Posted on 02/24/2004 12:46:27 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
Rebecca Hagelin asks, "Can you handle the Truth?" in today's, WorldNetDaily. "If you only go to the movies to be entertained, don't go see The Passion of the Christ," she said, adding "but if you want to experience an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine, you must see The Passion of the Christ.
If the portrayal of death and suffering are now, "an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine," Sadam Hussein and the Taliban have been greatly misjudge. They were only misunderstood artists. Instead of having our stomachs turned at the images of Taliban atrocities and Sadam's sadistic tortures we should be exulting in these images of such artistic importance.
The only real difference between glorying in the portrayal of suffering and death in Gibson's film, or the actual images of its modern day counterpart, is that Gibson's is a fake. That does not deter the superstitious masses who hold suffering, pain, and death as their highest ideals, however. It is what their God, whom they believe condemns the vast majority of mankind to eternal torment and suffering, teaches them. Of all the things one might place a value on, the thing their God values above all others is suffering and death.
Of all the things their God might have accepted as payment for man's salvation, it was not Jesus' healing the sick, or feeding the hungry, that was valued. Their God would settle for nothing less than the most excruciating pain, pointless suffering, and agonizing death possible as "payment." What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?
Rebecca describing the experience of 5000 people who watched the film, said, "We were not entertained. We did not laugh. We did not leave relaxed." In other words, they did not enjoy the film, they suffered it. Rebecca regards suffering a virtue. She said about her discomfort watching the film, "the flogging scene didn't end quickly ... so why should it end quickly for me as a mere observer?"
Because, Rebecca, suffering is evil. Pain and death are not virtues, they are the opposite of all human life is about. The purpose of life is not to pain and anguish, the purpose of life is joy and happiness.
We have no doubt, Rebecca is correct to say, "The Passion is powerful – it is reality," because the world is full of suffering and brutality, made possible by the very kind of perverted psychology that not only accepts suffering, but positively worships it.
Hank
All of the denominations whose fundametal teachings come from Augustine (Catholic, Calvinist, Arminian, that is, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, most Baptists, etc.) believe the majority of mankind is bound for eterneal torment. "...for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."
The Eastern traditions also hold this view, but do not follow Augustine.
So, what do you believe?
Hank
Bull. Another bigoted anti-Christian hit piece. Nothing more.
This anti-Christian drivel does not belong in the Religion forum. How about the News forum, or the Smokey back room, along with the rest of the bigoted anti-Christian baiting and bashing associated with this film?
A good place to begin would be the first chapter of John Piper's book "The Passion of Jesus Christ", which can be read online here.
This chapter is but the first of 50 (each only 2 pages long) telling us of the God ordained purposes for which Christ suffered and died.
Hank, you really do need to repent and believe. I will be praying for you.
Not true, friend.
Riiiight, unlike the atheistic societies that have only managed to kill untold millions in an effort to advance their idologyand theology of materialistic humanism. Pain and suffering is not a product of Christianity, it is a product of rejecting Christianity, ask a North Korean.
Such twaddle from the "bright" people.
Suffering does not pay for anything. a commentary from the east is here.
There's some profoundly shallow stuff in there, and it doesn't take a Christian perspective to arrive at that conclusion. Take this whopper line:
Pain and death are not virtues, they are the opposite of all human life is about. The purpose of life is not to pain and anguish, the purpose of life is joy and happiness.
Almost as deep as the Teletubbies, that. But at least they seem to recognize that now and then you fall down and go boom without ascribing it to evil, or wailing at the cosmos that their life's purpose is being thwarted.
It's not exactly a Christian discovery that good and virtue are frequently paired with the enduring of pain and suffering. Considering the way everyone of us comes into the world, that shouldn't come as a surprise to even the most secular minded.
So if you'd like to seriously uphold the apparent contention of this article, that suffering equals evil, you're going to have to broaden the debate well beyond Christianity, let alone whatever flavor of it I happen to practice. It's a bizarre assertion that requires a bit more to support it than comparison to various religious beliefs you find unsavory.
Of course, I don't automatically assume you agree with the article. But, if your intention was merely to spark debate, you'll have to forgive me if I don't find it a very serious launching pad into theological inquiry.
