Christianity And Judaism Versus Mythology

[Innocent]

Hassan, I'll answer your question a bit later.

[quote name='southern california guy' date='27 June 2010 - 07:08 AM' timestamp='1277599083' post='2134664']

I find parts of the Old Testament disturbing similar.


[color="#FF0000"]13 David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. [/color]

Wow what an easy out! He kills the guy, takes his wife and rapes her (I'm sure it wasn't consentual) and all he has to do is acknowledge that he has done wrong -- and all is magically forgiven.. I suppose that he was able to go on with a clear conscience after that. I wonder if he kept her as his wife. What sort of repentance is it if you continue to sin?

[/quote]



While there may be parts of the OT that are disturbing (e.g, [url="http://drbo.org/chapter/21136.htm"]Ps 136/137[/url], though there are spiritual explanations for this as shown in the DRB) I have never found the story of David to be disturbing in the way you mention for the following reasons:

1. As far as we can see from the text, David did penance without expectation of pardon, though he asked God to forgive his sins, as shown in the Miserere. (Cardinal Newman says so, or at least implies it.)

[quote]The following instances from Scripture seem to prove the contrary:—When David, for example, said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord," this act of repentance was allowed to avail for much. "Nathan said unto David, the Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." The extreme debt of sin was remitted; yet the Prophet goes on to say, "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is {103} born unto thee shall surely die." [2 Sam. xii. 13, 14.] David then had the prospect of a punishment for his sin after it was remitted, and what did he do in consequence? he sought to deprecate God; he exercised in acts of repentance, that life of faith and prayer which had been renewed in him, if so be to deprecate God's wrath. As then he was not allowed to take his restoration as a proof that God would not punish, neither have we any ground to conclude, merely because God vouchsafes to work in us what is good, that therefore what is past will never rise up in judgment against us. It may, or it may not: we trust, nay may cheerfully confide, that if we go on confessing, repenting, deprecating, and making amends, it will not: but there is no reason to suppose it will not unless we do.[/quote] [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume4/sermon7.html"]Newman, PPP, v4, s7.[/url]



2. He "kissed the rod" that God used to discipline him, and accepted his punishment, because he knew that his punishment was just.

[quote]It may seem a contradiction, first to say that God loves a man, and next that some remnant of His displeasure is in store for him; but we are so profoundly ignorant of Him, whose thoughts and ways are not as ours, that if we have proof of the fact in His inspired word, it is our wisdom to believe that it is a fact, and leave difficulties to Him who in His good time will explain them. .... Again, how is it that God is loving over all His works, yet is angry with the wicked? His love then does not necessarily exclude His anger, nor His favour His severity, nor His grace His justice. How He reconciles these together we know not: thus much we know, that those who forsake their sins, and come to Him for grace, are in His favour, and obtain what they need for the day; but that they are forgiven at once for all the past, we do not know.
...
...
God may spare us, He may punish. In either case, however, our duty is to surrender ourselves into His hands, that He may do what He will. "It is the Lord," said pious Eli, when judgment came on him, "let Him do what seemeth Him good." Only let us beg of Him not to forsake us in our miserable state; to take us up where we are, and make us obey Him under the circumstances into which sin has brought us. Only let us beg of Him to work all repentance and all righteousness in us, for we can do nothing of ourselves, and to enable us to hate sin truly, and confess it honestly, and deprecate His wrath continually, and to undo its effects diligently, and to bear His judgments cheerfully and manfully. Let us beg of Him the spirit of faith and hope, that we may not repine or despond, or account Him a hard master; that we may learn lovingly to adore the hand that afflicts us, and, as it is said, to kiss the rod, however sharply or long it smites us; that we may look on to the end of all things, which will not tarry, and to the coming of Christ which will at length save us, and not faint on the rough way, nor toss upon our couch of thorns; in a word, that we may make the words {116} of the text our own, which express all that sinners, repentant and suffering, should feel, whether towards God or towards their tempter. "Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against Him; until He plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: He will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold His righteousness."[/quote][url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume4/sermon7.html"][i]Ibid.[/i][/url]


3. He did not escape punishment, it is only that his life was spared, as the Prophet Nathan says above. David's son died.
[quote]It is related (2 Samuel 12:13) that when David penitent had said to Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan said to him: "The Lord also hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Nevertheless . . . the child that is born to thee shall surely die," which was to punish him for the sin he had committed, as stated in the same place. Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven. [/quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4086.htm"]Aquinas[/url]

4. Also, the house of King David never attained the glory that it had during his reign. (except as faint echoes of his glory in rare instances such as the case of [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume8/sermon7.html"]the King Josiah[/url], which God permitted 'as an honour to David, the blessing upon his posterity remained in its fulness even to the end; its light not waxing "dim," nor "its natural force abating."') There was never another monarch in his line who was even as great as David, until the time of Christ. The sharp decline starts with no little delay - it begins with Solomon, the successor of David and who was counted the wisest man on earth.

5. David is considered a "model of penitence" and we know that penance is not the work of a day. So David must have been conscious of his sin and lived the rest of his life in an attitude of penance.

[quote]A year elapsed before his repentance for the sin, but his contrition was so sincere that God pardoned him, though at the same time announcing the severe penalties that were to follow. The spirit in which David accepted these penalties has made him for all time the model of penitents. The incest of Amnon and the fratricide of Absalom brought shame and sorrow to David.[/quote] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04642b.htm"]CE[/url]

[quote]Judas also repented, but in an evil way: for he hanged himself. Esau too repented; as I said; or rather, he did not even repent; for his tears were not [tears] of repentance, but rather of pride and wrath. And what followed proved this. The blessed David repented, thus saying, "Every night will I wash my bed: I will water my couch with my tears." Psalm 6:6 And the sin which had been committed long ago, after so many years, after so many generations he bewailed, as if it had recently occurred.[/quote] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240231.htm"]St. John Chrysostom[/url]

[quote]But if concerning us men you will have other examples also set before you , come on to the blessed David, and take him for an example of repentance. Great as he was, he fell: after his sleep, walking in the eventide on the housetop, he cast a careless look, and felt a human passion. His sin was completed, but there died not with it his candour concerning the confession of his fault. Nathan the Prophet came, a swift accuser, and a healer of the wound. The Lord is angry, he says, and you have sinned. 2 Samuel 12 So spoke the subject to the reigning king. But David the king was not indignant, for he regarded not the speaker, but God who had sent him. He was not puffed up by the array of soldiers standing round: for he had seen in thought the angel-host of the Lord, and he trembled as seeing Him who is invisible Hebrews 11:27; and to the messenger, or rather by him in answer to God who sent him, he said, I have sinned against the Lord. 2 Samuel 12:13 Do you see the humility of the king? Do you see his confession? For had he been convicted by any one? Were many privy to the matter? The deed was quickly done, and straightway the Prophet appeared as accuser, and the offender confesses the fault. And because he candidly confessed, he received a most speedy cure. For Nathan the Prophet who had uttered the threat, said immediately, The Lord also has put away your sin. You see the swift relenting of a merciful God. He says, however, You have greatly provoked the enemies of the Lord. Though you had many enemies because of your righteousness, your self-control protected you; but now that you have surrendered your strongest armour, your enemies are risen up, and stand ready against you.

12. Thus then did the Prophet comfort him, but the blessed David, for all he heard it said, The Lord has put away your sin, did not cease from repentance, king though he was, but put on sackcloth instead of purple, and instead of a golden throne, he sat, a king, in ashes on the ground; nay, not only sat in ashes, but also had ashes for his food, even as he says himself, I have eaten ashes as it were bread. His lustful eye he wasted away with tears saying, Every night will I wash my couch, and water my bed with my tears. When his officers besought him to eat bread he would not listen. He prolonged his fast unto seven whole days. If a king thus made confession ought not thou, a private person, to confess? Again, after Absalom's insurrection, though there were many roads for him to escape, he chose to flee by the Mount of Olives, in thought, as it were, invoking the Redeemer who was to go up thence into the heavens. 2 Samuel 16:10-11 And when Shimei cursed him bitterly, he said, Let him alone, for he knew that "to him that forgives it shall be forgiven. "[/quote] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310102.htm"]Cyril of Jerusalem[/url]


6. David repented in the only way available to him, and God forgave him for his contrition. Even today, if someone commits adultery and murder, and then confesses them to in the Sacrament of Penance, God will not deny him forgiveness, though most certainly the priest would insist that the person surrender himself to the police.
[quote]Whether "with burnt-offerings and calves of a year old, with thousands of rams, and ten thousands of rivers of oil, with the offering of a man's first-born for his transgression, the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul;" or, in a higher way, "by doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God;" [Micah vi. 6-8.] by some means or other, repentant sinners have attempted to win God's attention and engage His favour. And this mode has, before now, been graciously accepted by God, though He generally chose the gift which He would accept. Thus Jacob was instructed to sacrifice on the altar at Bethel, after his return from Padan-aram. David, on the other hand, speaks of the more spiritual sacrifice in the fifty-first Psalm: "The {96} sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Such are the services of the penitent, as suggested by nature, and approved by God Himself in the Old Testament.
[/quote][url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume3/sermon7.html"]Newman, PPP, v3, s8[/url]

[quote]Jerome does not say that it is impossible, but that it is difficult, for man to recover his former dignity after having sinned, because this is allowed to none but those who repent perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical statutes, which seem to forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter to Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "If the law of the Church forbids anyone, after doing penance for a crime, to become a cleric, or to return to his clerical duties, or to retain them the intention was not to deprive him of the hope of pardon, but to preserve the rigor of discipline; else we should have to deny the keys given to the Church, of which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" And further on he adds: "For holy David did penance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained his dignity; and Blessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of having denied his Lord, and yet he remained an apostle. Nevertheless we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who without endangering a man's salvation, exacted more from his humility, having, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a pretended repentance through hankering after honors and power." [/quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4089.htm"]Aquinas[/url]

Another point: The Bible is usually not reluctant to state it when a rape occurs. (e.g., The son of David, Ammon, rapes his half-sister Tamar and this is clearly mentioned in the Bible.) So I'm not confident that we can be sure it wasn't consensual in the case of David and Bathsheba, because it wasn't described as such. In all popular re-tellings of this story, ([url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043455/"]Example[/url]) as far as I am able to remember, this incident has never been depicted as other than a consensual incident, which indicates that this is how it is perceived in general by all who know the story.



Thus, in all, I don't see how the story of David can be seen as anything other than a tragedy of immense magnitude which can be felt throughout the history of Israel in the OT, in the failure of the successors of David to measure up to his level, and their inability to even keep the kingdom united.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Innocent

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Innocent' date='26 June 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1277605075' post='2134709']
Hassan, I'll answer your question a bit later.





While there may be parts of the OT that are disturbing (e.g, [url="http://drbo.org/chapter/21136.htm"]Ps 136/137[/url], though there are spiritual explanations for this as shown in the DRB) I have never found the story of David to be disturbing in the way you mention for the following reasons:

1. As far as we can see from the text, David did penance without expectation of pardon, though he asked God to forgive his sins, as shown in the Miserere. (Cardinal Newman says so, or at least implies it.)

[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume4/sermon7.html"]Newman, PPP, v4, s7.[/url]



2. He "kissed the rod" that God used to discipline him, and accepted his punishment, because he knew that his punishment was just.

[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume4/sermon7.html"][i]Ibid.[/i][/url]


3. He did not escape punishment, it is only that his life was spared, as the Prophet Nathan says above. David's son died.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4086.htm"]Aquinas[/url]

4. Also, the house of King David never attained the glory that it had during his reign. (except as faint echoes of his glory as in the case of the King Josiah) There was never another monarch in his line who was even as great as David, until the time of Christ. The sharp decline starts with no little delay - it begins with Solomon, the successor of David and who was counted the wisest man on earth.

5. David is considered a "model of penitence" and we know that penance is not the work of a day. So David must have been conscious of his sin and lived the rest of his life in an attitude of penance.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04642b.htm"]CE[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240231.htm"]St. John Chrysostom[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310102.htm"]Cyril of Jerusalem[/url]


6. David repented in the only way available to him, and God forgave him for his contrition. Even today, if someone commits adultery and murder, and then confesses them to in the Sacrament of Penance, God will not deny him forgiveness, though most certainly the priest would insist that the person surrender himself to the police.
[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume3/sermon7.html"]Newman, PPP, v3, s8[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4089.htm"]Aquinas[/url]

Another point: The Bible is usually not reluctant to state it when a rape occurs. (e.g., The son of David, Ammon, rapes his half-sister Tamar and this is clearly mentioned in the Bible.) So I'm not confident that we can be sure it wasn't consensual in the case of David and Bathsheba, because it wasn't described as such.



Thus, in all, I don't see how the story of David can be seen as anything other than a tragedy of immense magnitude which can be felt throughout the history of Israel in the OT, in the failure of the successors of David to measure up to his level, and their inability to even keep the kingdom united.
[/quote]

Thank you that does help clarify things. In context it makes sense. When I heard it in Mass it didn't make as much sense to me. I don't know the Old Testament that well.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='26 June 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1277602551' post='2134692']
So what do you think, do you think I should bother carrying on a conversation with you, or should I leave it at this?
[/quote]

I think you should continue, even if my last post was a little dumb..

I wasn't trying to say that women are better off in the Muslim religion, I was just pointing out that not all religions believe in making marriage vows to god. To an extent it bothers me, but at the same time I see their point.

Of the Christian religions there is only one that I could find that won't remarry a divorcee in their church. And that is the "Protestant Reformed". I think that it's basically the position that the Catholic church used to have but no longer does. I've never been to a Protestant Reformed service but I want to check one out. There's a church about two hours north of me.

Edited June 27, 2010 by southern california guy

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='26 June 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1277606101' post='2134716']
Of the Christian religions there is only one that I could find that won't remarry a divorcee in their church. And that is the "Protestant Reformed". I think that it's basically the position that the Catholic church used to have but no longer does. I've never been to a Protestant Reformed service but I want to check one out. There's a church about two hours north of me.
[/quote]

The Church allows a "divorcee" to remarry in the Church provided that the "divorcee" has been granted an annulment. She does not permit a "divorcee" to remarry in the Church without one.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='26 June 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1277606101' post='2134716']
I think you should continue, even if my last post was a little dumb..

I wasn't trying to say that women are better off in the Muslim religion, I was just pointing out that not all religions believe in making marriage vows to god. To an extent it bothers me, but at the same time I see their point.

Of the Christian religions there is only one that I could find that won't remarry a divorcee in their church. And that is the "Protestant Reformed". I think that it's basically the position that the Catholic church used to have but no longer does. I've never been to a Protestant Reformed service but I want to check one out. There's a church about two hours north of me.
[/quote]
I don't know what you're talking about- we also do not allow divorce and remarriage in the Church save in cases where marriage never occurred.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[southern california guy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='26 June 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1277606629' post='2134721']
The Church allows a "divorcee" to remarry in the Church provided that the "divorcee" has been granted an annulment. She does not permit a "divorcee" to remarry in the Church without one.
[/quote]

I'm making mistakes and leaving things out. The "change" isn't that the Catholic church started allowing "divorcees" to remarry -- it's that they began giving out "annulments" to people that they used to consider in a valid marriage.

After Vatican II the Catholic church began using Canon 1092 to allow annulments based on psychological factors. People affectionately named Canon 1092 the "Loose Cannon" because in the US ninty percent of the annulments are granted on the basis of Canon 1092. ( http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/16/opinion/oe-kennedy16 )

"Fundamental to the development of canon law in the Roman Catholic church is the Second Vatican Council’s (October 11, 1962–December 8, 1965) vision of the church as the [i]people of God[/i]." ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/92870/canon-law/67232/The-Second-Vatican-Council-and-post-conciliar-canon-law )

If you ask me the Catholic church created a legalistic sort of loophole that has no connection with morality or the teachings of Jesus Christ in the bible. And I think that once a precedent like this has been set there is no going back. I think that in some ways the Catholic church has fallen.

Edited June 27, 2010 by southern california guy

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='26 June 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1277609149' post='2134749']
I'm making mistakes and leaving things out. The "change" isn't that the Catholic church started allowing "divorcees" to remarry -- it's that they began giving out "annulments" to people that they used to consider in a valid marriage.

After Vatican II the Catholic church began using Canon 1092 to allow annulments based on psychological factors. People affectionately named Canon 1092 the "Loose Cannon" because in the US ninty percent of the annulments are granted on the basis of Canon 1092. ( http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/16/opinion/oe-kennedy16 )

"Fundamental to the development of canon law in the Roman Catholic church is the Second Vatican Council’s (October 11, 1962–December 8, 1965) vision of the church as the [i]people of God[/i]." ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/92870/canon-law/67232/The-Second-Vatican-Council-and-post-conciliar-canon-law )

If you ask me the Catholic church created a legalistic sort of loophole that has no connection with morality or the teachings of Jesus Christ in the bible. And I think that once a precedent like this has been set there is no going back. I think that in some ways the Catholic church has fallen.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that if one is not in a fit state during the exchange of vows, an annulment can be sought. "Not in a fit state" would mean, for example, that one was under the influence of drugs and or alcohol, that one was not in a proper state of mental health, that one was lying, that one fully determined to push contraception on his or her spouse, etc.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 June 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1277606701' post='2134722']
I don't know what you're talking about- we also do not allow divorce and remarriage in the Church save in cases where marriage never occurred.
[/quote]
lawl

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='26 June 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1277614258' post='2134785']
lawl
[/quote]
Not in the mood this time.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Innocent' date='27 June 2010 - 08:47 AM' timestamp='1277605075' post='2134709']
The sharp decline starts with no [b]little[/b] delay - it begins with Solomon, the successor of David and who was counted the wisest man on earth. ...
[/quote]

I made a mistake there. That should have been "no [b]great[/b] delay."

Edited June 27, 2010 by Innocent

[southern california guy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='26 June 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1277609836' post='2134759']
I was under the impression that if one is not in a fit state during the exchange of vows, an annulment can be sought. "Not in a fit state" would mean, for example, that one was under the influence of drugs and or alcohol, that one was not in a proper state of mental health, that one was lying, that one fully determined to push contraception on his or her spouse, etc.
[/quote]

Here's a quote from an article in the Concord Monitor:

[color="#000080"]Church courts in the United States, however, have broadened acceptable criteria for psychological incapacity to include almost anything, from personality traits such as self-centeredness, moodiness or being eager to please to unproven "disorders," which may be embellished into full-blown mental illness, a practice that has prompted critics to refer to Canon 1095 as the "loose canon."[/color]

( http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/the-loose-canon-in-the-catholic-church )

[HisChildForever]

I don't have time to read the article right now. Surprisingly, modernism has infiltrated the minds of many "Catholics". In any event, what is the point [i]you[/i] are trying to make?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='27 June 2010 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1277653096' post='2134899']
I don't have time to read the article right now. Surprisingly, modernism has infiltrated the minds of many "Catholics". In any event, what is the point [i]you[/i] are trying to make?
[/quote]

Good question. My convoluted sort of point was that Christianity is becoming more like mythology -- with fewer and looser moral values. It's almost like the "mythology" side of the religion is being emphasized over the moral. You know people worried about the age of the earth, whether dinosaurs were real, whether there is life in outer space or if we are it, worried about creationism versus evolution, upset about Harry Potter movies, worried about whether Jesus was literally god, worried about whether the host is literally the body of Christ..

But I hear little talk about the morality as Jesus Christ taught it in the New Testament. And he spent a large part of the New Testament trying to teach people how to live. If anything people, and "Christian" religions, seem to be finding ways around what he taught -- while still claiming to be followers of Christ. They take a broader vaguer approach to Christianity and focus on the loving side of Jesus -- and ignore the morality he taught.

I didn't use to think that divorce was that big of a deal but I've changed my mind. I think that divorce -- the breakdown of the family -- is the central cause of most social problems of today. An intact family provides a safe protective place for kids to grow up in. And it helps them to become well adjusted adults. When you divorce you're not just showing a lack of regard for the vows you took to each other and god, you're showing a lack of respect for your kids. And I think that birth control and abortion follow naturally. And I think that men who view women as wives and mothers view them with more respect. I think that a big problem with porn is that takes the viewpoint away. Birth control and abortion also lead to this viewpoint. And now-a-days many Christians think that premarital sex is okay -- and along with that so is birth control and abortion. How surprising is it that when they get married they get divorced?

I think that the morality taught in the bible is much more important than what I'd term as "mythology". But Erin I think that I'm sort of preaching to the choir. I've read your posts and you're one of my favorite people in this "phorum". I really like the strong positions that you take on things. You're not afraid to speak your mind, and that's unusual. Perhaps the biggest difference between us is that I'm not a very good Catholic anymore. I miss Mass all the time. I never go to confession. And there are many Catholic priests that I have little respect for. I don't think much of Vatican II.

When I lived up in Washington my parents stopped taking us to Mass when the priests started supporting homosexuality. They actually did! They would say things like "Homosexuals are just another type of a family", and they held special Masses for homosexuals called "Dignity Mass". Don't you like who they carefully chose the word "Dignity"? The homosexuals and pedophiles in the Catholic church are a pet peeve of mine. I went to one of Archbishop Hunthausen's "Listening Sessions" about having female priests in the Catholic church. It was interesting. The "Listening Session" was where he would listen -- without commenting -- as various people got up and spoke. It was held in a classroom in a Catholic school. I sat in the back where some of the teachers from the school yelled out things at people as they got up and spoke against female priests. I would get banned from the forum is I quoted them. They used the f-word a bit.

