French church attacked during Mass, priest murdered [CC]

[JimG]

Yes, we can assume that Christians already value forgiveness, just as all religions value forgiveness. However, people of all religions naturally tend to require repentance in order to forgive, so if everyone has the same requirement, forgiveness never happens. Instead, there is naturally a cycle of violence for violence, until one party is defeated, carrying the anger and resentment for another go-round when resources, will, and personnel are again available.

So, I must say that it takes a Christ-like movement, such as forgiveness from the cross, to get the ball rolling in the right direction. And so, we forgive, and then we reap what we sow. What goes around comes around. Yes, we want the jihadists to forgive. For this to happen, we can lead by example. This is our calling, to love and forgive our enemies.

You said, “I can say with absolute certainty that if the jihadist attacker chooses to forgive, he will not attack anyone.” But the jihadist attacker is not inclined to forgive. Your recommendation is that the victims of the attacker forgive. That’s fine. How many jihadist attacks must we accept in order to see whether our forgiveness, which he rejects, will eventually cause him to cease the attacks? How many innocent victims must we accept?

 

[St_Francis]

We can see that the beliefs are secondary,

Who is we? How can these people see that?

the beliefs they have come up with stem from their underlying motive to punish

The problem is they have *not *“come up with” their beliefs; the beliefs are in Islam already.

(take revenge for) injustices, and when they move this into the context of Islamic teachings, they feel justified in that punishing

So these are people who despite having suffered injustice themselves feel justified in taking revenge for the injustice they have experienced by raping the daughters of the Yazidis? That’s real rational and understandable. I always think that meting out justice involves doing worse things to people who didn’t do anything at all…

Actually we find agreement simply in the “they may be fighting”.

You think that they suffered injustice and a power vacuum existed, and that these conditions require fighting to occur.

I disagree. Suffering injustice does not necessarily lead to fighting, and when it does, it is not like this.

My statement conceded that, absent the violent teachings in Islam, they *might *have fought. I then went on to explain that I believed that had they fought, they would have fought differently.

How about this argument: A strain of Islam teaches that Moslems should, whenever there is a chance of success, wage war against the unbeliever until the unbeliever submits. As soon as certain violence -believing Moslems saw they had a chance of success, they seized it.

My argument actually explains what is happening much better than yours does. My argument also has more evidence for it.

There is a difference between legitimizing and understanding.

You seem to think I am legitimizing what the RIs are doing by saying that their actions are based on a strain of Islamic teaching.

So people are “de-legitimizing” ISIS by lying about what Islam teaches?

I hope that you have come to see, though, that if Muslims see that his primary motive was mercy, then mercy must continue to be their guide.

Yes, if Moslems, who believe that Mohammed led an exemplary life which should be imitated as closely as possible, came to see his “primary motive was mercy,” then … I just think that’s a big if about a man who spent the last 10 years of his life conquering the Arabian peninsula.

Again, check the ING site for what Muslims say about his example.

I’m afraid I don’t really have time to extensively search their site for this information. I did find this in their relevant FAQ: “Whatever differences one may find between Muhammad and Jesus should not obscure the fact that, **in *our *vision of Islam, **both Christianity and Islam uphold the principle of respect for life.”

Perhaps you know where they go into greater detail about their views on Mohammed’s example.

It does no good to give voice to those extremists who are against the teachings on that site.

Are you suggesting we rob them of free speech? Freedom of religion? Or what?

The San Bernardino couple was brainwashed by “IS” propaganda. The propaganda says nothing about forgiveness, it is about correcting what they see as injustice.

Maybe as good Moslems they wanted to follow the example of Mohammed more closely.

There seems to be no forgiveness in certain strains of Islam for non-Moslems, apostates, or the other kinds of Moslems.

Maybe a man who becomes a cloistered monk is brainwashed by extremist Catholics?

Are you saying that you have known nice Muslims, but you fear them?

I have known a lot of people who were outwardly nice. Even Mafiosi used to give money to charity! The problem is they were not nice inside.

Any person can be radicalized if they are bent on justice without remembering to keep mercy central to all we do.