Neither the article nor the author seem to demonstrate understanding of some rather basic elements of Christian theology. Instead they pick and choose things out of context in an attempt to portray Christians in a particularly unfavorable light. It reminds me more of the ancient Roman claim that Christians were canibals, because they believed they ate the body of their man/God. It takes more work to unwind that sort of claim than it deserves. So unless you're threatening to release the lions, I'll pass.
What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?
A good point. Why was it necessary for Christ to suffer so horribly? I have thought about this and come up with a few ideas. Perhaps we should consider persecution as a possible fate for ourselves in following Him. Perhaps His behavior during persecution was a lesson for us, in how to respond. Perhaps we needed the constant reminder of how much evil is present in our world.
Sadly, I think that's getting closer and closer. Right now it's at the level of "pyschic pain" - that is, being ridiculed and insulted by high and low alike. But I suspect that more serious persecutions are on the way, probably starting with things like faithful, orthodox churches losing their tax exemption for opposing gay "marriage," etc. It will be incremental, until we're all the way illegal.
But maybe I'm just feeling apocalyptic and gloomy today because it's raining here...
I live outside of Seattle. Liberal city. I work with people who dislike me because I wear a cross around my neck. I have to deal with them.
I have actually considered not wearing the cross because of the hate I have endured about it. Then I thought to myself, "What am I thinking?".
Why assume my comments are born of 'ego"?
This is a hit piece. Like other Catholic activists, I call it as it is. Some are called to suffer quietly, others to bear the sword and defend Christ's church. Neither has the right to denigrate the calling of the other.
Apologetics with ATTITUDE!
brought to you by
The Few, The PROUD, The Church Militant.
Simply, God has a sense of justice that must be satisfied one way or another. He hates our sin so much that only bloodshed can atone for it. But because He also loves us, He was willing to shed His own Son's blood instead of ours.
That's basic Christian theology -- if you don't understand it, then you have no grasp of Christianity.
Sometimes evangelization and defending the faith are one and the same thing, and utilize the same tactics.
Sometimes, like today, they are not the same thing, and defending the faith requires a persevering militancy that you may not associate with the early martyrs, but I do. This thread is an example of such times when strong Christian polemics are not only called for but a necessity.
It's not twaddle? Look, sometimes it's important to remember who you're talking to and why you're taking the time to talk to them. "Brights" pride them selves on their superior reasoning faculties, sometimes a direct challenge to that which they most love, their ego, will provoke a thought outside of their typical stream of consciousness.
And besides, taking the time to create a reasoned, sourced response to an absurd proposition only lends a veneer of plausibility it would not otherwise have.
Also, I believe that I responded to a specific quote form the article by pointing out that the writer built his/her argument on a faulty proposition. Did you miss that?
Once again, you set you stand with the "have a problem with the movie" crowed. Hummm.....
It's not twaddle? Look, sometimes it's important to remember who you're talking to and why you're taking the time to talk to them. "Brights" pride them selves on their superior reasoning faculties, sometimes a direct challenge to that which they most love, their ego, will provoke a thought outside of their typical stream of consciousness.
And besides, taking the time to create a reasoned, sourced response to an absurd proposition only lends a veneer of plausibility it would not otherwise have.
Also, I believe that I responded to a specific quote form the article by pointing out that the writer built his/her argument on a faulty proposition. Did you miss that?
Once again, you set you stand with the "have a problem with the movie" crowed. Hummm.....
That's right. And God so loved the World that He gave his only begotten Son, so that you and I, and idiots like the author of this piece, could have the opportunity, not only to live, but to live abundantly.
Jesus went through hell just for you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you,........
I'm looking, not for "movie reviews," but for straight biblical scholars directly debating or arguing specific points. I'd like to have specific points in mind before seeing the pic for the first time.
Any suggestions?
It would help your understanding of the matter by reading the Bible, start with Genesis Chapter 15. Where God enters into a blood covenant with Abraham and Abraham's offspring. A blood covenant requires blood be spilled if either party defaults. Upon reading the Chapter you will notice that God causes Abraham to fall asleep during the sealing of the contract, whereby God is the sole guarantor for each party entering into the covenant.
in other words, God covered Abraham's liability if he defaulted, which he did time and time again, and as Abraham's seed did and continues to do to this day. hence the requirement by default, of the terms of the covenant being fulfilled in the spotless sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ.
Or I just don't stand with any crowd. I especially object to the need to silence those who have something negative to say about a movie. For one thing, this is one man's artistic vision, not the Bible. And for another it interests me to hear what the other side feels and thinks.
Militant responses do nothing but harden the other side against us. However much we may enjoy the sensation of power and strength, it does not win any hearts. And even the most filled-with-twaddle writer was made in His image and should be treated respectfully.
Posted on 11/19/2002 10:35:23 AM EST by Polycarp
Uncharitable? Divisive? Strident? Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics
By David Mills
Most well-read Christians know the two most famous stories of the early Church's approach to dialogue. St. Polycarp tells us that the apostle John once went to the public bath in Ephesus and found inside a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. John ran out crying, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."
Polycarp himself once met the heretic Marcion walking down the street. Marcion hated the creator-God of the Hebrews, and to get rid of Him had tossed out the Old Testament and much of the New and rewrote the bits he kept. Marcion asked Polycarp, "Do you know me?" and Polycarp answered, "I do know you. You are the firstborn of Satan."
Their Reason By and large, modern Christians do not speak like this, though we have teachers as hostile to the Faith as Cerinthus and Marcion. Many of them speak with the authority of chairs in theology and of "reverend" before their name, and publish books the vulnerable, the naïve, and the gullible read and believe. These teachers are just as dangerous to peoples' souls as the great heretics of the first centuries, but we do not speak of our heretics as the great saints spoke of theirs.
This is almost as true of conservative or traditional Christians as of "centrists" and liberals. (The "centrist," I have always thought, is usually just a liberal in slow motion.) You will make a conservative group wince by calling someone a heretic, so well have we all been trained by the dominant dislike of such clear but dividing judgments. "Heretic" is a perfectly objective term, describing a particular relation to Christian doctrine, freely chosen, but almost every Christian will hear it as a vulgar term of abuse.
St. John and St. Polycarp spoke they way they did because every word matters when you are talking about Jesus. One word is true, and another word, which may be a very similar word, is false. The right word leads to Jesus, the wrong word leads away from Him. Jesus is of one being with the Father, not of like being. He is the Son of the Father, not a son of the Father. He is begotten, not made.
Therefore those who say the wrong words, and keep saying them after the authorities have corrected them, proclaim a Jesus who does not exist, and thereby endanger the souls of men who want to meet Him. The Jesuses they present almost always look a lot like the real Jesus, especially to those who do not know Him very well.
And they are usually very good spokesmen for the Jesus they've invented. Men of this sort are almost always compelling teachers, who offer a Jesus designed to be what many of their hearers expect or want. The successful heretic knows how to design his product to sell in the religious market, and many people will like his Jesus a lot more than the real one.
People who are so good at offering the world a fake Jesus must be rebuked and corrected by those, pastors and writers particularly, who have the gifts to do so. They will sometimes have to speak a hard word, in the mode of St. John or St. Polycarp. They will sometimes have to explain that Smith is wrong and that Jones is a false teacher and that Wilson is an enemy of the Faith.
This is a way they minister to those placed within their care. The writer is his readers' shepherd for as long as they read his work, whether or not he wants to be. Both pastor and writer speak mainly to lead their sheep to water and grass, but they will also speak to guard them from the wolves, to make sure that the sheep live long enough to reach the water and the grass. They know that many of their sheep will not recognize a wolf on sight, and left on their own might invite the wolf home to dinner, only to find, too late, that they are the main course.
Because the pastor or writer wants his sheep to get to the water and grass whole and unharmed, he must teach them about wolves, and point out as many wolves as he can. It is the job God has given him to do. It comes with the gifts God has given him.
All Obvious This is all, to a traditional Christian mind, obvious. But as soon as you try it, you will find yourself criticized, even in conservative Christian circles. You will find yourself called unkind, arrogant, and uncharitable; or divisive, troublemaking, and an impediment to mission; or harsh and strident; or simple-minded. You will be accused of sins against the person (the first set of charges), sins against the community (the second), sins against manners (the third), and sins against reason (the fourth).
