I converted to Catholicism after many years deep in the drug culture, AMA

[SKL]

Opening this thread here in P&S was largely prompted by a discussion that we had over in the PD Social Tripping Thread, where, after I'd expressed my Catholic faith in discussing liturgical music that I found wonderful as a psychedelic soundtrack even before my formal conversion, I got asked a number of questions about my conversion and my Catholic faith. This very fact of my conversion will probably make me a minority here, but so be it. In Catholic theology we have something called a "sign of contradiction," which means that theological truths can expect extreme opposition. And it's my belief that we had ought to respond to these in a level-headed and loving way. So, expecting some opposition, I'd like to open this thread as a genuine "ask me anything" type deal.

To outline my own personal journey, to quote from a post of mine to that thread:

But to briefly outline my route into the church. This may not mean much to non-Christians, but here goes.

I was born into a nominally liberal Protestant but mostly secular home. My grandfather was a pastor in the United Church of Christ, which was by then more of a venue for left wing politics than for anything resembling a historical continuity with Christianity. I was always interested in religion and began seriously studying the Bible and Church history back in high school. I was briefly involved in mainline Protestantism but found it unfulfilling, made a pit stop in Evangelical "megachurch" Protestantism and found it a mess, then I was pretty much out of church for a good decade and a half during which I did pretty inconceivable amounts of drugs and considered psychedelics to be spiritual (I no longer do, and in fact consider them, or a certain approach to them, spiritually problematic) but after some circumstances that I can't really name here eventuated, I had to leave that world, and I started to study Scripture again, along with Church history. I re-read Philip Schaff's late 19th century History of the Christian Church, which is still easily one of my favorite books. He was Protestant but relatively ecumenical in outlook. I found myself very attracted to early Christianity, and began to see the Protestant Reformation as a break in continuity, despite the fact that they were reacting so some genuine abuses, but the human element of the Church has never been perfect. It was the search for historical continuity that brought me to seek out and eventually become sacramentally confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church. I also struggled with questions of authority, i.e. who can interpret the Bible? In Protestantism you have practically as many interpretations as you have Protestants or at least Protestant pastors. This struck me as impossible. So I looked backwards into the past. As Cardinal Newman, another convert, put it, "to become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." In Catholicism we have 2,000 years of historical continuity, a beautiful liturgy, and tradition, which G.K. Chesterton aptly called "the democracy of the dead." Our ancestors deserve a voice in our morality, our theology, our society.

Regarding the "social," i.e. mainly sexual, issues referenced above, I think it's important to realize that the "modern" perspective is incredibly new, the past 50 years or so. I find it remarkably short-sighted to think that the radical changes since the 1960s should supercede all of Western history, and find it no coincidence that as we unmoor ourselves from this history we become more degenerate as a society. Yes, I am politically a very right-wing person (I was president of College Republicans, and only drifter rightward from there after the first Bush administration), but that's not all that I'm speaking of. History is important, culture is important, we do ourselves no favors with a radical break from the past. As a Christian believer from many years even before I joined the Church, I think that historical continuity is very important and something that's been abandoned centuries ago in Protestantism and more recently in the "liberal" factions of Catholicism (I find the use of "liberal," "conservative," political labels, troubling when used in religion, "traditionalist" vs "modernist" is probably a better term ... yes, BTW, I prefer the Latin Mass.)

I am not about being self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier than though. I am a great sinner, "the chief of sinners," that is why I need the church. I need not only a near-magical "acceptance of Christ," nor just proper belief, nor to simply live a better life, I need to connect with the 2,000 year history of Christian life. Thus, the Catholic church. I have a great deal of respect, too, for Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity, and bear the hope that the two will be reconciled. Already there is good activity on this track, in terms of seeing the filioque as mainly a linguistic problem, but the authority of the Pope is a bit of a challenge here. I think it's essential, though, that we have authority such that we have order. But I suppose I am mainly in the Western Church because I am of Western origin.

It will prove difficult to integrate the two threads but I'll try to do so, answering questions asked in the former here, as well as questions that come up first in this P&S thread. I'd like to say ahead of time that I am not interested in circular and polemical discussions about abortion, birth control, feminism, homosexuality, and similar, I will be perfectly glad to lay out the Catholic moral theology position on these issues, but I think that protracted debate will only derail the thread, I imagine there are other threads in which back and forth on these issues can be undertaken.

