> How old are you? When I was younger we had fish every Friday
> - Friday being the day when we did not eat meat. I think the
> practice of fasting seems to be left to the individual these
> days although the Church does require it for Ash Wednesday &
> Good Friday.
Old enough to know orthodox catholic practice. :)
> > The spreading of ashes was not a reminder of
> > mortality but as a way of showing repentence for one's sins
> > during lent.
> I think it symbolises both, doesn't it?
No, not really. At least as I was taught in the Catholic church, which is the church that practices lent. The meaning of the ashes comes directly from the bible.
> I have never been taught not to eat a meal.
Are you roman orthodox catholic? Children, mind you, do not fast at all and just avoid eating meat on Fridays and etc.
> I think Lent has a dual purpose. Certainly cleansing the
> soul from sin is one of them. I think we are all recommended
> to Confess during Lent.
Yes, lent is all about repentence and confession for a later rebirth from sin.
> The point I was hinting at in my question. Most of us may
> have a faded label of Christianity on our coats but many now
> do not practice the faith nor have any idea of want it
> means. When I made the post I had been reading a lot of the
> anti-Christian posts that try to have us believe that Jesus
> was some sort of pagan diety. People are discussing this
> without having the first inclings of what Christainity is.
Fine. I was raised orthodox roman catholic and was so until I reached my 20's. I realized at that point that religion was man made and only something that distanced people. I would say that I am now agnostic with leanings towards catholicism (still) and buddhism. However, my son was baptised and he attends a catholic private school. He is observing lent (he gave up potato chips for lent, hee hee, poor kid!). At age 7, the observance of lenten restrictions is only no meat on Fridays. We're having fish tomorrow for dinner. I am observing lent with him to support him. So, you have an ex-catholic that came from a rather devout catholic family, who is raising her son in catholic tradition. At several points in my life, between the ages of 14-25, I thought heavily on becoming a nun. Now, I question religion and its purpose in its entirety. I don't think that helps your generalization.
> If Christ was fake He was the most convincing fake in all of
> human history. Humanity has on some level followed his
> teachings for over 2000 years now. Christianity has flowed
> through generations of mankind, countless billions of people
> believe that Christ existed. If he was a fake then we really
> have to begin to consider that the Nazi concentration camps
> are also facticious stories because it would be a con of
> similar proportions.
I said the ossuary was deemed a fake. I never said anything about Jesus being a fake. I honestly don't know what he was. I think that he was a real and very good man but I think that he has been somewhat altered over time.
> I think we really have to go back to the roots of
> Christianity when it was just Jesus's Apostles spreading the
> Word creating converts. Remember the Apostles died horrible
> deaths proclaiming the Word of God. It wasn't some con on
> their part. People may question the motives of the Roman
> Empire when it made Christainity its official history but we
> cannot question the motives of St Andrew for example who died
> on a cross, crucified upside down with his legs open in the
> shape of a star.
I think that is one of the things that I find most troubling about the religion. Life is an extraordinary gift from god. That life should be taken in the name of religion is absolutely appalling.
> Stephanie it is only a personal question if you are touchy
> about the topic. Again my point is many people who have
> decided to reject Christainity know very little about it but
> hold very strong negative feelings about it.
No, it is not because I am touchy about the topic at all. I am a moderator for this messageboard and found the questions a bit invasive for other members of the board. Considering that one's personal beliefs has been a point of contention and flaming on this board for a bit, I did not think that your line of questioning of other member's personal beliefs was appropriate.
> Stephanie, your response to my point is over the top. AT no
> time in my post could a member of a non-Christian religion
> take offence. So there is no need to remind me that this is
> a multi-cultural board. Though I get the impression
> sometimes that Christians on this board have to take all the
> hits without being aloud to make any themselves.
That is in your opinion, Paul. Others would find your line of questioning invasive and inappropriate. There has been no distinction in the moderation team in regards to whether a poster is christian or not. We look at the offense, not the person's beliefs.
> The content of your post suggests that you are telling me off
> in some way. A remarkeable reaction given that all I posted
> were a few thoughts on Ash Wednesday.
Well, you are misreading. Try re-reading my original reply to you again. If it seemed that I was "telling you off", well, you are wrong in your assumption. As a moderator, I found some of your wording inappropriate, divisive, and confrontational so I was trying to re-direct you in a way to better debate the recent topics at hand. Soapboxing is not allowed on any of the messageboards. These forums are here for debate, arguments about what one person believes versus another's belief simply have no place here. I suggested that you find contrary evidence from outside the realm of belief to refute what you disagree with simply because that would be more constructive and beneficial to the forums. One cannot assume a person's feeling from text alone, generally. That's why god created emoticons. ;)
Stephanie aka ArmchairObserver