Catholics and Confessions

[AgeofKnowledge]

I meant that specific societal archeological evidence doesn't go back to the Garden of Eden and their immediate monotheistic progeny. Archeological evidence does.

Scientists assert that hominids primitive crude technology and simple lifestyle remained static for a long time (with little upwards innovation). But at 40,000 years ago, something quite amazing happened. Until then, according to paleoanthropologists (reference Christopher Stringer, etc...), hominids had simply marked (cultural) time! They assert that modern humans (e.g. you and I) appear suddenly in the archological and fossil record stating:

"About 40,000 years ago, a perceptible shift in handiwork took place. Throughout the Old World, tool kits leapt in sophistication with the appearaqce of Upper Paleolithic style implements. Signs of use of ropes, bone spear points, fishhooks and harpoons suddenly emerge, along with sudden manifestations of sculptures, paintings, and MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS." It is an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to have come about virtually from nowhere- though obviously they did have a source. The question is what was it?" -African Exodus:The Origins of Modern Humanity by Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie.

We know from the Biblical record what happened. It was at that time that Adam and Eve were driven from the garden and began having progeny. Their progeny was responsible for the first MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS before pagan societies even existed.

Archeologists have found musical instruments in sites located in northern Africa, Europe, and Asia-places occupied by even the earliest known men and women. Typically, these instruments were created from the long bones of birds and functioned as whistles and flutes. In some cases, percussion instruments have also been recovered.

Artistic and musical expression was not part of the earlier hominids' life. This behavior is unique to humans and coincides exclusively with human remains. Perhaps one of the most important advances in prehistoric archeology in recent years is the recognition that artistic (including musical) expression didn't gradually emerge but rather exploded onto the scene simultaneously with humanity's appearance. -Late Paleolithic: Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory by Olga Soffer.

And for my young earth creationist (YECrs) brothers and sisters, Answers in Genesis (AIG) asserts the exact same thing (minus the long time frames secular scholars typically assert)! AIG states that:

"Music came from God. It was given to man at the moment of creation when ‘the morning stars sang together’ (Job 38:7). The Bible alone provides an acceptable explanation for the origin of music and musical instruments. We read in Scripture that God surrounds Himself with angelic choirs and the songs of the redeemed sinners (Rev. 14:2-3). A heavenly choir of angels sang at the birth of Christ. We are told to ‘sing to the Lord’ as Ills saints, to ‘praise His holy name’ (Psalm 30:4). Again, we are exhorted to ‘sing joyfully to the Lord’ and to ‘praise the Lord with the harp’, ‘make music to Him on the ten-stringed lyre’, ‘play skilfully and shout for joy’ (Psalm 33). The purpose of music was, and is, to praise God... Musical instruments are mentioned early in the Bible. We are told in Genesis 4:21 that Jubal was the father of all who play the harp and flute. Without the Bible we are unable to identify the first musician or the earliest instrument makers." They reference 'Orchestration' (1966) by Cecil Forsyth.

Both YEC and OEC Christians, and secular archeologists agree that music was present at the origin of modern humans.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Before paganism was monotheism.

My study of sociology and evolution of religions indicates that this is not the case. There is evidence of polytheism long before any evidence of monotheism.

Of course, if you believe Genesis to be literal, that Adam was the first human, and that he was monotheistic, what you say is correct. However, my understanding of Genesis is that it is allegorical, as was the prevalent Christian view for over a thousand years, up until a little over 100 years ago. So I do not believe that Adam (a better translation for his name would be "The Man") was a literal human, the first human in existence, but rather a symbol of the earliest Hebrews. And these earliest Hebrews were only nominally monotheistic. They believed in multiple gods, they just chose only one to worship, calling the rest less powerful. But even the Hebrews believed that these other gods existed. And these Hebrews considered themselves better than their neighbors, who sang hymns to these other gods.

The fact that early humans worshiped multiple gods before the Hebrews developed their monotheism is almost indisputable. The only people who don't accept it have to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying you're wrong ... maybe the mountains of evidence is wrong ... but I remain unconvinced.