True. And Christianity teaches this mercy under all circumstances.

The difference between you and me revolves in part around the question of whether Islam does this as well.

 

[St_Francis]

Good Morning Francis,
No, not the same level.

Though they are a small minority, there are extremist Muslim people all over. The reason they had for rioting was to protest the disrespect that they saw.

Which was shown to them by imams who had tried but failed to get the government of Denmark to take some action. Why did the imams do that?

Christians, too, have been involved in acts of conquest, **against the spirit of the Gospel. **

Precisely. My point is that what ISIS is doing is not against a certain strain of Islam well-evidenced in Islamic teaching.

You can probably find something on the ING site about the Arab peninsula, I think I remember reading something there.

I searched, but was unable to find any references and don’t have time to keep looking. If you recall where you saw it, post a link and I’ll look at it.

Here is an interesting part of a conversation a Catholic had with 2 Moslem women. The interesting part is close to the beginning, a description of what was said at the beginning of a graduate-level course he and the two women were taking.

Muslims too, are saying the “IS” interpretations are wrong.

Your link only says they are extremist. I have not seen anything which says the violent aspect is wrong, not Islamic, or whatever. They say ISIS is wrong only because their actions are really, really bad.

Well, this is what I wrote: 'There is definitely a place for righteous anger, and all acts we take must keep mercy in mind. Mercy and righteous anger do not cancel each other. I think we can agree that righteous anger must be guided by mercy."

Can you tell me what part of that communicates that justice and contrition do not matter? I’m confused by your statement, please clarify.

I thought if you told me what definition of mercy you were using, I might better understand what you meant.

ISTM that righteous anger should not “be guided by” mercy but by reason, which will allow the proper application of both mercy and justice.

Thanks for your reply!

Thank you for yours!

 

[OneSheep]

You said, “I can say with absolute certainty that if the jihadist attacker chooses to forgive, he will not attack anyone.” But the jihadist attacker is not inclined to forgive. Your recommendation is that the victims of the attacker forgive. That’s fine. How many jihadist attacks must we accept in order to see whether our forgiveness, which he rejects, will eventually cause him to cease the attacks? How many innocent victims must we accept?

Hi Jim,

I am thinking that you must have missed my comments about protection. A call to forgive does not rule out self-protection or protection of others.

A call to forgive is not a call to pacifism.

 

[Brendan_64]

If we want to understand why ISIS wants to kill us then we ought to stop trying to attribute this to, pn their part, a sense of grievance against our actions on the past. This might fit well into the liberal narratives of opposition to Western imperialism as well as a desire to think that if only we had acted differently none of this would have happened and a view that we too are guilty for what is happening.

Yes we have meddled too much in the middle east, yes we have committed acts of wrong there and yes we did leave a power vacuum and a mess which ISIS have take advantage of.

But if we want to look for the reasons wjy ISIS wants to kill us we ought to listen to why they say they want to do this. They have listed 6 reasons.

1. Because we are unbelievers (and they include Christians on that).
2. Because we are liberal.
3. Because some of us are atheists.
4. Because we have committed crimes against Islam (i.e. we have done things not permitted by Islam).
5. Because of our actions against Muslims.
6. Because we have invaded Muslim lands.

They then go on to make it clear that the main reasons are not because we have invaded their lands and that if we had never invaded their lands they would still want to kill us. They make it very clear that they view this as a religious war.

 

[JosieN]

Good Morning Josie,

However, give this some consideration: It is said that we individuals “become like the God we worship”. If this is the case, would we not rather people of all religions worship a God who is infinitely loving, forgiving, and merciful? I am not saying that we are to change our own image of God in order to fall in line with some global discipline. What I am saying is that there is a God within that we can encounter in prayer who loves and forgives infinitely, whose mercy has no bound. ** God as I know Him has no wrath, and has no drive for vengeance. He always understands and forgives.
**

“thy Kingdom come, on Earth as it is in heaven”

CCC2818 In the Lord’s Prayer, “thy kingdom come” refers primarily to the final coming of the reign of God through Christ’s return.88 But, far from distracting the Church from her mission in this present world, this desire commits her to it all the more strongly. Since Pentecost, the coming of that Reign is the work of the Spirit of the Lord who "complete his work on earth and brings us the fullness of grace."89

