French church attacked during Mass, priest murdered [CC]

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

I don’t think that is necessarily true. I think we can learn from the experience of others, for example, through literature and learning about other people and cultures. It seems important to open our minds in that way.

Yes, other people’s experiences can become our own.

Very true.Sometimes people are unreasonably offended, other times people are offended for reasons which are beyond us or not within our thinking.

This seems like a rather long process to go through each time one needs to forgive, doesn’t it?

In my experience, it doesn’t have to be a long process every time, only very rarely. Once I can understand a particular situation (i.e. a suicide bombing) the motives are pretty much the same, desire for justice, despair, insanity, etc.

Maybe a separation between the personal sphere and the public square would help. Privately, each person takes care of their own forgiveness and public policy can proceed on moral lines regardless of the personal situations of those involved.

We are told to pray that God will forgive our trespasses as we forgive others.

But Christ does not seem to have dealt with other solely by forgiving them. Christ instructed, admonished, vituperated, and threw over the moneychangers’ tables.

And as far as I can tell, God requires repentance for His forgiveness to be extended to us: those guilty of mortal sin remain in their soul-dead state until they ask for forgiveness.

The repentance requirement for forgiveness has its support in the Gospel, but so does non-repentance, theologians disagree on this. To me, the forgiveness from the cross is the last word. To me, both positions are acceptable and valuable.

I think understanding their motivations could lead to a much more effective plan of fighting them than we would have getting their motivations wrong.

In what way?

As a parent (and I’m not saying you are not a parent), I would teach my children to forgive anyone who acts against them. I would also teach them not to need to forgive people who have not done anything to them.

I would certainly not teach my children to dwell on the motivations and thought processes of hideous thugs: that seems like it would be unhealthy for them.

You do realize that there are options other than demonizing or denial?

Yes, of course there are other options. I was presenting a scenario. My children were taught not to negatively label anyone, and they were also taught how to understand people, as you could probably guess!

Does the wink mean this is not a serious question?

The wink went with the word “armchair”. It is already bold enough to say how someone else should raise their kids, but for me to say how someone from another religion should teach about God to their children takes some real nerve! I do so only with the humility to say I have no business saying how someone else should raise their kids.

 

[OneSheep]

OK, now suppose there are people who are forcing everyone to submit to Islam (The people of the Book do not have to convert, they can pay extra taxes with a submissive attitude instead.) being caught up in the ideology you describe.

And imagine that forces are opposed to this violent movement, and they say, well, these folks are just upset that they have suffered injustice so they are rightfully angry. Let’s give them land and control to make up for the injustice and publicize reconciliation committees for when they stop fighting.

If the fighters are truly upset about the injustices, then they will stop fighting.2

*But if they are not *upset about injustice, but simply believing that they are doing what they think is right, then they will not stop fighting, but they might be persuaded by reason into changing their minds…

… unless they believe it is a mandate for them to fight, a mandate from Allah, and if furthermore they believe that they will attain a paradise if they die in battle, then the opposers need to sort out and convince them from their own religious teachings, or convert them altogether.

And this is why it is important to understand that Islam does in fact teach violence.

Because what needs to happen is not a lot of deeply understanding forgiveness on the part of people to whom they have done nothing, nor in fact from those they have actually injured. Under their theology, forgiveness from their enemies is meaningless.

I agree that forgiveness from those they persecuted is a lot more meaningful. These people are human, Francis. They can and will be naturally compelled to forgive if they are forgiven regardless what their book says. Again, we reap what we sow. I know, we have been here.

So it is necessary to investigate those aspects of Islam from which they draw their “ideology,” and work from there, not ignore the violent teachings in Islam.

Yes, we need to give voice to Muslims who address the violence in the Quran in ways that make it not applicable today.

I also need to add that the counsel of a priest is for the counseled person himself, and maybe that only for a temporary period of time. It’s like medicine: what works for one person may be the exact opposite from what the next person needs. (Here I am not speaking of forgiveness, but of understanding before or alongside forgiving.)

The priest told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

The emphasis on understanding is truly part of our faith, it is a gift of the Spirit. From the cross, Jesus modeled understanding.

The mention of not condemning is also from the Gospel, we are not to judge.

The aspect of not condoning also has some support, as when Jesus said “No one is good but God alone”. He was definitely referring to behaviors; as God holds all of us dear, and from Genesis we have that God saw all He created as good.

When condemning and condoning are put together side by side, it is a call to look at the conscience itself; to transcend it. We transcend our conscience by understanding, forgiving, loving in a deeper way. After all, who do we need to forgive? People we hold something against. Why do we hold something against people in the first place? It is because our judgement against them has been triggered. Why do we judge people? Because our conscience has been formed in such a way that we have triggered emotional reactions, which effect our cognition. This is all part of the God-given machinations of the mind, which we can transcend through forgiveness, a forgiveness that begins with prayer and understanding.

For this reason, I think the words have a rather broad application!

God Bless your day Francis!

 

[OneSheep]

You might not be the mighty Onesheep, but you do wish others would see your own point of view on certain matters, as we all do.
Ours is a faith that is now built on peace and love of others, wasn’t always that way.

There will always be damaged people who kill for reasons they believe to be correct.
I read reports about the murders of the people at the bar, that the murders were due to his own self hate at being gay rather than a religious intent.
The priest’s murder is totally different, in that it was aimed at Catholicism.

Yes it has been cleared up for me, when I read comments that confuse me I’d rather ask than think what I read is not of Catholicism.

Have a good day too.

Hi Simpleas,

I agree with the assessment that the murderer in Florida was probably having issues with homosexual thoughts or something like that. What I was referring to was the person from “IS” who claimed that the murders in Florida were revenge for Islam against “sodomists”. These are people who definitely do not know what they are doing.

I would refer you to the article, but I would rather not give that site any more visits.

 

[St_Francis]

Hi Simpleas,

I agree with the assessment that the murderer in Florida was probably having issues with homosexual thoughts or something like that. What I was referring to was the person from “IS” who claimed that the murders in Florida were revenge for Islam against “sodomists”. These are people who definitely do not know what they are doing.

I would refer you to the article, but I would rather not give that site any more visits.

The killer called 911 and said he was acting for ISIS; he yelled allahu Akbar as he shot. The FBI found absolutely no evidence of homosexual sets or apps on his electronics.

The original “theory” was the result of 1 or 2 homosexual men claiming they had had sexual relations with them and having met up via a homosexual app. The FBI concluded this was either a lie or a misidentification. Link

 

[St_Francis]

Good Morning Francis,

Yes, other people’s experiences can become our own.

