French church attacked during Mass, priest murdered [CC]

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

I look at something like this (not this per se) and say, “I don’t understand why this happened or why the Saint said this, but I will pray about it and try to understand.”

We are in complete agreement on this. Everything I have said concerning the passage involves the word “if” it happened as described. My way of giving the benefit of the doubt in this case was that a well-intended writer modified the real story in order to motivate people to give according to the rules of the community. Another way of looking at it, Peter was human. We don’t have to hold him to some kind of elevated standard such that he never erred and we can repeat what he did.

This is the same way that modern Muslim people can assess the acts of the prophet Mohammad himself. He was not God, he was human. Humans make errors in judgment.

For this passage, I wonder why Ananias lied… how St Peter knew… I assume God at least permitted Ananias to die at that moment. I recall that Christ said one must hate his brothers and sisters to be Christ’s disciple, and consider that St Petet said Ananias tried to lie to God, that Ananias loved something more than he loved Christ, that Saphira was somehow more concerned about her husband or the money than she was about Christ.

You see? The passage about hating brothers and sisters needs explaining, otherwise people can take it wrong. Jesus was again referring to the human trappings of status. Since status is so tied up in ancestry and who you are related to; we free ourselves from the trap by denying who we are related to. Obviously, it does not apply to people with no status from family name. Jesus was overstating with the word “hate”.

Then I consider an article I read about the ECFs and their ontological approach.

Back to the imagery of morality. If you speak of right and wrong in terms of being, it is generally expressed as either moving towards the path of well-being-eternal-being, or moving away from it,… considering sin as the corruption of death, how eould God view sinning to enter His Church?
​

I agree with this:

Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex Jul 31

God love us as we are: no sin, fault or mistake can make Him change His mind.

The article on ontology was a bit long, but most of what I read I agreed with. How does it relate to this thread?​

 

[OneSheep]

Please do show this.

I can give examples of formation of the kingdom:

Civil Rights legislation and the lessening of prejudgment based on race.
People making more contact and learning more about each other through the net.
Less people dying from wars and violence (per capita)
Development of laws and mores concerning sexual harassment in the workplace.
Continued advancements in medicine.
Development of theologies and teachings that more reflect God’s unconditional love
An emphasis on His mercy

You see reconciliation of all as a cause of the Kingdom of God; I see it as a result.

Oh, that is what you meant! I see it as both a cause and a result!

Right, without His grace, people cannot forgive, but they also cannot accept forgiveness.

Which is never withheld, right? God wants us all to come to Him, He always waits for us. People are hesitant about accepting forgiveness, accepting grace.

In order to truly understand the RIs, I believe it is necessary to understand their theology. What people think does affect their feelings and what they perceive as their needs. Even the Vatican, before meetings with members of other ecclesial communities for the purpose of evangelization, believes it is important to understand their theology.

Yes.

Sorry, what I meant was how would the announcement of forgiveness be seen by the RIs who perpetrate these types of acts? Do you think it will affect them at all, or be throwing pearls before swine?

The reaction will be mostly “complementary”. Some will have their hearts softened and be compelled by their nature to see our humanity, our value as people. Some will react angrily and say that Allah does not forgive us for being Christian and for past “insults to Islam”. Some will ignore it as insignificant.

The main beneficiary of the “pearls” is not the forgiven, but the forgivers, right? I don’t see it as a gift to the RIs, but as an acknowledgement of their humanity regardless of their acts. This is in keeping with the quote from the Holy Father on my last post. It takes a stance from forgiveness to do this.

May God bless your day! Let us continue to pray for all victims of war.

 

[St_Francis]

Good Morning Francis,

We are in complete agreement on this. Everything I have said concerning the passage involves the word “if” it happened as described. My way of giving the benefit of the doubt in this case was that a well-intended writer modified the real story in order to motivate people to give according to the rules of the community. Another way of looking at it, Peter was human. We don’t have to hold him to some kind of elevated standard such that he never erred and we can repeat what he did.

I guess I should have added that I assume the Bible is accurate, not that some sort of mistake was made. Overall, I assume I am lacking understanding, not that something is wrong with the Bible or that the Saint did the wrong thing.

What I meant by giving examples of my thinking was to illustrate how I use other information to help me better understand what is there, not to twist the story around to my way of thinking.