Jesus spoke much more about the “eternal life” that begins today than He did about the afterlife. Jesus was most concerned about people enslaved in sin today. A call to repent is a salvation from slavery today. An addict who is freed from his chains through repentance begins an eternal life, at least much more in that direction. The person enslaved by desire for status or wealth heads in the direction of an eternal life, a life of freedom from such compulsions, when he repents. People involved in terror are enslaved by vengeance. People reacting to such terror with the constant drive for vengeance are enslaved by that drive. An eternal life for those enslaved by vengeance begins with forgiveness.

The point of confession is reconciliation. Like all sacraments, the sacrament of reconciliation is a sign. It is a sign of what has already happened, what happens in the moment, or will happen in the future. Think about it: a person may go through the entire process of confession but still have some residual anger in his heart for his brother that he is simply unaware of. Our faith tells us that the sacrament is a sign that his heart will forgive and heal. Such healing leads to a deeper reconciliation.

Jesus’ forgiveness of the crowd did not depend on their contrition, but there is great value in confessing ones’ sins to a priest. The act of confessing itself is spiritually healing, and God works through the priest in transmitting the assurance of His forgiveness. That said, our theology generally does not claim that a person who does not go to confession is not forgiven by God.

When we forgive others, that forgiveness comes from us, but all forgiveness ultimately comes from God. Since we are called to be merciful, and forgiveness is the greatest act of mercy, (for many the most difficult act!) we are called to forgive from the heart those involved in terror when we are ready to do so.

Hope that helps. Our outlooks begin with the image of God, as we know Him through prayer and experience. Our Church is very inclusive when it comes to such images, so both those who see God as wrathful and vengeful and those who see God as infinitely understanding and merciful (and all positions in between) are included among the faithful.

Yes we are to forgive trespasses of those who trespass against us, but we cannot forgive trespasses of those who trespass against God Himself or His Son. I believe your understanding is mistaken. We are not the judge. Jesus did not say I forgive them, He said Father forgive them, and yet He was the one who they crucified. Judgement and mercy belong to God, not us, but because of the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven. So you see we are not called to be merciful, we are called to ask God to have mercy on us because of the sacrifice of His only Son. “For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us Lord”. Does that not sound familiar to you?

A price was paid by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for the forgiveness of our sins. It was His gift to us. God forgives us because Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross for us, He is worthy to make this sacrifice for us, we are not worthy, for this reason we are forgiven, for this reason God is merciful to us. Anyone that rejects Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, must convert to Christianity to be saved. This is why we pray for the conversion of sinners.

God is merciful because of the sacrifice of His Son, and our mercy is not the same as God’s mercy. Forgiving the terrorists is meaningless without praying for their conversion, Prayer. penance and sacrifices are what is needed to change the hearts of those who reject Jesus Christ and commit murder. This is the Christianity I am familiar with. I know you will disagree.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

Who is we? How can these people see that?/

Well, we can start with the simple fact that there are Muslim people all over the world studying and having reverence for the words of the Quran, but only the people from the part of the world where they have suffered injustice from outsiders are there people involved in terror. People who have studied terror say that the biggest predictor is occupation (which includes situations experienced by Sunnis in Iraq and Syria) by people of a different religion.

The problem is they have *not *“come up with” their beliefs; the beliefs are in Islam already.

And extremists have also found justification for violent acts in the Bible. The holy books are tools to justify, and in the case of “IS” it is a recruitment tool also.

So these are people who despite having suffered injustice themselves feel justified in taking revenge for the injustice they have experienced by raping the daughters of the Yazidis? …

I think that what they are doing to the Yazidis involves them simply wanting “ancestral lands” and/or since they see the Yazidis as evil (less than human) they can do anything they want with them. Since they have sexual desires, they are creating a form of Islam
that legitimizes rape and sex slaves. Desire blinds people.

You think that they suffered injustice and a power vacuum existed, and that these conditions require fighting to occur.

