'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

If He did, it's not in Bible. But you will find a pageful of references about hearing and believing.

Hearing is the same as reading, as long as it is not corrupted by a third party intermediary. :) I believe the Apostles taught orally exactly what they wrote.

You really have a thing about clergy.

I am trying to figure a reason for them to teach what is against scripture on a wide range of issues. I know that clergy are fallible and that power corrupts. At least the Latin clergy also claims absolute power (one of the reasons for the Great Schism). Men who have power almost always seek more power. That widespread corruption has been rampant in the Latin Church throughout history is inarguable. So, this is one explanation that would fit. I recognize their humanity and what could happen to anyone who was taught that he had so much more power than he actually had.

Most people have no clue what they are reading when they read the Bible.

I don't agree. While complex doctrines need teachers, fundamentals and elementary concepts are able to be grasped by the average person, at least OUR elementary concepts. :)

The OT righteous WERE true believers and looked forward to the coming of Jesus. They were part of God's invisible Church, which has always been the community of all believers, living, dead, or not yet born

I have two problems with this: (a) their revelation was not full and (b) you told me that God doesn't have a special place for Ghandi because he was not a Christian (and a lawyer at that!).

We could just as easily argue then that present-day pious Jews are part of the "invisible" Church. Christ makes it very plain that he is establishing His Church, and there is no doubt that this church did not exist in the "invisible" form.

Christ was building upon God's already existing Church

That's not what He says in the scriptures.

All sin is sin in terms of that it equals death (Rom. 6:23). However, we are also told implicitly that some sins are worse than others, further implying different "levels of hell"

We will all be judged according to our deeds, and the level of discomfort or bliss may be reflected how distant or close we are from God, but James seems to suggest no such thing. He is stating very clearly that one transgression makes you guilty, an either-or condition.

The OT is full of penalties for sin that vary all over the place

The NT says you break one and you have broken all. I am a Christian and I go with the NT.

Taking drugs oneself is a certain kind of sin, but pushing them on children I think is much worse

In human justice, absolutely. Ours is not to judge but to be judged.

Just as extra awards are given to us in Heaven for our actions, so also are extra curses given to those going to hell for their actions

Where does it say that? First of all, the OT has no such concept. Second, it appears only three times in the NT. And, third, you can lose your rewards for something as little as vanity!

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven" -- Mat 6:1

or being rich (cf Luke 6:22-24). I wouldn't pretend to know how God thinks and suggest to know His ways.

It is my side that says we are not worthy based on our deeds. Yours is the one that says it is a component

I think your memory is failing, FK. In the past this was clearly explained to you and your statement is clearly wrong (again). We do not believe we "merit" salvation. We do believe we will be judged based on our deeds (not rewarded, judged, pardoned or convicted and sentenced).

God gives blessings like sunlight to everyone, but He does not give everyone the blessing of the ability to lead a church, for example

I agree. Some are called to be apostles, some prophets, others teachers, and so on. Christ called on those with whom he would established the leadership of His Church, and gave them the keys to bind and loosen, and they bound and loosened by giving those keys to their successors in an unbroken succession, and we know that what they bind and loosen will be bound and loosened in heaven because God promised so.

Sure, but first God would have to enable all to make renunciation possible

He did by dying on the Cross.

I believe satan is an independent source of evil

And where does his "existence" come from? God? God did not create evil. Evil is rejection of God (death because God is life), whether it is from a fallen angel or from man. In either case, evil gets its "life" from the one who rejects God.

He will also generate independent evil during the end times

Nothing is "independent" from God. God is sovereign. The "independence" of evil means keeping one's head in the sand and pretending sun doesn't shine. It's a pretense, not reality. It's deception.

However, it is clear from scripture that satan independently tempts. We have the garden, Jesus in the desert, and the command to put on the "armor of God" (spiritual warfare)

None of those situations, like the Book of Job, is "independent" of God. You know I consider them mythology with a true and inerrant message, but even as a myth they leave no doubt that nothing is ever independent of God. Those things happened because God willed them.

The idea that we are "at war" and that satan is somehow capable of fighting God is Zoroastrianism (based ion divine dualism), which crept into some aspects of Judaism during Babylonian captivity and through it into Christianity's apocalyptic beginnings .

The coinage "armor of God" is solely Paulean, and he was without any doubt an apocalyptic Jew.

