You... frustrated... with me? But you always seem so chill. I certainly wasn't trying to give off bad vibes. And I was on holiday the last week. So no internetz. Well, I know this sounds poor, but does one need to read the whole thing? I know that at Mass, the sections they read often have missing verses. It might be (for illustrative purposes) Matt 1: 1-6, 9-12. It's read together, and the gaps are seamless, but they are there. They can't read the whole thing, as there is just too many parts that sort of come across as irrelevant. The Old Testament in particular. Whole sections devoted to genealogy. I struggle to see how that is relevant or important. I suppose it comes down to a feeling that I 'get enough.' Why take out my own Bible to read, when, over the course of the Liturgical Year, I listen to and reflect on what I suppose are considered the more important sections. I mean, if it was unsatisfactory, then why would we take the time to do it in Mass at all? When I am struck by something inspiring/troubling, then I may take the time to read the passage again, perhaps the whole chapter. My priest's sermons are fine. I like sermons. It's a lot better than simply reading the Bible for yourself, and relying on your own interpretation. Priests spend seven years in the seminary for a good reason - they effectively become scriptural and doctrinal scholars. That's why the Catholic Church has an ordained ministry, isn't it? If you don't mind me saying, you come across as an Evangelical Catholic. Very often we get visiting priests, usually missionaries in the Pacific, or young priests from the Philippines or Korea. They give refreshing perspectives on the readings. No, I can't see myself turning away from the Church. I get a lot of inspiration from it, but it's normal to be challenged by your beliefs, I suppose. Healthy, even.
Even though it was last week and I don't clearly remember what was said anymore, it felt a lot like you were putting words in my mouth. I was feeling rather frustrated with you at the time, so it's probably a good thing that you apparently took a week off from TFF, haha. Another thing friends brought up: how do you know how to live the word if you don't read it? You go to church and listen to the sermons, true enough, but you might find that you get more from actually reading it than listening to it. Sit there and reflect on what you've read, make your own ideas, instead of just taking what you're able to hear and remember from the gospel, and then hearing what the priest thought in his sermon. I don't know that they go over everything that's in the Bible-or probably in the gospel- all year round, either. Oh yeah, and you never answered my question: how do you like your priest's sermons? I've told you how I've felt about mine. All I really want to do is be a good influence on you, since you came to me for advice before. I don't want to be the reason that you turn away from the church or anything. Then again, you haven't been coming to me for anything since then, so maybe you have this figured out for yourself. Anyhoo... Wuv, Yer Mom
I present these ideas to you because you ask me? And not that you were suggesting that, but at any rate I was thinking about it. I suppose I interpreted 'reading the Bible' as 'having faith in Christ but not necessarily acting in a Christ-like manner'. The bone of my contention.
If someone is an utter arsehole, they proably don't truly honestly profess faith in Christ, eh? I don't know why you present these ideas to me, btw Given what I said, I don't think I was suggesting that. Or are you just talking out loud?
Yes, but is actually reading the defining characteristic? I think that living it is more important than simply reading it. Which is one reason why I dislike the attitude that faith alone is enough to be rewarded within Christendom. I mean, someone could be an utter arsehole, but profess faith in Christ, and that would be enough, apparently. I think both faith and works are important, but, if forced a decision, works seems more relevant and Christ-like. That's something I struggle with, I suppose.
I don't know if its necessary to read the Bible to get to Heaven, as per many people over the centuries could not read, and Bibles were very hard to come by. However, I believe that living in and knowing the Word helps your walk a lot.
Yes, but neccessary in what sense? Like, does one go to Heaven if they follow Christ's example, but never 'bought his book'?
I meant it as straight forward as possible: "Do you think it's necessary to read the Bible?" Hm. How is your priest over there? I don't always get a lot out of what our priest says in his sermons. I like it more when visiting priests come to our church. Our priest usually starts talking about some event that happened to him recently, and maybe a few sentences about the sermon. I had read or heard someone say somewhere that it's important to read the Word every day, so I have picked up that habit. It's funny how Catholics have a reputation of never reading the Bible, heh. Someone at our church joked about it in our Confirmation classes. Anyhoo... Wuv, Yer Mom
To be honest, I don't like calling myself 'Christian'. I much prefer 'Catholic'. When I think of stereotypical 'Christians', I think of fundamentalist, creationist, intolerant, homophobic libertarians. When I think of 'Catholics', I think of charitable people who give of themselves, don't judge others on any basis, but love unconditionally. But to ignore this impression, I think to be Christian means to follow the example of Christ. And I think this was best revealed in his actions and his parables. Talking to 'Samaritans'. Caring for those who are ignored by society. I don't read the Bible altogether too regularly. But I do go to Mass every week, and I do take the time to dwell on the message in the readings and in the priest's sermon. If it has inspired me into deeper thought, I may pull out the family Bible and read the passages again. That's probably the most likely scenario for me reading the Bible in my own time. How do you mean 'do I think it's neccessary'? Necessary for what?
I've got another question for you, related to the other one: What do you think it means to be Christian? Actually, I have two. Three: How often do you read the Bible? and Do you think it's necessary? I'll answer my own questions: I think being a christian means that you do your best to follow Jesus's teachings. To know His teachings, it is somewhat required to read the Bible and know what He said, so I read the Bible every day (though generally not the Gospel... I should read that again. Probably one of the best parts.) Although I think other parts of the Bible are valuable as well; like Paul's letters, the letters of John, James, etc. (James' will kick your ass.) Sometimes, I forget I'm supposed to be Christlike. Sometimes, I'm not very Christlike at all. Sometimes, I forget that I should be doing things to better myself, and I sit around all day on the internet or playing video games (okay, most days...) I suppose through Grace, however, I am saved. Am I bludgeoning you with a shovel with this right now? Sorry. Anyhoo... Wuv, Yer Mom
Nah not really. Well, I suppose it hasn't been on my mind. Sometimes I do wonder if I place my own principles onto Christianity and still call it Christianity. But then I think that 'Christianity' is such a vague term in itself that it doesn't really matter.
Oh well. Haha. So, how are you feeling about your faith lately, btw? I haven't asked you for a while. If you don't mind my asking. Still struggling with it or anything?
Insensitive? I'm not sure; maybe. But could anyone actually use those terms? No one is perfect, and I think everyone agrees on that. Whether to themselves, or to anyone else. So we can't use 'perfect' to describe someone. So if no one is perfect, then we must be 'imperfect'. But if one is imperfect, then we must be able to imagine perfection. But we've already established that this does not exist, so how can imperfection exist? So we can't appropriately or accurately use either term. We're just left with people, who make decisions about how they can better themselves, but never others. As you said, I think we agree somewhere among this. I'm confusing myself.
What I was going to say about religion: As a christian, I believe that everyone is born into sin in this world, and is therefore imperfect by default. The only perfect being was Jesus Christ, who actually might not be perfect by the extremely anal definition I gave of perfection, ha.
What I mean is that you seem to think it is insensitive to use those terms. Or you did in your posts. In particular, your comments about "people should be given the dignity of just being called people," or whatever you said. I don't remember the exact wording. And I can't be arsed, haha. I get done debating after a few posts.
