Jesus held on the cross with nails in his hands

We are talking about the teachings of the RC church.
Not what we believe is right or wrong about those teachings.
As noted the RC church like so many churches are having to and have evolved over time to fit in with an evolving society, hence the example on cremation.

I agree.
Its simply a Religion appropriate for some to interpret and twist the Bible and it’s stories and meanings within in to fit in with, as I see it, personal gain.
The Church of England was established as such.

Along with so many male dominated religions that are not Christian.
It’s a very sad running theme in so many!

Sex is perfectly ok if you’re not married. If the RC church wants to stop the ever decreasing numbers, they need to get realistic. Also - sins don’t exist, they’re just manufactured to try and make people feel guilty for leading a normal life.

A lot of the Bible, Christianity and many religions have very gruesome tales.

Many childrens books are also very gruesome, I’m thinking Grimms so called Fairy Tales.

I don’t see an issue with teaching the story of Easter to children and the use of nails is nor more gruesome than a lot of childrens literature.

If the churches teaching and the Bible is continually evolving as @oobetty and @4CandlesNotForkHandles have shown is it therefore also acceptable to interpret it as we wish.

ie As a story to follow to lead a good life as Betty has noted
Sex therefore was just for procreation and a sin, historically. However now, in order to keep up with the times, we interpret the teachings on sex of the RC religion as ok as long as you’re married.

The RC church, like many, find loopholes to fit in with society, just like cremation is now more acceptable.

Exactly!

We see many aspects of the churches teachings change over time and is not all based on the Bible Old or New.
The RC church is probably a little slow in this but not immune.

Why the Pope decided to go with historical debate on Mary certainly fits in with putting her on a much higher pedestal for worship.

Teachings on sex and understanding it’s place in society from a religious point of view is all about babies. That’s it’s purpose as stated in the Bible, nothing more, it is accepted that humans are prone to temptation hence Jesus suffered so we could be forgiven, cleansed and still be saved. Very basically put I know.

Just as Jesus crucifixion with nails also fits into the idea of a truly terrible death and therefore a person worthy of reverence which I think is why it’s important that it is taught, at least for the church and religion anyway.

Yes. I just said that. Catholicism isn’t that interested in the Bible, compared to other stripes of Christianity. Also no Biblical authority for celibate clergy, a male-only priesthood, a ban on ‘artificial’ contraception and many other oppressive or misogynistic aspects of Catholicism.

Although The aspect of Marys immaculate conception wasn’t defined in the the Catholic Church until 1854 by Pope Pius ix.

There’s nothing in the original bible or any previous religious scripture about it.

Its a concept previously debated throughout the medieval period by scholars. Perhaps just to make her more worthy as the mother of Jesus.

The bible and religious text is open to discussion as it always has been.
Some books have been left out because they do not confirm to a particular religion, such as the Book of Enoch and some teachings ( not added to the bible) have been added for effect ie Mary’s immaculate conception.

In the RC church sex when not for procreation is a sin. It’s not in the bible but in Genesis it does suggest sex outside of marriage is a sin and marriage was all about procreation.

We see aspects of religion change over time depending it seems on scholars and Popes views and will almost certainly continue to change in the future.

A lot of people (including some priests and nuns) are remarkably poorly educated on the tenets of their faith. Sex isn’t considered sinful within the parameters set out for it by Catholicism (open to procreation etc etc). The key difference for Jesus’s conception is that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, debated at the Council of Trent and cause of a civil war between the Dominicans and the Franciscans, but only formalised in the 1850s by papal bull, is about.

@cakeorwine If someone says they are a Christian and they don't follow the teachings of Christ, are they really a Christian?

I think yes, being a Christian can mean many things. The way Christianity evolved is full of paradoxes, the most judgemental religious folk are often the least Christian in some ways. You could easily argue that a strict Catholic is unchristian in many ways. I remember being told by a particularly devout nun that Protestants were bad people. I guess I would have believed it, only my parents and those around me were open minded but it makes you think how easy a child could be radicalised, think of how NI was in the 70s and 80s. Personally I think anyone who takes religion, any religion to a fundamental level is very dangerous and a half arsed version where you take what you want from it is much better.

As my earlier post. This is my ‘understanding’ as a Catholic and what we were taught at school, in church and indeed from my parents and grandparents etc before.
Sex is sinful hence why Catholics are supposed to only have sex in order to procreate.