What we preach absolutely matters, since Jesus warned us against false preachers

What good is preaching if you don't live as you preach we should? You cold be preaching Gospel as accurately as ever, and living a life of abomination. IOW, it is not the message that we preach that is necessarily false; but what we practice. But the reverse cannot be true. One cannot live a life of a saint and preach false Gospel. So, practice what you preach; back up your words of faith with deeds. Which is what St. James tells us when he says that faith without works is dead.

If men truly have the power, by themselves, to simply decide against evil, then what need have we of God, let's say after baptism?

We do have the power to "just say NO!" by the grace of the Holy Spirit and not all on our own. Those who are baptized are equipped to resist because of the faith. We do not believe that we can make it all on our own just because we no longer wish to sin. We need God's loving corrections to keep us straight and narrow and to give us strength when we seem to waiver in faith.

All we need to do after baptism is decide not to sin. Is that right?

In prayer and supplication to God, correct. The "Jesus Prayer" is our daily spiritual staple...with some people unceasing, because we Orthodox say that those who pray are not sinning. So, the more we pray the less we sin...by choice. :)

I have been told, by MULTIPLE Latin posters, that under normal circumstances, a person who dies without confessing his sins to a priest is doomed to hell

First, you don't confess to the priest, you confess to God with the priest (who is a Christian sinner you can trust) as your witness. Christ reminds us that loving those who love you is no special feat, and thus confessing your sins to God who already knows them is no special feat either. Confessing your sins to God in front of a witness shows resoluteness, contrition, courage and desire to repent.

That's why early Christians used to confess publicly before the whole congregation, as their witnesses. This practice changed when catechumens and visitors began to attend.

Second, we believe, based on scriptural teaching, that a person who dies without repentance does go to hell (it's not enough to just admit the sins, but to repent of them as well in order to re-establish communion with God which was broken through sin).

I guess you have an issue with the "ritual" of absolution pronounced by the priests. That is part of the "keys" they were given. God promised that what they bind and loosen on earth will be bound and loosened in heaven.

If God gives you a priest to confess to, and repent of your sins in your dying moments, then refusing this gift, and opportunity, God gives you is a sin in itself. Rejecting God's loving offer, separating oneself from Him on our last breath, and dying separated from God by one's own choice, pride and arrogance, is a certain ticket to hell and eternal death.

[Rom Cath. Catechism] 1445 "The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God..." Do you agree with this? I would think that anyone who is not in communion with God is doomed. This is direct evidence that priests DO claim power to save and unsaved, and that the sacraments are critical to salvation, at least for the Latins

But this is not something arbitrary as you think. A priest has no choice, but to pray for your absolution. A sacrament is a priest's prayer for the Holy Spirit to come and affect the change (of heart, of our souls, to purify, etc.); it's not an ax in the hands of a priest.

As I said, part of confession is saying that you repent of all your sins in your heart. In fact, the priest will ask you specifically "do you repent of all your sins?" Without those words, the priest cannot ask the Holy Spirit for your absolution, nor can the priest be assured that his prayer for your absolution will be licit.

Now, you can lie to the priest and God knows it, so even though the priest pronounces your absolution in good faith it will be null and void because your insincerity is an sin in itself. So, just as St. James tells us, breaking one law breaks them all.

Even if your refuse to repent, the priest cannot in good faith give you absolution, but he is still obligated to pray for you and beseech God for mercy on your unrepentant soul. Doing otherwise would be bringing condemnation on himself by the sin of judgment.

Hypothetically, if a priest refuses to grant absolution in good faith, because he is "mean," or whatever, God knows that, and his misuse of the "keys" will be to his condemnation, not yours. So, the whole thing is fail-proof.

But all your complaints about this, and calling it "rituals" comes from your denial of the apostolic "keys" -- which, from the Protestant point of view -- is an essential denial, for obvious reasons. But, the scriptures tell us that priests were always specially chosen by God, and history shows that apostolic succession is a verifiable fact.

The Reformed position is that indeed, Adam and Eve did choose to disobey. And, that since God knew that would happen when He allowed the serpent in, that this was a part of God's plan

Then we can't speak of Adam and Eve's "choice." If the Bible were a movie scripted by God, then the "decisions" of the actors would never be taken as truly their decisions, but as decisions made by the author. In other words, they were destined to sin, because God willed it.

God, however, gave man limited freedom to make his own decisions and suffer his own consequences for them. Furthermore, to love truly is to love freely, and to love freely one must be free and not bound by prescripted outcome.

