The Theist Thread - Let's Share

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I at no time intimated or flat out said that Jesus was a Pharisee. I don't know how much more plain I could have been, but I will diagram it out for you:

God --> Law --> Pharisees (strict adherence to the Law) --> intent and spirit of the law is crushed.

Christ --> Eucharist --> Church (strict adherence) --> intent and spirit of the Eucharist is crushed.

Christ is not the Pharisee here.

By making the elements of the sacrament a lynchpin for success in creating the sacrament itself, you are taking off down that road of legalism not for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the magisterium. The desire to make the sacrament dependent on the molecular structure of the elements would then make the sacrament no different than a magic potion coupled with an incantation where exactly three eyes of newt and one pickled bat wing is absolutely required in order for the magic and the potion to work. The communion sacrament is not magic or a spell to bring a consecration to the bread and wine (or any other element used). The consecration is dependent upon the heart of the faithful wishing to commune with God and Christ.

I think you're fallaciously comparing the "rules" of the Pharisees to the Tradition of the Church. The diagram goes more like this:

God --> 10 Commandments (God's Law) --> 300+ Laws created around commandments (Man's Law) --> Pharisees (strict adherence to the Law) --> intent and spirit of God's law is crushed.

Christ(Eucharist) --> Church (Tradition/Scripture, 1:1 translation) --> intent of Jesus followed.

Jesus said...and I noticed you have not addressed this at all: "Do this in memory of me". So...we do. Pharisees used a wall around the 10 commandments so that no Jew ever came close to breaking them, thereby making life insufferable and unnatural. Those were the "rules" Jesus speaks of. For the Eucharist, there is no such wall. It is a 1:1 translation. It is practiced in the exact same manner as the early church, going back to the time of Peter and the Apostles...who got it from Christ himself.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

You still haven't answered my question: how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements? Or, if it is easier, how is the majesty of God and Christ diminished by the use of elements other than bread and wine?

Again....because bread and wine, as used by Jesus, is based on scripture...unless you're arguing otherwise. Scripture reveals the majesty of God and Christ...unless you're arguing otherwise. Therefore; it logically follows that the Tradition of the Eucharist using bread and wine, reveals the majesty of God and Christ.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

But you said before that the specific nature of the elements were required based on Scripture and tradition. The notion that taking one element is the same as taking both is not Scriptural at all. Christ offered both the Body and the Blood, not one or the other.

The Church has been quite clear that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ are present in both bread and wine...both/and, not either/or:

CCC1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135

CCC1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

By the way, I am an atheist, so feel free to tell me to bugger off at any time. I'm trying to just contribute in theologically-neutral (i.e. only those things I know about the Catholic church) ways, but if my faithlessness annoys anyone here, I will gladly bow out.

darrenl wrote:

I think you're fallaciously comparing the "rules" of the Pharisees to the Tradition of the Church. The diagram goes more like this:

God --> 10 Commandments (God's Law) --> 300+ Laws created around commandments (Man's Law) --> Pharisees (strict adherence to the Law) --> intent and spirit of God's law is crushed.

Christ(Eucharist) --> Church (Tradition/Scripture, 1:1 translation) --> intent of Jesus followed.

Jesus said...and I noticed you have not addressed this at all: "Do this in memory of me". So...we do. Pharisees used a wall around the 10 commandments so that no Jew ever came close to breaking them, thereby making life insufferable and unnatural. Those were the "rules" Jesus speaks of. For the Eucharist, there is no such wall. It is a 1:1 translation. It is practiced in the exact same manner as the early church, going back to the time of Peter and the Apostles...who got it from Christ himself.

No, the diagram I posted was in response to your claim that I was potentially viewing Christ as a Pharisee, which I wasn't. What you posted has nothing to do with my refutation of that claim.

As for "Do this in memory of me," I do! The liturgy of my congregation included a Communion service every Sunday. However, we were not hung up on the fact that we had a variety of wines used and had a separate cup of grape juice for two members of the congregation who were in recovery from alcoholism.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

You still haven't answered my question: how is the majesty of God and Christ enhanced by requiring exacting standards for the elements? Or, if it is easier, how is the majesty of God and Christ diminished by the use of elements other than bread and wine?