In my experience, it doesn’t have to be a long process every time, only very rarely. Once I can understand a particular situation (i.e. a suicide bombing) the motives are pretty much the same, desire for justice, despair, insanity, etc.

Or it could be that they belong to a religion which credibly teaches that Allah wants them to do this and promises rich rewards for dying in the attempt.

The repentance requirement for forgiveness has its support in the Gospel, but so does non-repentance, theologians disagree on this. To me, the forgiveness from the cross is the last word. To me, both positions are acceptable and valuable.

I put it the way I did because, to use another analogy, when someone has wronged another, two walls go up between the wrongdoer and the victim. The victim tears down his wall by forgiving, but the two are still blocked until the wrongdoer tears down his wall by repenting.

In what way?

As I pointed out, first by not offering the wrong solution. Second, by determining what will sap the will of the RIs so that they stop, which is the point of war. (It is possible to go beyond what is moral in acting so as to sap their morale, but one just needs to be careful.)

One example might be to stop selling churches to people who want to turn them into mosques: the building of a mosque over a church, or transforming a church into a mosque, has been a sign of conquest since the time of Mohammed’s victory in Mecca and subsequent arrogant ion of the Ka’aba, and the later building of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount after conquering Jerusalem.

As to the fighting itself, altho the story turns out to be apocryphal and the Moslems have since ruled against any problem, doing things like putting bullets in pigs’ blood could be a first step. Since no one seems to have investigated what solutions might arise from an examination of the theology on which the RIs base their actions, it is hard for me, less than an amateur, to come up with examples.

Yes, of course there are other options.

So, telling the truth about the violent teachings of Islam should not be considered demonizing anyone. People just need to be careful to delineate the boundary between peaceful Moslems and violent ones.

I was presenting a scenario. My children were taught not to negatively label anyone, and they were also taught how to understand people, as you could probably guess!

I too taught my children to understand people, but also tried to discourage them from dwelling on evil.

The wink went with the word “armchair”. It is already bold enough to say how someone else should raise their kids, but for me to say how someone from another religion should teach about God to their children takes some real nerve! I do so only with the humility to say I have no business saying how someone else should raise their kids.

I was not telling anyone of any religion how to raise their children; I was simply saying that when one deals in truth, one is able to come up with better, more targeted solutions.

For example, I can *imagine *a Moslem couple being concerned about their children’s possibly being radicalized, and reading that 3/4 of children with devout fathers and unconnected mothers remain in the faith, while the reverse scenario results in the reverse (only 1/4 remain).

So my imaginary couple determines that the father will take a greater role in the children’s religious upbringing, and will particularly teach the peaceful traditions.

Or another concerned group of Moslems might write an apologetics book for teens.

Or they might do things more connected with their culture and faith than what I, a non-Moslem, can offer.

However, if a blind eye is turned to the fact that the teachings are there which can radicalize, then nothing will be done.

 

[JosieN]

Hi Josie,

We can know that God is love, that love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of love. Therefore, forgiveness is unconditional. When Pope Francis says, “God always forgives us” he is speaking from what he knows of God, a singularity that loves. It is not our “place” to doubt God’s love, right? We can safely err on the side of mercy.

But yes, when a person is seeking revenge, they are hardly on the path of seeking truth.

None of what you said there is contrary to the CCC, it is not contrary to “new” teachings. And you are right, we cannot assume that people will choose heaven; they certainly choose plenty of hell on Earth. The difference is, though, that we can be certain that a merciful God would never let a person choose hell without the person knowing exactly what they are doing. Bishop Barron says something like, “God could make heaven look like an ice cream bar for a person who loves ice cream”. I’m paraphrasing, but we have to keep in mind that God wants all of us with Him, and he has the power to make the choice very clear!

We are not worthy to understand? That’s a new one, not traditional.
We are strictly commanded not to “leave mercy to God” Josie. We are called to practice all the works of mercy.
Yes, He alone understands what is truly in a person’s heart, but He can also show us. To deny that the Spirit does this goes against the Spirit. Understanding is one of the gifts of the Spirit.

Thanks for responding. It seems like we may be revisiting previous points.,

Blessings!

I will look at the video in the morning.

Yes understanding is a gift, and I know I am repeating myself, but we are not God so we are not able to fully understand, our understanding is limited, so to make assumptions about the reason a person may murder another (a sinful act), and blaming it on ignorance or an injustice they felt needed vengeance is not our call to make. To do so is like condoning their sinful actions and making excuses for them. We are called to practice the works of mercy as you say but what exactly are they? I have listed them for you here.

The Corporal Works of Mercy

Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
Visit the sick
Visit the imprisoned
Bury the dead

The Spiritual Works of Mercy

**Admonish the sinner
Instruct the ignorant (This and the next work are extremely pertinent categories today, when so many people are confused by what the Church teaches on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc.)
Counsel the doubtful
**Comfort the sorrowful
Bear wrongs patiently
Forgive all injuries
Pray for the living and the dead

I have bolded the ones I feel is important for the topic we are discussing. The one you concentrate on is “forgive all injuries”, yes we are to do that, but not with blind acceptance for their sins, as we are also called to admonish the sinner and instruct them.

It may be true that we can be certain that a merciful God would never let a person choose hell without the person knowing exactly what they are doing is wrong, but then why mention admonishing the sinner in the acts of mercy? I believe we all have the responsibility to tell a person when they are doing wrong, those who know God and His laws, need to inform people of the dangers of hell. We should not assume He will let everyone know exactly what they are doing wrong, as we have that responsibility too. God is loving and good and merciful, but he wants us do works of mercy while we are on earth, and our actions on earth can help lead souls to repentance and lead them to heaven. We will be judged on our actions, and whether we led souls to heaven, or let them live in ignorance of their sins.

You seem like a very kind and caring person, and I respect that, but it appears today that now we have two kinds of mercy, the new one which says we should love the sinner and accept them and understand them and not judge them, or their actions, and tell them that God always forgives them. We are to understand they have their reasons for their vengeful and evil actions, so more understanding is needed, a deeper understanding, etc. and then we have the traditional teachings of mercy, which tells us to admonish the sinner and not condone their actions. We need to make room for both, but never forget that sins are what lead souls to hell, and murder, for whatever reason should not be condoned.

Yes we can safely err on the side of mercy but it depends on what that mercy means. To let sin remain rampant and sinners unrepentant, is not merciful of us.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree that forgiveness from those they persecuted is a lot more meaningful. These people are human, Francis. They can and will be naturally **compelled **to forgive if they are forgiven regardless what their book says. Again, we reap what we sow. I know, we have been here.

