; as “MAID.�

And then we get people like “GOAT� the godless atheist, who wrote: “in Genesis, a woman was referred as 'parthenos' after she was raped,� as the Greek “Parthenos,� carries the basic meaning of an unmarried Girl and only denote virgin by implication, Dinah the 12 years old virgin/Bethulah daughter of Jacob/Israel, was raped by Shechem the son of Hamor, she was a “Bethulah/virgin,� before she was raped, but she was an “ALMAH=Parthenos�= unmarried non-virgin girl after the rape.

As to GOAT’S statement that The 'mother' of Isaiah’s son, who was a prophetess and an “ALMAH=unmarried female,� regardless of her sexual status, is specifically identified as Isaiah's wife.� I’d like for him to reveal to us where in scripture the prophetess is specifically identified as Isaiah's wife.�

[TomD wrote]..........Then why would the author of Matthew, an educated Rabbi steeped in the Hebrew tradition, claim a virgin birth at all, if it means nothing in the context of Hebrew history?

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah� an “unmarried female� is with child and will bear a son,� into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the Jewish authors of the Septuagint, some two hundred years before Jesus, and Matthew, an educated Rabbi steeped in the Hebrew tradition, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication, as it is the only word in the old Greek language, which could be used in the translation of Isaiah’s Prophecy;�A young unmarried girl/woman,is pregnant and will bear a son, etc,� while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew were in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

By using the Greek word “Parthenos� Matthew was translating the words of the prophet Isaiah; “An unmarried female is with child and shall bear a son etc, it was the catholic church who put the word “Virgin� into the mouth of Matthew.

The emphasis of the prophecy, is in the fact that the child would be called Immanuel, (Which means, “God is with us), The Light of man came In the body of a human being, which he had filled with his spirit and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, (Dwelling place) the Sh'khinah, or Dwelling place, which was the body of the man Jesus that the Father had prepared for his Son, who was to come down from the heights of time and fill with his spirit, that body that his Father had prepared for him, the earthly dwelling of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth: was our brother Jesus, who was the earthly host body and obedient servant, to the ‘Son of Man’ through which obedient host body, our Lord God and saviour, “The Son who is born of the great androgynous body of Eve=mankind,� revealed to us, his perfected nature, his divine power and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for us.

]TomD wrote]............And why does Luke, an educated Greek, make the same claim?

And where does Luke make this so called claim that you have put into his mouth?

Luke reveal, that an angel appeared to the young Parthenos=unmarried 14 year old Mary, whether this angel appeared to her in a dream as was the case with Joseph who was to marry her after the child Jesus was born, or not, is not specified, but this was three months before Elizabeth, the aunty of Mary was to give birth to John the Baptist.

It was in the 6th month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, that the angel told Mary that she would in the future, fall pregnant, then Mary, the young 14 year old “unmarried girl=parthenos� said to him, “How is this possible as I have never had sex with any man?� Here is the implication that the young parthenos Mary, was still a virgin, more than three months before she was found to be pregnant to the biological father of Jesus, who the people that knew the family, believed was Joseph the son of “HELI,� who should not be confused with Joseph ben Jacob, who had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to the first of her three biological sons.

Jesus was the son of her half brother, 'Joseph, the son of Heli,' the Levite from Cyprus, who, it appears was at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth, to celebrate with her at the birth of her first and only son, John the Baptist, then there was Joseph, who was the half brother of Jesus and was named after his father Joseph ben Jacob, who I believe, that there is enough evidence to show, that he later divorced Mary and raised his son in the town of Arimathea, and last of all, James the younger of the three, who is the son of Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas the carpenter, who already had two sons, Judas and Simeon the two step brothers of Jesus, who were born to another woman, before Cleophas/Alpheaus married Mary.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was supposedly born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John, the beloved disciple who walked and talked with Jesus, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.�

Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman who IS pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’�

While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin over 3 months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral Father spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was concealed in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

[Gracchus]

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected (C)atholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

Let's see... I rejected Roman Catholicism when I was seven years old. I was in the second grade and Sister Raymond Francis told us about "Original Sin". We were all condemned for Adam's sin. God was omniscient and so must have known Adam was going to do it, and could have prevented it but didn't. That meant, as was evident even to a seven year old, that that God was either stupid or cruel.
Then she went on to explain how Jesus had to be crucified in order for God to forgive us for Adam's sin. That's when I realized that anyone who believed in such a God had to be insane.
I was, however, smart enough to know that I had to keep these conclusions to myself. I didn't tell my closest friends, and I certainly didn't tell the priest in the confessional, not through seven more years of Catholic schools. I became an altar boy, a choir boy, made my first communion, and was confirmed. And I knew it was all bullshit, but I knew that I should just play along because those people were vicious and they might even kill me if I told them the truth. (And I didn't even know about the Inquisition at that time but I could recognize insanity.)
So I learned my catechism by heart and never got less than an "A" in religion.
And I have read church history, and studied the Bible in college, and actually read the Bible. I have also studied other religions, Christian and non-Christian, and I have concluded that they are all nonsense.

