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/
Yes, there is a difference, and the difference is that theophany is Logos' manifestation without humanity. Was Melchizedek, not human?
An example of theophany is mentioned in Isa 9:6 (Septuagint)
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger1 of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him
1Greek : αγγελοσ (aggelos), angel
Kosta: That is the Protestant view. :(
FK: 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
That's my point: lay back and enjoy the ride. Easy. Comfy. Let God do all the work...we can play and do whatever, sin all you want, all our sins are already forgiven...like a bunch of spoiled brats.
Why does God need to do "maintenance" on His elect, FK? Did He not predestine everything, or does He have to micromanage too, so the "poor" babies can persevere (even though the little premadonnas will persevere regardless because they have already been "saved")?
Since God is no respecter of men (or angels) then it must have been part of His plan
Where does it say "of angles?" Angels are obligatory God's servants; they are not free.
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
That's not comparable. There was nothing "less expensive" having Christ suffer for all of us over something that could have been prevented. Why did Adam and Eve have to "learn" their lesson? Why not just makes them "smart" enough? Is this why mankind has to endure evil of its own making?
Now, did he do the thing independently, or do you pin responsibility on me just because I could have stopped it?
On you, because not only could you have stopped it, but you also foreknew what would happen, and you created conditions that made it inevitable for him to fail -- and die. If God does everything, as you mention above, all "credit" goes to God!
God is only involved if you place a duty on Him to prevent. I don't
No one can impose anything on God. God only offers good. You don't have to take it.
OK, if God is a respecter of men
If the Bible means anything to you, then He is, because the Bible says he is on more than on occasion (but I see why you would not want to "see" those verses).
I assume that you would say that it was by God's choice to release control to men.
He gave us limited freedom, and dominion over all animals on earth. That's not releasing His sovereignty. He merely designated our "playground," and defined limits. Within those limits we are free to accept His blessings or to reject them. That's all.
"lead us not into temptation" - does any believer think He WILL lead us into temptation?
Why mention it then?
satan doesn't merit the term "rival". He is a bug next to God, but he is directly opposed to God
So, if he is a "bug" why is there so much evil int he world? Seems like this may be a lot bigger bug then you think.
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
How can a "bug" be involved in a battle with God. It's like a queen ant blocking your way during a stroll!
It merely states that our love of the world is the manifestation of evil that is in us.
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.
We seem to have no problem hating our enemies that we "love," even killing them
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
Our liberal friends are no angles, for sure. But last time I checked our conservative friends don't walk on water either. If it was only our liberal friends, that would be easy; trouble is bilateral! :)
I believe in action Kosta, I believe in the sword
Ah, yes, the loving sword. Live by the sword, love by the sword.
If someone doesn't recognize Christ in us then they just see the surface that the liberal media likes to show the world
I know, I think I saw a halo last time I checked Rush Limbaugh's picture.
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
So, all that evil is really "good" for us then? Why have a sword then? If we got rid of the evil God wouldn't know who would follow Him! LOL!
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
You mean there is no critical wart mass that will get us banned? So, just how imperfect is acceptable?
What is this truth that you keep talking about? Who knew all these facts when you say "the facts were known", and why should anyone have listened to them at THAT time? So far, all I have is an incomplete inspection and the say so of CIA underlings.
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.
LOL! If the libs in Congress voted against their best judgment to put the lives of our troops in danger because they were worried about what Hannity and Coulter would say, then God save our nation if any of them is elected President. :) I guess that makes Kucinich the strongest leader in the lib field because he voted "no". Again, God save our nation. BTW, I didn't know that Hannity and Coulter were products of Haliburton. If Haliburton was smart they would make more of them. :)
FK: "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.
The underlying point was that Saddam DID have WMDs, and the preposterous idea that Bush was supposed to have just assumed that Saddam voluntarily disarmed, while proclaiming the opposite to the world, and while the best intelligence in the world was telling him that Saddam still did have weapons. ANYONE making the assumptions and conclusions you say Bush should have made would NEVER have the courage to protect our nation when it is attacked again. There will always be fringe sources that will speak on behalf of the innocence of our enemies.
Had Bush listened to you and ignored the rest of the free world, and his own CIA, and history, and then if Saddam had developed a bomb (which he openly claimed he was doing) or assisted in the deployment of another enemy nation's bomb over a major American city, then you all would have said "OOOOOPS", and potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans would be dead. A President CANNOT afford to fall back on "OOOOOPS".
Saudi Arabia and all Islamic states do the same; Saudi Arabia actually leading.
I agree with you about Saudi. They are not our friends, imo. I know there is a special relationship between them and GHWB, so it is possible that they are being very helpful behind the scenes, but I have no earthly idea if that is actually so. For now, in my mind they are part of the problem.
FK: "He was still shooting at our planes."
We were still flying over his country.
Saddam invaded Kuwait first. We drove him out and agreed not to finish the job then IF, ....., IF Saddam agreed to certain conditions which he DID agree to. The no-fly zones were part of that agreement. He violated the agreement. In part, that choice on his part is what subjected him to further action. That was definitely a big part of the Security Council's 15-0 vote.
FK: "Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing?"
No, as long as that loyalty is not [against] 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.
I agree. I don't know of any credible argument that says that we should turn our back on Israel and not support them, from the POV of our national interests. A more stable Middle East is far better for us than a Middle East in a major war. If Israel's neighbors believed she is vulnerable, they would attack in a second. I think the ONLY reason they don't is that they know they would have to deal with the U.S. While everyone knows that Israel has nukes, I don't think the Islamists would really care. They would attack anyway.