Anyway, I'd love to hear from anyone out there, Catholic, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic, interested in discussing these issues or theological issues in general. I have a pretty good grounding in historical, theological and literary/critical background for these subjects. If you're hitting on serious issues you can expect serious discourse on these topics; if you're trolling or only interested in injecting contemporary social controversies, I'm not really game, sorry to say.

And also, on a more personal note, as I recently told a friend:

Now, despite being historically and theologically pretty literate, I've spent a lot of time reading on this kind of things, I'm a pretty bad Catholic, like I said, the "chief of sinners." I'm currently a little estranged from my regular religious practices, I've had a lot of issues in the past year or so with alcohol and depression and other things. Trying to re-start my prayer life and especially the Rosary, getting to the confessional in the near future is absolutely essential for me as well. It's really great, though, to connect with someone through this particular venue who shares the same values and the same background, it's hard for me with all the history that I have with this particular world to connect with people who aren't or haven't been in that particular world ...

Now, just like the title says, ask me [anything.] Would love an honest discourse with any and all.

God Bless,
SKL

 

[razordesignz]

In my opinion catholicism is not the true religion of god. Jesus was one of God's prophets, why would god want him worshipped and not noah, why worship him and not Jacob? And I'd love to hear your philosophy on worshipping the father the son and the 'holy spirit' the 'holy trinity^ and why do both the old and new testemont have so many writings by man in them? Threw different bibles you find multiple contradictions quite frequently. And I suggest you actually read threw and try asking your priest because he will turn you in circles bot having accurate answers. I was born and raised and catholic and was until I was 20. And I them found Islam. And have read the Quaran 2 1/2 times threw and it has no imperfections, and holds multiple scientific facts and knowledge which has only been being discovered by our top scholars and scientists over the past few hundred years, which has lead many atheists and non believers actually convert to islam, because if you open your eyes and your heart and read the Quaran, you will realised too no doubts will be found. And it's text has never been modified..by man. God sent the Torah and jews were his people. The jews were continuesly disobedient. He them sent Moses and the gospel, again defiently disobedient. Jesus told of one last prophet that would come after him and there would be no more. Prophet Mohammed delivered gods final teachings. And we willl have no more prophets until the day Jesus is resurrected to prove his submission to god against the anti christ.

 

[-=SS=-]

Prophet Mohammed delivered gods final teachings. And we willl have no more prophets until the day Jesus is resurrected..

That's awfully convenient for Islam, don't you think?

 

[Mysterie]

what is your definition of god?

is it possible for us to live the truth of god, as jesus did, during our lifetime?

do you consider it important to take on the characteristics of jesus, or is it more important to follow his teachings and those of the bible?

 

[Xorkoth]

I don't think there is a "true religion"... each one is an attempt to provide a framework for understanding spirituality and answering certain unanswerable questions. The idea that there is a separate entity who cares what you believe and determines whether you exist in rapture or suffering for eternity after your life is one that I could never believe, so to me all the world's religions are mythologies that arose for these reasons. There can be some great lessons to learn from them if you don't fall victim to the hate that some people use them to foster, and they certainly can help people be happier sometimes, and if Jesus' teachings were followed as they were laid down, there'd be a really good moral framework being taught too (and this does happen with many Christians, I've regularly attended 2 churches in my life that were full of amazing people who collectively did all kinds of good for the community).

So, to me, Catholic or Protestant are both 2 interpretations of something, neither more right than the other. Protestantism came about as a change from the older doctrine of Catholicism, but Catholicism wasn't right on either. Nor is any other religion. In my mind, what's correct is that we are a part of life, a part of the universe, and our relationship to that is a unique and personal thing. Life has the meaning we give to it, I don't believe there is an external force dictating the meaning.

I've got no problem with you or anyone believing in anything you want, these are just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[razordesignz]

I was sharing my thoughts and have no problems with whatever people's beliefs are. 'That convenient' lol, first you can stop now because it is not like you are the first person to try and troll me due to lack of knowledge and a minimal amount of mental depth, go listen to some more American media friend. GL with your life Ss

 

[Xorkoth]

^^ In what way was that called for, or trolling? Please refrain from making personal attacks, SS certainly did not personally attack you.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them. Murder, rape, infidelity... these things effect others, and so obviously I can agree that they're wrong and sinful... but why are any of the individual-centric sins even sins in the first place? Do people truly believe God wants them to force their​ will upon others? To me, that sounds all to similar to murder, rape, and all the other sins of harming others. Did God not give us free will because he wants us to have to choose to follow his teachings and not to be forced to follow them?