Compelled? Even God does not violate our free will in this way.

And this is not a strategy to protect people who are being harmed by the RIs, which I recall that you want to do.

Yes, we need to give voice to Muslims who address the violence in the Quran in ways that make it not applicable today.

And stop denying that those violent teachings exist, or show only peaceful verses without explaining that they are earlier and therefore abrogated, or otherwise negating the violent teachings?

The priest told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

The emphasis on understanding is truly part of our faith, it is a gift of the Spirit. From the cross, Jesus modeled understanding.

The mention of not condemning is also from the Gospel, we are not to judge.

The aspect of not condoning also has some support, as when Jesus said “No one is good but God alone”. He was definitely referring to behaviors; as God holds all of us dear, and from Genesis we have that God saw all He created as good.

**When condemning and condoning are put together side by side, it is a call to look at the conscience itself; to transcend it. We transcend our conscience by understanding, forgiving, loving in a deeper way. ** After all, who do we need to forgive? People we hold something against. Why do we hold something against people in the first place? It is because our judgement against them has been triggered. Why do we judge people? Because our conscience has been formed in such a way that we have triggered emotional reactions, which effect our cognition. This is all part of the God-given machinations of the mind, which we can transcend through forgiveness, a forgiveness that begins with prayer and understanding.

For this reason, I think the words have a rather broad application!

God Bless your day Francis!

I do not understand what you mean by the part I bolded.

We are not to judge *people, *but we need to judge *actions. *And no matter how much we understand them, some need to be stopped, no matter what it takes.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

Or it could be that they belong to a religion which credibly teaches that Allah wants them to do this and promises rich rewards for dying in the attempt.

Yes, this is radicalization, but there is more to add to that. In order for a human to do this, he must already be blind to the value of those he means to destroy. People do not kill those that they value, unless they are insane. Of course, there are cases where suicide bombers end up inadvertently killing part of their own ingroup, but this is rationalized as God’s will. The notion that people suicide bomb simply for heavenly riches without such lack of seeing the value of their victims is not supported by research. The most common predictor of suicide bombings, etc., is not poverty, mental illness, or such; it is a sense of injustice. When we experience injustice, we resent or hate the unjust.

I put it the way I did because, to use another analogy, when someone has wronged another, two walls go up between the wrongdoer and the victim. The victim tears down his wall by forgiving, but the two are still blocked until the wrongdoer tears down his wall by repenting.

Good analogy!

As I pointed out, first by not offering the wrong solution. Second, by determining what will sap the will of the RIs so that they stop, which is the point of war. (It is possible to go beyond what is moral in acting so as to sap their morale, but one just needs to be careful.)

If they forgive, their will to do violence will end. If they are being aggressive, it is just for people to defend themselves. If they are not continuing aggression, then it is unjust to use violence against them for the sake of demoralizing them, right?

One example might be to stop selling churches to people who want to turn them into mosques: the building of a mosque over a church, or transforming a church into a mosque, has been a sign of conquest since the time of Mohammed’s victory in Mecca and subsequent arrogant ion of the Ka’aba, and the later building of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount after conquering Jerusalem.

This is a solution to …?

So, telling the truth about the violent teachings of Islam should not be considered demonizing anyone. People just need to be careful to delineate the boundary between peaceful Moslems and violent ones.

We can also tell them the truth about violence in the OT, or about the merciless behavior demonstrated by Peter in Acts 5:1-11. All people are capable of blindness when they have strong desire or when they feel resentment. All people are capable of violence. God calls for mercy and forgiveness.

I was not telling anyone of any religion how to raise their children; I was simply saying that when one deals in truth, one is able to come up with better, more targeted solutions.

For example, I can *imagine *a Moslem couple being concerned about their children’s possibly being radicalized, and reading that 3/4 of children with devout fathers and unconnected mothers remain in the faith, while the reverse scenario results in the reverse (only 1/4 remain).

So my imaginary couple determines that the father will take a greater role in the children’s religious upbringing, and will particularly teach the peaceful traditions.

That makes sense.

Or another concerned group of Moslems might write an apologetics book for teens.

Or they might do things more connected with their culture and faith than what I, a non-Moslem, can offer.

However, if a blind eye is turned to the fact that the teachings are there which can radicalize, then nothing will be done.

I agree, and sites like ing.org do offer such apologetics!

Peace be with you, always.

 

[OneSheep]

Compelled? Even God does not violate our free will in this way.

We are compelled by our nature. I don’t mean “forced”. We have strong inclinations to mirror the behaviors/emotions of people we are interacting with; we exhibit complementary behaviors. We react to anger with anger of fear; we react to forgiveness with forgiveness or guilt.

And this is not a strategy to protect people who are being harmed by the RIs, which I recall that you want to do.

Forgiveness is a long-term strategy, it does not stop violence in the short-term.

And stop denying that those violent teachings exist, or show only peaceful verses without explaining that they are earlier and therefore abrogated, or otherwise negating the violent teachings?

Apologetics does not involve denial of what is written, right? It is about explaining what happened in a new light. It often means providing a lot of historical context with an added implication of “this is why it is wrong today”.

I do not understand what you mean by the part I bolded.

We are not to judge *people, *but we need to judge *actions. *.

This was what I said:

“When condemning and condoning are put together side by side, it is a call to look at the conscience itself; to transcend it. We transcend our conscience by understanding, forgiving, loving in a deeper way.”

Realistically, when we judge an action, which is a gut reaction, we naturally feel some negativity toward the person who carried out the action. While we can come to realize that we resent the person tied to the action, it takes some discipline to say and enact “I will not hold anything against the person, but I judge his action as wrong”. This discipline has its place, and is a form of forgiveness. However, if the action is not understood in a deeper way by the person who judges, the negative sentiment remains. When it again surfaces, the person can drive it away again “I am not going to judge the person”, but this is a more superficial remedy. A deeper forgiveness is found through understanding.

This is not to downplay the importance of such “more superficial” remedies.

What I meant by “transcending the conscience” was to see it for what it is, a mechanism in the mind. While the conscience is very good and a gift from God, it can in itself be enslaving when we cling to resentment. Resentment is a function of the conscience, it plays a role in its formation.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Josie,

Yes understanding is a gift, and I know I am repeating myself, but we are not God so we are not able to fully understand, our understanding is limited,

Yes, our understanding is limited, but we can understand to the point of exhausting our own ability to do so (with God’s help). When we come to the point of being able to say, “I could have done that, given their motives and view of the situation,” and my lust to punish has completely disappeared, then I have understood to the point that I am now one with the person, I have reconciled within. If I do choose to punish, it is now with a merciful heart.

so to make assumptions about the reason a person may murder another (a sinful act), and blaming it on ignorance or an injustice they felt needed vengeance is not our call to make.

