I'm very sorry to learn you feel this way, because it's nonsense. The TaNa"KH very plainly states that G-d rose up pagan enemies of Israel at various times as a punishment for them. Does this mean He approved of their paganism? Not at all. Nevertheless Assyria was the rod of His anger, though it was punished in due turn.
The raising up of scourges to punish Israel is so much a part of the resume of the Biblical G-d that I cannot help but wonder if you are too liberal to believe in such a Deity. Do you also reject His right to order the exterminations of entire nations of people, including children, sucklings, and animals? Are you among those who say "obviously G-d would never do such a thing, so He didn't, but the primitive Israelites thought He did because that's how people thought back then"?
It seems to me, in the last paragraph of my post 107, I did address the Catholic (generic, really, it is hardly restricted to just Catholics) take on why the Law was abrogated. That you don't accept that is fine, as the grace of faith is needed, and you don't have that sort of faith.
I used to, but back then I thought that G-d no longer used laws, rituals, or traditions of any kind. I had to reject this to become Catholic. Thing was, once I started along this path there was no logical reason to stop short fo the ultimate conclusion.
So why, after the Torah was "abrogated" (chas vechalilah!) did G-d feel compelled to replace it with something else that isn't even in the Scriptures?
The Decalogue is still in force, as it applies to all men as an encapsulation of the natural law writ large in each man's conscience, so I don't see how you conclude that we are "antinomian."
True, though the `Aseret HaDibberot (the Decalogue) does not now and never has applied to non-Jews (the Seven Noachide Laws do). What you don't want to admit is that the Torah is still in force in its entirety for Jews and always will be. And the Catholic Church is only "antinomian" in that it believes the Torah has been abrogated. Protestants are much more antinomian, and they have their problems with consistency too. I think at the end of the day only Jews/Noachides (one one side) and Fundamentalist Universalists (on the other) are truly consistent.
But your position makes it sound little different from saying that the Church believes that the Law was abrogated because Oreo cookies have a creme-filled center.
Hmm. I suppose I can see how it looks that way to you, but my point is simply that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the Torah was abrogated, then Paul's condemnation of "works" in Galatians should apply to all rituals, all oral traditions, all holidays, all ceremonials, etc. However, if these rituals, oral traditions, holidays, and ceremonials of the churches are valid, then how much the more so (`al 'achat kammah vekhammah) are those of the Torah, towards which your attitude is identical to that of Luther's towards Catholicism.
Just a word to all: I realize I got on late today, but I was away from my computer and logged on later than usual. I also want to thank you, Magisterium, for being willing to discuss these issues with me.
Perhaps I need to be more nuanced. It is one thing for God to use pre-existing people or circumstances to send a scourge to His people by pushing them to the fore; it is something else again to suppose that God creates a group of people, with beliefs highly contrary to His Truth and Will, specifically to effect the same purpose. That seemed to be what you were implying, and, if such were the case, then you seemed to be accepting the notion of Jesus as God, since God would not raise a "false concept" ex nihilo to be anyone's scourge.
So why, after the Torah was "abrogated" (chas vechalilah!) did G-d feel compelled to replace it with something else that isn't even in the Scriptures? Hmm. I suppose I can see how it looks that way to you, but my point is simply that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the Torah was abrogated, then Paul's condemnation of "works" in Galatians should apply to all rituals, all oral traditions, all holidays, all ceremonials, etc. However, if these rituals, oral traditions, holidays, and ceremonials of the churches are valid, then how much the more so (`al 'achat kammah vekhammah) are those of the Torah, towards which your attitude is identical to that of Luther's towards Catholicism.
I think you miss my point again. St. Paul, clearly, condemns "works" which are attempted as a means to storm Heaven as sufficient for entry thereto. All of the ceremonials surrounding the bare-bones of the Sacraments themselves are not directly imposed by Jesus,; therefore, they do not have a direct counterpart in the Torah, which was, in fact, imposed on the Israelites by God Himself. Our "works" of worship, as I think you mean them, do not claim any salvific power, while the Jews consciously believed they were saved by the Law. You are forcing more of a correlation here than is warranted. Luther's problem was similar, insofar as he tried to demonstrate that Catholics view "works" the same way the Jews did. But this is a false assertion, a straw man set-up to justify his total rejection of "works" as even a necessary fruit of sanctifying grace. That Luther's views were what they were detracts not a whit from my Catholic Faith. I cannot help what he chose to believe.
The raising up of scourges to punish Israel is so much a part of the resume of the Biblical G-d that I cannot help but wonder if you are too liberal to believe in such a Deity. Do you also reject His right to order the exterminations of entire nations of people, including children, sucklings, and animals? Are you among those who say "obviously G-d would never do such a thing, so He didn't, but the primitive Israelites thought He did because that's how people thought back then"?
I could call that "mind reading," but I won't. I think I understand your thought. But you err. No. Clearly, the inspired Word of God that is the Old Testament relates the command for these exterminations you allude to. God was within His rights to use natural disasters and Israelite armies to exterminate various peoples for their wickedness. They had utterly rejected even the natural law, and had reduced themselves, among other things, to such practices as infant sacrifice. God had not yet given man the opportunity to live in sanctifying grace, and was in no way obligated to do so before "the appointed time." The utter depravity of the peoples in question required, even under the Noachide Laws you refer to, the punishment that was meted-out. Indeed, when it was Israel's turn to do the same sorts of abominations under just about every-other king, God used similar means to deal with them, too. I have no problem with this, and I object, if anything, to the fact that you seem to assume every Catholic would have problems here.