As for angels, IF they exist as supernatural beings (rather than humans sent by God to deliver a message, which is what the word "angel" means), and assuming that they are God-created and God-loving creatures, then yes, they sing praise to God, unhindered by pagan traditions. There is zero evidence for this; it is all a matter of speculation and interesting "tip-toeing" through Scripture to twist it to make that true. In fact, the Scriptural evidence for angels contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis: According to the Scripture concerning Angels, they were created before humans, and lived for centuries before any humans were around. So I'm not sure how anyone could embrace a literal translation of Genesis and also insist on the Biblical view of angels. One or the other has to be allegorical, if not both. (I vote for both.)

But that is neither here nor there.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I meant that specific societal archeological evidence doesn't go back to the Garden of Eden and their immediate monotheistic progeny. Archeological evidence does.

There is no archaeological evidence for the garden of eden. Zero.

Both YEC and OEC Christians, and secular archeologists agree that music was present at the origin of modern humans.

But you will not find a single secular archaeologists who asserts that these modern humans were monotheistic.

I completely agree that music appears 40,000 years ago, with the earliest humans. The evidence is clear.

The belief that these earliest humans were not pagans is completely unsupported by any evidence. All the evidence that exists says the opposite: that these humans were polytheistic.

So, are you going to accept scientific evidence or not? Or just for the things that you want to believe, and not for things you don't want to believe?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

If you don't accept the Biblical origins of humanity account as literal then one can draw your position because while anthropologists have physical evidence of the origins of modern humans suddenly appearing in all of our glory, they do not have a physical record of the first progeny as montheistic.

And since Judaism arose after ancient Paganism was already established; a person who dismisses the Biblical record as ancient myth or allegorical to the point of that interpretation (though even if the Biblical account for the origin of humanity were merely allegorical to your interpretation it would still be premature imo) can conclude what you have.

Many Christian theistic evolutionists take this position. Dr. Francis Collins, for example, goes so far as to say Adam and Eve are allegorial for the first humans that appeared (more than 1 but less than 200); however, even he doesn't assert the first humans were pagans!

If you believe the Biblical record as a trustworthy special revelation from God, then you have a serious epistemological problem because the Bible definitely asserts monotheism both as reality and as the first interaction between God and mankind (e.g. Adam, Eve, and their initial progeny).

With regards to angels, although technically angels are only a certain kind of God's spiritual creatures (namely, "messengers"), "angels" is the term commonly used of all spiritual creatures and just the good angels have a wide range of titles in the Bible and some even have proper names. Angels are called "living creatures," "messengers," "angels of God," "elect angels," "holy angels," "powerful angels," "chief princes," "ministers," "sons of God," "sons of the mighty," "mighty ones," "holy ones," etc... and many scholars also believe that the "elders" in Revelation 44 are angelic beings.

"From the Garden of Eden to the renewed heaven and earth, angels are found repeatedly throughout the Bible. These beings are also spoken of as spirits, cherubim, seraphim, sons of God, the heavenly host, or in a few instances, even referred to by their proper names, such as Michael and Gabriel. In the biblical text, angels are real living beings. They are supernatural and nonphysical, but may assume a corporeal appearance for a period of time." -Ryken, L., Wilhoit, J., Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D., & Reid, D. G. (2000). Dictionary of biblical imagery (electronic ed.) (23). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Like God, and unlike humans, angels are spirits (Heb. 1:14); they have no matter in their beings. Indeed, they have no divisibility, being simple created beings. Being pure spirit beings, the only way they can be seen by mortal human beings is by a miracle in one of two ways. Either God must perform a miracle so that mortal man can see the spirit world (as in 1 Kings 22:19-23), or else He must perform a miracle so that an essentially spirit being can materialize and be seen with mortal eyes (Gen. 18-19).

I think it's important to reaffirm, for this discussion, that music existed before creation as God orchestrated the angelic choir at Creation when "the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy" (Job 38:7).

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I stated, "archological evidence doesn't go back to the Garden of Eden." You're just reiterating what I already said. However, teams of scientists, researchers, and educators that hold to old earth progressive creation have built testable models that look at different indirect evidences for the Garden of Eden such as very early human migratory patterns, etc... RTB has one that states exactly this.

You will not find a single secular archaeologist that can state with 100% certainity that they weren't monotheistic either. They only do so because they believe the Bible to be but anthropological myth with no more special revelatory meaning than any other mythological archeological collection of manuscripts So it's an assumption on their part based on unbelief.