In order to empathize with anyone, we make assumptions. Understanding does not involve blaming; understanding resolves blaming.

To do so is like condoning their sinful actions and making excuses for them.

Understanding is not the same as condoning. Condoning is “what they did was okay”. Understanding is “what they did can be explained in the context of being beautiful humans, even though what they did was not okay.”

“Making excuses” is “I am going to say something that sounds good so that I can escape consequence”. Understanding does not absolve a person of consequence, but it does enable forgiveness, which diminishes the wrathful desire to carry out punishment.

Even punishment must be carried out with mercy in mind, with forgiveness in mind.

We are called to practice the works of mercy as you say but what exactly are they? I have listed them for you here.

The Corporal Works of Mercy

Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
Visit the sick
Visit the imprisoned
Bury the dead

The Spiritual Works of Mercy

**Admonish the sinner
Instruct the ignorant (This and the next work are extremely pertinent categories today, when so many people are confused by what the Church teaches on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc.)
Counsel the doubtful
**Comfort the sorrowful
Bear wrongs patiently
Forgive all injuries
Pray for the living and the dead

Thanks!

I have bolded the ones I feel is important for the topic we are discussing. The one you concentrate on is “forgive all injuries”, yes we are to do that, but not with blind acceptance for their sins, as we are also called to admonish the sinner and instruct them.

Yes.

It may be true that we can be certain that a merciful God would never let a person choose hell without the person knowing exactly what they are doing is wrong, but then why mention admonishing the sinner in the acts of mercy?

We can be certain that God will never let a person choose hell without the person knowing exactly what they are doing is not only wrong, but is a choice that will lead to great suffering, and the choice for heaven is not. This was what was presented to the guy in that video, right?

Admonishing a sinner is merciful because it may motivate them to avoid sin.

I believe we all have the responsibility to tell a person when they are doing wrong, those who know God and His laws, need to inform people of the dangers of hell. We should not assume He will let everyone know exactly what they are doing wrong, as we have that responsibility too.

He lets people know on Earth, in part, through us, yes. There is a hell on Earth too, right? Addiction is hell, war is hell, slavery to appetites is hell, these are all things we can admonish, or do whatever we mercifully can to stop.

God is loving and good and merciful, but he wants us do works of mercy while we are on earth, and our actions on earth can help lead souls to repentance and lead them to heaven. We will be judged on our actions, and whether we led souls to heaven, or let them live in ignorance of their sins.

Yes!

You seem like a very kind and caring person

Thank you! You seem like a kind and caring person too! I addressed condoning above, and how understanding is not the same, etc.

Remember what I was told? “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

Blessings!

 

[JosieN]

OneSheep;14131458 Good Morning Josie,

Yes, our understanding is limited, but we can understand to the point of exhausting our own ability to do so (with God’s help). When we come to the point of being able to say, “I could have done that, given their motives and view of the situation,” and my lust to punish has completely disappeared, then I have understood to the point that I am now one with the person, I have reconciled within. If I do choose to punish, it is now with a merciful heart.

Unlike you,I believe I can never fully understand why or how a person can kill and innocent priest. I cannot understand because I cannot read his heart. In my opinion, these acts come from the heart and the mind carries out the thought process to agree with it and then do it. If you are able to understand so greatly, that you become one with the person and know his heart, you are doing something that I did not think was humanly possible. I always believed God was the one who knew our hearts and our reasons and our motives, not us.

In order to empathize with anyone, we make assumptions. Understanding does not involve blaming; understanding resolves blaming.

Understanding is not the same as condoning. Condoning is “what they did was okay”. Understanding is “what they did can be explained in the context of being beautiful humans, even though what they did was not okay.”

“Making excuses” is “I am going to say something that sounds good so that I can escape consequence”. Understanding does not absolve a person of consequence, but it does enable forgiveness, which diminishes the wrathful desire to carry out punishment.

**Even punishment must be carried out with mercy in mind, with forgiveness in mind.
**

I do not know what you are talking about when you say even punishment must be carried out with mercy and forgiveness in mind. Whose punishment are you referring to? Are you referring to God’s punishment of us or our punishment of others? I hope you are not saying that you know how God’s punishment must be carried out ,and that it must be given with forgiveness in mind, because no one can know this but God himself. We must be careful not to assume things we cannot know, as this may lead to others assuming God will forgive them even when they are not repentant of their sins.

We can be certain that God will never let a person choose hell without the person knowing exactly what they are doing is not only wrong, but is a choice that will lead to great suffering, and the choice for heaven is not. This was what was presented to the guy in that video, right?

I think my understanding of the video was that he was given a second chance because of the prayers his mother said for him. After he died he saw his mother in a vision and the prayer she taught him, and he tried to remember the prayer. I believe his mother’s prayers were the reason God gave him a second chance, and this is when and why he was able to see what he was doing was wrong, We can not be sure everyone will be given the same second chance at death. Prayers for all sinners are needed for others to see what they are doing is wrong, prayers and instructing them in a kind way is the surest way to salvation.

He lets people know on Earth, in part, through us, yes. There is a hell on Earth too, right? Addiction is hell, war is hell, slavery to appetites is hell, these are all things we can admonish, or do whatever we mercifully can to stop.

It is hell because all temptations to sin are from the devil, and our human weaknesses give in to the temptations. Sometimes human reasoning makes excuses for these weaknesses and trying to understand them, does not always help, many times only the help of Jesus Christ will cure the desire for addictions, war, greed etc. These things cannot bring us true happiness

People sometimes confuse pleasure for happiness and then become slaves to those pleasures, even though they are very sinful, and these sins take them farther away from God, and in the end, they lose the ability to see the real meaning of life. Our prayers and small sacrifices for them, and our works of mercy (telling them about Jesus Christ and how He is able to heal them) is important, and I agree we must do everything we can to stop it.

Thank you! You seem like a kind and caring person too! I addressed condoning above, and how understanding is not the same, etc.

Remember what I was told? “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

Blessings!

Once again, I am repeating myself, but my concern for you and those who think like you is that you are assuming things you know nothing about, You said in your first paragraph
“Yes, our understanding is limited, but we can understand to the point of exhausting our own ability to do so (with God’s help).” When do you know, even with God’s help, that you have exhausted your ability to understand?

In the works of mercy we are taught to forgive injuries, we are not taught to assume what the sinners motives are so we can understand them better, or apply our own ideas of mercy and forgiveness to their evil actions and sins. Should we not be leaving these things in the Hands of God? Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, I believe we should turn to Him for the answers, and not to our own understandings, which are limited because we are only human.