What I'm really wanting to know is, where in God's teachings does it give man the right to effect another man's life? Did Jesus preach homophobia (legit question, is there anything about that in the new testament)? Is it truly necessary to try and force one's will upon others in order to be a true Christian?

I realize this touches on topics of heavy debate, and so I don't want anything more than an explanation for what gives Christians the right to effect their fellow man. I just want to know where in God's teachings it says to effect others, to force your will upon others, when so many major sins are sins because they effect others.

 

[razordesignz]

I'd you don't understand the sarcasm in ss's post I really have no interest j any further discussion with you on this subject because you are oblivious. He shared no personal religious input, only comment be devoted energy to was taking a soft dig at Islam. Pretty simple to understand no?

 

[jammin83]

If you want to talk about Islam, start your own thread. This thread is about Catholicism m8.

SKL, what appeals to you about Catholicism over Protestantism?

No fan of Luther?

 

[-=SS=-]

'That convenient' lol, first you can stop now because it is not like you are the first person to try and troll me due to lack of knowledge and a minimal amount of mental depth..

Sorry but for Islam to essentially claim it is the last religion.. erm, no. Despite not belonging to any faith I find that assertion offensive; saying Islam is the last true religion of the human race is depressing as fuck.. because quite frankly it is the worst out of all of them and the last one I would place faith in.

Regarding the "social," i.e. mainly sexual, issues referenced above, I think it's important to realize that the "modern" perspective is incredibly new, the past 50 years or so. I find it remarkably short-sighted to think that the radical changes since the 1960s should supercede all of Western history, and find it no coincidence that as we unmoor ourselves from this history we become more degenerate as a society. Yes, I am politically a very right-wing person (I was president of College Republicans, and only drifter rightward from there after the first Bush administration), but that's not all that I'm speaking of. History is important, culture is important, we do ourselves no favors with a radical break from the past. As a Christian believer from many years even before I joined the Church, I think that historical continuity is very important and something that's been abandoned centuries ago in Protestantism and more recently in the "liberal" factions of Catholicism (I find the use of "liberal," "conservative," political labels, troubling when used in religion, "traditionalist" vs "modernist" is probably a better term ... yes, BTW, I prefer the Latin Mass.)

I agree with all of this. Though I don't belong to any faith as I follow my own moral code and intuition, I do find resonance with principles in Christianity (and other faiths). To think that thousands of years of observation of human behavior, at times when there was no TV or anything else besides each other and a bit of alcohol, which gave rise to moral principles in modern religions, can simply be discarded in the space of a couple of decades is arrogance of the highest order. All we did was substitute our faith in religion for faith in science, science that is based primarily on reductionist and materialist principles.. which automatically did away with the idea of any non-local or invisible elements in our existence, which IMO was a big mistake.

Now, just like the title says, ask me [anything.] Would love an honest discourse with any and all.

Would you ever consider branching beyond the Catholic faith? I don't mean rejecting it altogether, but investigating other faiths and seeing if you can find any similarities or correlations which could go towards you making your own moral code? I think the church does play an important role in bringing people together and binding communities, so obviously if you left the faith to stand alone you might potentially lose that social belonging.

Also you gave some background here on yourself, and I got impressions from your posts in other threads.. have you had an emotional or salvation type experience prior to just joining, or since you've joined the Catholic faith? You said you had some bad habits and they've been lifted from you.. was this a tangible experience for you, as I've heard about people praying or sincerely throwing themselves down to Jesus or another faith and having all their burdens instantly lifted, resulting in great emotional rapture. Just curious if, given your background, you've had that experience.

How do you feel towards Protestantism? The perspective usually comes from the other direction, and I don't know any Catholics personally so I've never had the chance to ask someone about how they feel. In what way have they diverged from what they should be doing or thinking etc?