I disagree. Suffering injustice does not necessarily lead to fighting, and when it does, it is not like this.

Yes, it does not necessarily lead to fighting, but it did in Ireland, and it does in many places in Africa. It occurred in the U.S. with indigenous peoples. The terror part is a more modern phenomena, enhanced by mobility, weaponry, communication, etc.

How about this argument: A strain of Islam teaches that Moslems should, whenever there is a chance of success, wage war against the unbeliever until the unbeliever submits. As soon as certain violence -believing Moslems saw they had a chance of success, they seized it.

Perhaps, but you have to add the fact that no people allow themselves to be ruled by those they despise. The people in that area were not all RIs, but they all suffered injustice. It wasn’t just a matter of opportunity, it was mainly a matter of political will on the part of the people; they allowed the RIs to fight enemies and rule them because they were weary of the persecution.

Boko Haram, too, was a reaction of Muslims against injustice and persecution. It is not just a matter of “opportunity”.

My argument actually explains what is happening much better than yours does. My argument also has more evidence for it.

Please, provide evidence in the modern world. Find such a case of “opportunity” that was not preceded by persecution or injustice.

You see, our own nation had such opportunity when the West was conquered, running roughshod over indigenous peoples. Even this would not occur today in civilized countries. Where it does occur, (i.e. land confiscations, home demolitions, invasions) the rest of the world is outraged.

You seem to think I am legitimizing what the RIs are doing by saying that their actions are based on a strain of Islamic teaching.

So people are “de-legitimizing” ISIS by lying about what Islam teaches?

I’m confused. I think that you are saying that there are some issues in the Quran, such that people can read it and be inspired to invade or do terror. You are not saying that their actions are objectively legitimate or even trying to do so, right? So, you and the majority of Muslims are saying that the actions of “IS” are illegitimate. The ING does not lie about Islamic teachings; remember that they are starting in a different place, with the tenet that God is merciful. What conflicts with that tenet is explained in the historical context, not used as a guide for modern behavior.

Yes, if Moslems, who believe that Mohammed led an exemplary life which should be imitated as closely as possible, came to see his “primary motive was mercy,” then … I just think that’s a big if about a man who spent the last 10 years of his life conquering the Arabian peninsula.

Well, we cannot say that Mohammed’s primary motive was mercy in that case, IMO. Sure, the tribes he defeated had persecuted them and were provocative, but I think we can safely say that the effort was toward political power and resource, much like the westward movement in the U.S.

Are you suggesting we rob them of free speech? Freedom of religion? Or what?

I have no problem with “IS” proganda being censored. Freedom of speech has its limits.

Maybe as good Moslems they wanted to follow the example of Mohammed more closely.

That would be giving voice to “IS”.

There seems to be no forgiveness in certain strains of Islam for non-Moslems, apostates, or the other kinds of Moslems.

Now you are giving voice to the majority of Muslims.

I have known a lot of people who were outwardly nice. Even Mafiosi used to give money to charity! The problem is they were not nice inside.

If you go far enough inside anyone, Francis, you find love. All the evil people do depends on a lack of awareness, especially a lack of awareness of value. They don’t know what they are doing. Blindness or ignorance are essential ingredients in all hurtful behaviors.
.

True. And Christianity teaches this mercy under all circumstances.

The difference between you and me revolves in part around the question of whether Islam does this as well.

Well, yes, Christianity teaches this mercy, but not all Christians remember this, right? Same problem with Islam.

 

[OneSheep]

Which was shown to them by imams who had tried but failed to get the government of Denmark to take some action. Why did the imams do that?

I think you are referring to Imams protesting the cartoons and trying to get them censored? Like I said, images are very important in Islam.

Precisely. My point is that what ISIS is doing is not against a certain strain of Islam well-evidenced in Islamic teaching.

Note: I said that there are Christians who justify actions that go against gospel values. However, other values can be cherry-picked from the OT, just as the RIs do the Quran.

Here is an interesting part of a conversation a Catholic had with 2 Moslem women. The interesting part is close to the beginning, a description of what was said at the beginning of a graduate-level course he and the two women were taking.