There was no imminent threat of a Middle East war; ...
I didn't say anyone claimed that. I said that if we withdraw our umbrella from over Israel, there would be a major war almost immediately. That is against our national interest.
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.
Sure, it was a good deal for them, but we didn't do this FOR them. We did it for our national interest, which includes Israel.
[Continued on next post....]
The plan was to make Middle East safe for Israel by all accounts. With our blood, money and resources. Pretty clever.
Close. The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley. Of course our friend Israel benefits greatly if all goes well. With a U.S. foothold in the middle of the action we would have a much greater ability to affect the spread of terrorism in the region, all to our national interest.
FK: "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. ...
I know about the futures market, etc. And I know that crude oil is fungible. But so does Bush!!! :) Therefore, doesn't your correct answer shoot the "war for oil" theory right out of the water? :) It makes absolutely zero sense to say that Bush went to war for oil, when it is clear that there is no gain to be had there, unless we were just going to steal it or something. Looking at today's gas prices, it looks like Bush hasn't stolen very much yet.
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 Cheney's and Rice's because of oil prices).
So, your economic analysis is that when it comes to higher gas prices: "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!". While that is a popular view among the Paul Krugman's of the world, it doesn't match the facts. Actually, the reason for higher gas prices is not mostly due to a shortage in production, it is due to a shortage in refining capacity. The companies are not making huge profits at the pump, in fact the franchise gas station owners are getting killed with the high prices. No, the companies are making a mint at the refining level.
Why is that? Enter Al Gore-types and other militant environmentalists. 30 years ago, the United States had good capacity to refine crude oil to satisfy the needs of the American people. Do you know how many new refineries have been built in this country in the last 30 years? ZERO! Thanks to all liberals. And since those same liberals filibuster attempts to drill for new oil, to build new refineries, and to build more nuclear power plants, the demand has gone through the roof, while our refining capacity (and domestic supply) is stunted. I'm surprised it took this long to catch up to us.
BTW, did you know why Iran is actually a net IMPORTER of fuel? It's because they don't have enough refineries either. They are actually rationing gas in Iran. Can you imagine that? ...... So, thanks to the leftists, the oil companies have mini-monopolies on the refining level and can charge what they want. They are semi-clean because the liberals won't let them build new plants or drill for new oil, or go get the shale oil that we also have an abundance of. No one cried for the oil companies when they were losing their shirts, so I don't blame them for making a buck now while the getting is good.
The evidence was there and it did not look good for the Bush administration. ... 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.
As I said earlier, what is this evidence? I follow what the anti-war Dems are saying today and I don't hear anything credible. Since they only get out of bed in the morning to politically stab Bush in the chest, I would think that if they had such evidence that their buddies in the MSM would headline it for weeks. But I haven't seen anything.
I was reading as much as I could find, and I never believed there were any such weapons to be found.
OK, then what do you think Saddam did with the WMD program that he actually implemented before? Did he secretly dismantle it while lying to the world that it not only existed, but was growing?
FK: "... 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.
I see. Normal schools? Uh-huh. Well, I suppose the first I would tell would be those lying in mass graves, and the victims of the state sponsored rape rooms, and Saddam's torture chambers, and the political prisoners, and all their families, etc. We've certainly made some serious mistakes in Iraq, but if we don't quit, and they don't quit, the lives of the Iraqis and countless future generations will be immeasurably better.
I understand what you mean by "love of the world" in reference to evil but there is much of this creation that we can love that is of God. Is it wrong to love that?
We seem to have no problem hating our enemies that we "love," even killing them
We are to "love", if possible. It is not possible to love an enemy that wants to tape dynamite to their 3 year old and blow a bus full of people up. It isn't possible to love a man that hits an 85 year old woman to steal her purse, etc., etc., etc.......
Do you really think that Jesus or any of the apostles would have loved them by allowing them to continue their deeds? Of course not. He didn't tell them to carry swords for nothing. (Luke 22:36)
But last time I checked our conservative friends don't walk on water either
True, but they still have their noses above water.
Ah, yes, the loving sword. Live by the sword, love by the sword.
We must live by the sword in this age to stop those that would harm us. We may "live by the sword and die by the sword" but if we don't have a sword we will not only die ourselves but everything we hold dear will fall to evil.
So, all that evil is really "good" for us then? Why have a sword then? If we got rid of the evil God wouldn't know who would follow Him! LOL!
God knows who will follow Him but He is holding His hand out to others too. It is their choice.
You mean there is no critical wart mass that will get us banned? So, just how imperfect is acceptable?
God judges who gets banned so I don't know. I do know that there is only one unforgiveable sin. Only one that will doom us with no chance of His forgiveness.
The Evangelist says it is. And we believe John wrote what the Spirit revealed:
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. [John 2:15]
We are to "love", if possible.
Can you quote a verse that says that (i.e. "if possible")? Or are you just making theology on the fly?
The Old Testament says
You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy" [Lev 19:18]
And the New Testament quotes Christ as saying:
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. [Mat 5:44-45]
It isn't possible to love a man that hits an 85 year old woman to steal her purse
But if you could help that man recognize Christ he would repent and would shed tears and would beg God and that woman for forgiveness. And God would save another lost soul. You are confusing love of your enemies with their acts, not their souls. You'd rather see them killed with no chance of repentance, then try to help them accept Christ.
