Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
Meant to ping you for #15797
"Love loves to be told what it knows already....
It wants to be asked for what it longs to give."
~P.T. Forsyth
Why does that matter? A true believer should not worry about sickness or death. If we truly believe "Thy will be done" then what happens to us is God's just decision, and on His time.
From God's POV, it doesn't matter. But from mine it does. When I or a loved one, friend, whatever, get sick I absolutely pray for healing. I also pray for God's will on the matter, regardless. This is EXACTLY what Jesus did concerning the cup. How can I go wrong by imitating Jesus? This does not violate Reformed theology because God tells us that He WANTS us to bring our petitions to Him, even if He has other plans, as in the case of Jesus. Clearly, Jesus was not trying to change the Father's mind, Jesus knew that God's plan was God's plan regardless of Jesus' prayer, yet He prayed anyway. We Reformed emulate that.
... He knows what's in your heart. However, prayer is the right approach, because we must submit to God and never be proud and arrogant to think that we are His "buddies," that we somehow deserve rewards, or – as is often the case – that we are gods ourselves.
Not sure what your implication is, but I certainly agree with all of your words. :)
But do I detect a ray of free will in your statement? Or would you say that you don't let Him be in charge because He wants it so?
I would say that while I am a slave to righteousness now, I still have a certain amount of free will to sin under the remnant of my former nature. And, as a general principle, God certainly does not want me to be in control, however, it is "possible" that on specific occasions, He will leave me alone to sin in such a way that furthers His greater plan. One example of that would be letting me fall flat on my face to both learn from my mistakes, and remind me that I need to be dependent on Him. I still need the reminder thing. :)
Like I said, your theology does not seem to correspond to how you describe your faith, which seems very Apostolic to me.
That's probably because of the way I handle free will. I'm sure there are many Reformers with whom I actually do agree 99% with on theology who would say something like "there is no such thing as free will". When I know the person, I know exactly what he means by this, and I agree theologically. I just take a slightly different road in explanation to arrive at the same end.
When I say things that might be taken as Apostolic sounding, that might be due to my affection for many of the writings by Orthodox Fathers you and Kolo have showed me. While I do not pretend that the real underlying theology is "very close", I still appreciate the precision of the words chosen to express an idea (at least as respects me since it allows me to participate in the language used). So, maybe some of that has rubbed off. :)
God never laughs at you or anyone else for that matter. I hope you laugh at yourself not almost always, but always. Don't laugh at others.
The way I look at it is that God invented the sense of humor, so I figure He has one. Now, did you ever laugh at anything your (then) two-year-old did? Of course. At the same time you weren't laughing AT her to belittle her, it was just funny so you laughed. That's how I imagine it with God. That is, for things that are appropriately funny to God. I'm not talking about sin or anything.
The operant words are "according to His will." That depends on our intent, which is almost never pure.
I think that is often true, but I would not say always. To reuse a recent example, I can go to a job interview, love the company and earnestly pray for the job in all honesty and purity. I am seeking a Godly thing in wanting to provide for my family. However, God may have some other job in mind for me so I won't get this one. While I "lose" on the first prayer, I think it still could have been made with good intent.
FK: "Do not these and other passages tell us that if we have a pure heart we can have anything we want? These appear to encourage a fully mature Christian to ask for things."
Yes, but he doesn't need to. A fully mature Christian has everything he could possibly want. The saint is too busy unceasingly praying for others.
To use your own line of reasoning (we want God to listen to us) the saint is praying for something "HE" wants when he prays for others. If the other is a lost person, then that person does not want the object of the prayer, leaving only the saint to have his prayer answered. "Please Lord, I want you to touch this lost person". That is something only the saint wants, and God wants to hear that prayer. Now, you might say that this is different from praying for oneself. But as I noted above, Jesus prayed for Himself, so it must be OK for us to do likewise.
Really? So when a Jehovah Witness claims to be led by the "spirit" that Jesus is not God, he is actually being led to the same end as a "orthodox" Christian?
I gave you credit for understanding that by "people" I meant true Christians. OOPS! :) The Spirit does not lead non-believers, obviously, since He does not indwell them. I certainly hope that you do not recognize the JWs as Christians.