This doesn't take away from God's sovereignty, ominoptence or omniscience, in any way, because human freedom, as well as His blessings, are granted freely by God.

Further, we would say that our choice to follow Him is caused and energized by the work of the Holy Spirit in changing the heart of the new believer

It is aided, or facilitated by the Holy Spirit to those who have been baptized, who in pure desire wish to follow God, but the journey is still ours and we bear responsibility for our conduct, confession and repentance to the last moment in co-operation with God.

All the credit goes to God

It does, because He is the one who made all this possible. He is the maker of everything and all that we have, and that is.

Finally, we would say that since God is fully sovereign and omniscient, and predestines all of His elect from before creation, that He would already know who will come to Him within time

Correct.

Ping-Pong: He didn't "have" Adam and Eve fall.

FK: That's right, He did not "zap" them with sin to cause their choice. He did set the conditions, knowing the result.

In the Reformed view, He mostly certainly did "have" them fall. Not falling was never an option in that theology. And, no God didn't "zap" Adam and Eve with sin to cause their choice, it was their choice that caused their sin.

The Reformed must admit that Adam and Eve's "choice" was inevitable because it was part of God's plan. So, as far as our Calivinist-adhering protestant/Baptist friends are concerned, God did very much "have" them fall.

Ping-Pong: The time that Kosta speaks of, a time of peace, no death, no disease, no hunger, is prepared for us too. We must be found worthy to be part of it

FK: Amen! I'm looking forward to it

We are never "worthy" of God's mercy. Believing that we "must be found worthy" is a sure way of not being pardoned. Lay off the OT; it lacks much of the humility Christ preached.

Hearing is the same as reading, as long as it is not corrupted by a third party intermediary

Writeen word is never the same as spoken word, lacking intonations and visual and autority nuances. It can enver fully transmit the effect of the spoken word. Likewise, the spoken word may be overheard and without being able to check it again, it may lead to a false conclusion. The best way is for the written word to be read correctly, which is why the Gospel readings in the church are done only by priest, as they are trained to read correctly, and comment on them as perconcensus of the Church.

At no time in the Bible was left up tom the untrained and unschooled to read the scrolls.

That widespread corruption has been rampant in the Latin Church throughout history is inarguable. So, this is one explanation that would fit. I recognize their humanity and what could happen to anyone who was taught that he had so much more power than he actually had

And how is this different from others? The difference is that priests have the "keys." How widespread is their corruption, FK? and how does it compare to other professions that are bound by the laws of ethics?

FK: "The OT righteous WERE true believers and looked forward to the coming of Jesus. They were part of God's invisible Church, which has always been the community of all believers, living, dead, or not yet born."

I have two problems with this: (a) their revelation was not full and (b) you told me that God doesn't have a special place for Ghandi because he was not a Christian (and a lawyer at that!).

Their revelation was not as full as ours is, but it was "enough" to correctly believe in the one true God. If it was not, then no one from the OT is in Heaven. They didn't get a free pass. The way to Heaven for them was the same as it is for us, grace through faith. ...... Ghandi did not have faith like the OT righteous did, and did not believe in the one true God.

We could just as easily argue then that present-day pious Jews are part of the "invisible" Church.

They deny Christ just like Ghandi did. Therefore, they're out.

[James] is stating very clearly that one transgression makes you guilty, an either-or condition.

James is correct. He simply makes no comment one way of the other about what I am saying. IOW, one sin shuts us out of Heaven. After that, among all the disqualifying sins, some are worse than others. Think of it as the counterpart to the comparative hierarchy of righteousness we are told about. We know that the righteous acts of martyrs are "higher", we have the two greatest Commandments, we are told that in certain circumstances treating an enemy with kindness is harder, and presumably "more" righteous, than treating a friend the same, etc.

FK: "Just as extra awards are given to us in Heaven for our actions, so also are extra curses given to those going to hell for their actions."

Where does it say that?

I don't know if it is a slam dunk, but there is this:

Rev 20:12-13 : 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.

Maybe Ping can help me with this, but it seems to me that everyone going into this judgment was already doomed. Therefore, we can reasonably ask what the purpose was for the judgment. One answer would be to discern different punishments in hell, over and above just being there. If both are in hell, it would seem very odd to me if Ghandi and Hitler are going through the same experience. :)

And, third, you can lose your rewards for something as little as vanity!

Your references, (Mat 6:1, Luke 6:22-24, and I'm sure there are others of the same kind), apply to the extra rewards we receive, at a separate judgment, not to salvation itself.