 

[St_Francis]

Good Morning Francis,

Yes, this is radicalization, but there is more to add to that. In order for a human to do this, he must already be blind to the value of those he means to destroy. People do not kill those that they value, unless they are insane. Of course, there are cases where suicide bombers end up inadvertently killing part of their own ingroup, but this is rationalized as God’s will. The notion that people suicide bomb simply for heavenly riches without such lack of seeing the value of their victims is not supported by research. The most common predictor of suicide bombings, etc., is not poverty, mental illness, or such; it is a sense of injustice. When we experience injustice, we resent or hate the unjust.

As I understand it, these aspects are inherent in the violent aspects of Islamic theology as well; that is my point. The RIs have their own definitions for injustice and valuable human being; for example, many RIs believe that it is unjust that Spain is no longer under Moslem domination, and the Koran pretty much demonizes non-Moslems, to the point that those who leave convert away from Islam are subject to the death penalty.

Good analogy!

Thanks! It’s amazing what our children do for us

If they forgive, their will to do violence will end.

Wait, what?!? You are talking about *their *forgiving? How is that a strategy? I do not believe it is humanly possible… really, the only way this could come about is through God.

If they are being aggressive, it is just for people to defend themselves. If they are not continuing aggression, then it is unjust to use violence against them for the sake of demoralizing them, right?

Who has advocated an immoral continuation of violence against them?

This is a solution to …?

You asked for examples? I was trying to show that there would be changes in our actions if we were to take their theology into account. Obviously, I cannot speak about anything related to the military.

We can also tell them the truth about violence in the OT,

Where does it say to the Israelites to take over *everywhere? *Where does it say for the Israelites to do bad things to *everyone *who is not a follower of their God?

or about the merciless behavior demonstrated by Peter in Acts 5:1-11.

All people are capable of blindness when they have strong desire or when they feel resentment. All people are capable of violence. God calls for mercy and forgiveness.

God *also *calls for order to be imposed, for the strong to protect the weak.

I agree, and sites like ing.org do offer such apologetics!

Do they admit that there are violent teachings used by some groups within Islam to justify violence? Do they show how to counter the arguments of the RIs? Because that is what I am talking about, information that would help parents to teach their children not to fall into the hands of the RIs.

Peace be with you, always.

Thank you… I don’t think I can say, And also with you, but may God bless you, too

 

[St_Francis]

We are compelled by our nature. I don’t mean “forced”. We have strong inclinations to mirror the behaviors/emotions of people we are interacting with; we exhibit complementary behaviors. We react to anger with anger of fear; we react to forgiveness with forgiveness or guilt.

Wow, I feel like we have two entirely different pictures in our minds. You seem to have some sort of safe space where RIs are hanging out with forgiving non-Moslems, and I have a picture of the RIs beheading 20 Coptic Christians and one more man:
After the beheadings, the Coptic Orthodox church released their names, but there were only 20 names. It was later learned that the 21st martyr was named Mathew Ayairga and that he was from Chad. He was originally a non-Christian, but he saw the immense faith of the others, and when the terrorists asked him if he rejected Jesus, he reportedly said, “Their God is my God”, knowing that he would be killed. (from Wikipedia)

Forgiveness is a long-term strategy, it does not stop violence in the short-term.

You keep saying it is a long-term strategy, but how will it be implemented as a strategy at all?

Apologetics does not involve denial of what is written, right? It is about explaining what happened in a new light. It often means providing a lot of historical context with an added implication of “this is why it is wrong today”.

First, apologetics, like forgiveness as a strategy, is going to require some sort of infrastructure that I cannot really imagine, except for a prison.

OTOH, I have to believe that what you say is possible, because it happened to [
I have never considered conscience as something related to the actions of others, more that my conscience applies itself to my actions. So you can see that what you are saying does not fit in with what I was thinking.

Given the etymology of the word (apparently conscience and consciousness stem from a single word in Latin and in French), it may well be that what you are saying is correct, altho it currently “feels” incorrect to me. Resentment does not seem to me to stem from my conscience, but rather from some other part of me, maybe because I see the conscience as good, and the part of me that resents as bad.

So looking at what I think you are saying, it is that if a resentment returns and needs to be forgiven over and over, then one needs to have an understanding and acceptance of how one could oneself commit the act in order to fully forgive.

But we have already discussed that this leads to an egocentric view of the bad act, which might work for one’s own personal spiritual benefit (altho I feel that being based on something which is not true, that it can’t really be correct), but which cannot apply to public policy. It’s a personal thing, not a public thing.he described it in a debate I saw him on

This was what I said:

“When condemning and condoning are put together side by side, it is a call to look at the conscience itself; to transcend it. We transcend our conscience by understanding, forgiving, loving in a deeper way.”

Realistically, when we judge an action, which is a gut reaction, we naturally feel some negativity toward the person who carried out the action. While we can come to realize that we resent the person tied to the action, it takes some discipline to say and enact “I will not hold anything against the person, but I judge his action as wrong”. This discipline has its place, and is a form of forgiveness. However, if the action is not understood in a deeper way by the person who judges, the negative sentiment remains. When it again surfaces, the person can drive it away again “I am not going to judge the person”, but this is a more superficial remedy. A deeper forgiveness is found through understanding.

This is not to downplay the importance of such “more superficial” remedies.

What I meant by “transcending the conscience” was to see it for what it is, a mechanism in the mind. While the conscience is very good and a gift from God, it can in itself be enslaving when we cling to resentment. Resentment is a function of the conscience, it plays a role in its formation.

](Maajid Nawaz - Wikipedia)

 

[OneSheep]

Good Evening Josie,

Unlike you,I believe I can never fully understand why or how a person can kill and innocent priest. I cannot understand because I cannot read his heart. In my opinion, these acts come from the heart and the mind carries out the thought process to agree with it and then do it. If you are able to understand so greatly, that you become one with the person and know his heart, you are doing something that I did not think was humanly possible. I always believed God was the one who knew our hearts and our reasons and our motives, not us.

In my experience, it has been valuable to proceed with what I call “painful admissions”. How much have I ever hated someone? Have I hated to the point that I wanted someone dead? Yes, I have. It does not matter that I did not kill because it was wrong or because I feared the law. The fact is, I hated someone, and I wanted them destroyed. Now, I could stop right there and condemn myself, but that is not guide I am following. The next question to understand is, “why do we have the capacity to hate?”. Hate is a very natural reaction to being persecuted. It is also a natural reaction to seeing someone do great evil. Where does it come from? It comes from the reaction of the conscience, and is enhanced by the desire for control, dominance, and/or autonomy. What about those desires, where do they come from? Again, I could stop right there and condemn those desires and say they are evil and come from an evil place, but instead, there are other questions to address, like “from where come those desires?”, or more specifically, “why did God give us these natural desires?” This is a process of understanding.