Again....because bread and wine, as used by Jesus, is based on scripture...unless you're arguing otherwise. Scripture reveals the majesty of God and Christ...unless you're arguing otherwise. Therefore; it logically follows that the Tradition of the Eucharist using bread and wine, reveals the majesty of God and Christ.

Sigh. I didn't ask if it revealed the majesty of God and Christ. I ask if not using elements with an exact molecular structure diminishes the majesty of God and Christ. It really is a very simple question.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

But you said before that the specific nature of the elements were required based on Scripture and tradition. The notion that taking one element is the same as taking both is not Scriptural at all. Christ offered both the Body and the Blood, not one or the other.

The Church has been quite clear that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ are present in both bread and wine...both/and, not either/or:

CCC1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135

CCC1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

You are quoting RCC catechism. If taking one element is the same as taking both, please provide the Scriptural citation supporting that belief.

You are quoting RCC catechism. If taking one element is the same as taking both, please provide the Scriptural citation supporting that belief.

I think you misunderstand Catholic theology. Scripture and Tradition are equally valid. The Catechism formalizes the Tradition of the church. There doesn't need to be a scriptural basis so long as there is a traditional one.

Not sure if this is the thread to post this, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong in the Atheist thread.

I had a conversation with my rabbi recently in which I mentioned mounting evidence that seems to refute the contention that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, that they built the Egyptian monuments, and that they escaped from Egypt after the intervention of their god. She, of course, took issue with this, but stated also that even if it didn't actually happen, it wouldn't matter from the standpoint of understanding her god.

I had a similar conversation with a Christian in which I pointed out the unlikelihood of Christian history given the extreme similarity of Christian mythology to Mithras, Osiris, Dionysis, Apolonius, et al. His response was that the particulars didn't matter and that only the nature of his personal relationship with Christ did.

My question is this. If compelling proof could be presented that the origin of a religion was/is mythology (and borrowed mythology at that), does it and/or should it impact the nature of belief? For instance, should it matter if L. Ron Hubbard really said that he intended to create a religion for money or if Joseph Smith was mentally ill or if the resurrection of Yeshuach bar Yusef actually happened?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

No, the diagram I posted was in response to your claim that I was potentially viewing Christ as a Pharisee, which I wasn't. What you posted has nothing to do with my refutation of that claim.

No...the diagram you put up was an illustration of your assertion that the Church is putting up "rules" like the Pharisees. I was correcting that view as it is clearly mistaken.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Sigh. I didn't ask if it revealed the majesty of God and Christ. I ask if not using elements with an exact molecular structure diminishes the majesty of God and Christ. It really is a very simple question.

Simple answer then: yes it does diminish the majesty of God and Christ. Hope that is a clear answer.

Why?

....because bread and wine, as used by Jesus, is based on scripture...unless you're arguing otherwise. Scripture reveals the majesty of God and Christ...unless you're arguing otherwise. Therefore; it logically follows that the Tradition of the Eucharist using bread and wine, reveals the majesty of God and Christ.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

You are quoting RCC catechism. If taking one element is the same as taking both, please provide the Scriptural citation supporting that belief.

I don't need scriptural citation to support it. As I've stated throughout this debate: scripture and Tradition inform this sacrament...not one or the other...both/and. The Tradition of the Church hold this to be the case, as indicated by the CCC.

*eats popcorn*

Paleocon wrote:

Not sure if this is the thread to post this, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong in the Atheist thread.

I had a conversation with my rabbi recently in which I mentioned mounting evidence that seems to refute the contention that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, that they built the Egyptian monuments, and that they escaped from Egypt after the intervention of their god. She, of course, took issue with this, but stated also that even if it didn't actually happen, it wouldn't matter from the standpoint of understanding her god.

I had a similar conversation with a Christian in which I pointed out the unlikelihood of Christian history given the extreme similarity of Christian mythology to Mithras, Osiris, Dionysis, Apolonius, et al. His response was that the particulars didn't matter and that only the nature of his personal relationship with Christ did.