That conversation is what happens when a “our way is the only way” Christian comes up against an “our way is the only way” Muslim. To me, it is more predictable than interesting.

Your link only says they are extremist. I have not seen anything which says the violent aspect is wrong, not Islamic, or whatever. They say ISIS is wrong only because their actions are really, really bad.

Try this, it is a nice summary:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Baghdadi

I thought if you told me what definition of mercy you were using, I might better understand what you meant.

ISTM that righteous anger should not “be guided by” mercy but by reason, which will allow the proper application of both mercy and justice.

Okay, but let’s not leave the heart out of it. “Sociopaths” also experience righteous anger, but they have an empathy disability.

Thank you for yours!

I really appreciate your respect and charity in conversation, Francis. I have learned a lot by finding things for you (and I) to look at!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Josie,

First of all, I must say that I really appreciate this in-depth conversation that gets to the heart of the matter about humans dealing with hurtful behaviors from each other. This is a “meta” conversation of the thread.

Yes we are to forgive trespasses of those who trespass against us, but we cannot forgive trespasses of those who trespass against God Himself or His Son.

We forgive people. We are to forgive people we hold anything against. When we make the effort to understand trespasses, then we can come to forgive in a deeper way. If I hold anything against a person who I believe has trespassed against God, then yes, I am called to forgive that person.

Mark 11:25-26New International Version (NIV)

25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

I believe your understanding is mistaken. We are not the judge. Jesus did not say I forgive them, He said Father forgive them, and yet He was the one who they crucified. Judgement and mercy belong to God, not us, but because of the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven. So you see we are not called to be merciful, we are called to ask God to have mercy on us because of the sacrifice of His only Son. “For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us Lord”. Does that not sound familiar to you?

We are to practice the Spriritual and Corporal works of mercy. In doing so, we are doing His will. We do not wait for some supernatural occurrence for those acts of mercy to happen; they happen through people.

In addition, when Jesus asked His Father to forgive, He was acting as One:

New International Version
John 12:45The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.

A price was paid by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for the forgiveness of our sins. It was His gift to us. God forgives us because Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross for us, He is worthy to make this sacrifice for us, we are not worthy, for this reason we are forgiven, for this reason God is merciful to us. Anyone that rejects Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, must convert to Christianity to be saved. This is why we pray for the conversion of sinners.

Well, the theology you are presenting has some history in the Church, and is still adhered to today by many, but the Church is generally downplaying the “payment” view and emphasizing a different approach to atonement:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Of course, the writings of our Pope Emeritus are scholarly, but it is worth the read. It needs to be read several times in order to understand it.

God is merciful because of the sacrifice of His Son, and our mercy is not the same as God’s mercy. Forgiving the terrorists is meaningless without praying for their conversion, Prayer. penance and sacrifices are what is needed to change the hearts of those who reject Jesus Christ and commit murder. This is the Christianity I am familiar with. I know you will disagree.

Absolutely, we can pray for their conversion. They can start by repenting from their slavery to vengeance and slavery to desire for wealth, status, and lust where applicable. Prayer for conversion is important, but not a substitute for forgiving those we hold anything against. Take a look at Mark 11:25; we are to forgive when we pray, it is part of our prayer.

Okay, God’s mercy is not exactly the same as our mercy, but all mercy comes from God. Mercy originates in God. We are called to carry out the works of mercy.

You see, there are two different ways to look at the incarnation. One way is to say that Jesus came to change God’s mind about man. The other way is to say that Jesus came to change man’s mind about God. The former view is one that stems from the working of our conscience, which punishes us when we behave badly and rewards us when we do good. The latter is one that stems from knowing God’s love as unconditional. Both views are to be respected, but the latter is one that comes from a deeper look at Love, that God’s love is constant and never changes under any circumstances. This is reflected in Pope Francis’ quote in my signature, and Pope Benedict’s writing in the link above.

 

[JimG]

Must Catholics believe that Islam is peaceful?

The article by William Kilpatrick is a response to the position advocated by Monsignor Stuart Swetland in a rather low key radio debate between Msgr. Swetland and Robert Spencer, the entirety of which can be found here.