We do not believe we "merit" salvation. We do believe we will be judged based on our deeds (not rewarded, judged, pardoned or convicted and sentenced).

I don't understand your distinction. If you believe that you will go to Heaven or hell based partly on your deeds, then what I said is correct. "Worthy", in this case, means worthy of Heaven.

FK: "To the first point, what lies do you think that Bush told to get us into Iraq?"

At the risk of turning this into a political forum (which I have no desire to do whatsoever), let's start with WMDs and the fairytale that somehow Al Qaida and Saddam had this close working relationship and that Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S. You can comment if you will, but I will leave it at these two beginning facts.

Since when do I not comment! :) Suffice it to say that one can say Bush was wrong about WMD's but he did not lie. If he did know there were none, then he was the only one in the civilized world that did. His own CIA said it was a "slam dunk". British intelligence, Israel, and other allied countries all said the same thing. Second, Bush never said then, and doesn't say now that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I don't recall anyone saying that Al Qaida was organized and in Iraq at the time. There was a report that Iraqi intelligence had met with Al Qaida, and it was clear that they had similar goals in hurting America and Israel. They would have been natural partners.

Third, the imminent danger argument was NEVER used by Bush. It was used by Democrats wishing to twist his words. In President Bush's 2003 State of the Union, his exact words were: "Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger.". He never said "imminent". He DID say that the nature of the war was preemptive, and we all assess the wisdom of that now.

I am as frustrated with the mistakes made in this war as anyone else, but I don't think it was brought as a result of lies by Bush. He made a judgment that Iraq was on a path to inevitably BECOME an imminent danger, so he decided to act before that happened.

FK: "Sure, but first God would have to enable all to make renunciation possible."

He did by dying on the Cross.

If so, then the lost don't need any further action by God to come to Him. It is all up to them. Therefore, during our lives, nobody "needs" God to get into Heaven, His work is done and He's out of the picture now in terms of salvation. You are saying that during our lives, after Christ has died on the cross, the whole issue of salvation is COMPLETELY up to us. The Bible certainly does not teach that.

FK: "I believe satan is an independent source of evil."

I agree. When God created satan, he was not evil, but became evil later on his own. That is his independence.

Nothing is "independent" from God. God is sovereign. The "independence" of evil means keeping one's head in the sand and pretending sun doesn't shine. It's a pretense, not reality. It's deception.

I don't follow. If evil is not independent of God, then it is a part of God. You've never said anything like that before. :)

However, it is clear from scripture that satan independently tempts. We have the garden, Jesus in the desert, and the command to put on the "armor of God" (spiritual warfare)

... You know I consider them mythology with a true and inerrant message, but even as a myth they leave no doubt that nothing is ever independent of God. Those things happened because God willed them.

Jesus in the desert is NT. You think that is myth? The NT confirms it at least twice later on:

Heb 2:18 : 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Heb 4:15 : 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.

James 1:13 tells us that God does not tempt, so that only leaves satan as an independent tempter.

satan is certainly no match for God, but I think Revelation says pretty simply that there IS going to be a battle, and Christ will win.

The coinage "armor of God" is solely Paulean, and he was without any doubt an apocalyptic Jew.

What are you implying? Is it that Paul was wrong and "armor of God" is not how God wants us to think about it?

What good is preaching if you don't live as you preach we should? You could be preaching Gospel as accurately as ever, and living a life of abomination. IOW, it is not the message that we preach that is necessarily false; but what we practice.

Certainly, in a one-on-one situation, it damages the witness. However, I don't really think Jesus was focusing on those who preach correct doctrine, but are hypocrites when He warns of false teachers. From afar, many would get the correct message and never know the person was a hypocrite. I don't think that serves anti-Christ's purpose nearly as well as preaching a false doctrine, IN ADDITION TO being a hypocrite. That's what I would be looking for.

But the reverse cannot be true. One cannot live a life of a saint and preach false Gospel.

But isn't that exactly what you think Ghandi did? Ghandi's "gospel" denied Christ.

The "Jesus Prayer" is our daily spiritual staple...with some people unceasing, because we Orthodox say that those who pray are not sinning. So, the more we pray the less we sin...by choice. :)

Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. :)

I can tell you what I believe the scriptures tell us. There are two judgments. The first, at the beginning of the millennium, is to decide on which side of the gulf you go. If you are "of the first resurrection" you reign with Christ during the millennium. If you are considered one of the "dead" it means you are spiritually dead and your soul is at risk of not living eternally. Those go to the other side and they still have a "mortal" soul. So...I don't think they are "doomed" yet but if they don't make the judgment at the end of the millennium they will be. There they will be judged on their works as it would require no faith to believe in a God that can be seen.