Loving your enemy is recognizing that even someone like that can be saved. But in order for them to see Christ, they have to see Christ in you. And Christ did not revile his enemies, nor did He smite them. And the Bible, which you claim you believe in, teaches you to follow in His steps, and to suffer if need be.
He didn't tell them to carry swords for nothing
And He said two were too many ("enough then"). And He also ordered Peter to put his sword away. And as far as I can remember, He never told the Apostles to use the sword to kill their enemies.
True, but they still have their noses above water
Matter of opinion.
We must live by the sword in this age to stop those that would harm us. We may "live by the sword and die by the sword" but if we don't have a sword we will not only die ourselves but everything we hold dear will fall to evil
Then you must not have much faith that God will protect us (remember walking on water?). What you are saying is what Judaism and Islam teach, not Christianity.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great. [Mat 5: 10-12]
God knows who will follow Him but He is holding His hand out to others too. It is their choice
Holding out His hand to "others?" Is He 'hoping" they would change their minds? God doesn't "hope," God knows. But He is not partial, and He offers His blessings to everyone, the righteous and the unrighteous.
I stand corrected but it is difficult not to love this beautiful creation.
Can you quote a verse that says that (i.e. "if possible")? Or are you just making theology on the fly?
(Rom.12:18)If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
But if you could help that man recognize Christ he would repent and would shed tears and would beg God and that woman for forgiveness. And God would save another lost soul. You are confusing love of your enemies with their acts, not their souls. You'd rather see them killed with no chance of repentance, then try to help them accept Christ.
I would love to see all souls saved and I would love for everyone to hear and heed God's Word - it won't happen in this age nor in the next one. How could I help anyone accept Christ if they kill me?
And He said two were too many ("enough then"). And He also ordered Peter to put his sword away. And as far as I can remember, He never told the Apostles to use the sword to kill their enemies.
He told Peter to put his sword away because He came to earth to do the thing Peter was trying to save Him from.
He also said: Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Now...that sword may be the "sword of truth", but it may also be one to fight with.
It could be He thought two swords were enough but He told them to take a sword - Then said He unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.(Luke 22:36)
Also, I just noticed another verse that pertains to a discussion we had yesterday - He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me (Matt.10:37). Here it doesn't say we must "hate" our family but must not love them as much. That shows the other scripture must have been improperly translated.
True, but they still have their noses above water.... Matter of opinion.
True - some of them are bottom feeders (but most of ours are better than most of theirs).
Then you must not have much faith that God will protect us (remember walking on water?). What you are saying is what Judaism and Islam teach, not Christianity.
Of course He will protect us from what we cannot protect ourselves from. I don't think He wants us to stand as a zombie. He provides the bricks and we provide the labor.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.....Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.....Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great. [Mat 5: 10-12]
These all pertain to when you are teaching others about Him. That is when you are expected to turn the other cheek.
God knows. But He is not partial, and He offers His blessings to everyone, the righteous and the unrighteous.
Yes He knows but His grace offers it to them until their last breath.
What is this truth that you keep talking about?
There was enough doubt in the cooked 'evidence' not to justify the 'imminent danger' and pre-emptive strike option. The idea was to press on with inspections, and pressure on the regime to cooperate, while being carefully monitored for nay signs of hostile action.
If Haliburton was smart they would make more of them
You get my point, then. :)
The underlying point was that Saddam DID have WMDs
Yes, and so does just about every country on earth. There is a difference between using them locally and inter continentally. Besides, North Korea did 't even hide that it was making or or that it actually had at least one missile capable of reaching the US and we did nothing. How selective can you get?
Saddam's army has proven completely inept in the past (taking over a posta-stamp sized country like Kuwait is not a great feat), especially after ten years of severe sanctions. So, claiming "imminent danger" and 48-hour nuclear strike capability was a deliberate dysinformation with one goal in mind: to create a panic situation and get a green light for a war.
Information such as that launched by the Brits is not something you would release to the public. You would react first and explain later, if the evidence was there, that is.
ANYONE making the assumptions and conclusions you say Bush should have made would NEVER have the courage to protect our nation when it is attacked again
Hello? Are you there? We were attacked by Osama who was in Afghanistan. Our miserable failure to catch him there was no excuse to go after Iraq with no connection whatsoever. Except the neocons saw this as a perfect opportunity to settle some old scores.
Attacking Iraq did not reduce the possibility of terrorist infiltration on our shores, or using domestic "sleeper cells" for that purpose. Saddam held exactly zero chance of attacking us successfully using conventional methods. Preparation for an attack would be detected before it got off the ground. Iraq was under constant satellite surveilence and under no fly restrictions.
Our interballistic missiles would have shot any of his interballistic missiles (which he didn't have) out of the sky with ease. The Israeli air force could have blown the whole operation into smithereens as it has done once before. If we had such incontrovertible evidence that he was capable and was actually committing an imminent threat, we could have resorted to air strikes; not an invasion. Clearly, the WMDs were an excuse.
Saddam invaded Kuwait first
Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created it (together with the fake "royal" family) for their oil interest. A little history helps understand how conflicts simmer, and why they boil over when no one expects it.
The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley
You have no clue of what you are taking about. Your knowledge of Middle East history is zero, imo. Everything you spout is replaying recorded Fox News propaganda. Otherwise you couldn't be saying what you are saying. There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there.
