'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."

Their revelation was not as full as ours is, but it was "enough" to correctly believe in the one true God

Their idea of God is nothing like ours. We can all say there is one God, no matter what our idea of Him, but only through Christ do we believe in one true God. It's not God that is faulty but human idea of God that is. Thus, the Muslims idea of Allah is not what we know of God through Christ; otherwise we would have to say that Muslims believe in one true God.

By the same token, the Hindus believe in one God (contrary to popular opinion). In fact, Hinduism is the oldest written religion in the world, predating Moses. Brahman is described as

"unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this universe."
"This Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Absolute Reality called Brahman is said to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in the human language. It can be at best described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. Brahman is regarded as the source and essence of the material universe. It is pure being."

by the Hindus.

The plain fact is the Jewish idea of God of Abraham is ontologically different from the Christian God. Otherwise, we would all be Jews. We can speculate whether the OT righteous would have recognized Christ as true God, but we can't prove it or disprove it. therefore we cannot with any certainty say that they were true believers.

Therefore, we can reasonably ask what the purpose was for the judgment

That is a very good obersvation, because the issue of judgment is somewhat dubious.

The NT says we are to be judged according to our words/deeds

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned -- Mat 12:39

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live -- Luke 10:26-28
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation -- John 5:29

But then...it says it's according to what we believe

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned -- Mark 16:16

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God -- John 3:3

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him -- John 3;18, 36

Then it also says that those hwo believe are not judged...

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life -- John 5:24

There are more examples of course, each coming wiht its own formula...mumbo-jumbo.

James 2:13 reminds us that

For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy

It seems to me that faith is overridden by deeds and that only those who have true faith never sin and need no judgment, and such as how many? Zero! Yet you are telling me that your sins have already been forgiven, so your words and deeds don't count, and the Bible says otherwise.

I don't know if it is a slam dunk, but there is this: Rev 20:12-13

I don't think so, with all due respect.

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

We are never worthy; we are simply forgiven. The bible says everyone will be judged according to our deeds and words. There is plenty in each man's repertoire to get him condmened, I am sure. Our only hope is God's mercy and nothing else. But it doesn't mean we cna follow Luther's idiotic pecca fortiter recipe; rather we should be as good as one can be, not as bad as one wants to be. :)

Written word is never the same as spoken word, lacking intonations and visual and autority nuances. It can never fully transmit the effect of the spoken word.

As I think you also said, the spoken word can either help or hinder the correct interpretation that God intended. I agree with that.

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...

That's right, the word must be read correctly which is why we look to the rest of scripture for clues on how to interpret.

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

I disagree on two counts. First, that requires a very strained reading of the following:

Acts 17:11-12 : 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

For you to be correct, Paul only dealt with priests, and never preached to the people, the way Jesus had. Verse 12 says "many of the Jews", referring to the Bereans. It doesn't say "many of the priests". To presume that the Apostles only preached to priests is illogical. Jesus preached to the masses the same way the Apostles did. The exclusivity and secrecy of the hierarchy had not yet begun. At that time, the open message of God was for everyone to hear firsthand, not just for the elite who would later refine it.

Second, during the time of Jesus, copies of scrolls WERE available for individual purchase by the laity, although they weren't cheap. We can assume they were shared among the people, and that one could go to the Synagogue and read there if he wanted. Here is an excerpt from Reading and Writing In the Time of Jesus. by Alan Millard, Rankin Professor of Hebrew & Ancient Semitic Languages, The University of Liverpool:

"Today the Bible is widely available in a single volume, easy to use and often small enough to slip into a pocket. We do not realize what an advantage we have in comparison with people of the first century. The normal form of the book then was the scroll; a book with pages, the codex, was used at that time mainly for note taking. It developed to become the normal book form over the next two or three centuries. This means that a Jew who owned a Bible in Jesus’s time would have had an armful of scrolls. Since every copy was made by hand, books were not cheap, although we should not exaggerate their cost; a copy of a lengthy book like Isaiah might take a professional scribe three days or so to make, so the price would be his wages and the cost of the materials. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that many individual Jews would own a complete set of the Scriptures, but according to Luke 4, a small town like Nazareth had a copy of Isaiah in its synagogue, so undoubtedly it held rolls of the Torah and, it is likely, the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

Luke reports that in Nazareth Jesus read from Isaiah and his frequent quotations from Scripture show his familiarity with it. ......"