My question is this. If compelling proof could be presented that the origin of a religion was/is mythology (and borrowed mythology at that), does it and/or should it impact the nature of belief? For instance, should it matter if L. Ron Hubbard really said that he intended to create a religion for money or if Joseph Smith was mentally ill or if the resurrection of Yeshuach bar Yusef actually happened?

Yeah...I see what you're doing here. Remember, I am monitoring the Atheist thread ;). But...I'll bite.

Well...Jesus was a real, historical figure (...as shown from external writings and testimonies...), so you'd need to start from there since Christianity is centered around him and not Mithras (our understanding: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1040...), Osiris, Dionysis, or Apolonius. This arguments is fallacious. The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., "No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer").

Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") fallacy—e.g., "Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source." Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc ("Similar to this, therefore because of this") fallacy.

This view point is nothing new, it originated largely in the 19th century, made popular by The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop...not surprising that during this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism.

Let's take the Egyptians as an example again. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

So...start with Jesus. You'd then have to explore the claims he made within the Jewish context in 1st century Palestine...not within the context of 5000BC Egypt, for example. Showing similarity between religions is not an argument...it's simply sidestepping the issue and not addressing Jesus himself.

To answer your question: "If compelling proof could be presented that the origin of a religion was/is mythology (and borrowed mythology at that), does it and/or should it impact the nature of belief?"

Well...assuming it's not another fallacious argument, then yes. If you believe Christianity without the proper use of your intelligence, then...quite simply, you're a moron.

darrenl wrote:

Well...Jesus was a real, historical figure (...as shown from external writings and testimonies...), so you'd need to start from there since Christianity is centered around him and not Mithras (our understanding: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1040...), Osiris, Dionysis, or Apolonius. This arguments is fallacious.

Except that the very few "external writings and testimonies" that exist are either of questionable validity, or are commenting upon the testimonies of followers, instead of the person of Christ himself. Many have both failings, such as the writings of Josephus, where not only does the brief passage mention not Jesus as a person but the claims of Christians about Jesus, but the passage doesn't match the language and style of the surrounding passages, and doesn't appear in early manuscripts of the writings, strongly suggesting that it is an interpolation. There really isn't ANY strong evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm butting in here, but I just couldn't let such a weak claim stand as an argument to an honest question. If you want, I'll step aside.

Paleocon wrote:

Not sure if this is the thread to post this, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong in the Atheist thread.

I had a conversation with my rabbi recently in which I mentioned mounting evidence that seems to refute the contention that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, that they built the Egyptian monuments, and that they escaped from Egypt after the intervention of their god. She, of course, took issue with this, but stated also that even if it didn't actually happen, it wouldn't matter from the standpoint of understanding her god.

I had a similar conversation with a Christian in which I pointed out the unlikelihood of Christian history given the extreme similarity of Christian mythology to Mithras, Osiris, Dionysis, Apolonius, et al. His response was that the particulars didn't matter and that only the nature of his personal relationship with Christ did.

My question is this. If compelling proof could be presented that the origin of a religion was/is mythology (and borrowed mythology at that), does it and/or should it impact the nature of belief? For instance, should it matter if L. Ron Hubbard really said that he intended to create a religion for money or if Joseph Smith was mentally ill or if the resurrection of Yeshuach bar Yusef actually happened?

Following that thread too, and you guys seem to have confused borrowing another religion's symbols to make them your own cherished symbols and borrowing another religion's symbols to mock them. We don't all like, piss on the pagan holiday tree or something. Can't really compare the Christ=Osiris similarities to a Darwin fish, unless you guys are saying he got to the Galapagos Islands in the belly of a whale like Jonah.

Anyways, let's be honest: anyone in this modern world who believes in a religion already believes in stuff that is mythological. If the origin could be proven to be mythological it either won't matter to someone who isn't very literal, or the evidence will be discounted the same way the other proof is discounted by a literalist.

darrenl wrote:

The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., "No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer").