It appears that you consider doctrine and beliefs inconsequential to our salvation. One can believe whatever they want, as long as in the end, we believe in "God", whatever that might mean to the individual.
What? In terms of truth, what my beliefs are is inconsequential to salvation. Salvation, in truth, is accomplished "this" way, whatever the truth of "this" is. So, if I want salvation for myself, then my beliefs are absolutely critical to whether I will be saved. For example, if I believe and follow JW theology to the "T", then it is almost certain that I will not be saved.
We don't have any issues with the Orthodox concerning grace and free will. Recall that Kosta and Kolo were saying the same things that we were, despite our 1000 year separation.
WITHOUT intending to re-open any can of worms, I do have a specific memory of a conversation between you and Kosta about created vs. uncreated grace. I do remember there being disagreement, but it is possible that you reconciled the difference and I don't remember how that happened.
FK: "However, it is certainly true that the early Fathers had the most important things right."
Such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the veneration of Mary and the saints in the next life, the concept of grace and free will, the interplay of faith and love, etc....?
But NONE of those things you are talking about are believed by God's Church. They are only believed by Apostolic churches, within God's Church. Therefore, they cannot be the most important things.
You are making the common mistake of claiming that you have inside information to what the text can ONLY mean. Really, texts can have different meanings - even "clear" ones as I have written above.
I am fine that texts "can" have different meanings. I disagree with other Reformers on very minor things. By several of your comments you seem pretty set that I claim all knowledge when I've never said that.
When we have several meanings of one text side by side, which do we use? We OUGHT to use the one that has been passed down by the original teachers, don't you think?
Not necessarily. We OUGHT to use the one that best matches scripture. By this standard, when an interpretation fails elementary tests of logic and reason, then I do not agree with it. I have said many times before that I do not believe that older always equals better. The belief that the earth is flat is much older than what we think now.
And as to what the original teachers passed down, I think there are records of some of it, but not all of it. What I do know about all of the original teachers in early Christianity is that they were all fallible humans. The key is really whether Christ abdicated ruling power to the Roman Catholic Church or not. I contend that He did not, i.e. I say that Christ is still in charge here on earth. Everything else, along these lines, really comes down to this.
This is where I think Protestantism goes astray and doesn't even realize it. They judge the "text" by their own meaning without realizing that there are other meanings of the text that are viable, as well.
I like to think that I have admitted when I thought that Catholic interpretations were at least viable. IIRC, a couple of examples would be "binding and loosening", and infant baptism as a practice. The problem (for me) with your line is that when any admission is given by anyone, you are waiting to leap upon the confessor with your "THEREFORE YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RCC TEACHING SINCE IT IS NOW YOU PERSONALLY VS. THE CHURCH". I have seen this from others, so you are not the only one.
For example: I didn't say he stole the money.
Yes, that could be taken many different ways, so I would look to the global context for interpretation, i.e. in this case the rest of the Bible. This is as opposed to fallible men.
As to your two "choices", you establish a logical fallacy by giving us a faulty "either/or" situation. There are obviously other choices, otherwise, I couldn't type this and defend the Catholic point of view honestly.
OK, like what? In brief, my "choices" were that either Christianity is an unrevealed faith through scriptures because only a paltry few are gifted with true revelation, i.e. the Bible is relatively useless to the layman without the RC lens, OR, that the men you follow (the Magisterium since the founding of the RCC), while well meaning, were wrong on some or many theological points. Without simply shading one of the above, what is a legitimate third choice?
Until you learn to accept how God has revealed Himself to mankind, you are not going to have the greatest of relationship with Him.
One thing that is absolutely clear to me is that God does NOT reveal Himself to mankind through the Holy Scriptures under Roman Catholicism. He only reveals Himself to the Magisterium through the Holy Scriptures. If men want to know God, they have to go through the men of your Church. Of course, I find that to be very unscriptural, for it elevates men and lessens God. And, BTW, wholly without the RCC I know that I have a great relationship with God, because it is personal and based on the foundation of scripture. I know that probably sounds very wrong to you, but all I can tell you is that it is wonderful and very fulfilling.
If you truly have faith in God, you will accept how God has revealed Himself - THROUGH men. God doesn't reveal Himself directly to you WITHOUT the Church.