How do you suppose Jesus got His hands on the scriptures as a boy? Magic? No, they WERE available to the public in the Synagogue. It was the same with the Berean people. The priests were not the only ones.

The author then goes on to cite the DSS as evidence that many common people could read and were encouraged to read the scriptures. The sect that likely produced the scrolls had a defined copying room which produced much more than could have been of use for the priests alone.

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?

In some areas their corruption is as wide spread as it is in any Protestant or Baptist church. In other areas it is much worse. In still others, it may be better. I don't see how the Apostolic priesthood could possibly be comparable to any other profession, because God does NOT zap all members of any other profession with supernatural powers, and supernatural responsibility. One would imagine that God would sort of look after these folks to make sure they are doing His work.

OTOH, perhaps I am applying Reformed standards to Apostolic priests, which would be my error. If God really does just leave them alone, and whatever happens, happens, then I shouldn't have any greater expectations of them. It is just inconceivable to me that Apostolic succession is real if God really does that. It would relieve the claimers of Apostolic succession of any showing of evidence whatsoever that they are really chosen by God, other than their good word for it. By their fruits they shall be known, etc.

Ultimately of course it is a matter of trust. The hierarchy points to a couple of verses, and says that they mean that only the hierarchy can determine what ALL verses mean, in case anyone disagrees with them. They need not demonstrate or prove anything against other scripture, they simply define THAT other scripture.

If those couple of verses are as they say, then whatever they say goes. That is, in the Latin Church. In yours, I know that the people have to accept it for it be in effect. But even in your Church, I would imagine there is a very high level of presumed trust, such that unless something crazy was proposed, that it would be accepted by the laity. So, when we boil it all down, those couple of verses really seem to be the root of most of the disagreement.

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

No, the UN inspectors did. Various other sources were screaming but no one was paying attention because we were beating war drums too loud. Everyone was itching for a "splendid little war."

His own CIA said it was a "slam dunk"

Those CIA officials who knew better were ignored or their reports "cooked." Colin Powell presented computer-generated cartoons of "evidence" in what was probably the most humiliating moment for the US in the Security Council, because we had no other proof.

We went to war, in part, because crooks like Chalaby and the rest of the ambitious Iraqi emigres were feeding us lies and we believed them because we wanted to believe then and not the evidence.

They were used, as it appears, by the offices of VP Chaney and DefSec Rumsfeldand and his neocon cons, all of whom have either explicitly or implicitly expressed loyalty to Israel, and I just can't believe that the only person who didn't know was none other then the Chief Executive. If he was, then he is clueless (which many believe but I think it's his act because one does not get to be where he is by being clueless, or naive).

And PM Blair was in it too. The smell of cheap oil was irresistible.

British intelligence, Israel, and other allied countries all said the same thing

That's like three Stooges doing the dance together. They are all in it together.

Third, the imminent danger argument was NEVER used by Bush

But he didn't stop those claims either. The British, with Blair's blessing, launched the 48-hour nuclear weapons attack scare. Dick Chaney actually said on more than one occasion that, contrary to all evidence known then, Saddam did have WMDs. You don't think the Israelis were going to contradict him? After all, they had the most to gain form an invasion of Iraq.

One little thing everyone ignored was Saddam's threat to use Yugoslav partisan style tactics -- allowing the enemy to enter the country and then launch guerrilla-style raids until the enemy had bled and lost the will to fight.

That was ignored too. Who remembers WWII Yugoslav partisan tactics?! In other words, clues were there about non-existent WMDs and the dangers of occupation, but the stupidity that was present all along was never lacking. We put our trust in Chalaby (a convicted embezzler), and other Iraqi emigre crooks because they were singing what we wanted them to sing, even though they presented 'evidence" that contradicted all the facts on the ground.