You will hear this not only from the sentimental and the wooly-minded, who dislike polemics on principle, but from people who agree that Christians must write against error though they themselves shrink from the actual battle. This type will tell you that while Wilson is indeed an enemy of the Faith, you should have waited before writing against him (waited for what is almost never made clear), or treated his errors in a less combative way, or stressed the good work he is doing rather than the bad, or tried harder to find some common ground.
You may be told that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. I have been told this more than once, by men who thought they were being profound or wise, or something. They did not make the distinction, basic and essential to pastoral judgment, between someone who must be corrected and someone who must be rebuked.
They assume that all such discourse must be aimed at the conversion of the heretic, and that the only way to convert him is to speak nicely to him. They have no good reason, in Scripture or in the example of the Fathers, for this idea.
Your critic may well be right in this or that case, but I have noticed that despite his theoretical approval for polemics you never find him writing polemically, except against the easiest of targets. In the last two decades you could find many Episcopalians speaking against the former Bishop of Newark, John Spong, a man of such extreme views that they risked nothing in attacking him, and then walking about as if they had done something daring and important.
While they wrote against Spong, they would not contest less obvious but for that reason much more dangerous errors, while privately admitting that those were just as bad as his. The more tactful skepticism of the mainstream liberals they left unrebuked, in effect telling their people that these ideas were all right. They were in the basement shooting fish in a barrel, but would not go outside to face the tiger who was hunting people by night.
The Christian must sometimes speak against the enemies of the Faith, but he will suffer abuse for doing so. He must say the hard word when almost everyone he knows wants him to say the soft and easy word. Yet the hard word is sometimes the godly word - even if it appears to others (including one's friends) as "harsh" or "divisive" or "simple-minded."
Looking back to the speech of our Lord and the earliest Christians may make pastors and writers feel better about doing their duty. Their words show that to say the hard word when needed is only to say what we must say, and what our Lord wants us to say. We know at least that we are doing as the Fathers would have done.
Of course we must speak the hard word in a way right for our time. Words that worked in one age may not work in another. I suspect that calling the semi-marcionites of the Jesus Seminar "firstborn of Satan" would be simply misunderstood by everyone, because too few people believe in Satan to take the words seriously. The rhetorical style of the Fathers' day called for a harsher speech than ours, so that the same phrases sound worse today than they did then.
But choosing the right hard word is a matter both of the speaker's craft and of his growth in holiness, so that he knows what God would have him say and knows how to say it well. He will know when to correct and when to rebuke and know how to do both so that the object might, if he has ears to hear, hear and change. We know that it is hard to speak the hard word rightly, but that is not an excuse for failing to speak strongly when strong words are needed.
The Apostolic Style The early Christians did not believe in "dialogue." They were not open to questions when the answers had already been given. They did not think a claim to teach a new doctrine was simply a disagreement among friends or an argument within the family or an opportunity for an enriching dialogue or a stage in our mutual search for truth. They felt no need to talk with heretics as if the heretic had something to contribute to the community. They would have broken up many a modern church meeting.
They spoke as St. Polycarp had spoken to Marcion whenever they needed to. Such, wrote St. Irenaeus, "was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth." They felt horror, not discomfort or distaste.
In fact, the Fathers often said that those in error spoke for Satan. The heretic was not only on the wrong side, he was on the side of evil. We tend to think of heresies as miscalculations, as simple and innocent mistakes, but the Fathers saw them as a willful turning from the light. We think of the heretic as if he had accidentally bounced a check because he made a mistake balancing his checkbook. They thought of him as one who had shaken his fist at God and thumbed his nose at the Church.
St. Irenaeus described Marcion as one who "spoke as with the mouth of the devil." He spoke of Marcion and his peers as "malignant-minded people," examples of "an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ." He and his peers are to "be recognized as agents of Satan by all those who worship God…who has prepared eternal fire for every kind of apostasy."
St. Vincent of Lerins said: "We may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the apostles or prophets against the Catholic faith, that the devil speaks through their mouths." (Vincent, you may remember, was the one who defined the Catholic faith as "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.")
This is the way the earliest Christian saints regularly spoke of those who spoke of Jesus in the wrong way - which is to say, spoke of a Jesus other than the one described in the Scriptures, inventing for their own (evil) purposes a Jesus other than the one who was born of the Virgin Mary, died on the Cross, and rose again on the third day. It was the real Jesus or nothing.