The belief that the earliest humans were not pagans is supported by the special revelation we call scripture. The natural evidence doesn't disapprove it past a certain point. There is no physical evidence from that period of paganism... that came later... and Judaism followed it. So they make an assumption these humans were polytheistic.

I would pose your final question to yourself and them as well because there is no scientific evidence that the first modern humans were pagan. Only later does it appear followed by Judaism. If you want to believe it, you may, but it's not proven scientifically. It's just a best guess after dismissing the Bible as myth.

There is no archaeological evidence for the garden of eden. Zero.

But you will not find a single secular archaeologists who asserts that these modern humans were monotheistic.

I completely agree that music appears 40,000 years ago, with the earliest humans. The evidence is clear.

The belief that these earliest humans were not pagans is completely unsupported by any evidence. All the evidence that exists says the opposite: that these humans were polytheistic.

So, are you going to accept scientific evidence or not? Or just for the things that you want to believe, and not for things you don't want to believe?

 

[Consumed]

Honestly I don't think Hail Marys are prescribed as penance that often. Out of the innumerable times I've been to Confession I've never once had Hail Marys given as a penance.

Bless you santo, thank you

But tell me why "penance" after confession when it says He is quick to forgive and faithful.
Surely that's works based to think I sinned, confessed and then needed to do certain things to be absolved of that sin??
Penalty was paid

Anyway by no means am I "catholic bashing" just is some practices ate so foreign to me that's all and share with you as you fo with me faith in Jesus and our walk with Him to ultimately and hopefully glory

 

[Rosewater]

Honestly I don't think Hail Marys are prescribed as penance that often. Out of the innumerable times I've been to Confession I've never once had Hail Marys given as a penance.

Just an FYI, they are prescribed here not solely but with other prayers as well.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I would pose your final question to yourself and them as well because there is no scientific evidence that the first modern humans were pagan. Only later does it appear followed by Judaism. If you want to believe it, you may, but it's not proven scientifically. It's just a best guess after dismissing the Bible as myth.

Sorry, but there is archaeological evidence indicating that the first humans were pagan, and what's more, ALL of the evidence agrees that the earliest humans were pagan.

So yes, I will accept the scientific evidence when it is overwhelming.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

But tell me why "penance" after confession when it says He is quick to forgive and faithful.

The penance doesn't make you right with God. As others have said, only Jesus makes you right with God.

The penance is for yourself. After you've done something wrong, you need to make amends, make it right not necessarily with God, but with your neighbor whom you wronged, or with yourself. Something that will help you avoid that particular sin in the future.

If I've stolen money, just because God forgives me doesn't mean I don't have to pay it back.

That's the reason for penance. Hope that helps.

 

[Tobby17]

Sorry, but why does it have to be the catholics with the controversial practices?.

 

[Tobby17]

And if you can't speak in tongues its bcoz d Holy Spirit is missing!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I disagree. Please provide your evidence so that I may properly qualify it. Thank you.

Sorry, but there is archaeological evidence indicating that the first humans were pagan, and what's more, ALL of the evidence agrees that the earliest humans were pagan.

So yes, I will accept the scientific evidence when it is overwhelming.

 

[SantoSubito]

Bless you santo, thank you

But tell me why "penance" after confession when it says He is quick to forgive and faithful.
Surely that's works based to think I sinned, confessed and then needed to do certain things to be absolved of that sin??
Penalty was paid

Anyway by no means am I "catholic bashing" just is some practices ate so foreign to me that's all and share with you as you fo with me faith in Jesus and our walk with Him to ultimately and hopefully glory

Your forgiven as soon as the absolution is given. Penance is more for us, kind of like medicine for the soul, penance helps us to realize that we are indeed and sinful creatures and need to pray.

Often the penance is related to the problem, for example. I confessed to having trouble with lustful thoughts once and my penance was to pray about developing a strategy to overcome those thoughts. Now every time a lustful thought starts to pop into my head I pray a Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, or something similar. Slowly but surely the thoughts simply stopped coming because I was no longer entertaining them when they came.

Actually the most common penance i've received (especially from Eastern Catholic priests) is to pray for the priest.

 

[SantoSubito]

Sorry, but why does it have to be the catholics with the controversial practices?.

