• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Poll--Were you raised Catholic?

Go to CruxDreams.com
Yes, this is a ploy to smoke out responses from the majority of our 155 members who don't post.

It's also a semi-scientific way to find out what percentage of people with this fetish were raised in a faith whose central image is a vaguely effeminate, mostly naked guy hanging from a cross.

You need only answer yes or no. Further comments are at your discretion.

My answer: Yes. Attended parochial school until 9th grade to boot.
No, Czech Republic is the most atheist country.

I am a militant Atheist. Now I am scared that god will punish me.
 
Yes, I was raised Catholic. I was also an altar boy (server), and lector until I was 18. I am sure the stories of the crucifixion of Christ and the sacrifices of the martyrs, all young, beautiful, seminude men and women, displayed in many evocative works of art, fueled my current obsession
 
Yes I was...and still practicing at age 79 plus.
BTW...the traditional image of Christ ALWAYS RAISES A CHUCKLE from me. Considering the range of the Roman Empire, if one looks at photos od Yemenite Jews brought yo Israel in the 80's or 90's. they may be closer to what HIS appearance really was...
Regards
Hiliary
In the catholic church he looks feminized. I think he was more male looking and naturaly they covered his genitals, which might be huge. If he was jewish looking i do not know, remeber paart of his genoms were not by Josef as one would need for local looking peoples.
 
remeber paart of his genoms were not by Josef as one would need for local looking peoples.
That would be consistent with the idea that Jesus looked entirely different from local people of the time, but that's only possible if you take a religious story at face value and give it the status of fact. Even if the conception of Jesus was "immaculate", the Holy Ghost likely doesn't have genes, in the physical sense, so where the X chromosome came from is anybody's guess. Religious stories don't go into that sort of detail, and Gospel writers didn't know about them, so they aren't necessary for the story. Putting 21st century knowledge onto a 1st century story gets one into all sorts of trouble, because in the 21st century we know scientifically that immaculate conceptions can't work, and likely never occurred. So the only Jesus we actually know is the one from the story, or from paintings, and he can look like anything we want him to look like.
 
That would be consistent with the idea that Jesus looked entirely different from local people of the time, but that's only possible if you take a religious story at face value and give it the status of fact. Even if the conception of Jesus was "immaculate", the Holy Ghost likely doesn't have genes, in the physical sense, so where the X chromosome came from is anybody's guess. Religious stories don't go into that sort of detail, and Gospel writers didn't know about them, so they aren't necessary for the story. Putting 21st century knowledge onto a 1st century story gets one into all sorts of trouble, because in the 21st century we know scientifically that immaculate conceptions can't work, and likely never occurred. So the only Jesus we actually know is the one from the story, or from paintings, and he can look like anything we want him to look like.
Actualy I do not have any doubts about the reality of the bibles stories. The problem of our time is that they put matter over mind. But the essence of the DNA is its information not its physical structure which indeed is only known since the 1950ies due to Wilkins (I think) interpreted more well-known by Watson and Crick. That there is some kind of "information" transported via mother and father to the child (except in medival times) is know to all peoples in all times, and that there is a possibility to transfer information from a "Ghost" to a persons DNA by changinbg it seems to be a rather trivial fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom