Another reason for me to not like the current Pope

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

My point was, if we're going by accuracy of transcription, Torah has been transcribed by hand precisely for over 5000 years. So if that's the measure of whether something's worthy of belief...

I was talking about Cherny invoking Godwin's law by bringing Hitler into the discussion on purpose and then referencing the effect of bringing up Hitler on fulfiling Godwin's law.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Tref: why would you cease a fascinating line of discussion?

Hmm, OK ...

Well, I will say this -- at the moment, I attend Mass six days a week, though I have not always been so fervent a Catholic. For me it is an experience. A way to gain knowledge that I did not have before. I've spent some years of my life studying different religions, and I could tell some weird stories about things I seen. In the end, though, I went back to my religion of birth. The one I was baptised in -- Catholicism. As it turns out, the church in my neighborhood is one of the more conservative churches in Los Angeles. The pastor of my church is one serious dude. He is the size of Oddjob from the Bond movies, with the shaved head and physique of linebacker. When he speaks, you cannot help but pay attention. And when he gets mad at the congregation, you can hear a pin drop, nobody moves a muscle. This guy will even taunt the room during the sermon by saying something intentionally incorrect. He'll squint his eyes and an evil smile will break on his face. "Right?" He'll ask. "Am I right?"

And the poor old folks in the front row will squeak, "R-i-ight?"

"WRONG!" the pastor will scream. "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" Then he'll slap his head several times, or beat his giant paws on the podium. "What is wrong with you my Catholic people? How many times must I teach this?"

Nevertheless, for somebody like me, who truly wants to know what each little thing or action means, this kind of priest is perfect. This giant of a man who would loom high over the congregation, even if they were all wearing stilts, does not skip a step, miss a hymn or leave out a vowel. He even introduced Latin to the Mass, a full year before the Pope officially approved it.

However, I also want to know the history. The real story. The dirty laundry. The scoop on the apostles and all their foibles. And for that I went to bookstores. Anyway, I think I have wandered a bit. I am bored. Sorry.

To: Not Afraid. No, it really hasn’t changed. Its true the Bible was never originally meant to be distributed to the masses. Its purpose was to be used within the church as a guide for the Priests. Then came the printing and then the translations ... However, the text itself, despite the many translations, is as it was when it was first written. Jesus’ word has not been altered from the original Greek. It is as it was.

To Innerspaceman: Whether you like it or not, the writers of the Gospels are the only word of Christ we know. What do we know of Jesus that is not in the gospels? The Gospels are all we have -- there is no more. So, when these same men say that Jesus wanted a church built -- one true church, who can argue? Accordingly, Jesus gave the job to the Apostle Peter and he is the Roman Catholic Church’s first Pope, in an apostolic succession that goes on to this day. For people who argue that this is not history but church lore, I say, tell me how those two differ? History, as we understand the word, can not even prove the existence of Jesus. Not a single historian who lived during that age wrote of Jesus, not even in a sidebar. Not one. Nata. Why? I don't know. Many have theorised it was because Jesus never picked up a check and historians were by and large a gossipy clicque, but that is just a theory. So where does that leave Jesus? We know of him only because of these men.

To Goulish Delight: I say this, read the whole news article. There is a noticeable anti-Catholic bias in the media. The prayer that speaks of the conversion of jews has been changed, or, rather was changed 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, that change is permanent.

Either way, the return of the Latin Mass is significant.

To Kevy-baby. That is just not true. No old white men have stripped the Bible of anything. In fact, people will often point to the contradictions of the Gospels as proof of its unauthenticity, when, in fact, the very nature of the Gospels contradictions with each other is proof they were never touched, fixed, or otherwise altered from their original text.

Despites the jokes, the Church is not run by people who want to profit by what they are doing. They are people who have totally devoted themselves body & soul to praising God. They are there because they truly and sincerely believe that every word of the text is sacred. Why would these same people then sit quietly as its meaning was altered?

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended. I have a rule -- never talk religion. And I broke that rule in a big way this afternoon. And while nothing personally offends me at all, I just thought I'd stick up for the Pope. Things weren't looking to good for him in here.

[blueerica]

While I think that many Catholics today practice so out of a true desire to devote themselves to God, from the Pope on down; however, from what research I have done (a.k.a. not a lifetime's work, but enough to suffice for a few projects), I cannot believe that it was always done without a profit/power motive.

Much of this, of course, has caused my agnosticism. I do not claim I am right, because I cannot know. Besides research, I have other reasons and personal faith explorations that have led me to this point.