 

[OneSheep]

I had to again read that article myself that I linked to Josie above. Pope Benedict’s writing is so powerful and pertinent, I think that this excerpt from his book is a worthwhile read for every Catholic. It actually brought tears to my eyes today, He really puts some very important matters, central to all of this, in perspective:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Excerpt:

Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

So, in our effort to be perfect, such perfection involves a foolish love, one that defies our natural inclination to hang onto resentment towards those who terrorize.

 

[JosieN]

Hi Josie,

Well, the theology you are presenting has some history in the Church, and is still adhered to today by many, but the** Church is generally downplaying the “payment” view and emphasizing a different approach to atonement:**

You see, there are two different ways to look at the incarnation. One way is to say that Jesus came to change God’s mind about man. The other way is to say that Jesus came to change man’s mind about God. The former view is one that stems from the working of our conscience, which punishes us when we behave badly and rewards us when we do good. The latter is one that stems from knowing God’s love as unconditional. Both views are to be respected, but the latter is one that comes from a deeper look at Love, that God’s love is constant and never changes under any circumstances. This is reflected in Pope Francis’ quote in my signature, and Pope Benedict’s writing in the link above.

What do you mean when you say there are two ways to look at the incarnation? Where does one get the idea that Jesus came to change God’s mind about man or that Jesus came to change man’s mind about God? Is it based on truth? Here is what the Catholic Catechism says.

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:70

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?71
458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."72 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."73

Jesus Christ became man to save us because our nature was fallen and needed healing and reconciling. We know God’'s love as He sent his only Son into the world. “he was revealed to take away sins” This is how we are to understand the incarnation.

How can the Church downplay the “payment” view and emphasize a different approach to atonement without changing the teachings of the Church? The teachings cannot be changed because there is a different opinion now. It is not possible to change the truth, if you change the truth, it becomes a lie. You cannot change 2000 years of Christian teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

Perhaps a variation of an analogy I used with my children might help.

God sends us His sanctifying grace through a pipeline. Adam and Eve, by their sin, broke that pipe. We could not experience the love of God, and God could not send us sanctifying grace.

So God sent His Son, mainly to repair the pipe, also to teach us, establish the sacraments, etc.

So Christ, by His supreme sacrifice, unblocked the pipe (atoned for our sins), *and also *showed God’s love and care for all mankind.

The Church is constantly emphasizing the aspects of Her teachings which get overwhelmed or which people lose track of; it’s balancing act. The main thing to remember is that the teachings do not change because of that: Christ did atone for our sins and that has not changed.

 

[St_Francis]

I think you are referring to Imams protesting the cartoons and trying to get them censored? Like I said, images are very important in Islam.

Note: I said that there are Christians who justify actions that go against gospel values. However, other values can be cherry-picked from the OT, just as the RIs do the Quran.

That conversation is what happens when a “our way is the only way” Christian comes up against an “our way is the only way” Muslim. To me, it is more predictable than interesting.

Try this, it is a nice summary:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Baghdadi

Okay, but let’s not leave the heart out of it. “Sociopaths” also experience righteous anger, but they have an empathy disability.

I really appreciate your respect and charity in conversation, Francis. I have learned a lot by finding things for you (and I) to look at!

Thank you, OneSheep

I have come to the conclusion that we are starting to go in a circle, and it is my policy to stop at that point, but this has been an interesting discussion. You also remained respectful and charitable, which allowed a deeper discussion about these points Thank you for that!

 

[zz912]

1. Because we have invaded Muslim lands.

And FYI, they view ANY land that was once under Muslim control as Muslim lands. So this includes Spain, some of France and Italy, Greece, all of the Middle East, most of Africa, Pakistan, some of India, etc.

 

[OneSheep]

Perhaps a variation of an analogy I used with my children might help.

God sends us His sanctifying grace through a pipeline. Adam and Eve, by their sin, broke that pipe. We could not experience the love of God, and God could not send us sanctifying grace.

So God sent His Son, mainly to repair the pipe, also to teach us, establish the sacraments, etc.