The Fathers knew, as we do not seem to, how attractive were the alternatives and what harm they would bring to their victims' lives. They knew that the heretics were playing a very clever con game on the unsuspecting, who might well lose all that they had. They knew that they had to step in forcefully, not least because no one who has been conned likes to admit it.
Is This Christ-like? Here the average American Christian starts squirming in his chair. Is this Christ-like? he will ask. Presumably Cerinthus and Marcion meant well. And even if they didn't, you don't convert someone by calling him the enemy of truth or the firstborn of Satan in public. Is this the way to talk to people for whom Jesus died?
In this case, I think, the early Christians had a much better idea of what is Christ-like than does the average modern Christian. Jesus was (and is) not "nice." He would not be a safe guest to invite to a suburban dinner party. He was not always affirming and inclusive, and He was unpredictably direct.
His love for mankind did not stop Him from speaking bluntly to the men He loved, and speaking in a way that sounds brutal to our ears, and probably did to theirs as well. Take the famous example of His talk with the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23: First, He called them "white-washed tombs." They were, He said, beautiful on the outside but inside full of rotting bodies and "all uncleanness." If He were speaking today, He might compare them to one of those old stone sewage treatment plants, built in a neo-Gothic style to look like a church or a castle. He would tell them, in public, "You may look like Chartres Cathedral on the outside, but on the inside you're full of excrement."
Second, He called them "serpents, [the] brood of vipers." In our terms, He was calling them "poisonous little vermin." In that culture, the term had the same emotional impact as calling someone a "Nazi" today. For one thing, calling them serpents tied them to the first recorded serpent, the one who tempted Eve in the Garden. He was saying that these exceedingly religious men were in fact doing the devil's work.
He said this to their faces, and in front of others. You can find in the Gospels several other examples of Jesus' speaking to hostile listeners in the same way. But - this is the crucial point - He was not speaking this way to insult them. He was speaking this way to get their attention and make them see the truth, so that they would change their lives and turn to Him. If they were insulted, as they usually seem to have been (and I would have been too), that only proves that they did not know who was speaking to them. Whatever God says to you, it is, by definition, not insulting.
The scribes and Pharisees were men He would die for in just a few months. But He would also tell them the truth about themselves, in language they could not ignore, and force them to a decision to repent and follow Him, or not. No one, I trust, would have told Jesus that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Speaking as the Lord So when the early Christians called a man like Marcion "the firstborn of Satan," they were in fact speaking charitably and speaking as our Lord might have spoken to him. To identify his master was an act of kindness to him, offered that he might see himself as he really is and repent. This was the only chance he had to escape his master and to avoid sharing his master's end in Hell.
When they called such a man "the firstborn of Satan," they were also being kind to those he might fool. Marcion was good at what he did, and to "dialogue" with him would only make the vulnerable take him more seriously. They had to be sure that the people listening understood what Marcion was and what he was doing.
In fighting over words the Fathers knew themselves to be fighting for human souls. They were forced to confront people who got the words wrong, who often knew exactly what they were doing and were very adept at deceit. By speaking the wrong words about Jesus, the heretics were in great danger of being among those who say, "Lord, Lord," but to whom the Lord says, "I never knew you. Depart from me" (Mt. 7:23). Jesus would not know them because they had refused to know Him.
To help both the heretic and the people he might fool, the Fathers needed to sound the alarm, and it needed to sound like an alarm. A few years ago someone invented an alarm clock that played ocean sounds instead of buzzing, and whoever bought the clock was late to work the next day.
The early Christians could not take the chance that their alarm would not wake up people who needed to wake up. In these matters, the house was on fire but many of the people slept as if drugged, and only the most blaring of alarms would drag them out of sleep.
It would not do to say, "Our brother Marcion has raised some very serious questions for us, and we are deeply grateful to him for doing so. We want to thank him for modeling a way of engaging these very complex problems that we are all struggling with, and for giving us some very creative answers. We have learned a great deal from him. However, after a lot of intense and fruitful discussion, we feel that some of his answers are not fully in accord with the Church's teaching, but we hope he will continue this very enriching dialogue."