No offense intended, but religious people are crazy, and some of them are criminally insane. It is not really their fault. Most of them have been terrified, tortured, threatened, or coerced, and may even be unable to admit to themselves what has happened to them.

This is my view, expressed by a wiser man than I:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." -- Karl Marx

[Dany]

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected catholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

A friend of mine give me a book about Catholic. I don't know if it true or not. But after I read, basically what they tray to say is That Catholic believe Pope is delegation of God on earth. God is the King of king so his delegation must function as the king that rule all the king of the earth. That way Pope promote NWO. I tray to Google Pope promote N W O. and find million of article.

And I also read about Jesuit oath that basically support this program at all cause
The and justifies the mean. again according to this source they tray to create revolution, war etc to weaken every country in the world and make easier to subdue. Like if you want to build a giant building in the settlement area, you have to level all the houses first. And Dr alberto Rivera said in his book publish in 1972 from Chick publication that Vatican want Jerusalem because in the bible Jesus will reign from Jerusalem and Pope is his delegation. Back than I don't believe/I read this book in 1902 where I never heard about it. but if you google now, there are million of article talking about that. So I believe Dr Rivera not lie because he wrote almost 40 years ago. He was insider and he said Vatican plan everything hundred of years before executed



www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit‎The Jesuit Oath Exposed
"Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated."
Professor Arthur Noble

[The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in the Journals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397, Report No. 1523, 15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216), from which it was subsequently torn out. The Oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book Subterranean Rome (New York, 1843), translated from the French original. Dr. Alberto Rivera, who escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, confirms that the induction ceremony and the text of the Jesuit Oath which he took were identical to what we have cited below. – A. N.]

When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colours, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM NECAR REGES IMPIUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers.

Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:

(The Superior speaks:)

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. You have been taught to plant insidiously the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and to incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace; to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means. You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death. You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labours with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved". Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me:

(Text of the Oath:)

I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do further declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centres of civilisation of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things, whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the Church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope. All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.

(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in

[Bede]

Why do people continue to propagate this junk?

Do they think it is credible?

But for those who may read this:

The “Jesuit Oath� is a fabrication with no factual basis. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia this oath was the product of the imagination of the forger Robert Ware (mid to late 1600’s).

Here’s an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Impostors�:

"Robert Ware the forger, the author of "Foxes and Firebrands", who has of late years been so thoroughly exposed by Father Bridgett, traded upon the same prejudices. His more public career began contemporaneously with that of Oates in 1678, and by sheltering himself behind the high reputation of his dead father, Sir James Ware, amongst whose manuscripts he pretended to discover all kinds of compromising papers, he obtained currency for his forgeries, remaining almost undetected until modern times. Many foul aspersions upon the character of individual popes, Jesuits, and other Catholics, and also upon some Puritans, which have found their way into the pages of respectable historians, are due to the fabrications of "this literary skunk", as Fr. Bridgett not unjustifiably calls him (see Bridgett, "Blunders and Forgeries", pp. 209-296).

As to its insertion into the Library of Congress, anyone can put any junk into library on completion of Form TX and a $30 fee.

Form FL 109 explains:
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION OF BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS, AND SPEECHES
A published or unpublished book or manuscript may be submitted for registration in the Copyright Office. Form TX should be used to apply for copyright registration for textual works, with or without illustrations. Form TX is appropriate for registration of nondramatic literary works including: fiction, nonfiction, poetry, contributions to collective works, compilations, directories, catalogs, dissertations, theses, reports, speeches, bound or looseleaf volumes, pamphlets, brochures, and single pages containing text. There is no specific requirement as to the printing, binding, format, or paper size and quality of unpublished manuscript material. Typewritten, photocopied, and legibly handwritten manuscripts, preferably in ink, are all acceptable for deposit.

I think Form TX is being phased out and the registration fee has gone up since the web site I got this information from published it but the point is any fictional junk can be registered. It says nothing about its authenticity.

[jedicri]

As soon as I read "Chick publication", I read no further.

Chick is so full of falsehoods and lies that it's laughable that individuals use his junk.

More on Jack Chick:

http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-n ... ck-t-chick

[Bede]

As soon as I read "Chick publication", I read no further.

Chick is so full of falsehoods and lies that it's laughable that individuals use his junk.

