Jesus held on the cross with nails in his hands

[TaFox]

DD5 is in year 1 and has been learning about Jesus at school. Great stuff in the spirit of Easter.

The RE teacher told the class how Jesus was NAILED to the cross.

This is quite graphic for a little girl who believes that the Easter bunny will leave eggs in our garden.

Should I tell school that this is too much info for little ears?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Do you not think the teachings are wrong?

See my post 1st para @ 15:35pm.

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.

From your earlier post- is this what you believe?

I’m referring to the ‘teachings on sex in the RC religion’ ….as it says. Ivam not referencing my thoughts on the subject.
Thats completely irrelevant to the original discussion.

This makes no sense though really.

Jesus wouldn't have been born with sin anyway because he's actually God.

And if Mary was born immaculate it was surely because God chose her to be born that way.

If he could make an exception for her then why not fix the problem in all of us instead of being so annoyed at his creation and needing to create Jesus in order to free us from the sin.

Also it's taking the piss to create people with urges to reproduce, give them sexual urges and then say that the parents sinned by having sex and therefore their baby was born with original sin.

It's like an abusive parent blaming their kids for the way they turned out....and then the parent gets a bit of help (by creating Jesus which allowed him to understand us) and then we're supposed to be eternally grateful that our parent managed to soften up a bit.

I don't believe the symbolism and the stories do explain the concepts of good works and deeds!
I do like some of the stories and how they are interpreted in a new age spiritual way, but not in religious ways 😅

Read subsequent explanations and discussions.
The whole Mary thing for example was added in the 1850s not by God but by a Pope
re Gods mistakes in creation…..religion doesn’t necessarily have to make sense….does any religion make absolute sense in fact,
re Gods mistake or maybe not in creating a being wired for temptation…surely if religions decided that God created everyone so perfect and happy and the world was so wonderful we wouldn't need religion at all and religious leaders wouldn’t exactly be promoting that .

I like your take on the stories interpreted in a new age spiritual way

@kkloo - I don’t agree with the concept of sin but if it exists it would apply to everyone including Jesus - why would he be exempt. Being born immaculate isn’t physically possible so it’s a piece of fiction rather than fact - similar to the supposed miracles - walking on water - also not possible

I agree.
Some people view the bible in its literal sense I don’t
and with my slightly scientific hat on and just basic questioning I can’t believe in miracles.
If you need religion to lean on…..fine
If you’d rather a glass of wine or some chocolate…..fine
If you just enjoy the choral music or insence….fine
Each to their own.

Absolutely this.^

Before Christ's crucification only the lowest of the lows in society were sentenced to crucification. It was a very common form of punishment. Everyone saw and knew it including children.
The uprising after His Resurrection by His disciples, who were all crucified as well, including Peter who was crucified upside down because he felt it was an honour to be crucified upright like Jesus, and followers who embodied Christ's teaches which form the basis of values,ideology and culture in the West and countries influenced by the west is the reason why you can think it's gruesome.
The Roman Empire would've continued to reign in its form with crucifixions, gladiators etc.
The Jesus movement is the basis of free healthcare (good Samaritan), education, monogamy, fairness, equality etc we enjoy today.

Even the humble first aid box, the Red Cross an international symbol of free help to the needy rich or poor all stem from the crucification of the Son of God who did no evil, healed people, advocated for children etc yet He gave Himself up to be crucified like a criminal.
There's a lot to teach from the meaning of this weekend.

This is poignant video to help understand https://x.com/SpeakLifeUK/status/1773736988195058084?t=09kQ03hUV4tq4fNaRkhayg&s=09

A good book on the topic. https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/B0B3H573VB?source_code=ASSOR150021921000R

@WhatAreThey - many of us are atheists and don’t believe in the resurrection or god. The Bible is a number of different stories - some may be true but others are definitely not.