There was no imminent danger, no WMDs, no Saddam-Al-Qaida connection, no need for preemptive strike. Iraq was completely contained economically and militarily between the two imposed no-fly zones and combed inside and out bu UN inspectors.

But, as I said, I have no desire to discuss our stupid politics, or "just war" nonsense. So, I will cease on this topic and let die-hards debate this on political forums.

No, it wasn't for nothing. You have taught me that well Kosta. Their martyrdom did give Christianity strength but we shouldn't all be martyrs. Fighting and/or standing our ground will also give it strength and respect. If we were all martyrs there would be no Christianity. Then who would teach the others?

Why does it matter if you firmly believe you get to go to heaven? The early Christians thought -- the sooner the better. But we have come to "love the world" and are attached to things and people more than to God, aren't we? Let God decide when it's our time, and we should worry to follow in His steps.

Although we profess that God's bliss is infinitely better than anything we can possibly have, we would rather extend our stay here a little longer...a lot longer...what kind of a faith is that? It's our faith, on our terms, and on our time. Why, I don't think it's faith at all! It seems to me, not even the most publicly pious are eager to meet God.

The NT tells us

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him -- Phil 1:29
For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps -- 1 Pet 2:21

But we have come to "love the world" and are attached to things and people more than to God, aren't we? Let God decide when it's our time, and we should worry to follow in His steps.

No, I don't think so. When I first read the following scripture I thought, but how could you do that? "If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, year, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26)

Now I know how that can be done. First, I have been told and believe that the word "hate" should be "love less". (He would not want us to hate, especially our family when He tells us to honor our parents). We must love our family less than Him. As difficult as that is I have reached that point. His love can save them and I do love Him more. I trust them to Him.

Feeling that way I can honestly tell you that I am ready and wish His time was NOW. I want the evil to stop. I do not love the world more but there are times that I ask for His protection in this life so I can allow Him to touch someone through me.

You quoted: For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him -- Phil 1:29

I have a very blessed life and am strong and healthy physically (and I hope mentally :) I have an easy, happy life with family I love. In that respect I don't "suffer for him", but when I see what is happening in the world, when I see people's head being cut off, disgusting perverts harming innocent children, our innocent children being bombarded by filth on television, radio, schools, drugs, pornography, hate, starvation, stupidity, cruelty - then I suffer and can't wait for it to be over and Him to be in control.

If so, then the lost don't need any further action by God to come to Him

Yes! :)

It is all up to them

Yes! :)

Therefore, during our lives, nobody "needs" God to get into Heaven

No!

His work is done and He's out of the picture now in terms of salvation

That is the Protestant view. :(

You are saying that during our lives, after Christ has died on the cross, the whole issue of salvation is COMPLETELY up to us.

No.

The Bible certainly does not teach that

Agree.

When God created satan, he was not evil, but became evil later on his own.

Against God's will?

That is his independence

Reformed denial of free will is what makes any independence impossible. Even if this "independence" is based on God's permission it still depends on His will. Now, that which depends on another factor is not independent.

Just as our freedom is limited, and dependent on God's will, our evil then must be dependent on God willingness to permit it and cannot exist without it. So, God is involved in our evil as well, and therefore evil does not exist independently.

God respects our decisions, by permission. He wills that we make free decisions and He will honor them. He left it up to Adam and eve to make a decisions and they did, and he honored them. But He also warned them of the consequences. He did that in order to make sure they were not His "predestined" robots, but that they come to Him freely as He comes to us.

If evil is not independent of God, then it is a part of God. You've never said anything like that before

Evil is not part of God, it is part of our freedom to reject God. That freedom is given to us by God, but the decision to accept God or reject Him is ours, not His.

Jesus in the desert is NT. You think that is myth?

No, because in His human nature he was subject to temptation.

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

And the Lord's Prayer says "do not leads us into temptation..." If God doesn't tempt, then why ask Him not to leads us into temptation? The Book of Job shows that the satan is not an independent tempter, but works with God's permission. The idea that the devil is somehow an "independent," rival, to God comes from pagan Zotroastrianism which infiltrated Jewish beliefs during the Babylonian captivity and introduced divine "dualism."