Unilateral creation of Israel, even if morally right, was in violation of the UN resolution, involved ethnic cleansing and a cause of instability in the region that has lasted for the last 60-plus years. Israel has been our friend and ally but it has not been a "stabilizing" factor.
It makes absolutely zero sense to say that Bush went to war for oil, when it is clear that there is no gain to be had there, unless we were just going to steal it or something. Looking at today's gas prices, it looks like Bush hasn't stolen very much yet
The oil was certainly a big factor, but not a politically desirable one for public consumption. First, the issue of oils supply to Israel, which has no oil of its own, is a concern. All the oil in the region comes from Israel's enemies. The pipes leading to the Mediterranean go over territories that are hostile to Israel. The only connection to oil is through Turkey, the only Muslim country which has a defense pact with Israel, a deal worked out at great benefits for Turkey, which has received our complete protection and immunity in return.
Saudi Arabia is no friend of ours, as you say, and if its regime became less friendly or fell to the Wahabbi opponents, our oil supplies would be in serious danger as our dependence on imported oil has only steadily risen since the last Arab-Israeli war in the 1970's.
Most of the oil in that region is concentrated in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and the Caspean Sea. the oil pumps go into the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean (via Syria), and Turkey. Controlling the region, or having America-friendly regimes installed there would assure us not only of the world's largest oil reserves, but direct control over them.
This would also assure oils supply to Israel as an added benefit. It would also free us from total dependence on the Saudi oil. That's why we created friendly relations (and installed friendly regimes) with Kazakhstan, and all the countries from the Caspean Sea all the way to Turkey. Our aim is to overturn the regimes of Iraq, Syria and Iran for that reason. That would be in our national interest. the big question is how?
Obviously we can't buy them. Because they are so adamant about Israel's demise, which is not an option under any circumstances, there is no possibility of getting them to agree, as was possible with non-oil producing countries like Jordan and Egypt (no democracies there, by the way; the Egyptian regime has been in power for 40-plus years...and Jordan is run by the king and a rubber-stamp "parliament").
So, the only possible way is to force a change, and for that you need casus belli (the cause of war), and in the aftermath of 9/11 the "mindset" was ripe for that, but the neocons actually presented the plan to the Clinton administration in the mid 1990's, so the intention was there all along; what was missing was some kind of "urgent evidence" to make the case.
Saddam's torture chambers, and the political prisoners, and all their families, etc. We've certainly made some serious mistakes in Iraq, but if we don't quit, and they don't quit, the lives of the Iraqis and countless future generations will be immeasurably better
No doubt, but it didn't bother us as a matter of principle when he engaged Iran. Then he was just one of "our thugs." he was good for us. And, by the way, by now more Iraqis have died since the invasion then under his horrible regime. Geopolitically, he was a minor threat to us, but he was a stability factor for the region. And, that should be our concern. Now we have a destablizied region, and no potential solution. I seriously doubt the Iraqis will be better off any time soon.
Our myopia when it comes to international conflicts is stunning. We have all the resources and very little understanding of other cultures and root causes for their present state. High tech, low IQ. We react, and apply our standards on them. We rely on disgruntled emigre groups and treat them as if they had no axe to grind and a motive to provide us with misleading information for their own purpose. We engage in nation-building experiments when thousand-year old cultures are firmly entrenched and will not change. My take on the reasons for such misses is that we have become politically correct instead of practical. political correctness promotes and hires as well as fires. It doesn't look for talent and knowledge, but for those who will be politically correct. yes men are not necessarily your best workers.
It's funny how the Taliban mistreatment of women was not mentioned on the news in any significant ways until it became necessary to get people all worked up to attack Afghanistan. Likewise, their disproportionate poppy seed production was never mentioned until then. After all we helped put Taliban in power there. Zbig Bzesinski even called them the "soldiers of God" and CIA was supplying them with weapons and intel to fight the Soviets. Their poppy production and their abuse of women didn't bother us at all.
What does that say about our principles? It says we don't have any. It says we have selective outrage when it suits us. Saudi Arabia treats its women just as badly, and we see nothing about in on public TV. Ever wonder why.
You can appreciate it and love it, but not become attached to it. It is His world and His beauty and His greatness is reflected in His work. Admire it, respect it, but do not grab for it.
(Rom.12:18) If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men
But, in context [Rom 12:17-19]
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord.
Paul is telling us not to sin if possible; he never say pick up a a word if you can't live in peace with them. Do not repay evil for evil ... never take revenge does not say "if possible." You must, as much as possible within your heart, to live in peace with others, shunning sin.
I would love to see all souls saved and I would love for everyone to hear and heed God's Word - it won't happen in this age nor in the next one. How could I help anyone accept Christ if they kill me?
Those who believe walk on water and leave everything to God. The Bible is full of miracles (which I presume many use as a talking point but really don't believe), and instances where God spared others because of their prayers and faith.
I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life [Isa 38:5]
He told Peter to put his sword away because He came to earth to do the thing Peter was trying to save Him from
But he never tells them to use the sword to kill their enemies, does He?
It could be He thought two swords were enough but He told them to take a sword - Then said He unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.(Luke 22:36)
In context [Luke 22: 36-38]
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied."
The whole section is mumb-jumbo unrelated to anything. If you think someone mistranslated the word "hate," this whole block looks like someone mixed and-mismatched several verses into one nonsense.
True - some of them are bottom feeders (but most of ours are better than most of theirs)
More opinion. Thanks for sharing.