(This probably comes from the Jewish concept of abstaining and cleansing prior to sex, I say probably as I’m not Jewish )
sex for fun in the RC church is not on the cards.

Im not disputing the teachings on Mary in the church.
I am analysing why the authors of the Bible decided Jesus had to be born of a virgin and their idea of sex as a sin. It all corresponds. It makes a lot of sense if you want someone to follow your path that you make the hero special born without sin and of someone without sin..

You see, I view the Bible as a book to use to live a good life. I do not believe in miracles and don’t take it literally. Even though I am a Catholic.

Original Sin is transmitted through the sex act. Some Christians insist Mary was the result of an immaculate conception (no sex) so that she didn't carry OS to pass on to Jesus.

No, you’re misunderstanding that. Conceiving a child in the usual circumstances isn’t ‘sinful’. What makes Jesus’ conception special (other than the whole ‘Son of God, conceived on a virgin by the Holy Spirit’ thing) is that the human woman who gave birth to him was free of the ordinary original sin normally graven into all human beings from birth from being the descendants of the fallen Adam and Eve (one of Catholicism’s more tiresome technicalities, but still — most Protestant churches reject it, and from what I remember so do Orthodox Christians). Jesus got nine months in a sin-free human vessel because Mary was born without original sin.

Yes that’s quite true . ( I mean in terms of Christian followers that is)
But the key concept for Jesus is that he was born of a virgin, ie not from sin.

Had Mary sinned in order to conceive then Jesus would’ve been born with original sin and essentially the same as everyone else.
In writing the Bible Jesus had to be special, he had to be different in the eyes of the authors and church.

The birth of Jesus was without original sin because he was born of a virgin. That’s key to the idea. Only Jesus was born pure and only Jesus therefore could save mankind from ‘eternal damnation’

Actually, no. Mary was born free of original sin. That's the whole point of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was born Immaculate, not Jesus. But these days almost everyone mixes that up.

The original sin aspect I understood ( also Catholic here ) was not the babies ability to sin but the sins of their parents in having sex.
Sex caused the babies to be born and baptism cleansed them of that original sin. We carry the sins of our fathers, I believe is the phrase used.

Again my Catholic understanding is much the same idea as I previously quoted. Adam and eve were created as pure by God by then sinned, ie had sex because of a flaw in the creation ie humans are tempted to do bad things. Of them we are all created by sex and with the ability to sin.( and before anyone comes back with a comment about that one I’m actually in the Darwin camp )

The birth of Jesus was without original sin because he was born of a virgin. That’s key to the idea. Only Jesus was born pure and only Jesus therefore could save mankind from ‘eternal damnation’ and by dieing he created a pathway for everyone to live an eternal life in heaven. Or indeed come back after, which is why Catholics pray for the sole and why it was always important to bury and not cremate.
In the RC church it is understood that if you ask for forgiveness and pay penance it will be granted because that’s why Jesus died. He took on the suffering of future sinners.

As an aside. I’m am personally of the idea that the bible is a story. Not all is based on fact. I do not believe in miracles or that priests literally change wine into blood at mass, I believe in the symbolism only. I believe it is a book used to support those in understanding concepts of good works and deeds. The stories are a way of explaining those.

I used the non Christian terminology because the PP was talking about pagan events ie in order to demonstrate a direct link.

It is a day to remember the dead, bless their graves and pray for their souls.
It’s not just about going to mass ie in a church but also going to graves and a service with the priest blessing the graves. ( Not all priests do the graveyard service but ours always has )

I was therefore indicating that some Christians do in fact have a day for the dead.

I'm not getting pissy with you 🙂

Reading what @OOBetty posted reminded me that I read before the best explanation for it (which I don't believe anyway 😂but makes more sense to me than the rest IMO)

God and Jesus are one.
God was angry at his creation and needed to have a human experience to understand, living as a human helped him understand us, what can make people sin etc , and pain and suffering, so therefore by coming here and living as Jesus and experiencing that was what turned him into a more forgiving God.

So then in that case the 'died for our sins' narrative still really bothers me because what actually happened was God lived as Jesus so he could understand us...so just say that then 😂

If Jesus is our saviour then it's only because God didn't understand his creation because we didn't get saved from anything, except from him disliking us for not being perfect humans 😂

Jesus suffered but so did lots of people, and lots of people still do but people are supposed to be eternally grateful that God chose for a while to live as a human to experience some human pain.