 

[Foreigner]

What I don't get about Catholicism and Christianity in general is the notion that anyone, whether a Priest, Bishop, or Pope, can interpret God's will on societal levels. I mean, we can all agree upon certain laws (whether we agree they are also "sins" or not), such as murder, etc... but there is a lot more subjective material in there than just the obvious universal laws (laws, which by the way, were first codified by Hammurabi of ancient Bablyonia and Sumer). I'm thinking now of the times of the Inquisition, which I only bring up for one purpose. Modern people look at this period as a time when corrupt religion was stamping out its rivals, but I do believe that there were also people in power who genuinely believed they were saving souls by purifying people by the flame, or torturing them; but again, I ask, how can common man determine God's will, and therefore carry out reward or punishment based on that? Likewise, and I know this is taking material from elsewhere, how can you be sure you're carrying out God's will and not just your own selfish ego? There seems to be no built-in mechanism in all of Christianity that prevents this fatal error from happening. I mean, in the United States, there are many Christians against meditation and yoga because they seriously believe if they let down their guard even for a second, the devil will get in; there's also this creepy American Jesus who loves you more than anything but secretly hates you and wants you to suffer if you don't do what he says. If there's a fear of questioning the system built into the system, then how can its proponents be sure they are even relating to God? I know there is the overriding view that humanity is "outside" of God, due to our sin in the garden. So then how can we look to Priests, Bishops, and the Pope to be the middle-men messengers for us, when they too are part of the same sinful view? In short, if we're all blind, then how can the blind lead the blind to salvation?

In relation to the above, during this 2,000 year rule of Catholicism, there were big portions of history where the Roman and Greek sciences were suppressed. I realize that before the printing press, owning a book was a luxury and most people couldn't afford it let alone have the literacy level to read; but nonetheless I see these suppressions as a means to keep people ignorant so they will follow the straight and narrow. I still see this happening today in the Christian world. Therefore my question is, what good is a system that cannot be questioned, or has to (socially, culturally, scholastically) keep its proponents as ignorant of the rational schools of thought as possible in order to sustain popularity?

The other thing I want to ask you SKL, is how to you reconcile the liturgical modifications over the centuries? I disagree that Catholicism is one continuous system of morality. On a governance level maybe, but on a local level it has always experienced cultural splits and shifts. It has also adopted elements of local cultures in order to share its values more succinctly (like Christmas happening on the Solstice, Christmas trees instead of Yuletide trees, Easter as a replacement of Ishtar and fertility celebrations, etc.). Also, within the culture of the liturgy itself, there is a movement away from scripture precedents which before modern times would've been seen as heretical, vis a vis the tendency to now disregard books like Leviticus and its proscriptions. If it's all God's mandate then how can you just toss it off? Similarly, what's the deal with Canonization? It seems to me that Catholicism absorbed Paganism by creating its own pantheon of demi-Gods, lest we mention Mary who is basically symbolic of the Goddess / Divine Mother... yet during Catholicism's most brutal periods, people were being killed for being polytheistic. So how do you reconcile being part of a religion that (let's be honest) has some "poly" aspects to it, yet turns around and says that polytheism is tantamount to evil and devil worship?

Next... on suffering. Okay, Jesus suffered terribly, and I get that Catholics view this as God's retribution for humanity's sin, and therefore humans must suffer in order to become worthy of redemption (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea). I get the whole suffering thing, it's a well worn path built into many religions. However, Catholicism seems to diverge in that it has suffering built in as a mandate. Like if you're enjoying life too much, or heaven forbid experiencing bliss or euphoria, then you're heading toward damnation somehow -- yet we're also supposed to believe the platitude that we have free will. We've seen extreme manifestations of this in flagellants, and in practices like the Inquisition. This kind of goes back to interpreting God's will, in that, what gives anyone the right to decide who has suffered enough, and how can you justify going out of your way to make someone suffer MORE because you think you're doing God's will? Equivocating suffering has to be one of the most unfortunate practices I see in humanity in general, and it's always based on superficial analysis. It seems like people are more prone to accept flaws and critiques of their person, than compliments, due to this culture of shame and guilt. This sinner thing has really been built into the modern west, IMO as part and parcel of Christian rule. So my question is, how is shaming and guilting people into thinking they are, by default, not worthy of God, actually connecting them to God? And likewise, if they are being distanced by this shame and guilt, how on earth can they think they're interpreting God's will? This is a problem with Catholicism, from my view. If we go by only what Jesus said, there is a lot of transcendent love, but Catholicism seems to focus more on sin.

