Skip to comments.God and 9/11
Posted on 09/12/2012 7:01:54 AM PDT by marshmallow
False understandings of the nature of God lead to destruction from within and murder from without
I hadn't planned on writing much, if anything, on the anniversary of the murderous attacks of September 11, 2001, if only because that event usually leaves me at loss for words. And what more can be said? It is an occasion, first of all, to pray for those who were murdered and for all those innocentborn and unborn, young and oldwho are victims of violence and hatred each and every day.
But more can be said, even if with hesitation and some trepidation. For this is also an occasion to reflect and frankly consider our own mortality, the fragility of the flickering light called life that we each possess as a gift from God. What, then, is the point of it all? Why do we, as individuals and families and communities, come into existence and for what End were we created? Alas, those questions, unfortunately, apparently assume too much in this day and age, for it is not a given that those next to us in the workplace or in the schoolroom or on the street also believe in a loving God who "in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life" (CCC, 1).
It's not so much that explicit forms of atheism have become increasingly popular (although they have), but more that we in the West live as practical atheists. When the rubber meets the road, it is on a secular wheel and it is facilitating the rapid movement of a materialist car driving towards a shimmering temporal goal, with little interest in acknowledging the life to come and the Life from which we come.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicworldreport.com ...
Turning the other cheek is - today - unacceptable.
I’ve never believed in turning the other cheek — but then, I’m not a Christian.
Fine, your opinion. But how does that relate to Olson’s article? It’s a non-sequitur. Did you accidentally post to the wrong thread?
Check your premises.
I think the problem may be that you interpreted the Pope's remarks about "violence" as rejecting force of all kinds, including defensive. That's due to the inexactness of the term in a contextless setting. However, in this context it would lead to misunderstanding.
At Regensburg, the Pope was speaking about "violence" in the specfic moral sense, as a way to prevail when one does not have recourse to reason or logic. He was actually asking whether Islam is willing to rely on persuasion rather than aggression or coercion.
In the immediate aftermath of the Regensbsurg address, as you may remember, Muslims rioted on 3 continents, resulting in 19 deaths. It was a kind of answer to the Pope's question.
By the way, a subset of Christian pacifists, including Amish, Mennonites anbd Brethren, interpret the words of Christ on "turning the other cheek," to require total non-resistance. Catholicism does not do so.
If I misunderstood you, I hope the above will at least explain my puzzlement.