The first people who spoke argued against things like girls serving as alter servers (Which doesn't bother me in the least), and pianos and guitars being used in Mass rather than the organ. They saw female priests as further change that they didn't want. And at the time I thought their arguments were pretty weak.

The listening session was controlled by people with lists of the people who wanted to talk and they decided who spoke first. As the listening session was running out of time there was a small group of people protesting to Hunthausen because they hadn't gotten to talk. To his credit he let them get up and speak even though it really made the group, at the back of the room with me, angry.

The last group of people who spoke had a completely different viewpoint. They said that they did not have a problem with alter girls, with whether the host was placed on their tongue or in their hand, with whether the piano and guitars were used rather than the organ -- what they cared about was what the priest taught in the sermon, or homily as they call it now. Several of the women who wanted to be priests were at the listening session, and it was pointed out that these women were lesbians and their sermons would probably be pro-homosexual and not in line with the old Catholic Baltimore Catechism (Which I confess that I never really learned..).

So I'm not really worried about the ritual, the ceremony, the songs, or Christian mythology. I want to hear good old-fashioned Catholic morality taught. I feel that without it all we're really left with is "Christian Mythology"..

[HisChildForever]

It's great to see that you've given this a lot of thought. Over 99% of us on the forum acknowledge, like you, that the heresy of modernism has invaded the Church. The Church Herself doesn't teach modernism, but some of Her leaders have become corrupt (i.e. priests) and some of Her followers have become corrupt (i.e. parishioners). Unfortunately, you've witnessed this firsthand. You shouldn't let the sins of the fallen disrupt your love of God and His Church, however. Go to Mass and Confession not only for the sake of your soul but to set a good example for others. A lot of Catholics these days don't know any better, and we're basically "competing" against modernism for their attention.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 June 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1277533784' post='2134447']
Personally, I always wondered if the ancient Greeks and Romans et. al. actually believed in that whole pantheon. I mean... they weren't dumb people. I wonder if it was just a part of their culture rather than something they literally believed.
[/quote]


Well, why would they need to be dumb people to believe it? Usually, in my experience, people find the ancient mythologies unbelievable for any one of intelligence for two main reasons. Because their religion seems counter-intuitive and there is no rational basis for believing it to be true. I think the flaw in this viewpoint is clear if you only consider yourself. You believe that at the moment of concentration at mass the substance of what was formerly bread and wine is transformed into the substance of Christ himself. For anyone who was raised outside of a Christian/Catholic culture this would be a highly counter-intuitive idea. While your Church teaches that the truths of faith are discoverable to human reason, there is of yet no set of serious, rational arguments that really could really argue an individual to accept the whole of your religion. Yet plenty of ery intelligent people believe in your religion. A extraordinarily brilliant philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre, actually converted to the faith not all that long ago. Neither he, nor any serious thinking Catholic I know of, claims that he could rationally argue an individual to the whole of your faith. Usually, they find grounds for believing a part of your faith to be true, accept the rest on faith, and content themselves with arguing that a rational, intelligent individual could believe the rest to be true, even if there is not actual positive evidence for it. That is, the rest cannot be exactly disprove.

The same is true for Islam and all the other major religions. I don't think that from an objective point of view either Islam or Christianity are more rational than the polytheistic cultures they disparage. However cultural biases makes the absurdities of our religions seem less concocted and half-baked than the absurdities of other religions. The Homeric gods were not abandoned because scientists and philosophers disproved them. Like modern religions their claims were such that it was difficult or impossible to really disprove their claims. They died off simply because most people found a different set of religious beliefs to subscribe too and the old ways lost their appeal. I think we are seeing this today with Christianity. Church's haven't become so much more empty in the last few decades because startling new evidence has debunked Christianity, the most damaging intellectual evidence against Christianity as been available for at least a century, instead most people are moving away because new worldviews have becoming believable (consider AJ Ayer's famous comment that Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, modern science hasn't strictly debunked God, but it has allowed many people to see how their world could be coherently explained without assigning it's existence to God's direct involvement) and the older world view of Christianity has lost it's emotional benefits (Sartre made the point that all across Europe people individually conceived existentialism following the absurdity and horrors of WWII which Christianity couldn't supply an emotionally satisfying explanation for).