So we are not at all in agreement on this.

This is the same way that modern Muslim people can assess the acts of the prophet Mohammad himself. He was not God, he was human. Humans make errors in judgment.

This is not the way traditional Moslem theology works.

You see? The passage about hating brothers and sisters needs explaining, otherwise people can take it wrong. Jesus was again referring to the human trappings of status. Since status is so tied up in ancestry and who you are related to; we free ourselves from the trap by denying who we are related to. Obviously, it does not apply to people with no status from family name. Jesus was overstating with the word “hate”.

Here are the EcCFs and others on this topic:
Ver. 26. Hate not, &c. The law of Christ does not allow us to hate even our enemies, much less our parents: but the meaning of the text is, that we must be in that disposition of soul so as to be willing to renounce and part with every thing, how near or dear soever it may be to us, that would keep us from following Christ. Ch. — The word hate is not to be taken in its proper sense, but to be expounded by the words of Christ, (Matt. x. 37.) that no man must love his father more than God, &c. Wi. — Christ wishes to shew us what dispositions are necessary in him who desires to become his disciple; (Theophy.) and to teach us that we must not be discouraged, if we meet with many hardships and labours in our journey to our heavenly country. S. Gregory. — And if for our sakes, Christ even renounced his own mother, saying, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? why do you wish to be treated more delicately than your Lord? S. Ambrose. — He wished also to demonstrate to us, that the hatred he here inculcates, is not to proceed from any disaffection towards our parents, but from charity for ourselves; for immediately he adds, and his own life also. From which words it is evident, that in our love we must hate our brethren as we do ourselves.

Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex Jul 31

God love us as we are: no sin, fault or mistake can make Him change His mind.

The article on ontology was a bit long, but most of what I read I agreed with. How does it relate to this thread?

I think I have returned to the beginning of my circle, so to speak, leaving me with nothing left to say. I appreciate your politeness and kindness in our conversation

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

I guess I should have added that I assume the Bible is accurate, not that some sort of mistake was made. Overall, I assume I am lacking understanding, not that something is wrong with the Bible or that the Saint did the wrong thing.

To me, is not a matter of accuracy. The Bible is a gathering of inspired writings. It could very well be that the community needed a bit of “fear of God’s wrath” put into them at that early stage of Christianity. I am not saying that it was a calculated “ends justify the means” thing. Peter was certainly convinced that God was angry and wanted to punish the couple.

The parallel with Islam could be that the early Islamic community was called to protect themselves by dominating their enemies. They certainly saw it as God’s will.

When addressing the chaotic world of those times, it is more “accurate” to look at the mentality of the people. A priest once told us that people of those times were much freer about their projections on God. If they felt guilty, God was angry at them. If they felt happy, God was smiling upon them. We can look at Peter’s anger and Mohammad’s sentiments toward his enemies in the same light.

We’ve come a long way, have we not? Humans have developed political and legal institutions to deal with intertribal issues. When one tribe (nation) claims to have God on their side, when one tribe claims that God has called them to attack someone else, the rest of the world can look upon this with a resounding “NO!”. Why is this so? Because the true self within all of us is first loving, and Love is emerging from within. Our own love knows Love, and our God does not play favorites; He loves everyone. This is something that can be gleaned from every evolved (developed) religion.

This is not the way traditional Moslem theology works.

Exactly. Nor is it the way that traditional Christian theology works, if we cling to a certain version of “traditionalism”. One version of traditionalism has it that we have been dropped a deposit of revelation, and it never changes. “God has said it, and that is it”. The other version demonstrates that though we have received such a deposit, the meaning of the revelation unfolds over time, which is a development, a change, but by no means a turn-around. The core remains; Jesus commands us to love God and one another, as he loves us. Over time, Love overcomes racism, xenophobia, injustice, all of our human ills .

It behooves all people of all religions to see that we come to see our creator more clearly as time passes. Those who support the murderer of Fr. Hamel remain in their exclusive perception of God’s favor. If we were to somehow reach them with an appropriate act of mercy, in this case forgiveness from the heart, they can come to realize God’s love from a direction they had not considered.

I think I have returned to the beginning of my circle, so to speak, leaving me with nothing left to say. I appreciate your politeness and kindness in our conversation.

Yes, I think we have it covered. I appreciate your charity also!