Those will be taught, without the influence of Satan, during the millennium. Remember that at the beginning of the millennium "every knee shall bow", because everyone will KNOW that God is very real, that God is God, not Allah or a Buddah or a stick, etc. but GOD.

Then you have the Ghandi vs. Hitler problem. Are there different levels on that side, as in Paradise Lost? I don't know. I don't believe that side will be filled with torment, at least as we think of it, but rather, the torment of knowing who God is and that He is real but to be separated from Him (as in Lazarus and the rich man). To those that are good but have been misled that would be torture. To the truly evil ones - who knows if they would even care.

They {Jews} deny Christ just like Ghandi did. Therefore, they're out.

At the time of the end, before the 2nd Advent, 144,000 of the tribes of the children of Israel will be sealed (Rev.7:4), with the Word of God. Taking part in that is the destiny of God's elect. Many will accept Christ.

I guess you have an issue with the "ritual" of absolution pronounced by the priests. That is part of the "keys" they were given. God promised that what they bind and loosen on earth will be bound and loosened in heaven.

Yes, that is exactly my issue. One is taught not to rely on scriptures such as:

1 John 1:9-10 - 1 John 2:1 : 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

Note no mention of a priest's absolution. Only God has the power to forgive sin. (Matt. 9:1-8)

P.S. - I hope that Mary did not make God out to be a liar by claiming to have never sinned. :)

If God gives you a priest to confess to, and repent of your sins in your dying moments, then refusing this gift, and opportunity, God gives you is a sin in itself.

You led by telling me that we do not confess to priests. :) If correct, then I would agree that all confessions should be to God. The Bible does say that we should confess our sins to "one another", however, that is not to the exclusion of God. If I sin against a man I should confess to both him AND God. Therefore, the question is on whether there is a requirement to confess through a middleman. Obviously, the Bible says nothing of the sort. If someday I lay dying in a car accident I would take my prayer directly to God. I would not confess to a well-meaning stranger who came by and offered to hear my confession in order to be absolved by HIM, instead of God. Besides, I know that all of my sins have ALREADY been forgiven. :)

Rejecting God's loving offer, separating oneself from Him on our last breath, and dying separated from God by one's own choice, pride and arrogance, is a certain ticket to hell and eternal death.

The separation comes from sticking a priest in between the person and his direct communion with God. You sound like it is IMPROPER to confess directly to God without going through a priest, if one was available.

In addition, your view bolsters my earlier argument that Apostolics believe that priests are indispensable to salvation/theosis. Who else is going to absolve? As you said, without absolution one is doomed. You go on to at least imply that the priest only PRAYS for absolution, but if a priest makes the prayer, then it happens. If the priest refuses, then the person is doomed. That gives all the power to the priest to determine salvation.

A priest has no choice, but to pray for your absolution.

But as you go on to say, he is under no duty to absolve, leaving the person damned for that time. The one scenario you don't cover is what happens when the person honestly IS repentant, but the priest fails to recognize it, IN GOOD FAITH. I could easily see this happening in the case of a substance abuser. Since you believe the power resides in the priest, I assume the person is still damned after this happens. It appears that in order to receive absolution, the job of the sinner is not to convince God, but to convince a priest! :)

If God is vengeful, then He is vindictive. The Christian God is the opposite of that: forgiving, merciful....Hence, any suggestion that God exacts vengeance or revenge is the opposite of a merciful and forgiving God revealed in Jesus Christ, who came to save the unrighteous.

He is merciful and forgiving but there are big IF's attached. He is longsuffering but not forever-suffering. If He forgave everything, everytime, of everybody, no matter if they were repentant or not what would be the point? Why send the Son?

The punishment, (vengeance) is inflicted by our own disobedience and rejection of His blessings. We condemn ourselves.

Yes, I agree that we condemn ourselves but that disobedience carries a penalty. He is the judge of that penalty.

"His revenge is spiritual"....Not according to the OT or the Book of Revelation.

It is both but the most serious is the spiritual.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

"That doesn't mean He can't send an earthquake, tsunami, tornado or hurricane if He wants to"......God is Life. There is no room for death in that which is Life. God creates. He doesn't destroy. God offers, freely, and without any bias, for that is what love is. He doesn't take. He needs nothing, so why would He take?