So Christ, by His supreme sacrifice, unblocked the pipe (atoned for our sins), *and also *showed God’s love and care for all mankind.

The Church is constantly emphasizing the aspects of Her teachings which get overwhelmed or which people lose track of; it’s balancing act. The main thing to remember is that the teachings do not change because of that: Christ did atone for our sins and that has not changed.

Hi Francis,

I really like that analogy! One thing I like most about it is that it gives a lot of room for different details, like “was God mad at us?” or “did man break the pipe on purpose?”. The faithful can answer those questions in different ways, and those different ways are all acceptable.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Josie,

What do you mean when you say there are two ways to look at the incarnation? Where does one get the idea that Jesus came to change God’s mind about man or that Jesus came to change man’s mind about God? Is it based on truth? Here is what the Catholic Catechism says.

So, the CCC also says this:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

So, you see that they have conceived a distorted image. This section of the CCC diverges from God taking offense and moves toward man’s issues.

If God held something against people, that is we were punished in some way and Jesus came to make some “payment” to appease God, then this is Jesus coming to change God’s mind about man.

Instead, if God had always forgiven us all along and the central problem was that man conceived a distorted image of God, Jesus came to show us our true Abba, who loves us infinitely, not jealous of his prerogatives. This is Jesus coming to change man’s mind about God.

Did you read the link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings? He does not say what I am saying exactly, but he does bring up the point about error of St. Anselm in the “payment” direction, and he definitely presents an image of a God actively embracing all people, not one of a judge waiting for a fine to be paid.

Jesus Christ became man to save us because our nature was fallen and needed healing and reconciling. We know God’'s love as He sent his only Son into the world. “he was revealed to take away sins” This is how we are to understand the incarnation.

How can the Church downplay the “payment” view and emphasize a different approach to atonement without changing the teachings of the Church? The teachings cannot be changed because there is a different opinion now. It is not possible to change the truth, if you change the truth, it becomes a lie. You cannot change 2000 years of Christian teaching.

There is no change. Both viewpoints can be traced to the Gospel, and have been part of Christian theology since the beginning of the Church, in my studies. A question that can be answered different ways is “what does ‘take away sins’ entail?” Is it a “taking away” so that we are acceptable to God, or is it a “taking away” so that we can now see God as infinitely loving? Do you see the language of such infinite, unshakable love in Pope Francis’ words in my signature? Can you see the two ways of looking at the incarnation in this paragraph?

As I said before, all of this is important because we generally present to others God as we see Him. The people of “IS” have a very wrathful, intolerant image of God, while most Muslim people do not. Likewise, the Christian who knows God in his prayer life as being wrathful or conditionally forgiving will present to the world this image of God. The Christian who knows God in his prayer life as infinitely patient, merciful, and compassionate, loving and forgiving without condition will present to the world this image of God.

Both images can be found throughout the Bible, but Jesus particularly referring to the Father as “Abba” (Daddy) is very revealing. A father, a mother, loves us and forgives us without condition, there is nothing that can stop them from loving their children; but even if they were to fail in this love, God loves and forgives even more. If this is not experienced by the individual Christian in a real way, he or she will have some trouble knowing a God who loves in this way.

The way to expand our experience is to do what Mark 11:25 says, to forgive every person we hold anything against, including ourselves. And since it is very natural and normal for people to hold something against those who murdered Fr. Hamel and those who support such action, this is an appropriate place to have this conversation.

You are not “wrong” in any way, Josie. I am talking about a deeper look at the human and our relationship with our Father.

 

[jediliz]

And FYI, they view ANY land that was once under Muslim control as Muslim lands. So this includes Spain, some of France and Italy, Greece, all of the Middle East, most of Africa, Pakistan, some of India, etc.

Lands which they went after and conquested briefly before the crusades. It was never THEIR land to begin with.

 

[zz912]

Lands which they went after and conquested briefly before the crusades. It was never THEIR land to begin with.

Oh I agree with you. Even Africa and the Middle East were huge bastions of Christian lands. Africa in particular was a HUGE part of early Christianity.