God used men to write down His word. That's as far as I can go. :) And, if by "Church" you mean God's Church, then I would agree with that part. God isn't going to lead me in opposition to His Church.
Romans 3 says there is no one righteous. Not one. Do you think that Paul meant that literally? Consider his source - the OT - to get a clue of what he meant. I have already told you, but you refuse to hear because it destroys the whole concept of "totally evil man".
In this specific reference I believe Paul was talking to and about the Jews and trying to show them that they were no more righteous than any gentile because the Jews had failed to live up to the law. This would not be one of my lead quotes to defend total depravity. Your "totally evil man" term does create an interesting mind-picture, but of course it is only your own invention and has nothing to do with the Reformed view of total depravity. I am disappointed that you have ignored all of my several explanations.
BTW, my statement concerning Rom. 3, above, does nothing to help your view that Rom. 3:23 was only about the Jews. The whole tenor of the writing takes a shift just before that verse. Paul is now showing that Jews and Gentiles are ALL in the same boat:
Rom 3:21-23 : 21 But now [See The Shift] a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe [Jew AND Gentile]. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ...
In context, this clearly takes it out of the "Jew-only" realm, which is the only thing that would have saved your position.
Satan, at one time, was an obedient angel of God but he rebelled. He is not allegory for anything. He is very real.
The tree and its beautiful fruit is the temptation, and Eve's "conversation" with the Serpent is her inner self rationalizing that the fruit is really good and meet to eat, convincing herself that there is no reason why she shouldn't have it...
Kosta the tree and his "fruit" is Satan. She didn't just have a conversation with him or her "inner self". She sinned. Satan, as described by God in Ezekiel 28 tells us how loved by God he was before his fall.
28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty
13.Thou has been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Yes, we will be tempted by things we shouldn't have all along. That's the nature of the physical world.
Do you believe temptation is all we fight against?
Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.
He is the enemy and he is much more than mere temptation.
P.T. Forsyth...true for humans, but not for God, imo.
But we don't disagree at all. I probably wasn't clear in what I wrote. I believe anyone that truly believes in Him will be saved.
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that while all of the elect are saved, not all of the saved are the elect."
Yes, that is what I mean - all of the elect are saved unless they commit the unpardonable sin. All others are saved as long as they continue to believe in the true Christ and not the fake. If they mistakenly worship Satan, believing he is Christ then they no longer "believe in Him" and are not saved.
Both of these events can't happen until Satan's tribulation. Matthew 24:21.For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (22) And except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
That is Satan's tribulation and it will be full of lies and deceit. Most men (flesh) will be taken by his deception and they will believe he is Christ.
But after more thought I don't think that's what you mean. I think instead what you mean is that one can be a true believer, but not be saved or of the elect.
No, a true believer is saved but that doesn't make him one of the elect.
As I alluded to above, it is absolutely incomprehensible to me that God would ever turn His back (ultimately) on one who really has put his faith in Christ. In my view, there is too much scripture against that idea.
I agree, He would never do that.
Are your views representative of a particular Christian faith (denomination)?
I'm a non-denominational Christian.
When we were discussing the elect I forgot to mention something. There are the elect and the very elect. What I term the "very elect" would be the 7,000 mentioned in Rom.11:4. They are the ones spoken of in Matthew 24:9 that will be delivered up for a testimony and allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them. Because they do this many others will be brought back to Christ.
Those others are the elect, the 144,000:
Rev.7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
What exactly did He do concerning the cup? He spoke the way He felt (in His human nature), but He immediately gave it all to Father's will. Obedience, FK, unquestionable obedience from the bottom of one's heart, is the true prayer: giving yourself completely to God, no matter what.
The way I look at it is that God invented the sense of humor
I don't remember reading that in any of the Scriptures (including Apocrypha). Maybe you have verses you can share?
While I "lose" on the first prayer, I think it still could have been made with good intent.
No, it wasn't because you wanted God to give you that job rather than saying "Whatever your will is, Lord, I accept." Back to the cup...
Aha, it's working! :)
To use your own line of reasoning (we want God to listen to us) the saint is praying for something "HE" wants when he prays for others. If the other is a lost person, then that person does not want the object of the prayer, leaving only the saint to have his prayer answered.