When the hatred is aimed at an entire group, then things like what happened to Fr. Hamel occur. It was probably nothing against him personally, it was coming from a hatred of Christians, much like people kill Imams because of hatred for Muslims.

I do not know what you are talking about when you say even punishment must be carried out with mercy and forgiveness in mind. Whose punishment are you referring to? Are you referring to God’s punishment of us or our punishment of others?

Both. We are to be perfect, as our Father is perfect; and we know God is infinitely merciful. We are to forgive when we are ready to do so. Imagine in a modern court that an angry judge recommends a death sentence for someone. Well, the case would be appealed and overturned because of the negative emotional bias on the part of the judge. While the ultimate judgment is objective in today’s world; objectivity is practically impossible once we get to know someone. Is God one of flat emotionless image, or does he care deeply for all of us? My own image of Him is the latter.

I hope you are not saying that you know how God’s punishment must be carried out ,and that it must be given with forgiveness in mind, because no one can know this but God himself. We must be careful not to assume things we cannot know, as this may lead to others assuming God will forgive them even when they are not repentant of their sins.

We can assume that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, and is at least that forgiving. If a person has forgiven everyone they held something against, then he or she can begin to know God’s forgiveness, right? By following His commandments, we can come to know Him. He asks us to forgive, and understanding leads to a deeper forgiveness.

I think my understanding of the video was that he was given a second chance because of the prayers his mother said for him. After he died he saw his mother in a vision and the prayer she taught him, and he tried to remember the prayer. I believe his mother’s prayers were the reason God gave him a second chance, and this is when and why he was able to see what he was doing was wrong, We can not be sure everyone will be given the same second chance at death. Prayers for all sinners are needed for others to see what they are doing is wrong, prayers and instructing them in a kind way is the surest way to salvation.

Are you saying that God forgiveness is limited by intervention? Well, that is a legitimate image, but in my prayer experience God is the greatest intermediary, He himself does the greatest intervention of all. He sent His son, and He forgave unconditionally from the cross.

It is hell because all temptations to sin are from the devil, and our human weaknesses give in to the temptations. Sometimes human reasoning makes excuses for these weaknesses and trying to understand them, does not always help, many times only the help of Jesus Christ will cure the desire for addictions, war, greed etc. These things cannot bring us true happiness

Yes, I agree, understanding is not a substitute for all it takes to overcome sin.

Once again, I am repeating myself, but my concern for you and those who think like you is that you are assuming things you know nothing about, You said in your first paragraph
“Yes, our understanding is limited, but we can understand to the point of exhausting our own ability to do so (with God’s help).” When do you know, even with God’s help, that you have exhausted your ability to understand?

I explained that in the following sentence: “When we come to the point of being able to say, “I could have done that, given their motives and view of the situation,” and my lust to punish has completely disappeared, then I have understood to the point that I am now one with the person, I have reconciled within. If I do choose to punish, it is now with a merciful heart.”

Continued… sigh… my apologies for being so long-winded…

 

[OneSheep]

continued from above…

JosieN:

People sometimes confuse pleasure for happiness and then become slaves to those pleasures, even though they are very sinful, and these sins take them farther away from God, and in the end, they lose the ability to see the real meaning of life. Our prayers and small sacrifices for them, and our works of mercy (telling them about Jesus Christ and how He is able to heal them) is important, and I agree we must do everything we can to stop it.

Yes, you have the truth there; those things can happen.

In the works of mercy we are taught to forgive injuries, we are not taught to assume what the sinners motives are so we can understand them better, or apply our own ideas of mercy and forgiveness to their evil actions and sins. Should we not be leaving these things in the Hands of God? Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, I believe we should turn to Him for the answers, and not to our own understandings, which are limited because we are only human.

Now I am repeating: all empathy depends on assumptions. Empathy comes from the experiences we have, such that we assume that people experience what we experienced in the same circumstances. Understanding is “standing among”. We can “stand among” all sinners once we have experienced the sin to some degree, and can get past the self-protecting denial and make “painful admissions” as I described in my last post.

God’s peace be with you!

 

[JosieN]

Good Evening Josie,

In my experience, it has been valuable to proceed with what I call “painful admissions”. How much have I ever hated someone? Have I hated to the point that I wanted someone dead? Yes, I have. It does not matter that I did not kill because it was wrong or because I feared the law. The fact is, I hated someone, and I wanted them destroyed. Now, I could stop right there and condemn myself, but that is not guide I am following. The next question to understand is, “why do we have the capacity to hate?”. Hate is a very natural reaction to being persecuted. It is also a natural reaction to seeing someone do great evil. Where does it come from? It comes from the reaction of the conscience, and is enhanced by the desire for control, dominance, and/or autonomy. What about those desires, where do they come from? Again, I could stop right there and condemn those desires and say they are evil and come from an evil place, but instead, there are other questions to address, like “from where come those desires?”, or more specifically, “why did God give us these natural desires?” This is a process of understanding.

When the hatred is aimed at an entire group, then things like what happened to Fr. Hamel occur. It was probably nothing against him personally, it was coming from a hatred of Christians, much like people kill Imams because of hatred for Muslims.

Both. We are to be perfect, as our Father is perfect; and we know God is infinitely merciful. We are to forgive when we are ready to do so. Imagine in a modern court that an angry judge recommends a death sentence for someone. Well, the case would be appealed and overturned because of the negative emotional bias on the part of the judge. While the ultimate judgment is objective in today’s world; objectivity is practically impossible once we get to know someone. Is God one of flat emotionless image, or does he care deeply for all of us? My own image of Him is the latter.

We can assume that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, and is at least that forgiving. If a person has forgiven everyone they held something against, then he or she can begin to know God’s forgiveness, right? By following His commandments, we can come to know Him. He asks us to forgive, and understanding leads to a deeper forgiveness.

Are you saying that God forgiveness is limited by intervention? Well, that is a legitimate image, but in my prayer experience God is the greatest intermediary, He himself does the greatest intervention of all. He sent His son, and He forgave unconditionally from the cross.

Yes, I agree, understanding is not a substitute for all it takes to overcome sin.

I explained that in the following sentence: “When we come to the point of being able to say, “I could have done that, given their motives and view of the situation,” and my lust to punish has completely disappeared, then I have understood to the point that I am now one with the person, I have reconciled within. If I do choose to punish, it is now with a merciful heart.”