In Zoroastrianism, the good god and the evil good battle it out at the end, and the good god wins. None of the apocalyptic theology existed in Judaism prior to Babylonian captivity, which is what makes Revelation a highly suspect book. Christ never taught there was going to be a 'final battle" or that we are "at war," but simply his judgment.

The idea of the final battle and God's armor, and what not is post-Christian teaching that crept into the church.

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

I have no idea what he means. If he means the faith in God and trust in Him, then why not just call it that? No armor will stop us from being tempted because our human nature is temptable (because of our bodies). Our resistance to temptation is inner and not outer. It is refusal to follow the "instincts." It is a struggle within, not without.

Kosta: But we have come to "love the world" and are attached to things and people more than to God, aren't we? Let God decide when it's our time, and we should worry to follow in His steps.

Ping-Pong: No, I don't think so

The Bible seems to disagree with you.

For [in the last days] men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good — 2 Tim 3:2-3

When I first read the following scripture I thought, but how could you do that? "If any man come to Me, and hate not his father...he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26) ... I have been told and believe that the word "hate" should be "love less"

Nice rationalization, as is usually found in commentaries, but the Greek word used (miseo) unequivocally means hate. It is the same word used in Malachi 1:3 (Septuagint), and corresponds to the Hebrew word used in the same verse in the Palestinian Old Testament (sane), "And I hated Esau."

There is no inference whatsoever that miseo can mean "love less," that Malachi 3:1 could read "And I loved Esau less."

The OT simple tells us to honor our fathers and mothers, so that "days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives" — Exod 20:12

I want the evil to stop

We all do.

I do not love the world more but there are times that I ask for His protection in this life so I can allow Him to touch someone through me

Absolutely.

when I see what is happening in the world, when I see people's head being cut off, disgusting perverts harming innocent children, our innocent children being bombarded by filth on television, radio, schools, drugs, pornography, hate, starvation, stupidity, cruelty - then I suffer and can't wait for it to be over and Him to be in control

Our thoughts are the same, but He is always in control. He gave us what was needed. But what have we done with it? Rather than cry and moan, why not ask ourselves what examples are we to the world? Does anyone recognize Christ in us as a nation? Or in us as individuals? Is all the evil in the world in many ways not our failure?

Have Christian nations been free of wars, malice, murder, crime, arrogance, love of money...etc, etc. etc.? I don't think so. We are to blame for our lip-service to God, even more, than those who don't believe, because we—who cover ourselves with His righteousness—are unrighteous in the way we live, love and desire. Now, there are a few true saints among us...very few.

Yet you are telling me that your sins have already been forgiven, so your words and deeds don't count, and the Bible says otherwise.

First of all, I like the comparison you made in setting verses up side by side. Thanks for the scripture. On this, it's not that my words and deeds don't count, they do count. The difference is that we believe that God guarantees that there WILL be words and deeds, which count. IOW, if right after my salvation, I went right back to a life of sin for the rest of my life, then I am not saved. Therefore, words and deeds count. But, God promises that He will not let that happen for His elect. They count, but we don't deserve any credit for them.

We are never worthy; we are simply forgiven.

Different words for the same idea I think.

But it doesn't mean we can follow Luther's idiotic pecca fortiter recipe; rather we should be as good as one can be, not as bad as one wants to be. :)

Well, I suppose if he actually meant what you think he did, then it WOULD be idiotic. :) But of course in context, he meant nothing of the sort. I know we've been over this a million times, so ... We should be as good as we can, that is true. It just doesn't merit us salvation by "scoring" high enough on the "deeds list" at Judgment.

The Bible seems to disagree with you....For [in the last days] men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good — 2 Tim 3:2-3

There is no disagreement. He tells us that is what the end of days will be like and it is. Why does that disagree with me?

Nice rationalization,

It may be, I don't know but I do know he told us to honor our parents so how can He want us to hate them? It makes no sense. There has to be a mistranslation. You cannot "hate" what you love.