By telling the truth about Marcion and telling people whose servant he was, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, and the others showed their love for those tempted to follow him. The picture of Jesus that Marcion had drawn looked enough like the real Jesus to fool some people, but it was not really a picture of Jesus at all. Marcion was leading people away from God into what St. Irenaeus had called "an abyss of madness and of blasphemy."
Think of what staid newspapers have said about companies that poisoned the water in a neighborhood and then let people live there without warning them. Irenaeus, and all the other early Christians, knew that spiritual poison was much deadlier, and that is why they spoke as they did.
Peaceable Living St. Paul did say to live peaceably with all men if you could. He also said rather often in his letters that you cannot live peaceably with people who get the words wrong and try to teach the wrong words to others (see Gal. 1:8-9, for example). "Peace" does not mean surrender, and it does not mean silence. If it had, Paul would have died at home in his bed. He would have been spared the trouble of writing all those letters to all those troublesome churches, and liberals from his day to this would like him a lot more.
The Fathers I have quoted wanted to live peaceably with all men. We should not think that attacking error was the thing they liked most to do. One suspects when reading them that they really didn't want to write books such as St. Irenaeus's Against Heresies - a long and careful treatment of the bewildering flock of Gnostic heresies - but knew they had to. They loved the Lord Jesus and loved to tell others about Him. That is what they wanted to do. Fighting those who told others the wrong things about Him is what they were forced to do.
The early Christians did not seem to have a place for what we would call "honest mistakes" or "legitimate differences of opinion" in teaching about Christ. They saw that those in error were really in danger because they were cutting themselves off from God. They would not try to jolly them along, or invite them to stay till they saw the light, if they ever did. No, they were rebuked and banished. The early Christians told them they were wrong, and they often told them just who it was that error served.
But that is not all they did. They would try to bring those who got it wrong to repentance, not only through warning but through kindness, mostly the kindness of praying for them.
Even when telling the people of Smyrna not even to meet with false teachers, whom he called "beasts in the shape of men," St. Ignatius of Antioch also told them "you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this."
"Let us likewise deal kindly, let us persuade our adversaries of that which is to their profit," said St. Ambrose of Milan, writing against the Arian heretics. "For we would not overthrow, but rather heal. We lay no ambush for them, but warn them as in duty bound. Kindliness often bends those whom neither force nor argument will avail to overcome." He did, however, a few paragraphs later say that "if our adversaries cannot be turned by kindness, let us summon them before the Judge," meaning the Lord, and he knew the Lord would convict them.
A Caution Although the Fathers knew how important it is to get the words exactly right, they also knew that the Church and her witness suffered whenever Christians fought. Speaking of the doctrinal battles of his day, St. Basil said that "now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutua
Your opinion is very much at odds with the early Christians. We are brother and sister in Christ, MarMema. I don't want to argue with you, but neither will I agree that all Christian polemics are bad.
Please read the article I posted above in mind of this.
In one-on-one situations of great proximity, I have only been able to soften the heart of an atheist with a kind act. Had I preached or been militant about my Christianity, I don't think I would have made any progress at all. I'm just saying it doesn't work. Don't you want them to have a chance at finding Christ?
"So long as we are sheep we have the victory; but if we are like wolves we are beaten, for then the help of the shepherd is withdrawn from us, for he feeds sheep not wolves. . . . This mystery [of the Eucharist] requires that we should be innocent not only of violence but of all enmity, however slight, for it is the mystery of peace."
St. John Chrysostom
With this movie the spotlight will be on Christians. It is a time to let the love of Christ show through us.
And what was the rest of what St. Basil said?
"Father Dan Suciu, pastor of St. Sophia's Greek Orthodox Church, said focusing on one day in Jesus' life, however important the day was, could miss the broader context of his life and ministry
But for a generation heavily influenced by media images, and for doubters, "The Passion" could be a very powerful instrument to shake them up and remind them that God's promise of redemption is no myth, as much of the modern world assumes.
"Crucifixion was so bad that horrendous words would be uttered by those on the crosses, and the soldiers were told to cut their tongues out," Suciu said.
"In that context, Jesus' words, 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,' had an indescribable impact. That's why the Roman centurion said, 'Truly, this is the son of God.' He was a pagan, and yet he was overcome by such peaceful words."