Continued… sigh… my apologies for being so long-winded…

I have been angry at people and possibly hated them for awhile, but in time and with prayer, this goes away. I would never kill anyone, it would take a great deal of evil in my heart to do this. So you see I think there is something worse than just revenge or anger happening inside a man’s soul and mind when he kills an innocent person.

I have tried to understand you and how you think, but for me it is difficult to agree with your reasoning because it is not logical to assume this type of evil will go away if we become more understanding. What if his reason for killing is because he enjoys killing and is using his religion as an excuse to kill? How do you reconcile with that?

There are mass murderers who have killed young children and kept killing for pleasure, no motive was needed. My explanation for this type of murder is a heart of pure evil, no amount of understanding can explain it. How can you understand to the point that you are now one with this person and be reconciled within in this situation? When you punish how can you have a merciful heart? What about the dead children and the pain that they felt and the loss of their life? Do they not deserve justice? What about the parents pain and loss?

If one asks God for forgiveness and mercy, it is because of His Son’s sacrifice on the cross that it is possible to have forgiveness, but a person who does not believe in Jesus Christ will not ask unless we pray for his soul and for his conversion to the true faith, and this is the only way to salvation for him. a contrite heart and repentance and healing from Jesus Christ will repair this type of person’s damaged soul. God knows what is in his heart, we do not. We are not to assume reasons for any murders, as we can not truly know them or understand them.

Sometimes the mind clouds itself with too much hopeful and unrealistic thoughts and that makes it difficult to focus on reality. Fr. Hamel did not deserve to die, and no amount of our own understanding and reasoning can explain the kind of evil for his death.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

Wait, what?!? You are talking about *their *forgiving? How is that a strategy? I do not believe it is humanly possible… really, the only way this could come about is through God.

When we offer forgiveness, they will be inspired to do the same. However, if this is mere “strategy”, it will go nowhere. There has to be a coupled sincerity, a real caring.

You asked for examples? I was trying to show that there would be changes in our actions if we were to take their theology into account. Obviously, I cannot speak about anything related to the military.

Yes, but what is denying them the right to build mosques an example of? You see, you were talking about demoralizing them, not allowing them to put mosques where there were once churches, etc. This is an example of how to build enmity, it is not an example of how to build reconciliation and friendship. I can feel the sentiment, it is territorial, "this is Our land, Our nation, Our heritage, etc., and such territoriality is very natural, but territoriality is one of those drives that we can become enslaved to. Some people spend their whole lives holding grudges over lost territory.

Check Acts 5:1-11 and ask yourself, what if Pope Francis were to exhibit the same behavior today? Her husband had just died, and he treated her with wrath. These behaviors on Peter’s part have to be explained in the historical context, not put forth as acceptable behavior today. If it were to happen today, the Church would go bankrupt pretty quickly, I think. Followers would be much more wrathful than fearful!

Do they admit that there are violent teachings used by some groups within Islam to justify violence? Do they show how to counter the arguments of the RIs? Because that is what I am talking about, information that would help parents to teach their children not to fall into the hands of the RIs.

The main emphasis of what ing.org writes is a counter-argument to what RIs present.

 

[OneSheep]

Wow, I feel like we have two entirely different pictures in our minds. You seem to have some sort of safe space where RIs are hanging out with forgiving non-Moslems, and I have a picture of the RIs beheading 20 Coptic Christians and one more man:

Thanks for sharing that amazing story. What I am picturing is formation of the Kingdom.

You keep saying it is a long-term strategy, but how will it be implemented as a strategy at all?

I shouldn’t have used the word “strategy”, it sounds too manipulative. I mean long-term solution.

To bring forth the Kingdom, we forgive all of our enemies, which is exactly what we are called to do. Then we, as Church, express this forgiveness in some context to the “IS”. The Spirit guides these things, right?

OTOH, I have to believe that what you say is possible, because it happened to [Maajid Nawaz, who is founding a think-tank to do just what you are talking about, afaict. However, the process as he described it in a debate I saw him on](Maajid Nawaz - Wikipedia) took a few years—in prison.

Looks like a long video to watch. What were the credentials of the participants?

I do know this, there is a huge debate among Muslims as to who speaks for Islam. It seems to me that Christians who actually respect Muslim people can have some influence over that. It would not happen because of pressure, it would happen because of mercy and charity. After all, God, Allah, Father, Abba, is merciful. From this place, we are to begin.

I have never considered conscience as something related to the actions of others, more that my conscience applies itself to my actions. So you can see that what you are saying does not fit in with what I was thinking.

Given the etymology of the word (apparently conscience and consciousness stem from a single word in Latin and in French), it may well be that what you are saying is correct, altho it currently “feels” incorrect to me

.

The conscience involves formation of an internal rulebook. We apply it to ourselves and others.

Resentment does not seem to me to stem from my conscience, but rather from some other part of me, maybe because I see the conscience as good, and the part of me that resents as bad.

So, remember “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”? When I am condemning part of myself, we have a new opportunity to understand something.

So, the question is, “Why has God given us the capacity to resent?”. Well, we are social creatures, and social creatures have to have reactions to anti-social behavior, or the community falls apart. When one person is too domineering, to the point of hoarding all resources for himself, it is important for individuals to backlash in some way, right? If nothing else, how is an individual to live life if they do not stand their ground? And actually, “standing our ground” is also a very important part of our nature, the territoriality I mentioned earlier. Resentment is an emotional trigger; it motivates the individual to reject the anti-social. In addition, the conscience is simultaneously being formed. The conscience is learning “don’t do this, don’t be like this” in reference to the resented behavior.

So looking at what I think you are saying, it is that if a resentment returns and needs to be forgiven over and over, then one needs to have an understanding and acceptance of how one could oneself commit the act in order to fully forgive.

I was referring to if the resentment returns concerning a specific instance, yes. There is probably some aspect of the incident that I have not yet worked through.

But we have already discussed that this leads to an egocentric view of the bad act, which might work for one’s own personal spiritual benefit (altho I feel that being based on something which is not true, that it can’t really be correct), but which cannot apply to public policy. It’s a personal thing, not a public thing.

Well, I really doubt that it can happen in the secular arena. Religion can solve the world’s problems, government in itself cannot.

Based on something that is not true? If every possibility is considered, then there is nothing left to be false. God created man, and He saw that what He made is good. God is infinitely loving and merciful. When we start with these truths in guiding our view of bad acts or anything else, the Kingdom can be brought forth.