He gave us what was needed. But what have we done with it? Rather than cry and moan, why not ask ourselves what examples are we to the world? Does anyone recognize Christ in us as a nation? Or in us as individuals? Is all the evil in the world in many ways not our failure?

He did give us laws to take evil away but our liberal friends watered it down so 20 years after a murder he gets off and murders again. I do cry but I don't moan. I believe in action Kosta, I believe in the sword. If someone doesn't recognize Christ in us then they just see the suface that the liberal media likes to show the world. The evil in the world is NOT our failure but the workings of those against God, our enemies. Our failure would be in allowing them to continue.

Have Christian nations been free of wars, malice, murder, crime, arrogance, love of money...etc, etc. etc.?

No, our very freedom allows evil to work right beside us but again, this is not heaven. It is a time for God to see who will follow Him.

Now, there are a few true saints among us...very few.

Very few is right. I've met some wonderful people but I don't know if even they would qualify. Perhaps He doesn't expect anyone, except Himself, to be perfect and will accept us, warts and all.

FK: "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."

No, the UN inspectors did. ...

You mean the "Ignorance is Blix" inspectors? Do you really think Saddam was honestly cooperating with them? The UN inspections were just as much of a joke as the UN is itself.

Those CIA officials who knew better were ignored or their reports "cooked."

What was Bush supposed to do, call Tenet a liar (and virtually ALL of our allied foreign intelligence services) and take the word of underling officials?

We went to war, in part, because crooks like Chalaby and the rest of the ambitious Iraqi emigres were feeding us lies and we believed them because we wanted to believe then and not the evidence.

I'm sure Chalaby was part of it, and he turned out to be a bad guy. But I hardly think he was a linchpin. Some of the evidence we did have was an uncompleted inspection by a UN team motivated to NOT find anything (Blix is an admitted pacifist), an obviously uncooperative Iraqi government, the fact that Saddam had already used WMDs against the Kurds, Saddam's own prideful statements that he still had WMDs and was looking to develop more, Saddam's OPEN support for terrorism ($25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers), and Saddam's repeated failure to comply with the terms of the original surrender agreement. He was still shooting at our planes.

And all of this was public knowledge. I'm not sure of the evidence you are speaking of that should have been put ahead of what they DID have. Besides, most of the Dems voted to go to war along with Bush anyway. If Dems ever vote to go to war with a Republican president, then they must have been absolutely convinced too.

[Chalaby, et al.] were used, as it appears, by the offices of VP Chaney and DefSec Rumsfeld and and his neocon cons, all of whom have either explicitly or implicitly expressed loyalty to Israel, and I just can't believe that the only person who didn't know was none other then the Chief Executive. If he was, then he is clueless (which many believe but I think it's his act because one does not get to be where he is by being clueless, or naive).

Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing? Israel has always been a friend of the U.S. While pound for pound Israel is better able to defend herself than almost any other country in the world, if we DID pull our support then there would be a mass war in the Middle East. Would that be a good thing for us?

Bush did not need to know if Cheney and Rumsfeld supported Israel, everyone knew, and it was Bush's own open policy. No secrets there. The United States supports and (now) protects Israel. We have done so for 60 years under administrations on both sides. Why should this not have been a factor to consider?

And PM Blair was in it too. The smell of cheap oil was irresistible.

Ah, the old "war for oil" scam. You know, I've never heard an intelligent answer from someone who holds that view on this question: If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up? To my knowledge we haven't gotten a drop of cheap oil for our efforts. Is that just more Bush incompetence? :)

That's like three Stooges doing the dance together. They are all in it together.

The conspiracy is revealed! :)

FK: "Third, the imminent danger argument was NEVER used by Bush."

But he didn't stop those claims either.

What was Bush supposed to do? Whenever he was asked about it, he set the record straight and his own words are part of the record that anyone can look up.

Dick Chaney actually said on more than one occasion that, contrary to all evidence known then, Saddam did have WMDs. You don't think the Israelis were going to contradict him? After all, they had the most to gain form an invasion of Iraq.