They're really only controversial to Protestants.....

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Your forgiven as soon as the absolution is given. Penance is more for us, kind of like medicine for the soul, penance helps us to realize that we are indeed and sinful creatures and need to pray.

Often the penance is related to the problem, for example. I confessed to having trouble with lustful thoughts once and my penance was to pray about developing a strategy to overcome those thoughts. Now every time a lustful thought starts to pop into my head I pray a Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, or something similar. Slowly but surely the thoughts simply stopped coming because I was no longer entertaining them when they came.

Actually the most common penance i've received (especially from Eastern Catholic priests) is to pray for the priest.

Thank you for sharing this, Santo.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

While I'm waiting for you to provide proof of your assertion so I may properly qualify it, consider that atheistic evolutionists proceed from the assumption that there is no God and that Judeo-Christian scriptures are pure mythology so they dismiss both and apply all evidence to one model (even when it clearly fits others); that of material reductionistic macro-evolutionary theory which, due to its inherent assumptions, posits only preanimism, then animism, totemism, polytheism and finally monotheism. All evidence is forced into this model to "prove" it. As atheists took control of the academic establishment, this became the only acceptable view and those that find a better fit for the evidence are usually punished today in academia.

But the discussion is really not that old to begin with. Consider that it wasn't until the atheist anthropologist E. B. Tylor (1832–1917) introduced pre-animism/animism into the evolutionary model for the first phase of development of religions that it became a part of the 'anthropology theory' and the basis for the primitive polytheism that is taught as "fact" today.

At the end of the nineteenth century when academic atheists began insisting that Christianity itself had to be explained as a product of evolving religious ideas and customs. They had a theory to prove and they were going to force all human knowledge into their theory whether or not it was a correct fit simply because they believed their theory was a fact. They asserted that scripture was not divine revelation but mythology merely as the expression of evolving conceptions of God within human culture (for after all there was no God).

Thus academia began to impose an atheistic evolutionary schema onto the evidence and the Bible itself asserting a sequence from animism to totemism, to polytheism, and finally to monotheism. Because the biblical account and oldest primitive evidence for modern humans did not fit or prove that preconceived schema, the critics simply pronounced the Bible unreliable and riddled with errors and forced avaliable evidence to fit their theory. See Nancy Pearcey, "Interpreting Genesis: A Reply to the Critics," Bible-Science Newsletter, August 1984; Nancy Pearcey, "Real People in a Real World: The Lessons of Archaeology," Bible-Science Newsletter, June 1985.

The reductive materialists that took hold of academia declared it a "fact" within 'anthropology theory' and used this "fact" to "prove" that primitive monotheism never existed. Academic supporters of 'anthropology theory' then dedicated their lives to "proving" their theory which they advocated as fact (instead of being honest and acknowledging it was their belief).

The truth is that it is just a theory but anyone today who formally shows that the evidence rebuts this "fact" or applies the evidence to a different model will be singled out for academic punishment simply because no deviation from the theory is allowed (because, after all, it is a "fact" even though it isn't).

Nevertheless, there are an increasing number of scientists, researchers, and scholars arguing for primitive monotheism today simply because they believe it is the best fit for all of the evidence and care more about truth in science and scholarship than simply getting ahead with within the current system that cares for the dominant academic theory.

It needs to be restated: there is no physical evidence discovered from the very first modern humans that "proves" paganism was their worldview. What there is are a world of academic arguments for that position based on pre-conceived assumptions and evidence for paganism found afterwards which is read back into that period.

It's as simple as that and the reason why an increasing number of scientists, researchers, and scholars are finding that when all the evidence is considered, without the atheist's assumptions, that a primitive monotheism makes sense despite the wealth of evidence for paganism in the ancient world.

Obviously, these include Christian scientists, researchers, and scholars who comprise most of the growing membership of scientific organizations that dissent from the present theory asserting a primitive monotheism and have built and continue to build scientifically testable models that compete with the entrenched one presently ruling academia.

They include theistic evolutionary organizations such as BioLogos and old earth progressive creation organizations like Reasons to Believe. But they include an increasingly number of secular scholars as well. Momentum has been building which, historically, normally precedes scientific revolution.