Last but not least: transubstantiation. To me, this is clearly a "Pagan" rite, since at the time Christianity began to gain popularity in antiquity, equivalent rites were happening with *real* blood, of animals as sacrifices. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why the intake of the body and blood of Christ are important, it makes sense to me; I'm just saying, other sacrificial practices are viewed as barbaric and even satanic by some, yet we are supposed to accept Catholicism's equivalents as acceptable. How do you explain that?

I know I've asked some heavy questions but hopefully not too controversial. I am genuinely curious about your experiences and knowledge. It's not often I get to talk to experienced Catholics who are open to outsiders.

 

[Ninae]

What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them.

No man is an island. And doing harm to yourself is no less"sinful" or what you want to call it. When you harm yourself others are hurt in the process.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

Okay, suicide and abortion aside (given that people seem to believe an unborn child is already a full blown human) what about Catholicism's "your body is a temple don't get tattoos or do drugs" spiel or it's attack on homosexuals? Where's the reasoning behind that when it certainly effects no one but the person partaking in those activities?

 

[SKL]

Hey, guys, I didn't abandon this thread, I have just been heavily busy with work. This weekend I intend to post comprehensively my thoughts on most of what was asked of me above. Will probably bring out some citations and stuff too, because I'm into ecclesiastic and theological geekery. Sorry for the delay. I really am looking forward to the dialogue with everyone.

 

[razordesignz]

How is it the worst? Going off of all muslims are isis members ? Isis has about 30k members....Islam has over 2 billion members. And isis are not real muslims ...fact the majority of the people killed are actual muslims who follow our religion. Islam's rules are 1. Submission to god (no false idols , or worshipping any of his prophets (jesus) we respect them we don't worship them.. 2. Daily prayer 3. Giving charity Islam is about finding and building inner peace, and submitting to God. The actual definition of Jihad is enduring struggles threw life and not turning your back on god as we are tested. Are Christians all racist because of the Christian cult kkk? Are all catholics pedophiles because of priests who prey on children? Are all muslims terrorists because isis is a terrorist group. No, all of the above are groups of evil because Satan is very real and he acts threw people who he gets hold of...in all cultures and religion. I am an American white and have read the Quaran 2 1/2 times threw...we are not even allowed to verbally force our religious beliefs on anyone who holds no interest. And we are only permitted to act on violence against a person who intends harm upon us. Do deep research, Islam is actually now the world's largest religion at just over 28% of the world's population. Because many humans are blessed with a level of depth to actually study and research Islam and quickly learn and see right threw the invalid sterotypes Islam has developed because of 911. Do research on 911..many expert welders who are not muslims have explained it is impossible for jet fuel to melt the steel that the twin towers were made of..and don't you think if gods true religion was it chances are Satan would manage to infest it with awful views and propaganda to blind many people and steer them away from the truth. This is all I have to say on the subject because I live knowing and proud of what I follow and what is true. Study how many similarities jews and muslims have in common in laws. And the Quaran clearly explained of how jews were gods original people, but we're continuesly disobedient. The rules are almost identical except in islam alcohol was made forbidden, in the Jewish laws it was advised to consume rarely. Over time it became clear no good comes from it so now forbidden. Good luck to you all in your lives threw this test on this earth, to believe this world is all we have and then blank and it is over is a sad dark theory and depressing thought process, hence why the world is a struggle for the majority of people.

 

[Xorkoth]

If you guys want to discuss islam, start a thread on it. This topic is about Catholicism and has the opportunity to become an interesting discussion, so let's keep it to that.

 

[noone1]

Do you really think we're more of a degenerate society now than in the past. Any history book will show that just isn't true. The only difference is past cultures hid their ills from the media and popular culture and everything was done in secret which is why it seems like a "better" more moral time. The pedophilia, domestic violence, rape, and abuses especially by the church was just as if not way more disgusting then than now. Look at Pope Alexander VI.

As to the historical argument I'm sure you're versed in the Council of Nicea? How texts where biasedly chosen and some destroyed. The problems with scribes and how we only have copies of copies which contain many mistakes some on purpose? The absurdity of dictating our morality by what ancient desert shepherds believed?

Personally I like some aspects of the church, Meister Eckhart, the Franciscans and the jesuits. But I love all mysticism.

