Without getting into the Protestant/Catholic thing, I believe that is one of the things that makes the Protestant church better. We don't really need to go every Sunday and do so many traditional things. P.S. If your answer is Catholics are better blah blah blah, don't bother, I really can't be ****ed with it!
Depends how much of a Protestant you are. Protestantism is better in my mind because certain sects of it are far more liberal, there is no way a man should go his whole life without sex and all that - it will just drive him mad. But what Protestantism really has right is it's a major move towards atheism, the next step is just to become atheist (P.S. a lot of variations of Protestantism are actually similar, if not worse, than Catholicism. Take the firebrand preaching of Ian Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church or even look at the likes of Cromwell's puritanical crusade. I think a lot of modern Protestants mix up the softening of their literal faith with the church being liberal.)
Each to their own. protestant churches in their various guises don't all celebrate the eucharist every visit. not better or worse. just different. Anglican churches do far more of the 'traditional' things than the Catholic church. Again, not better or worse. Just different.
I was actually meaning the length of Catholic weddings, but, as I said, I really don't want us to argue and then all decide that Prods are better, which will obviously happen!
I'm sure you've watched Father Ted, the hilarious aspect of it is that growing up a Catholic we actually did have the different types of priests like you see in the show. We used to have slow boring priests, or funny priests who told jokes and kept everyone entertained, or the best of all - a lightening ****ing quick priest who would have the mass done in about 10 minutes so we could all **** off to the pub
Mick, honestly, I only saw about 5 minutes of Father Ted and it is the same with Mrs Brown's Boys, I thought that all that "feck" **** wasn't really funny, maybe if I watch it all, I will find it funny, but as it stands...no!
Hi all, I like this thread so I'll just chuck my feelings in as well. Creationists? As Dara O'Brairn (spelling?) would say, 'get in the ****ing bag' alongside the fortune tellers, astrologers, spiritualists, tarot readers and all other superstitious, religious types. Beat the lot of them with a big ****ing stick. On a lighter note, about a year ago I had the same thing with my son and some of the teachers at his non religious school trying to sneak their unwanted christian beliefs onto him. He was only 7 but he is a smart kid. Thankfully I had explained to him already that The Flying Spaghetti Monster had in fact created the Universe. I explained, of course, that this was a parody created to annoy the idiots that believe in religion and ignore science. Anyway, he came home one day and told my wife and I that a teacher had started to bang on about Jesus and God so he piped up and pointed out her error and explained that he believed we were in fact created by the FSM. The teacher, of course, has no right to put down anyones personal beliefs. My boy was pleased with himself and so was I. My wife was pissed even though she is also an athiest. She doesn't want them to think he's a nutjob. Unlike those who think some bloke in the sky is watching over us. He's a good lad. Sensible, sane, intelligent and even at his early age he shows a cracking sense of humour. And he's not scared of some invisible miserable bastard trying to suck all the joy out of his life.
It was hilarious. The first time I saw it, I was channel hopping and stumbled across the first episode at the point where Ted was talking to a TV reporter. I saw a priest being interviewed and in the background another priest sitting on a garden bench being winched up by a crane. I thought "**** me, those paddies get up to some strange ****". Took me a while to twig.
My view is that there was a man who, 2,000 years ago, claimed to be Jesus, but that the myths regarding Jesus' actions and the original source of the lies lived much earlier, and this is suggested by the fact that he bears so many simnilarities with the Sun God 'Horus'. However, this doesn't make him Jesus, it doesn't make him the original person to have made such extraordinary claims and it doesn't validate any of the supposed miracles or events in Jesus' life. This is different from your view. AND, you also claimed that there is evidence to support this mans existence, and claimed that he WAS Jesus, which I refuted. That caused the original exchange between the two of us. When your ridiculous claim about Josephus was proven incorrect, you failed to provide any more evidence to support your argument.
This is the point I was making and you agree with me. Why would anybody claim to be a guy named Jesus who wasn't Jesus? As for the rest of your point, most, if not all scholars agree there was a person named Jesus. This is evidenced by the works of Josephus, Q, the primary source for the gospel texts. The many 'gospel' accounts that weren't included in the NT, the historical accuracies of the things they wrote about The connection with John the Baptist on and on and on. But this won't fly with you because you know better than 2000 years of scholarly works. You have a very high opinion of yourself