It's not wanting as in "I pray, you give" but asking. The intent is different. The saint is perfectly content that the final result, whether his prayers are fulfilled or not, is a merciful and just decision. He does not place a condition of expectation, but leaves everything to God, realizing that his own prayers may be unworthy.
If the other is a lost person, then that person does not want the object of the prayer, leaving only the saint to have his prayer answered.
You also don't know if the lost person does not want or doesn't know how to ask for God's help. Most people who are lost simply don't know how to pray. That doesn't mean they don't want to pray.
Judaism did not and does not consider the satan as a fallen angel, but a loyal servant of God. Please read up on Jewish understanding of this subject. Google Jewish Encyclopedia Satan. It's a good start. In short, Judaism does not allow for an angelic rebellion. When Genesis was written, satan was not a fallen angel. If he was in the Garden of Eden, it was in the service of God, as he was in Job, because obviously God permitted him to be there. And, God does allow temptation, although He does not tempt anyone.
But in Genesis we have no reference to a "Son of God" (angel), as we do in Job 2:1, unambiguously, including the satan.
The idea of a fallen angel is an apocalyptic latter-day development outside of mainstream Judaism. Eze 28, for all its deceptive similarity to satan, is not about Satan, but about a Phoenician king who thought himself a god.
Do you believe temptation is all we fight against?
Pretty much. Evil has no power unless we give in to temptation. When we give in to temptations, we sin. We make that decision. Not the devil.
FWIW, meant to ping you to 15809. Sorry.
Well, you do not address the distinction I made, but if taken in "my" light, I can agree with what you say here. However, I'm afraid I still do not understand where you are trying to go. Sure, if you take away "hope" (whatever it means) then faith withers. AND, ..... ? :) Is it that people won't go to church? If so, then I don't understand the profundity because WHO WOULD go to church who has no hope?
So, being faithful is very much tied to getting and what's-in-it-for-me, and a lot less about worshiping God just because He is great. Take out the promise and see how many people come to church.
Is this the answer to my above? If so, I could not disagree more. We are God's servants. We serve, He provides. He loves us, we love Him. Maybe our differing view points are directly related to the surety that my side has, and the state of flux that the Apostolics are constantly in. Now that I think of it, I CAN understand how Apostolics would go to church in order to get something. For you all, salvation is based on human performance, which includes going to church and taking the sacraments, etc. So, for an Apostolic, he had better go to church to further his resume for Heaven.
"If" I'm on the right track, then I suppose I had such a difficult time understanding you because this idea is so alien to me. When I go to church the last thing on my mind is earning points toward salvation. The salvation part is already done and over with. All that's left is the living out of the rest of my life. In theory, that should always be in service to God. Part of that is going to church, part of that is prayer, part of that is following the Commandments, etc. When God changed me, He made me WANT to do those things for the first time. So, it isn't "work" (most of the time :).
But you are not taking out the promise. To you faith is not "things hoped for," as the Bible says, but a bank check, sure to be cashed in.
OK, fine. But why would I want to take out the promise? What is the purpose?
No, if the world came to an understanding that there is no salvation no matter what. It would make your faith an oxymoron, since you are saved by faith alone! Take out salvation, then what is faith?! If we have no hope or knowledge of a benefit to us by believing that God will deliver us, prayer and worship become meaningless.
God created humans that seek self-interest. That's how the model is built. To some He gave part of that self-interest in the form of seeking Him for salvation. If we simply erase that part, then there would be no reason to seek God. As I said before, AND .... ?
Our relationship with God is made in expectation, indeed guarantee in your case, that God will rescue you or has rescued you and that you shall live. No one worships God for just being God, FK. People are not that altruistic, even if they can convince themselves otherwise.
Absolutely true. Good summary. :) That's why I'm saying "What are we talking about here"? :)
Theoretically, yes. However, God tells us to pray anyway. Why is that? It must be because there is more to prayer than simply asking for things. I am absolutely fine in accepting that without question. So, I pray.
This is like you telling me that you are married. I know that already! Communication should be meaningful and not stupid repetitions.
I do not tell my wife over and over again that we have two children. However, I do tell her over and over again that I love her. Both are very repetitious, but one still has meaning.