It's not a fallacy in this case because religion claims a certain history of its beliefs to be true. Unless we're talking about very basic kinds of religion like alchemy, religions don't just claim to work like the medicine in your example. They claim to be authentic, so a better example would be "no one should believe this is Tylenol because it's a counterfeit box of acetaminophen." Maybe it still works, but it's not what it claims it is, and that's the question being asked.

Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") fallacy—e.g., "Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source." Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc ("Similar to this, therefore because of this") fallacy.

Those aren't really fallacies either--if they were, we basically wouldn't have the field of history. The arguments aren't so simple as you make them out to be: there was a great deal of religious foment around the time of Christianity--lots of mystery religions and interest in magic.

There's also another argument there: the Joseph Campbell one. If you keep finding the same story across cultures and time periods, that may be evidence of some 'deep structure' of humanity and it's myth-making tendencies.

ruhk wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Well...Jesus was a real, historical figure (...as shown from external writings and testimonies...), so you'd need to start from there since Christianity is centered around him and not Mithras (our understanding: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1040...), Osiris, Dionysis, or Apolonius. This arguments is fallacious.

Except that the very few "external writings and testimonies" that exist are either of questionable validity, or are commenting upon the testimonies of followers, instead of the person of Christ himself. Many have both failings, such as the writings of Josephus, where not only does the brief passage mention not Jesus as a person but the claims of Christians about Jesus, but the passage doesn't match the language and style of the surrounding passages, and doesn't appear in early manuscripts of the writings, strongly suggesting that it is an interpolation. There really isn't ANY strong evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm butting in here, but I just couldn't let such a weak claim stand as an argument to an honest question. If you want, I'll step aside.

This is the theist thread...here, we go on the fact that Jesus is a historical figure. Start another thread if you want to go down that route please.

Paleocon's question was borderline as well.

darrenl wrote:

This is the theist thread...here, we go on the fact that Jesus is a historical figure. Start another thread if you want to go down that route please.

That wasn't really my point, I was just noting that your answer to Paleo's question hinged upon an fallacious argument.

darrenl wrote:
ruhk wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Well...Jesus was a real, historical figure (...as shown from external writings and testimonies...), so you'd need to start from there since Christianity is centered around him and not Mithras (our understanding: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1040...), Osiris, Dionysis, or Apolonius. This arguments is fallacious.

Except that the very few "external writings and testimonies" that exist are either of questionable validity, or are commenting upon the testimonies of followers, instead of the person of Christ himself. Many have both failings, such as the writings of Josephus, where not only does the brief passage mention not Jesus as a person but the claims of Christians about Jesus, but the passage doesn't match the language and style of the surrounding passages, and doesn't appear in early manuscripts of the writings, strongly suggesting that it is an interpolation. There really isn't ANY strong evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm butting in here, but I just couldn't let such a weak claim stand as an argument to an honest question. If you want, I'll step aside.

This is the theist thread...here, we go on the fact that Jesus is a historical figure. Start another thread if you want to go down that route please.

Wait, we do? You can be a theist without believing Jesus was an historical figure. Heck, you can be a theist without believing in Christianity at all.

darrenl wrote:

This is the theist thread...here, we go on the fact that Jesus is a historical figure. Start another thread if you want to go down that route please.

Since I'm an athiest I won't be posting in this thread, but I am reading it. I just wanted to pop in and thank you for not writing "an historical" (and for tagging purposes). It makes me cringe every time I read that.

I smell off topic coming. Keep it OP guys.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Wait, we do? You can be a theist without believing Jesus was an historical figure. Heck, you can be a theist without believing in Christianity at all.

Just like my favorite theologian.

Meh, people other than me said it better. Either way, thread successfully tagged.

ruhk wrote:

That wasn't really the point, I was just noting that your answer to Paleo's question hinged upon an fallacious argument.

C'mon, fellas. Let the Theist thread be for Theists.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/RiFhC.jpg)

Dimmerswitch wrote:
ruhk wrote:

That wasn't really the point, I was just noting that your answer to Paleo's question hinged upon an fallacious argument.

C'mon, fellas. Let the Theist thread be for Theists.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/RiFhC.jpg)

Off topic again, but that is Touchdown Jesus, and he has since been destroyed by lightning.

I think we've been invaded by the Atheists now.