He wants us to stand as a zombie. He provides the bricks and we provide the labor
First you treat as dying for Christ as a "loss." That's because your focus is here and now, on the world. You feel that you have the right to stay as long as you can and that somehow going to the Lord "prematurely" is undesirable, although your birth certificate gives no time span.
Second, you assume that not using evil means "standing like a zombie." There are ways to resist and evade without resorting to evil. There are ways to fight without resorting to evil. That's why we have a judicial system and not vigilante "justice." We must do everything to stop the evil short of returning evil for evil because we do not inflict evil on those we love and if we love God then we love our enemies too and wish them no evil.
Yes He knows but His grace offers it to them until their last breath
God doesn't do things Himself, He uses us to do His work; he used Noah, and Abraham and Moses and the prophets and patriarchs, and the saints for that purpose. So, if we are true believers, ours is to try to make the other person see God through us, to be used by God, but for that to happen we must be God-like enough for His light to shine through us for our enemies to see and believe.
I love that answer and reasoning.
Do not repay evil for evil ... never take revenge does not say "if possible." You must, as much as possible within your heart, to live in peace with others, shunning sin.
True but some of us do not consider it a sin to stop evil. Some of us do not believe it is revenge.
Those who believe walk on water and leave everything to God. The Bible is full of miracles (which I presume many use as a talking point but really don't believe), and instances where God spared others because of their prayers and faith.
Everything I can't handle I leave to God. I do not believe He wants us to leave it all to Him. We, as children of God, should be able to handle many things knowing we are His children.
But he never tells them to use the sword to kill their enemies, does He?
No, I don't think He did.
More opinion. Thanks for sharing.
You are most welcome. I'm always happy to share my opinions with you.
God doesn't do things Himself, He uses us to do His work; he used Noah, and Abraham and Moses and the prophets and patriarchs, and the saints for that purpose. So, if we are true believers, ours is to try to make the other person see God through us, to be used by God, but for that to happen we must be God-like enough for His light to shine through us for our enemies to see and believe.
That is my point. He uses us to work for Him. Some of that work is going to battle. Some of us can spread His light and His Word. We all have different duties.
if we love God then we love our enemies too and wish them no evil.
Again, it is not evil to stop them. I wish they would all go away and live a wonderful life but they choose not to.
I don't know for sure about Melchizedek. From what I found, many believe he was a regular human, and some believe he was a theophany. I even found the phrase you used about Hebrews "creating confusion". In any event, the main point is still that Christ did make appearances in the OT and the righteous did have faith in Him.
On theophanies in general, I found this excerpt from answers.com:
... The Encyclopedia Britannica similarly defines this as "a manifestation of deity in sensible form."[3] In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible is the primary source of events which both Britannica and the New Catholic Encyclopedia cite as being theophanies.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia cites examples such as Gen 3:8a.[4] The same source then quotes Gen 16:7-14.[5] In this case, initially it is an angel which appears to Hagar, however it then says that God spoke directly to her, and that she saw God and lived (Gen 16:13). The next example the New Catholic Encyclopedia cites is Gen 22:11-15, which states explicitly that it was the angel of the Lord, rather than God Himself, speaking to Abraham (Gen 22:11a).[6] However, the angel addressing Abraham speaks the very words of God in the first person (Gen 22:12b). In both of the last two examples, although it is an angel present, the voice of the Lord Himself is spoken through the angel, and so this is a manifestation of Deity. The angel is therefore a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.
That's my point: lay back and enjoy the ride. Easy. Comfy. Let God do all the work...we can play and do whatever, sin all you want, all our sins are already forgiven...like a bunch of spoiled brats.
If it worked like that, then it wouldn't be perseverance, would it. Jesus says that His burden is light, so that means that perseverance DOES take "perceived" effort on our part. All I'm saying is that when I do a good thing, when I really don't feel like doing it, it "feels" like work to me, but it is really God working through me.
Why does God need to do "maintenance" on His elect, FK? Did He not predestine everything, or does He have to micromanage too, so the "poor" babies can persevere (even though the little premadonnas will persevere regardless because they have already been "saved")?
We need maintenance because the system God set up has us ever growing closer to Him. If it all happened in a minute then our existence would be very different on earth. Only God knows why He chose as He did. He wanted us to live in confidence of our salvation, and realize that we still have much to learn. Only God who began a good work in us can complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.
FK: "Since God is no respecter of men (or angels) then it must have been part of His plan."
Where does it say "of angles?" Angels are obligatory God's servants; they are not free.
Yes, that is what I was attempting to say. Just as man is not free to thwart God's plan, neither are angels. So, when satan fell, God did not say "Oh NO, that ruins everything!"
Why did Adam and Eve have to "learn" their lesson? Why not just makes them "smart" enough? Is this why mankind has to endure evil of its own making?
I don't know! :) All I can do is observe that this is the way God wanted it, and it is therefore good. Somehow, it is good that man suffer from his sins. One possibility is that we learn from that suffering.
FK: "Now, did he do the thing independently, or do you pin responsibility on me just because I could have stopped it?"
On you, because not only could you have stopped it, but you also foreknew what would happen, and you created conditions that made it inevitable for him to fail -- and die. If God does everything, as you mention above, all "credit" goes to God!
How did I create the conditions? I didn't suggest it, in fact I argued against it. They only thing of relevance is that I did not put my foot down and stop it. That is not the same as creating the conditions. I did it in order to prevent him from making the same mistake later, in which case he WOULD die. So, the idea is that by allowing it now, it saves his life. I think it is possible that this happens with God.