 

[JosieN]

Good Morning Josie,

So, the CCC also says this:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

So, you see that they have conceived a distorted image. This section of the CCC diverges from God taking offense and moves toward man’s issues.

**If God held something against people, that is we were punished in some way and Jesus came to make some “payment” to appease God, then this is Jesus coming to change God’s mind about man.
**
Instead, if God had always forgiven us all along and the central problem was that man conceived a distorted image of God, Jesus came to show us our true Abba, who loves us infinitely, not jealous of his prerogatives. This is Jesus coming to change man’s mind about God.

As I said before, all of this is important because we generally present to others God as we see Him. The people of “IS” have a very wrathful, intolerant image of God, while most Muslim people do not. Likewise, the Christian who knows God in his prayer life as being wrathful or conditionally forgiving will present to the world this image of God. The Christian who knows God in his prayer life as infinitely patient, merciful, and compassionate, loving and forgiving without condition will present to the world this image of God.

You are not “wrong” in any way, Josie. I am talking about a deeper look at the human and our relationship with our Father.

I agree God loves us, that is why Jesus came into this world. Those who believe God is wrathful are wrong and I agree that those who have an intolerant image of God are wrong but without the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we are separated from God as we need His sacrifice for our forgiveness. When it comes to forgiveness certain things are required of us by God. When we disobey we fall from grace, and become unworthy and that unworthiness needs atonement for us to know and love God as He really is. Jesus Christ the Son of God is Holy and His sacrifice on the cross was the price paid to bring us back to holiness with God. God’s love is always there, but the graces were blocked until He sent His Son to repair it. This is how God showed His love for us, He gave us His Son, and Jesus Christ showed us His love for us by suffering for us and by doing this He brought us salvation.

Without the sacrifice of Jesus there is no hope for us to have eternal life with God. If you do not believe in Jesus and His sacrifice, there is no hope for us to truly know God’s love for us either. So you see, presenting to the world this image of God that is unconditionally forgiving and loving will do nothing for anyone unless you explain to the them that Jesus Christ is the one we must turn to for our salvation, for Jesus is why we are healed and forgiven and made a child of God again, as Jesus atoned for our sins that blocked the way for us to know God completely (He paid the price).

It is not that God the Father did not love us before he sent His Son, but after His Son the price paid for our salvation, He healed the wound caused by Adam and Eve’s disobedience that blocked the way for us to be true children of God, through our belief in Jesus Christ and through our baptism, we can know God and become His children again. This is the Christianity that has been taught through the ages.

It is not that God held something against people, and we were punished, Jesus came to make a “payment” because grace was lost by the original sin of man, and to get the grace back for us, this sacrifice was made by His Son because God loves us. This is not Jesus coming to change God’s mind about man. It has nothing to do with changing God’s mind. Man was given a free will and when man chooses to go against what God has commanded, they are following the serpent and his lies, as was the first sin made by Adam and Eve. Man was the one who went against God by sinning in the first place.

The spiritual side of humans is not something we understand very well as we cannot see it. But there is a battle going on for our souls, and when we disobey God we lose grace. Grace keeps us close to God, even though He always loves us, without that grace we drift father away from His love. You cannot be mended without grace and this is what Jesus Christ did for us, He gave us what we were missing, so we could be close to God again by His sacrifice.

I agree with the Churches teaching that Adam and Eve immediately lost the grace of original holiness and they become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives. This is also why we need Jesus Christ because it is through His sacrifice we are healed and can once again see the true image of our loving God and not the distorted one, like the one that the extremist Muslims have been fighting for for centuries.

Those fighting this battle for their Allah, are badly mistaken and need our prayers and our sacrifices more than any preaching about unconditional love, for only a clear understanding of their need for Jesus Christ and the salvation He brings us will change their hearts and minds. They need Jesus Christ and so does everyone on this earth who wishes for salvation. I am concerned that your deeper look into this is just taking us farther away from the truth, as it has been taught to Christians for centuries. It sounds nice but is it realistic? I did read the writing of Cardinal Ratzinger and I have nothing to comment on it.

I do appreciate your kindness in your replies, but I am clearly having difficulty agreeing with everything you say.