But there is death. There is death of the body and can be death of a soul. He creates and He can destroy. His love, freely offered, must be accepted. Why would He want someone that doesn't love Him? The ministry of Jesus was for us to love one another. Wouldn't part of that be to love Him?

Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornado, etc. kill and are a result of a fallen world, as the fall of Adam and Eve not only changed human nature (became mortal) but corrupted the entire Creation.

It was the fall of Satan that corrupted the creation. I agree that earthquakes, etc. are part of that but God has a hand in them too. They are the "beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:8)

How could you love a tyrant who creates and destroys, who wants 'respect,' who wants to be admired, worshipped, glorified, who is vain and selfish, and moody? Unfortunately, that is the God of the West. being 'saved' to the western ears means being saved from God. That is so pathetic and a distortion of the faith He proclaimed.

That is a very distorted view of belief. Of course He wants our respect. How could you not admire and worship Him. He is the creator. The words vain and selfish shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with His name. Moody - I think He may be. Kosta, we are made in His image and we have emotions. So does He.

I couldn't agree more, :) as long as we understand that 'stopping' evil is not accomplished by doing evil.

Killing someone in certain cases is not evil.

"The vengeance for the choices I made and did not repent of belong to God".....Actually they don't. They belong to satan. Because by being unrepentant, you serve him as your master.

Yes, you would be serving him but only God holds my soul in His hand.

Unfortunately, that is the God of the West. being 'saved' to the western ears means being saved from God.

No Kosta, it means being saved by God to be with Him.

The prayer is called "Bless my Enemies, O Lord."

That was a beautiful prayer but where he said:
Bless my enemies, O Lord, Even I bless them and do not curse them.

Instead, I would say:
Bless my enemies, O Lord, Open their eyes so they can see the error of their ways and if they do not please give me the strength to stop their evil whether it be with word or sword.

FK: "The Reformed position is that indeed, Adam and Eve did choose to disobey. And, that since God knew that would happen when He allowed the serpent in, that this was a part of God's plan."

Then we can't speak of Adam and Eve's "choice." If the Bible were a movie scripted by God, then the "decisions" of the actors would never be taken as truly their decisions, but as decisions made by the author. In other words, they were destined to sin, because God willed it.

That's why many Reformers sort of cut to the chase, and would agree with the basic point you are making. And I agree with what they are saying. However, I nuance it a little bit by saying that the choice is real from the person's POV. If God is truly omnipotent and in full control, then He had to will the sin in the Garden, although He did not force it. He allowed the conditions with omniscience. If the sin was not part of God's plan, then He would have stuck up a "No Serpents Allowed" sign. :)

Furthermore, to love truly is to love freely, and to love freely one must be free and not bound by prescripted outcome.

This is where my nuance comes in. :) Our entire experience is loving freely. We do not experience something akin to an arranged marriage. That would not be free, and your statement WOULD apply to that. But for us, regardless of the truth of what God is doing, the reality IS that we are free to choose. It is real to us, so it counts the same.

This doesn't take away from God's sovereignty, omnipotence or omniscience, in any way, because human freedom, as well as His blessings, are granted freely by God.

Well, I suppose omnipotent God can delegate as He sees fit. It just shows that He doesn't care as much as we say He cares because we say that God doesn't delegate. With every delegation to man, God throws more and more into the realm of luck and chance. The totality of the Bible tells ME that it is not God's style to leave things to luck and chance. Instead of that, God DOES care and takes care of the details Himself. I don't see God's Divine Plan as being packed with variables. I do not see God's POV being however it works out, it works out.

FK: "All the credit goes to God."

It does, because He is the one who made all this possible. He is the maker of everything and all that we have, and that is.

But in the paragraph just before you told me that God was only an "aid" or a "facilitator". That must leave some credit to men for being smart enough to make the right choice.

The first sentence is right. For the second, "have" can be interpreted to mean "cause". Since God did not "cause" it to happen, I use other words to describe what you said in the first sentence.

We are never "worthy" of God's mercy. Believing that we "must be found worthy" is a sure way of not being pardoned. Lay off the OT; it lacks much of the humility Christ preached.

Saying that "we must be found worthy" does not mean that we have anything to do with it. God singlehandedly MAKES us worthy by His work on the cross. Being justified in Christ means all of our sins (past, present, and future) are no longer credited to our account. That is how we are found to be worthy.

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.