And also with you. Yes, we can say that.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Josie,

I have been angry at people and possibly hated them for awhile, but in time and with prayer, this goes away. I would never kill anyone, it would take a great deal of evil in my heart to do this. So you see I think there is something worse than just revenge or anger happening inside a man’s soul and mind when he kills an innocent person.

I agree, the killing is far worse. However, I was talking about being able to understand. We can relate to those who kill. For example, look at this question: why do you not kill if you desire someone destroyed? For most people today, we recoil at the thought of actually carrying it out. But what about people who are used to killing, for the purpose of protecting people during war? We hear about a lot of violence from veterans, right? Suicides, murder of spouses, murders in general. These are people who have lost that recoil factor. People used to killing have to be much more vigilant about forgiving.

I have tried to understand you and how you think, but for me it is difficult to agree with your reasoning because it is not logical to assume this type of evil will go away if we become more understanding. What if his reason for killing is because he enjoys killing and is using his religion as an excuse to kill? How do you reconcile with that?

There are mass murderers who have killed young children and kept killing for pleasure, no motive was needed. My explanation for this type of murder is a heart of pure evil, no amount of understanding can explain it. How can you understand to the point that you are now one with this person and be reconciled within in this situation?

So we can stop with “he enjoys killing” with the implied “he is evil”, which is a condemnation, or we can instead seek to understand. Why does a person enjoy killing? First of all, if it is indiscriminate we are talking about a person we would label a “sociopath” or a “psychopath”. These people have a greatly compromised ability to empathize, so their own consciences have not been formed. These people can learn to function in society because they find out that bad behaviors will lead to being put in jail or lessen their status in society, but compassion for others is greatly limited. They are incapable of seeing the inherent value of people. We generally find no inherent value in houseflies, right? These people see others as having the value of houseflies.

For the sociopath the “joy” comes in the feeling of being in control, in dominating. Control and domination is his motive. Because their empathy is extremely compromised, they feel no remorse.

Have you ever been on a mosquito killing-spree? It can be very satisfying. I do not empathize with mosquitoes. “Sociopaths” do not empathize with people, they see no inherent value in people. We can understand this without condoning it.

When you punish how can you have a merciful heart? What about the dead children and the pain that they felt and the loss of their life? Do they not deserve justice? What about the parents pain and loss?

With understanding we can forgive in a deeper way, and actually have a merciful heart toward a sociopath. What they “deserve” is an uncompromised ability to empathize, but for reason of brain development or adverse nurture, they have very little ability. Sociopaths “get” punishment, though, it does motivate them to behave. They want their freedom, so prison is not desired. I am hopeful that some day there will be a means of curing sociopathy in people.

As for the parents pain and loss, we are to pray for them and grieve with them. Punishment never makes the loss go away. Hopefully, they can eventually forgive. It takes time.

… but a person who does not believe in Jesus Christ will not ask unless we pray for his soul and for his conversion to the true faith, and this is the only way to salvation for him…

Matthew 19:26New International Version (NIV)

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

I was looking at the word “only”. Perhaps you are emphasizing the opposite, “with man this is possible, but with God it is impossible?” You may be expressing a different image of God, but like I have often said here: if so, it is a legitimate view. Note: I am not saying that there is no value in praying for sinners. There is great value in praying!

Sometimes the mind clouds itself with too much hopeful and unrealistic thoughts and that makes it difficult to focus on reality. Fr. Hamel did not deserve to die, and no amount of our own understanding and reasoning can explain the kind of evil for his death.

Yes, he did not deserve to die, but we can come to understand why the murderer did what he did to the best of our ability, to the point that we can forgive in a deeper way.

Thank you for your continued responses, I am enjoying your challenging questions and statements!

 

[St_Francis]

Good Morning Francis,
When we offer forgiveness, they will be inspired to do the same. However, if this is mere “strategy”, it will go nowhere. There has to be a coupled sincerity, a real caring.

I guess the way I see the subject we are discussing as a public problem of justice, whereas you seem to see it as a private concern of mercy.

To me, governments primarily in the ME, and secondarily elsewhere, should be doing something about ISIS in order to protect the current and future victims. This is a matter of strategy and war.

If Catholics and/or the Church want to engage members of ISIS on a different level, it is a *separate *endeavour. Personally, I think the immediate need is help for those affected by ISIS, the victims, the displaced, etc. To me, this should be the first priority, which should not go so far as to prioritize medical treatment on the basis of affiliation, but which should generally concentrate on helping victims.

I can see a place for individuals and groups within the Church to engage with actual members of ISIS; at least a few saints have done this. I just don’t think it is practical unless the RIs are locked up.

So when I talk about “the problem,” I am talking about how governments and other institutions should act regarding the ghastly victimization of people in the ME, on an institutional level, and you seem to be talking about how individuals should act.

Yes, but what is denying them the right to build mosques an example of? You see, you were talking about demoralizing them, not allowing them to put mosques where there were once churches, etc. This is an example of how to build enmity, it is not an example of how to build reconciliation and friendship.

Their desire to build a mosque in or over a church is a sign of their enmity to us, their conquest of us, a victory over us. Should we allow *that? *

I am not saying this is the case in each instance, but especially in other places, yes, it is. Go look up the cathedral in Córdoba in Wikipedia: so far, the request of the Moslems to use it has been refused, but Wiki has it listed as “The Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba.” Note the order. (accents courtesy of spell-check)

I can feel the sentiment, it is territorial, "this is Our land, Our nation, Our heritage, etc., and such territoriality is very natural, but territoriality is one of those drives that we can become enslaved to. Some people spend their whole lives holding grudges over lost territory.

Or centuries…

The problem is that we have been dealing with the RIs as if they are like us. They take advantage of our openness to incrementally move in. (Note: I am not talking about all Moslems, just some.) Look at what CAIR did with its “curriculum:” can you imagine any US public school encouraging students to fast for Lent, to memorize the Shecharit?

At some point, it is necessary to deal with them in line with their thinking, because otherwise, they will not understand our communications.

Check Acts 5:1-11 and ask yourself, what if Pope Francis were to exhibit the same behavior today? Her husband had just died, and he treated her with wrath. These behaviors on Peter’s part have to be explained in the historical context, not put forth as acceptable behavior today. If it were to happen today, the Church would go bankrupt pretty quickly, I think. Followers would be much more wrathful than fearful!

I do not understand your problem with this passage. What would you like to see have happened?

The main emphasis of what ing.org writes is a counter-argument to what RIs present.

No, they do not seem to engage much with the RI ideas. It seems more oriented toward educating non-Moslems about Islam from their (ING’s) point of view.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, you understand; it’s just not information which will help someone to resist radicalization.