Catholic guilt?

I am with you on the death cult - I think it is grotesque.

The trouble is that everyone becomes inured to it - this iconography abounds. It is only when you stop and think about it that it is possible to really take on board what this is all about. People hang round their necks gold jewellery of an instrument of torture - what the heck is that about? If it were to be replicated in the present day they would have little gold electric chairs round their necks.

The catholic guilt of course centres on the concept of original sin, which makes no sense whatsoever - and as for the concept of atonement for this imagined sin by human sacrifice .......

We need to be free from these primitive ideas and move forward into a world where people can live their lives based on human kindness. It's not really been tried yet.

X post.

Its central image is a tortured, speared, crucified, dying man. Its third sacrament, for children aged seven, is eating the body and drinking the blood of the dead man. Its sacred items are bones and blood stains. Death is everywhere in Catholicism.

It’s obvious, surely. It focuses on the sacrifice of Jesus’ death on the cross as the constitutive moment that ‘saves’ a humankind perceived as hopelessly ‘fallen’.

Its chief iconography is of a tormented, almost naked body being tortured to death in a spectacularly unpleasant way.

What do you mean ‘death cult’?

It's hard to shake off a Catholic education. It's important to try though. It's a miserable restrictive death cult at best.

As I understand it, though no expert, there are two strands to Christian denominations. Firstly, there are the religious texts; secondly, there is the manmade interpretation of these teachings, which changes in the light of societal changes

The problem of course with the religious texts is that they too are manmade interpretations of what individual humans thought they saw a very long time ago in the context of their then societal norms and the state of scientific knowledge at the time.

None of it is relevant to now.

I get that there are metaphorical interpretations to be postulated which might contain moral lessons or ideas worthy of thought at any time, but this does not need to be hedged round in supernatural belief.

The bottom line is that we all know that religions are dangerous and have spread misery and discord over the centuries, which would be bad enough in itself, but is even worse when there is no basis in fact or logic for their actions. All that misery for nothing ......

I'm an agnostic but was brought up in the C of E (rather half-heartedly!). But I'm very interested in religion. I do not sneer at religious belief - just to be clear. But I do differentiate very strongly between what is said in the Bible about Christ and his teachings and the Early Church, and what the RC church has constructed over the centuries since the conference at Nicea in the ....4th century??? when doctrine was agreed.

The only clear guide to what Jesus Christ did and what he said is in the gospels. Then that great PR man, St Paul, (who in my opinion created Christianity as a religion - Jesus certainly didn't - he seems to have had no plans or interest in creating a new religion), put huge efforts into supporting small pockets of followers around the Med and evangelising about Christianity after Christ's death.

A friend of mine was in a church group which went back to the gospels as their only authority on Christianity, and cut out all the stuff added since then. I get this completely.

(To be clear: I'm fully aware of the issues around taking the gospels as literally, or historically, 'true', but that's a different thread!)

Agree with your second paragraph. But not your first.

Because easiest thing in the world for any God to prove they exist. Just pop in and say hello. And it is not up to non believers to prove they do not exist. Those making the claim have to prove they do. Especially, as you say, when they want others to live by their rules.

A deity cannot be proved or disproved. It is a matter of faith - some people profess to have a faith in the concept of a deity, but this is simply faith - it is not grounded in any proven reality.

And that is absolutely fine. People are rightly free to believe what they believe. What they should not be free to do is to impose their faith on others, indoctrinate children, blight people's lives with a sense of guilt based on their beliefs, impose fatwahs, kill in the name of religion, use religion in legislation, divide nations along religious lines, impose a ban on contraception then stand back and watch children suffer and starve in acute poverty ...........

By all means believe, but believe for yourself and not for those around you.

I am not judging Christianity. Nor am I attacking it.

The OP posted that they suspect they suffer from Catholic guilt. Some posters have replied saying they are Catholic, and it "never did them any harm". Some posters have suggested the OP finds a more modern and moderate version of Catholicism. Same have posted their experience of such religion induced guilt.

My position is to dump religion all together, because it is not true. None of them are true or factual. They are man made inventions designed to explain the world around them.

If you disagree and say I am wrong, that there is a God, or Gods, then prove it. Surely there must be an academic paper or an article somewhere that stands up to scrutiny and proves whatever God anyone claims to exist... actually exists.