On the other hand, faith is something that can hardly be argued. For if one truly believes, existence and meaning of a God or gods is known only in oneself, or so I've figured all these years. I hardly mean to quarrel about religion because how do I argue against it (outside of empirical evidence I feel points to a lack of a "god," but hey, that's me and I still don't know and refuse atheism because... well, because I can't know). It's a conclusion we all come to by circumstance.

Or so my opinion goes...

And Tref, I am truly fascinated with your line of discussion, and am not offended in the slightest. If I were, I'd feel like I was going against myself... somehow.

[wendybeth]

Great post. Tref. I was raised Catholic, and while I most certainly do not agree with a lot of their tenets, I respect their history and do hold them to be the first Christian church, one that all other Christian churches- whether they like it or not- stem from. I still intend to poke fun at Benedict; blame that on JP, as he had a sense of humor and he kind of spoiled us in that regard.

[innerSpaceman]

I won't pretend to know all that much about the Catholic Church ... but if the alarming differences in the various Gospels proves they were not tampered with, does it also not infer that most of them ... if not all of them are wrong?

Which one is deemed correct? Are they only deemed correct on the points where they agree? Do Catholics believe there were several simultaneous true yet different events on the points where the Gospels conflict?


And Tref, it's ok to break your rule about talking religion here on the LoT. Don't take my sanctimoneous tone as an attack. It's a truly interesting topic which many of us are enjoying discussion of.

But I am an anti-religionist skeptic, no doubt about it. Yet neither do I hold anyone with religious leanings in any disregard.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I was talking about Cherny invoking Godwin's law by bringing Hitler into the discussion on purpose and then referencing the effect of bringing up Hitler on fulfiling Godwin's law.

And I quoted the wrong post.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Tref

To Goulish Delight: I say this, read the whole news article. There is a noticeable anti-Catholic bias in the media. The prayer that speaks of the conversion of jews has been changed, or, rather was changed 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, that change is permanent.

Apparently you and I are reading 2 different articles. Are you referring to this?

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) replaced Latin with local languages in the liturgy, reached out to other religions and struck out texts that Jews found particularly offensive.

That 40 year old change is precisely what Benedict reversed last week.

The decree made no change in the 1962 missal—the main prayer book for the old rite—which includes prayers on Good Friday for the conversion of the Jews and calls them blind to the Christian truth.

Poorly worded, but it's saying that with this decree, the Pope reintroduced the same version of the old Latin mass that was in use when it was removed in 1962, so it does contain the same language calling for conversion.

As a Jew in a world where antisemitism was already on the rise, from a Pope with Benedict's personal history, I do not find this insignificant. People are trying to pass it off. "No one's required to say it," "Most people will still use the new rite." But that's not the point. Religion, and specifically the Papacy, are all about symbolism. Whether it's put into practice or not, the Pope's actions affects attitudes.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

If the Temple still stood... would you still be Jewish? I mean, how would you feel about adhering to your religion under those circumstances.

This is like asking a Protestant - if Martin Luther had never tacked his letter on the door, would you still be a Christian? Impossible to judge, impossible to say. The world itself would be a different place, in both cases.

From my current perspective, I'm no fan of ritual sacrifice, but again, that's in part because ritual sacrifice hasn't been a part of Judaism since the year 70, CE.

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Also... how does the lack of the temple nullify sacrifices? Didn't the early prophets built altars wherever?

Nope, sacrifice was only in the Temple.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Which one is deemed correct? Are they only deemed correct on the points where they agree? Do Catholics believe there were several simultaneous true yet different events on the points where the Gospels conflict?

In this vein, I think Christianity is smart. Whereas the Torah is, according to Judaism, the word of God dictated to Moses, the Gospels have never claimed as such, and instead, are the very personal points of view of different human beings. The inherent concept is that there is no way that one person could have gotten these events down correctly, and that every person has a different perspective. They're all right and they're all wrong, and the truth is supposed to come through various perspectives placed next to each other. This concept is a pretty heady life lesson in itself.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm fine with that. But don't expect any rational person to believe that any particular account in any particular "Gospel" got Jesus' quotes right or knew what was in his head. Jesus said this or Jesus said that is simply someone's memory .... the memory of someone who probably couldn't pick out Judas in a line-up.

(Eyewitness testimony was likely no less error-prone than as it is today, so excuse me for doubting anyone's 30-year-old memory on what Jesus purportedly said or did.)


We're not asked to accept the Gospels as quaint varying accounts ... but rather as "Gospel." The fact the word "gospel" is supposed to be synonymous with "true" is your clue for how literal they're supposed to be taken.

To which I say, 'feh.'

[Prudence]

Wait - there's a possibility that someone on this board would be able to discuss with me the difference between the Humiliati and Waldensians and the reasons for the inclusion/exclusion of various reformer sects into the Church? Just the very thought has my neurons all a-tingle.