Sincerely, I thank you for what I know is meant as a kindness. I defend entirely your right to your beliefs and your right to teach them to others, and appreciate, though we disagree, your intentions toward me and others who disagree with you are benevolent.
Hank
Not true, friend.
MarMema, I certainly bow to your expertise in this, but am not sure which you mean is not true; do you mean the Orthodox do follow Augustine, or that they do not believe the majority of mankind will fail to be converted, or that failing to be converted results in eternal torment?
I eagerly await your clarification.
(Also, what are you doing on the sordid thread? Just kidding.)
Hank
I know what you think, however, the article does not say Christianity is the cause of suffering, but that psychology that accepts suffering (and "sacrifice of the good") as a virtue, such as that which dominates North Korea and all other totalitarian regimes.
Hank
It cost Jesus his life’s blood to enter Hades and save us, but it wasn’t a payment to anybody.
Yes. That is exactly the Biblical teaching, or at least very close. The death of Christ is never described in Scripture as a "payment", but always as, "wages" received, and the formula is always, he "bore" our sins (or the consequences of them) for us. The early American theologian and evangelist Finney described the atonement both literally, as a "covering" for sin (the meaning of the Hebrew word from which it is derived, cofer I believe) and metaphorically as the purchase of a universal amnesty for all those willing to throw down the arms of their rebellion against God (repentance) and to be reconciled to Him (obedience).
Thanks for being a reasonable influence in the midst of irrationality.
Hank
Quite possibly, but if you feel that way, your response seems more detailed than necessary; but I certainly do not object to anyone expressing their views, even if it is only to refute what they themselves believe is not worth refuting.
You might review the thread for the conversation between MarMema and me. At least MarMema understands the theological significance of the article which was obviously written so those who have eyes and do not see, and those that have ears and do not hear, should not understand the truth that was its object.
By the way, suffering does not "equal" evil, but suffering is always evil.
Hank
Hank
"It is the Church's spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God's splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light."
Thus the Orthodox church rejects a God who punishes, but sees that separation from God is pain enough for those who chose rejection, once they see Whom they have rejected.
Some Orthodox believe that in the end God will have such incredible mercy that even those who rejected him will have another chance. This idea winds throughout Russian and Greek literature, particularly in folktales - such as Grushenka and her onion, a classic example of Orthodox belief put into a tale (Dostoevsky).
You're welcome. The posted article seemed a bit more needy than most.
At least MarMema understands the theological significance of the article ...
No offense to your or MarMema if I don't consider a conversation between the two of you a reliable indicator of theological significance. I find MarMema's attempt to engage you regarding the article in question quite charitable on his part, even if misguided.
By the way, suffering does not "equal" evil, but suffering is always evil.
Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Yes that was a joke.
Seriously, your posted article is a bit less sophisticated than that isn't it? "What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?" isn't exactly calling for a nuanced view of evil. It's saying "evil - are yor for it, or agin' it?!!" And it rather overtly suggests Christians are either naively or goulishly in the "for it" category.
Silly stuff altogether. I don't know any serious minded agnostics or atheists who would bother with it, unless they assumed it would antogonize others less sophisticated than themselves. And that's more than a little contemptible.
Why are you so open minded to the opinions of nonbelievers yet so hard hearted to the message of unity that the pope has put forward to the Orthodox?
I submit that you have exchanged a sensation of "power and strength" for a sensation of pious superiority. Hardly a worthy exchange.
He [God] hates our sin so much that only bloodshed can atone for it.
Answers the qeustion:
Please explain how suffereing "pays" for anything, and why God is so eager to accept "pain" as a payment.
Now, you may be right, "That's basic Christian theology -- if you don't understand it, then you have no grasp of Christianity," even though I have studied "Christian theology," for over forty years," but, if the above is your answer to the question asked, you have no grasp of simple logic, because it does not answer anything at all.
I suggest you look at MarMema's excellent post here and the link provided. I assure you, MarMema is an excellent student of theology.
Hank
Atheists are simply lost. The pope was setting up a game, as has been shown by his recent Ukraine venture.
But I actually like your pope these days. I just don't want to bow to him.
Oh come now. Your credibility will decline even more quickly here if you persist in these kinds of statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.