How do you know what "all evidence known then" was? You should have faxed all this evidence to liberals in the Congress since they apparently didn't know it either. It is an incontestable FACT that Saddam had already used WMDs. Were we supposed to assume that a mad tyrant would voluntarily dispose of all weapons, and then claim the opposite to the world??? Come on, Kosta. :) Much more reasonable is that the weapons he did have are today sitting somewhere in Syria.

And BTW, while Israel certainly stood to gain, the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people.

The UN inspections were just as much of a joke as the UN is itself.

The joke was telling the truth. The truth was known, but now one wanted to see it. The Democrats were afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic," or worse, treasonous by such human replicants made by Dick Chaney's Haliburton as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.

What was Bush supposed to do, call Tenet a liar (and virtually ALL of our allied foreign intelligence services) and take the word of underling officials?

Again, the facts were known. Anyone who followed more than one-sided network press knew that there were no WMDs and that there was no imminent danger from anyone in that part of the world attacking the US. Those who did were in Afghanistan.

I'm sure Chalaby was part of it, and he turned out to be a bad guy

Chalaby was known to be a bad guys before we event there. But one has to follow more critical and informed press than Fox News. There was an outstanding warrant for Chalaby by Jordan for embezzling money. However, the Rumsfeld's neocon Israeli loyalists (and I mean by that Israel first) group would hear none of that. Chalaby was their man. It's that old FDR's famous "they may be thugs, but they are our thugs..."

Saddam had already used WMDs against the Kurds

So did the Iranians. During the war with Iran (when we supported Saddam even though we knew he gassed Kurds), this was not uncommon.

Saddam's OPEN support for terrorism ($25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers

Saudi Arabia and all Islamic states do the same; Saudi Arabia actually leading. I don't see us planning to topple Saudi regime any time soon for the slake of democracy, even though their treatment of women is no better than that of the Taliban, and the fact that there is not a single church in Saudi Arabia, and that Jews cannot enter the country.

Nothing destroys one's credibility than transparent hypocrisy.

He was still shooting at our planes

We were still flying over his country.

Dems ever vote to go to war with a Republican president, then they must have been absolutely convinced too

Look, the Congress supported the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution concocted by LBJ and his gang because we wanted an excuse to attack North Vietnam. And the Congress coalesced across party lines and not wishing to be "unpatriotic" by distrusting the government (can anything be more patriotic and America then actually distrusting the government?!) approved of it, to their shame. The same thing happened with Iraq. Our media helped along as well -- some much so that syndicated columnists with some brain called them "presstitutes."

Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing?

No, as long as that loyalty is not in our national interest or if it is not doing anything positive for our national interests. we cannot equate our national interests with that of another country.

Israel is better able to defend herself than almost any other country in the world, if we DID pull our support then there would be a mass war in the Middle East

There was no imminent threat of a Middle East war; only entefada started by Ariel Sharon.

Why should this not have been a factor to consider?

Israel wanted to be rid of Saddam, because Israel was somewhat within the range of his hypothetical missiles, but had no resources to invade Iraq. Someone else had to do it for them. Us. The same thing applies to Syria and Iran. Had we not gotten bogged down in Iraq like a bunch of amateurs, we would be invading Iran and Syria I am sure (and still may). The plan was to make Middle East safe for Israel by all accounts. With our blood, money and resources. Pretty clever. And, from an Israeli point of view, perfectly legitimate.

If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up?

Because oil prices are determined by speculation. In some parts of this world, that's a dirty word. We have actually destablizied the region, making it easier for Iran to become a more influential power, as they are closely allied with the Iraqi Shiia population and imams. We have also angered the Saudis who can's stand the Shiites and who don't want a dominant Shiia state on their side of the Strait of Hormutz. Besides, the oil pipes are being blown up daily and the oil production is not even close to what it was before the war. getting the oil from point a to point b is more dangerous and costs more...then there is just plain old Greed. The companies are actually making bigger profits than before the war and we are paying more than twice for gas, all thanks to GW (who's bank account is doing much better along with Chaney's and Rice's because of oil prices).

The conspiracy is revealed!

There is no conspiracy. Only blindness of the populus too busy with heir toys ( blackberrys and text messaging...)