The most basic (dictionary) meaning of the word "to communicate" is to impart knowledge of; make known. My point is that we don't make anything known to God by praying; He already knows what we want or feel or intend.
Yours is certainly a valid definition, and I think mine is also. I think that part of the communication is the intent behind it. So, when I tell God that I love Him, AGAIN, I think it is worthy, even though He already knows it. When I share something menial with Him off the cuff in prayer, I know He already knows it, and He knows that I am sharing out of love. I am imitating the way I share with my earthly loved ones. I know He understands that, and I "hope" that He likes it.
I will certainly join you in this. AMEN!
I heartily agree with what Kosta said. You are always MORE than welcome to chime in at will. :)
I believe the prayer Jesus taught His disciples (the Our Father) is our most perfect platform of prayer. How could it fail to be? I add, are we not His disciples? (:
The Interceding One
We are not left alone in this interceding work of ours. our little prayers of intercession are backed up and reinforced by the eternal Intercessor. Paul assures us that it is "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us" (Rom. 8:34). As if to intensify the truth of this, the writer to the Hebrews declares Jesus an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek who "always lives to make intercession" (Heb. 7:25).
In the Upper Room discourse recorded in John's Gospel, Jesus made it unmistakably clear to his disciples that his going to the Father would catapult them into a new dimension of prayer. He explained to his mystified band: than he is in the Father and the Father is in him, that he is going to the Father in order to prepare a place for them, that they will be enabled to do greater works because he is going to the Father, that they will not be left orphaned but that the Spirit of Truth will come to guide them, that they are to abide in him as branches abide in the vine, that he will do anything they ask in his name, and so much more (John 13-17).
What is it about Jesus going to the Father that so radically changes the equation? Why would that make such a difference in their - and our - prayer experience? The new dimension is this: Jesus is entering his eternal work as Intercessor before the throne of God, and, as a result, we are enabled to pray for others with an entirely new authority.
What I am trying to say is that our ministry of intercession is made possible only because of Christ's continuing ministry of intercession. It is a wonderful truth to know that we are saved by faith alone, that there is nothing we can do to make ourselves acceptable to God. Likewise, we pray by faith alone - Jesus Christ our eternal Intercessor is responsible for our prayer life. "Unless he intercedes," writes Ambrose of Milan, "there is no intercourse with God either for us or for all saints."
By ourselves we have no entree to the court of heaven. It would be like ants speaking to humans. We need an interpreter, an intermediary, a go-between. This is what Jesus Christ does for us in his role as eternal Intercessor - "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus " (1 Tim. 2:5, RSV). He opens the door and grants us access into the heavenlies. Even more: he straightens out and cleanses our feeble, misguided intercessions and makes them acceptable before a holy God. Even more still: his prayers sustain our desires to pray, urging us on and giving us hope of being heard. The sight of Jesus in his heavenly intercession gives us strength to pray in his name.
~Richard Foster, Prayer, pp.192-193.
Sometimes it is, yet not as they
Conceive it. Rather, I
Seek in myself the things I hoped to say,
But lo!, my wells are dry.
Then, seeing me empty, you forsake
The listener’s role and through
My dumb lips breathe and into utterance wake
The thoughts I never knew.
And thus you neither need reply
Nor can; thus, while we seem
Two talkers, thou art One forever, and I
No dreamer, but thy dream.
~C.S. Lewis
“True, whole prayer is nothing but love.”
~St. Augustine
“Prayer is the inner bath of love into which the soul plunges itself.”
~St. John Vianney
Just a thought:
Perhaps when we share with earthly loved ones we are 'imitating' the way God shares with us.
We are made in His image and likeness, amen.
Indeed, loving God is of necessity "tied to getting what's in it for me," because it is true that "we love [Him] because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). It does not negate "worshiping God just because He is great," for the supreme act of His greatness is in His sacrificial love for us; we know He is great only because He has revealed all His greatness to us in Jesus Christ the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world (ref. John 1, Rev. 5). Apart from Christ (the Gift) there is not even a connection to God, much less an intimate fellowship, only our fallen rejection of our Creator and Ruler. Without our first "getting" no "worship" would even be possible. I, like Forest, found your argument contradictory in this regard, kosta.
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.