 

[SantoSubito]

AOK, I've often ran into people that assert that polytheism must of came before monotheism because monotheism is much more complex and intricate compared to polytheism. So maybe an evolution of religion plays into this with some people as well.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

AOK, I've often ran into people that assert that polytheism must of came before monotheism because monotheism is much more complex and intricate compared to polytheism. So maybe an evolution of religion plays into this with some people as well.

This is a big part of it.

Keep in mind that to say polytheism was around before monotheism doesn't mean that GOD didn't exist. God was around since Year Aleph, as they say ... people just didn't understand God as one until about 4,000 years ago.

I'm curious, though ... what does this have to do with confession?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

While I'm waiting for you to provide proof of your assertion

I was not going to respond to this, because we have gotten so off topic as to make it downright silly. I am fairly certain that any evidence I supply to support my position you will dismiss as "atheistic" and "ignoring Scriptural evidence," and I can promise you that any evidence you submit I will dismiss as being unscientific, trying to find evidence to support a thesis rather than the other way around. So I really didn't think it was worth driving to my storage facility to dig up my old textbooks and find relevant information for you, since you would have dismissed it anyway.

That said, your lengthy response indicated that in all fairness I really do owe you something. So a few quick google searches revealed, as I indicated, overwhelming evidence for my assertions. Perhaps the easiest link would be Monotheism and Polytheism for Kids!

The EVIDENCE indicates that the earliest Hebrews developed their religion around 1000 BC (give or take a few centuries). This was only barely monotheistic. They clearly believed in other gods, but chose to worship only one, which was different enough from the norm at the time to be noteworthy by multiple sources.

If monotheism had been around before that, other cultures would not have scoffed at the Hebrews for their beliefs, because they wouldn't have been that different from others. The fact that other cultures ridiculed the Hebrews, calling them atheist because they only worshiped one God, FURTHER SUPPORTS the evidence of polytheism predating monotheism.

The EVIDENCE indicates that humans as long ago as 40 thousand years ago had religion, and that that religion was polytheistic, and would remain so for about 37,000 years.

To say that you believe monotheism was around before, because "well, that belief fits with theistic evolution, and I want to believe in that," is just simply not scientific. You can believe that if you want. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. But you will not get anyone in the scientific community to take you seriously with that belief.

That said, there is no point in discussing this further. You will not convince me, short of finding some record proved to be more than 4,000 years old that mentions monotheism. I'm sure I will not convince you, because you have all the evidence before you and still don't accept it, so what's the point.

This thread is for the discussion of Catholics and confession. If you have something pertinent to that topic, I eagerly await hearing it. Otherwise, I am done.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That was one of the many points of discussion between the secular and Christian proponents of monotheism and secular proponents of polytheism for the original Urreligion in the 19th and 20th century; however, those discussions were limited in their scope to certain arguments such as whether or not polytheism contained evidence of monotheism, etc... and attempted to work backwards.

The Catholic Church, fundamentalist Christian scholars, and certain secular scholars still engage in that discussion in that manner despite the predominant view in academia asserting the predominant model which I already introduced.

But it's important to understand that the argument for primitive monotheism has two threads associated with it. The older well documented academic thread began by Wilhelm Schmidt which approaches the argument in the above manner and a much newer ever-evolving science-based thread that doesn't limit itself to trying to find monotheism in polytheism but views that entire thread as but a minor subset of the overall discussion.

This modern thread has been strongly resisted by the atheists who control academia today yet continues to gain momentum amongst an increasing number of scientists, researchers, and scholars (both secular and non-secular) who believe the aggregate of available evidence fits better into primitive monotheism.

The two threads clouds the issue for many people because, at secular universities, they are only exposed to the older thread up to the Phd level, in a negative way, and if you want to have a successful career in secular academia and not be blacklisted, then you are only permitted to hold and teach the predominant view. Those who do otherwise within that environment are often denied tenure, let go, blocked from publication, denied references, etc...

But outside of the secular classroom environment, they are free to pursue the argument in an honest way and more everyday are joining the ranks of dissention and doing exactly that within the context of the newer thread/movement.

AOK, I've often ran into people that assert that polytheism must of came before monotheism because monotheism is much more complex and intricate compared to polytheism. So maybe an evolution of religion plays into this with some people as well.