FK: ... "lead us not into temptation" - does any believer think He WILL lead us into temptation?
Why mention it then?
As a reminder, the same as with the other examples I gave from the Lord's Prayer. The Bible does a lot of reminding. We need it. :)
So, if [satan] is a "bug" why is there so much evil in the world? Seems like this may be a lot bigger bug then you think.
Oh, I agree that we should never underestimate him. Next to us he is very powerful. I just want to be on the record as NOT thinking that satan is some sort of "counter-God". satan has no ability to triumph over the one and only true God.
How can a "bug" be involved in a battle with God. It's like a queen ant blocking your way during a stroll!
To God it might be just like that. :) But, for however many people get to see it, I would imagine it will be quite a large spectacle. :)
Since I am obviously anti-UN, I never thought the inspections were honest. I was never really worried about Saddam launching missiles against the U.S., but I was very worried that he (or his sons after him) would develop nukes and give them to those who intended to detonate them in the U.S. (or Israel).
I honestly don't know if there was anything to that yellow cake story, but it would make perfect sense if true. Saddam openly said he had a nuke program, and it fits the personality profile of any dictator to want to be in "the club".
Besides, North Korea didn't even hide that it was making or that it actually had at least one missile capable of reaching the US and we did nothing. How selective can you get?
Of course they attempted to hide it. Clinton cheerfully signed an agreement with DPRK in 1994, in which they "promised" to give up their nuclear weapons program. I am sure that the libs were all SHOCKED when it turned out they had been lying to us all along. (Of course they were finally forced to admit it when they planned and executed nuclear testing.) Who could ever imagine that a dictator would lie? :)
This is what drives me nuts about liberals. They have a genetic inability to see evil in the world for the threat it is. Even now we have a major candidate calling the War on Terror a bumper sticker.
So, claiming "imminent danger" and 48-hour nuclear strike capability was a deliberate disinformation with one goal in mind: to create a panic situation and get a green light for a war.
I'm not certain, but I don't remember Britain ever claiming that Saddam actually had nukes at the time. I thought it was about for whenever they got nukes. Nukes have to be tested and everyone obviously knew that no testing had taken place. That would operate against imminent threat. Plus, I KNOW that Bush never claimed imminent threat, and never pumped it as a reason to go to war.
We were attacked by Osama who was in Afghanistan. Our miserable failure to catch him there was no excuse to go after Iraq with no connection whatsoever. Except the neocons saw this as a perfect opportunity to settle some old scores.
Who ever said that was an excuse to go into Iraq? Not Bush. Both were part of the WOT, but Bush never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Bush presented the WOT as a global effort, wherever terrorism flourished. Iraq WAS one of the biggest state sponsors of terror at the time.
Attacking Iraq did not reduce the possibility of terrorist infiltration on our shores, or using domestic "sleeper cells" for that purpose.
Not true. The threat was never ICBMs from Iraq, and nobody I can think of in the Bush administration ever said it was. The threat was smuggling in weapons to be used by foreign terrorists, and possibly domestic sleeper cells. Given how porous our border security is, that remains a very real threat today.
Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created it (together with the fake "royal" family) for their oil interest. A little history helps understand how conflicts simmer, and why they boil over when no one expects it.
My understanding is that Kuwait has been completely sovereign since the early 60's. If one believed that Saddam had a legitimate right to invade Kuwait, then I suppose such a person would also have sympathy for La Raza, which believes that the southwest United States really belongs to Mexico. :)
Your knowledge of Middle East history is zero, imo. Everything you spout is replaying recorded Fox News propaganda. Otherwise you couldn't be saying what you are saying. There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there. (emphasis added)
Please take this in the good humor in which it is intended, but that statement makes Holocaust deniers look reasonable. :)
First, the issue of oils supply to Israel, which has no oil of its own, is a concern. All the oil in the region comes from Israel's enemies. The pipes leading to the Mediterranean go over territories that are hostile to Israel. The only connection to oil is through Turkey ...
I don't understand why this would be a reason to go to war. Why can't Israel buy its oil on the world market, like everyone else does. We buy Iranian oil and they hate us just as much as Israel. There's no way to shut off Israel's oil supply, except for a physical blockade of some sort, and that can't happen.
Controlling the region, or having America-friendly regimes installed there would assure us not only of the world's largest oil reserves, but direct control over them.
I really doubt Bush had such grand designs. I think part of our foothold would indeed go to protecting the oil supply. But right now no one country, such as Iran, (or even a small group) can keep its oil from the U.S. Once on the world market, oil goes to whoever buys it. If Iran wanted to deprive us, they would have to shut down all production, and they aren't going to do that. This shoots down the whole "war for oil" argument right here.
And, by the way, by now more Iraqis have died since the invasion then under his horrible regime.
How can you know that? To my knowledge, the DOD is not releasing those estimates (Rosie O'Donnell's numbers notwithstanding :), and we certainly can't be sure of how many people Saddam has murdered. We have only found some of the mass graves. It is inconceivable that more have died since the war began than he killed. And, you cannot count those who are shooting at Americans, they are the enemy.
Geopolitically, [Saddam] was a minor threat to us, but he was a stability factor for the region.