If it works for you that's cool though.

 

[Ninae]

Yes, many of the grat old poets and atists were opium addicts, etc. They just put it in different terms like "Then I found my muse" or "All of a sudden a different spirit descended over me".

 

[SKL]

OK, finally found some time. I am going to try to take my time and answer the questions as answered. I'm going to agree with Xorkoth and not really engage the responses that will turn this into a two-way polemic about Islam, but I'll try to answer just about everything else, starting, appropriately enough, in order answered, with basic theology.

what is your definition of god?

Certainly not an old man in the sky with a beard.

God is the primum movens, the "unmoved mover," infinite and infinitely perfect, existing outside of time and space, the creator of all things .... cosmology doesn't really make a lot of sense without Him, or at least without invoking systems of belief that involve rather an equal amount of speculation and faith (and the faith of God is the faith of our ancestors, rather than a speculation of moderns) ... but let's look at some relevant Scripture. A great verse regarding ontotheology;

For thus saith the High and the Eminent that inhabiteth eternity: and his name is Holy, who dwelleth in the high and holy place, and with a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite.

Now here we have two things: "inhabiteth eternity," which means God is existing outside of space-time, because He created it, this is pretty much inconceivable to us but means that He acts outside of our ordinary concerns of space, time, and causality, making His actions and purposes often inscrutable to us, at least without guidance.

Now the rest of the verse: "with a contrite, and humble spirit ... to revive the heart of the contrite," this comes to the famous verse in I John 4:8, "God is love ..." which means that God expresses love. As Catholics and indeed as all mainstream Christians, we believe in a Trinitarian conception of God, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," i.e.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are separate, though equally God. In Christ, we have the hypostatic union, the singular ontological unity of God and Man, which I'll discuss later ... this will probably raise more questions than others especially from the Islamic poster who questioned trinitarianism, but, to return to the idea that God is love,

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

The Father loves the Son, they are both part of the Trinitarian God, but there is Love expressed between them. The Trinity is the union of God the Father, the creator, who loves the Son, the redeemer, and the spirit of that love, who is the Holy Spirit, the "inspirer" of human love of, and connection with, the divine.

is it possible for us to live the truth of god, as jesus did, during our lifetime?

do you consider it important to take on the characteristics of jesus, or is it more important to follow his teachings and those of the bible?

"Living the truth of God as Jesus did" is impossible, as Jesus was the truth of God personified:

I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

This is to do with the trinitarian ontology of God described above, but not really with what I think you are concerned with, which is more about moral theology. In this context, the Imitatio Christi, the imitation of Christ, is a foundation of Christian moral practice, that is that He is our moral teacher, the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount a foundation for our moral theology, and He is the ultimate example of a blameless life, from whence, the soteriological idea of the "substitutionary atonement" ...

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

... Christ lived a sinless life, as both exemplar and as sinless sacrifice in our place, but also ontologically, as God, being that sin would be against His nature, and being that Christ is a part of the Godhead, logically, he could not sin. Mary, his mother, also lead a blameless life, from her immaculate conception onwards, was also without sin, by special intervention of God, but she is sui generis, speaking of mankind as a whole,

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

The differentiaton between Christ's life, His teachings and those of the Bible is a false one. The Jewish law, of course, if we are speaking about the very detailed ceremonial, etc. requirements of the OT, is not binding on Christians, this is a pretty complex theological issue, but is pretty much the essence of the New Testament (i.e. the New Covenant, which was foretold in the OT, viz.  Jeremiah 31:31 &c.), that through the life and sacrificial death of Christ, God established a new relationship with mankind in terms of how they might be saved. It is not merely about following the teachings of Christ, or of the Bible, although these are the foundations of moral life. We will, as flawed, fallen human beings, inevitably fall short of both (whether we are talking about the universal morality of Christ or the specific traditions of the Hebrew scriptures.) This is why we need the sacraments, baptism (to wash away our sins prior to joining the Church), confession/reconciliation (to reconcile, with our honest contrition, our sins with God), and, above all, the Eucharist, which is to impart God's grace into our persons and lives (I'm sure that I will speak more on this later.)

I realize that I used some relatively technical theological terms and Biblical references here, I'd be glad to answer questions. I am going to tackle some of the next questions in a little bit, but I hope this gets our dialogue off to a good start.