If nobody can produce such a paper or article then my position is the same. Avoid religion to avoid the guilt it might induce.

‘And surely if Christianity is not about facts, as you say, then it is not true.‘

This sentence of yours proves my point. You are judging Christianity as if the beliefs were a series of ‘facts’ but the Christian message is about spiritual truth not factual truth.
So , for example, there are many ways to God and they may all be ‘true’ ie valid.
You say you’re not angry but to me what you say seems to come from a place of anger. Why else would you want to attack it in what to me is a meaningless way?

I am not angry. Not believing an any God does not make one angry. Indeed, I would say the opposite is true.

Quote : "Christianity is not about literal facts. It's about spirituality and metaphors."

Maybe that is the case in your version of religion. But that view is far from universal in theists.

Here is just one of many groups who believe the Bible is literal.

Answers in Genesis

And surely if Christianity is not about facts, as you say, then it is not true. The same as how the Loch Ness monster is not based on fact.

Again, without religion there will be no religion induced guilt.

The religious texts were written by man too of course. All of them.

And once that is understood by an individual, there is no need for any religious guilt.

There is no evidence of any God or Gods.

Post a link to a paper or article that proves that any God exists.

And there is no faith at all required to be an atheist.

By knowing that religion is a load of bollocks.

But perhaps partly under our control?

Lovely post, Olifleck, but your meaning may not be clear to people who are not used to this type of discussion..
Are you by any chance saying that there has to be an explanation for certain things about the world, for example the harmony and design of nature, the origin of the world, as well as the historical figure of Jesus, and people's experiences of God?
I think you may be saying that the simplest explanation for these things is that there is a God or Divine Creator.
If on the other hand, there is not God, as several posters here are asserting strongly, they you need to find another explanation, and that's very hard to do. You mention that there is something called the multiverse theory, which is just a theory, stating that the universe is naturally fine tuned, but this theory does not really work and there's still no explanation as to how this came about.
Did I understand you correctly?

Thank you for posting this because I do find it painful to see some people's deepest beliefs and values trivialised, mocked or misrepresentrd by a minority.

The connection lies in the fact that the OP has had guilt foisted on her by a religion that sees humans as in some way more than a collection of atoms/cells when in fact who we are and how we behave is not wholly under our control.

I am not an atheist.

I think you need to spell out the connection between your post, the RC Church and guilt. It's not obvious to me at all.

You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that the strongest interpretation for these things is God. Any naturalistic explanation is theoretical and in my opinion requires greater faith than theism. For example the leading naturalistic explanation for fine tuning is the multiverse theory (entirely theoretical) which is a concept that was proposed to explain fine tuning itself. The evidence for fine tuning infers a universe extremely finely calibrated to allow the existence of stable cosmic structure and life and therefore more strongly supports a theistic explanation. As such when the other commentor stated there is no evidence for God, I gave examples which show that evidence is everywhere you look.

I am sorry about your Grandad but your understanding of Christianity is incorrect and this has led you deeper down the atheism path. Do not reject theism because you have an incorrect bias. Do not allow bias to influence your worldview towards favouring naturalism because at the end of this path lies nothing but emptiness and pointlessness. A Christian is not going to be perfect otherwise there would be no requirement for repentance. Christians try to be better and all fall short of the glory of God. Christianity emphasises inner transformation - for followers to imitate Christ so to grow in love, humility, morality and forgiveness. Christians are all on their own individual paths along this transformation journey and whilst other people may injure you or those you love, you should not let it deny you the opportunity to grow closer to God.

lol!! 😂 I remember making up sins to tell the priest in confession! X

it is taught as fact, which is essentially dishonest.' I don't sense any dishonesty.

Have you ever witnessed a school RE lesson especially in religion based schools at primary level, where the teacher preface the lesson by: "This is just a story ... none of it is actually true ... but there might be interesting things we can learn from it."?
Certainly never happened in my Cof E school!

I think that works both ways!

Our brains do make us who we are. Someone who might once have been kind and thoughtful can turn into a cruel person if certain parts of the brain are injured. There are endless studies about personality and behaviour changes following brain injury. Ask the families of the victims how their loved ones can change into a different person. It is very sad, but it is a fact.