A leading state sponsor of terror was a stabilizing factor??? Interesting. He invaded sovereign nations, gassed his own people, paid bounty to suicide bombers, grossly violated UN agreements, and bragged that he was developing nuclear weapons. Yep, sounds stabilizing to me alright. :)
What does that say about our principles? It says we don't have any. It says we have selective outrage when it suits us. Saudi Arabia treats its women just as badly, and we see nothing about in on public TV. Ever wonder why.
I agree with your general points in your last few paragraphs. But all any leader can do at any one time is go with what he thinks is best at the time and for the future. Sometimes that means making a "lesser of two evils" choice. Once upon a time, Saddam was the lesser of two evils so we backed him. Times change though, and I don't think that necessarily makes the original decision wrong, FOR THE TIME it was made.
There was no Christ prior to Incarnation. Christ means Messiah. The pre-incarnation Son of God is the eternal Logos. You can's speak of "Christ" before Incarnation. The righteous who believed theopany did not distinguish God from God the Word, or God the Spirit. The OT does not have those concepts. They had "seeds" (sporoi), just as other Abrahamic and monotheistic religions have. They did not believe in a Christian God. And it is a guess if they would have recognized Him after the Incarnation.
On theophanies in general, I found this excerpt from answers.com: ... The Encyclopedia Britannica similarly defines this as "a manifestation of deity in sensible form."
I have no clue what "sensible" means in this case. Does it mean as in "makes sense" or as something "detectable?" You get to see God without really seeing Him as He is. The appearance is only an illusion. His Incarnate presence was real. Big difference.
The Orthodox (and Catholics) celebrate the Theophany of the Lord following His Baptism, not as the OT appearances in "sensible" forms.
Perseverance doesn't necessarily mean struggle. Just "holding out." You could be bored on a 7-day cruise and have to "persevere" in boredom but lacking nothing.
The perseverance relates to keeping the faith. We are constantly bombarded with temptations and lust for things and people, and are constantly challenged by other groups and religions or systems that may seem "greener."
Thus, even if we are not being thrown tot he lions, we are challenged to keep our values, dignity and remain moral beings. the easiest thing to do would be to just say "I give up" and go for the forbidden fruits.
All I'm saying is that when I do a good thing, when I really don't feel like doing it, it "feels" like work to me, but it is really God working through me...Jesus ssays that His burden is light, so that means that perseverance DOES take "perceived" effort on our part.
It's not easy being a Christian if you really want to be a Christian. So, yes, it is an effort. We are reminded of this with every fasting period. Lets we take our faith for granted and drift away. It reminds us that cross comes before the crown.
We need maintenance because the system God set up has us ever growing closer to Him
The Bible says you must believe (and baptized). Protestants tell me after that they are saved. God converted their hearts, God gave them faith. God did everything. They are saved, for good. What else is there to do? If God wants you nearer, the Protestants will tell me God will do that too. You can't have God doing everything and all and that saying we have to grow closer. If that's how God set it up, than it's not our effort but our destiny and will happen whether we want it or not. It's not our "perseverance."
Kosta: Where does it say "of angles?" Angels are obligatory God's servants; they are not free.
FK: Yes, that is what I was attempting to say. Just as man is not free to thwart God's plan, neither are angels. So, when satan fell, God did not say "Oh NO, that ruins everything!"
Ggod is no respecter of angels? God is no respecter of men, because he gives to the righteous and the unrighteous. As far as I know, God doe snot give to fallen angels, but he does give to fallen men (because there is always hope for the fallen men to be saved, but none for the fallen angels).
Angelic rebellion is unforgivable because God created Angels as obligate servants and their rebellion is a complete reversal of their nature. Men was created in God's image and likeness, with limited dominion and capacity to forgive which the angles do not have. Man was not created as God's servant, but as God by grace. Man's rebellion is a corruption, not complete reversal of his nature. The rebellious angels are dead. We are sick. Big difference.
One possibility is that we learn from that suffering
God did not create suffering. Therefore suffering cannot be good. Suffering is the outcome of the fall world and is therefore an manifestation of evil, not learning. Given that we have been unable to stop suffering in our short history, suffering does not seem to have and lasting education effects.
How did I create the conditions?
I put you in the position of God. That's how. When you make a decision as a father, you don't have the foreknowledge and resources available to God, so your comparison is invalid.
Oh, I agree that we should never underestimate [satan]. Next to us he is very powerful. I just want to be on the record as NOT thinking that satan is some sort of "counter-God". satan has no ability to triumph over the one and only true God.
FK, the temptation is in our nature. It's part of our freedom. We need to stop blaming our weakness on the devil and live up to our own evil and reject it. Passing the buck never solved anything.
I would not worry about you giving satan more than he's due, never mind making him "counter-God." He gets all his "life" from us.
But, for however many people get to see [Armageddon], I would imagine it will be quite a large spectacle.
There will not be an Armageddon, FK. The devil is not "counter-God." At no point is the outcome in question. God doesn't need the final battle -- His is the Final Judgment!
I can understand that, but that threat has not been removed by his removal. In fact, it may have be increased as a result of further radicalization of Islam (whish perceives our military interventions as "Crusades" for "Zionist' interests). There are 1 billion Muslims in this world (and one of the fastest growing religions). If one out of ten Muslims is an Islamic radical, that's a potential army of 100 million (no fuzzy math this time!). I believe mine is a conservative figure.
So, the question is have we made our world safer, and the answer is no. Just the opposite.