Look...I've stayed out of your thread guys...common courtesy. If we need to be separated, then we separate....otherwise, I'm going to go into your thread and piss all over your cornflakes.

/ducks out until it calms down.

darrenl - there is no reason at all to deny the fact that Hebrews were influenced and influenced the surrounding nations. One should not be blinded by faith but rather accept this as true. Historical truth is true also.

Not exactly where I was going with my question. My point was that to some sincere theists I know, the historicity of their mythology doesn't matter as much as their "personal relationship " . To others it is a dealbreaker.

For myself, for instance, it was. But when I was in Asia, I encountered lots of folks who could accept that Taoist miracles never really happened but still remain devout Taoists. It struck me as incongruous but also refreshingly less absolutist.

GioClark wrote:

To be fair, darren, you asked for it by claiming historicity for Jesus. Unless you mean for this thread to be for people who already accept that a priori, it's perfectly open for challenge.

Not really that in itself so much as it was being presented as historical fact, while it is a hotly debated and questionable topic even among theists. Had he presented a merely theological argument instead of making a factual claim I would have left it alone (as I have with all the other theological claims in this thread).

With respect, Certis already booted LarryC from our thread. We should play nice and back off, regardless of the claims made. Let the fellow theists argue whether or not Jesus as a historical figure matters to the thread.

darrenl wrote:

I think we've been invaded by the Atheists now.

Look...I've stayed out of your thread guys...common courtesy. If we need to be separated, then we separate....otherwise, I'm going to go into your thread and piss all over your cornflakes.

/ducks out until it calms down.

To be fair, darren, you asked for it by claiming historicity for Jesus. Unless you mean for this thread to be for people who already accept that a priori, it's perfectly open for challenge.

I'm not an atheist myself, but I haven't thrown my hat into this discussion since it doesn't really feel like a pluralist discussion on faith and belief in God or the afterlife. It seems to me that it's more about why one version of Christianity is right.

Edited for missing preposition.

On my phone so I'll keep it short.

@GioClark I'm getting that feeling as well. The long argument on a topic that it's irrelevant to me I can handle but pharisee being tossed around like a dirty word it's making me feel a bit unwelcome.

Regarding Paleocon's question, I don't think it was borderline at all. I took out in good faith and I think it deserves an honest answer. I'll try to provide one when I get home tonight and can type on aw real keyboard.

My apologies, Garden Ninja. My goal was not to make anyone feel unwelcome. Obviously, I failed, so I am sorry my zeal for my beliefs caused you or anyone else discomfort

Phoenix Rev wrote:

My apologies, Garden Ninja. My goal was not to make anyone feel unwelcome. Obviously, I failed, so I am sorry my zeal for my beliefs caused you or anyone else discomfort

I don't get that vibe from you, certainly, PR. I am following this interesting conversation closely.

That said - there is a bit of the "My version is better than your version" vibe that is coming out in some posts.

Didn't mean to be offensive in my question (and am still straining to see how it was) but if it was, apologies all around.

I'd like to expand on the topic a bit here, since I'm (as PR will tell you) somewhat of an outsider regarding Christian theology.

If you looked at the atheism thread, they split out the theism/atheism dichotomy and the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy to explain different types of believers. I think I fall into the "agnostic theist" realm. I've had experiences where I deeply feel like I've experienced communion with a divine power, but I don't know how to classify it.

I'm not a Christian, because I've seen way too much divisiveness and hatred towards me and those like me to ever feel comfortable in that setting (even in an open & affirming church, it's felt uncomfortable to me). However, PR can tell you one of the experiences I had was in a Catholic basilica, but not while any sort of service was going on.

I'm not Pagan, because while I've tried that path in multiple forms, it just feels odd to me as well, no matter how things are laid out. On the other hand, there's something very empowering about the idea of taking control of your own power and using it to affect the world around you, moreso than the concept of prayer.

Problem is, then, that I don't have a place to fit into, and on some level that bothers me. I'm just wondering if anyone else has been through this themselves. (Unfortunately, trying to "Find Jesus" doesn't work for me because I've tried and it doesn't do anything for me)