More on Jack Chick:

http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-n ... ck-t-chick

Yes, I know that tract about Jack Chick. It also exposes Alberto Rivera, the supposed "ex-Jesuit" as a fraud

[Zzyzx]

.
Since this sub-forum is open to Non-Catholics and since I originated the Rejected Catholicism user-group, I'll outline my reasons for rejecting Catholicism.

Although I was raised by a devout Catholic mother and was forced to go to church and to Catholic school, by age eight or ten I had concluded that bible tales the bible and church hierarchy claimed to have happened "once upon a time in a land far away" were no more believable than tales about Little Red Riding Hood, Peter Pan, or Snow White.

Then I caught a nun in a deliberate lie about something that happened and concluded "If they will lie to me about the little things, they will lie to me about the big things." That was reinforced by a statement by my father (a nominal Catholic) "The church rules by fear and guilt" (to which I added "and lies").

In college and graduate schools as a science major I observed many conflicts between what religion teaches and what can be demonstrated in the real world – and concluded that both could not be true. The real world trumps ancient tales and worship practices (at least for some of us).

Later, study of the history of Christianity revealed that the religion had evolved as a splinter group from Judaism that idolized / deified Jesus (who was perhaps a wandering Jewish preacher for a few years) AND that gospel writers were not known to Christian scholars and theologians to have been "Apostles" or even to have personally known Jesus or to have witnessed the events and conversations about which they wrote.

Paul/Saul, whose writings and thoughts dominate the NT, admittedly did not know Jesus except in a "vision" (or delusion or fabrication or whatever it was). Thus, Christianity is based upon writings of people that cannot be shown to be faithfully / accurately / truthfully reporting events and conversations that actually occurred. Instead, the NT appears to be an attempt to graft the Jesus character onto the OT God (while somewhat uncomfortably avoiding polytheism though proposing multiple gods morphed into one).

Catholicism gained prominence and influence (and wealth) after becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire during its declining phase. After collapse of Rome, the RCC became dominant (and often theocracy) in much of Europe during the Dark and Middle Ages. It lost monopoly power with the rise of competing Protestantism, but remained a popular religion.

However, in recent decades both RCC and Protestantism are declining in technologically advanced nations characterized by increased literacy, education, and exposure to information – but increasing in nations that are "underdeveloped."


In summation, I reject(ed) Catholicism as well as Christianity because beliefs / dogma / traditions conflict with what is known of the real world, are all unverifiable, and defy reasoning. Evidently this position is becoming increasingly adopted by others as well. "Believe on faith alone" (so you can get to heaven after you die) appears to be declining in popularity.

[Burninglight]

Then I caught a nun in a deliberate lie about something that happened and concluded "If they will lie to me about the little things, they will lie to me about the big things." That was reinforced by a statement by my father (a nominal Catholic) "The church rules by fear and guilt" (to which I added "and lies").

In college and graduate schools as a science major I observed many conflicts between what religion teaches and what can be demonstrated in the real world – and concluded that both could not be true. The real world trumps ancient tales and worship practices (at least for some of us).

Later, study of the history of Christianity revealed that the religion had evolved as a splinter group from Judaism that idolized / deified Jesus........

Paul/Saul, whose writings and thoughts dominate the NT, admittedly did not know Jesus except in a "vision" (or delusion or fabrication or whatever it was). Thus, Christianity is based upon writings of people that cannot be shown to be faithfully / accurately / truthfully reporting events and conversations that actually occurredCatholicism gained prominence and influence (and wealth) after becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire during its declining phase. After collapse of Rome, the RCC became dominant (and often theocracy) in much of Europe during the Dark and Middle Ages. It lost monopoly power with the rise of competing Protestantism, but remained a popular religion.

However, in recent decades both RCC and Protestantism are declining in technologically advanced nations characterized by increased literacy, education, and exposure to information – but increasing in nations that are "underdeveloped."


In summation, I reject(ed) Catholicism as well as Christianity because beliefs

So you have thrown the baby out with the wash?

[Zzyzx]

.

So you have thrown the baby out with the wash?

Correction: In my way of thinking, I threw the trash out with the trash. (Pardon my blunt response to the oft repeated platitude).

If there was anything of value (or "diamonds in the dung" as some say), I find diamonds elsewhere without the baggage of supernaturalism, dogma, and ritual (and without a need to rationalize how fanciful tales can be made to appear to make sense).

People have tried for many decades to convince me that there is a "baby" in there somewhere -- but fail to demonstrate that there is anything profound or original to be found. The reaction to this position is usually regress into conjectures about "salvation" and "afterlife" -- which fail to impress or convince.

[Burninglight]

[Replying to Zzyzx]You are pretty sure of yourself there. You strike me as a candidate for Islam. I won't let lying nuns and priest keep me from the Prince of Peace, King of Kings and Lord of lords