Saddam openly said he had a nuke program
That program was blown to pieces by the Israelis. Active production of weapons-grade plutonium and activities associated with such a project are easily detectable, as is the case with N. Korea and Iran. What's the point of lying? More importantly, you can't hide it. But what was suggested is that somehow the program has "advanced" to the "imminent threat" level.
In a speech to the UN in 2002, a few months before the start of the war, Pres. Bush said "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger." In 1997, Clinton actually said Saddam was a "clear and present danger" (but he was referring to the local region). Yet the UN inspections, and intelligence reports were not as certain as politicians.
In September 2002, the International Institute for Strategical Studies (IISS), which calls itself the "world's leading authority on political military conflicts," said
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear weapon "in a matter of months" if he managed to buy or steal raw materials, a defence analyst has warned.
has found that Iraq has chemical nerve agents, a stockpile of anthrax and is some way down the road towards nuclear weapons - without yet having the raw material
The IISS report comes after a weekend which saw Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush argue that doing nothing about Saddam's weapons programmes was not an option for the international community.Mr Blair stressed that once the public had seen the evidence "people will see this is not something that has been invented or dreamt up in the last few weeks. This is a real and serious issue.
The report said that Iraq's chemical weapons capability did not appear to pose a decisive threat against opposing military forces, who would be protected against such attack, although in small numbers chemical munitions could disrupt logistical operations and threaten civilian populations.
The inquiry has already established beyond doubt that, despite government briefing that Dr Kelly was a medium-level official of little significance, he was in fact one of the world's leading experts on WMD in Iraq. It is also clear that Dr Kelly chose to brief three BBC journalists - and presumably others - to the effect that the 45-minute warning of the possible use of WMD was an exaggeration. He said to the Newsnight reporter Susan Watts, as well as to Gilligan that Campbell and the Downing Street press operation were responsible for exerting pressure to hype up the danger. [Guardian, Aug 23, 2003]
We know through emails revealed by Hutton that Tony Blair's chief of staff made clear that the dossier was likely to convince those who were prepared to be convinced, but that the document "does nothing to demonstrate he [Saddam Hussein] has the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the west. We will need to be clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat.
I have no clue what "sensible" means in this case. Does it mean as in "makes sense" or as something "detectable?" You get to see God without really seeing Him as He is. The appearance is only an illusion. His Incarnate presence was real. Big difference.
I think it just means something easily recognizable to the human. It "appears" real, even though the substance it appears to be isn't true. I read part of a summary of Augustine's Book II of De Trinitate, in which he analyzes the OT theophanies and tries to determine if they are supposed to be the whole Trinity, or individual Persons. The summary said that Augustine doesn't come to any hard conclusions, but he reasoned that the appearances were either by the Son or the Spirit, but not the Father, because of similar language used to describe the Persons elsewhere in the Bible.
Yes, that is exactly what we experience. Therefore, my side does not believe it is OK to go out and do whatever we want. That isn't what Christianity teaches, so we don't believe it.
You can't have God doing everything and all and that saying we have to grow closer. If that's how God set it up, than it's not our effort but our destiny and will happen whether we want it or not. It's not our "perseverance."
God doing everything includes bringing us closer. And yes, it is not our efforts that are worthy of merit, but rather God's. It is our perseverance because God makes it happen for us, not because we make it for ourselves. Reformers believe that the word "predestination" means what the word means. We do not believe, as the Apostolics do, that in effect, man "predestines" himself. That makes a mockery of the word.
God is no respecter of angels? God is no respecter of men, because he gives to the righteous and the unrighteous. As far as I know, God doe snot give to fallen angels, but he does give to fallen men (because there is always hope for the fallen men to be saved, but none for the fallen angels).
I figured out that we were using the word "respecter" differently. You were using it in the strict Biblical sense of giving sunlight, etc. to everyone. That's perfectly good. I was using it in the context of whether God "respects" the decisions of men, and shapes His plan around those decisions (apparently the Apostolic view since God predestines based on men's decision). I don't think THAT happens with either men or angels.
Man's rebellion is a corruption, not complete reversal of his nature. The rebellious angels are dead. We are sick. Big difference.
Rebellious angels are dead and have no hope. Lost men are also dead, but God has predestined some of them to be saved. There's the difference.
God did not create suffering. Therefore suffering cannot be good. Suffering is the outcome of the fall world and is therefore an manifestation of evil, not learning.
The Bible disagrees:
Heb 12:5-11 : 5 And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline,and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves,and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." 7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Therefore, we learn by going through the suffering of God's discipline.
We need to stop blaming our weakness on the devil and live up to our own evil and reject it. Passing the buck never solved anything.
Yes, I completely agree. Plus, we have Biblical proof that the devil can't "make" us do anything:
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 protects us against "forced" sin.
There will not be an Armageddon, FK. The devil is not "counter-God." At no point is the outcome in question. God doesn't need the final battle -- His is the Final Judgment!
What does one have to do with the other? I.e., why does satan have to be a "counter-God" for there to be a final battle? You are right that the outcome is not in question, but that is irrelevant to whether a battle will take place. EVERY battle in Biblical history was a forgone conclusion. It is not a matter of God "needing" a final battle, but only that He wanted one. In it, satan will be defeated and forever sealed in hell. That's how God wants it to go, and that's great with me.
I think that those desires to "go out and do whatever" don't exist after you accept Christ. You may still slip up and do something not very Christian (bad word, unkind thought, etc.) but the desire to do things just isn't there (maybe it's just my age talking).
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.