How do you know what "all evidence known then" was? You should have faxed all this evidence to liberals in the Congress since they apparently didn't know it either

The evidence was there and it did not look good for the Bush administration. The presentation of Collin Powell was a joke. It used "intercepted" taped phone conversations of alleged "Iraqi official's" and computer-generated cartoons of two "chemical" trucks. Those who followed more than prefab news reports knew that there was no evidence of WMDs or any imminent threat and that this whole thing was being cooked as an excuse to go to war.

I was reading as much as I could find, and I never believed there were any such weapons to be found. If I didn't there was plenty of evidence for others to do the same. But as always in life, some of us would rather stick our heads in the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine.

the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people

That is really "obvious." They used to have normal schools, and electricity and water, and now they don't know if they will come home from going to the market...try telling them that.

[FK paraphrasing the Apostolic view, imo:] "His work is done and He's out of the picture now in terms of salvation."

That is the Protestant view. :(

Where does that come from? God is actively involved with the necessary perseverance of His elect every single day. And it is HIM doing the work, not us.

FK: "When God created satan, he was not evil, but became evil later on his own."

Against God's will?

The term "God's will" can be used in two ways. One is that if God wills something, He causes it. Another is that He allows it as part of His plan. In this case it was the latter. God, as satan's creator, could have prevented him from falling, but He didn't. Since God is no respecter of men (or angels) then it must have been part of His plan. God wanted our experience on this earth to be exactly as it is, and has been, and will be.

Reformed denial of free will is what makes any independence impossible. Even if this "independence" is based on God's permission it still depends on His will. Now, that which depends on another factor is not independent.

Imagine that my 17 y.o. son comes to me with big plans to do a thing. In my experience I know that it would be a huge mistake and tell him so. He remains adamant, but I retain the power to say "no". However, my own plan is to let him do it anyway, on the theory that it would be better for him to learn a cheap lesson now, rather than make the same mistake later and have it be much more expensive. He goes and does the thing and fails horribly. Now, did he do the thing independently, or do you pin responsibility on me just because I could have stopped it? If the latter, then you are forced to also believe that either God is not in control of His creation, or that every bad thing that happens in the world is at least partly God's fault.

So, God is involved in our evil as well, and therefore evil does not exist independently.

God is only involved if you place a duty on Him to prevent. I don't.

God respects our decisions, by permission. He wills that we make free decisions and He will honor them.

OK, if God is a respecter of men, then God is not in control of His creation. I assume that you would say that it was by God's choice to release control to men. This again makes God a mere scribe in terms of His plan. He just writes down what men do, and then declares that as His plan.

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

And the Lord's Prayer says "do not leads us into temptation..." If God doesn't tempt, then why ask Him not to lead us into temptation?

I believe that line is in the spirit of:

1 Cor 10:13 : 13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

God does not tempt us, but He does allow us to be tempted. In any event, in the big picture it also serves as a reminder, just like much of the rest of the prayer. To wit: "thy Kingdom come" - does anyone think His Kingdom won't come?, "thy will be done" - does anyone think His will won't be done?, "forgive us our trespasses" - does any believer think He won't forgive?, "lead us not into temptation" - does any believer think He WILL lead us into temptation?

The idea that the devil is somehow an "independent," rival, to God comes from pagan Zotroastrianism which infiltrated Jewish beliefs during the Babylonian captivity and introduced divine "dualism."

satan doesn't merit the term "rival". He is a bug next to God, but he is directly opposed to God.

Christ never taught there was going to be a 'final battle" or that we are "at war," but simply his judgment.

Well, Jesus clearly speaks of the Apocalypse, and you don't believe the parts of the Bible that speak of the battle between God and satan. So, I guess that's all we can say. :)

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

I have no idea what he means. If he means the faith in God and trust in Him, then why not just call it that? ...

He gave us that metaphor to say just that. The armor is actually God, not our own abilities to buck up and resist. We put on objects that are not of us, just as we trust in God instead of ourselves. This also goes right with my earlier 1 Cor. quote. God provides a way out, etc. Here it is.

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.