I don't believe anyway obviously but interpreting it that way makes sense to me (out of a story that makes no sense) but either way I don't think that God comes across great in it at all. Which as I said was what confused me through my childhood.

Should have added while I’m not Catholic, my parents were staunch, other grandparents were different branch of Christianity again (Baptist style), and some of my kids now a completely different branch again, so I’ve lived with a lot of different peoples beliefs/perspectives which I think has been handy.

Obviously the babies couldn't have sinned before they died..but they were supposed to be stuck in limbo because they weren't free the temptation to do bad things? Was there worries that they were going to be doing bad things in heaven

Again, I don’t agree myself, but am just trying to explain the philosophy of it. Babies would be born with ‘original sin’ as the human brain has been designed to have the potential for ‘sin’ (being bad deeds, thoughts, temptation etc). Therefore it is present n your brain when you are born. Part of the baptism is meant to be covering the baby under Jesus’s actions if you like, covering them for this aspect, where he takes on the original sin component for them. Obviously this is not agreed across Christianity. Some of my kids church/religion does not have this aspect (baptism as a baby) as they don’t believe anyone requires this, that Jesus has just taken it on irrespective for everyone going forward from that point. Then they have baptism as an adult when they make their own choice about actively accepting God under membership of that particular religion. At no point do they need to have the sin aspect addressed (again, already covered by Jesus death).

Again maybe this is just a Catholic thing but if Jesus's death was supposed to cover it then why are little children told to confess their sins

Again, as I understand it for those branches of Christianity that do this. It goes back to the example I gave before about the murderer. While theoretically the ‘sins’ little kids would commit would be covered via Jesus death (taking on their sins), there’s a bit of a line. A murderer will really have to truly repent, and then ask God for forgiveness. You can’t really do that as a one off leap so they give ‘practice goes’ starting from a child so you have the concept of you ever really need to swing it into action. Simplistic version obviously.

I don’t believe in a lot of this, just stating the rationale/theory, behind it by those who do, so don’t shoot the messenger and get pissy with me.

Eostre is associated with hares, which are native to the UK (mountain hares that is, the ones that turn white in winter) and therefore predate rabbits (and brown hares).
Hares have featured in British folklore a loooooong time, long before anyone was writing about or telling stories about nailing anyone to a cross. They were associated with witches, with women in general and there were a lot of strange ideas about what hares could do, stemming mainly from misunderstandings about their behaviour and their ability to go from brown to white.

They also look creepy as fuck, and can produce a very human like scream.

Fuck all to do with rabbits though, they're a modern invention because they are about 10billion times cuter than hares.

It's All Saints in the RC church. Followed by All souls day (1-2nd November). The only person I have ever know to make an alter was Mexican.

Day of the dead is a bit different to going to mass three times.

I don't think kids are as traumatised by this kind of detail as we think they are. I dimly recall knowing about Jesus being nailed to the cross from age 5 or 6, and it not really affecting me that much. Actually it traumatises me more now, if anything, now that I realise that the Romans used the nails in order to inflict the maximum pain on their victims.
If Jesus's death happened now (in the same manner), they wouldn't allow videos of it on the main news sites or on Youtube, it would be deemed too triggering or adult-rated. The traditional paintings and depictions of Christ on the Cross present a very sanitised version. The reality would have been quite brutal and bloody, and you'd need a strong stomach to watch it on video. (I think people back 2000 years ago were probably used to seeing a lot more blood and gore in life than we are these days).

To clarify, I was raised Catholic (not strictly though) so the theory is hard understand from the Catholics church perspective. I'm not sure about other religions.
For a long time people were told babies must be baptized or they wouldn't get into heaven, because of original sin.
There were babies who were would have died within moments of birth who weren't baptised in time and their poor parents had to despair that they've never meet the babies again.
Obviously the babies couldn't have sinned before they died..but they were supposed to be stuck in limbo because they weren't free the temptation to do bad things? Was there worries that they were going to be doing bad things in heaven? 🙄

which is an acknowledgment that everyone will want to do ‘bad’ things at some point or give in to temptation. If you do, that’s okay to an extent as in an everyday sense the purpose of Jesus suffering and death was to take on our sins and his punishment/death covers it.

Again maybe this is just a Catholic thing but if Jesus's death was supposed to cover it then why are little children told to confess their sins?

Its an interesting question with lots of similar views
Heres one after a quick google which goes back to the Old Testament which is why I picked it.
Theres are lots of explanations from various scholars and followers on the subject online.