T
truetofaith
Guest
Ahhhh…now that sounds like the right answer. Simple and makes perfect sense.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Code:
:curtsey:Ahhhh…now that sounds like the right answer. Simple and makes perfect sense.
T
truetofaith
Guest
You’re Welcome! :tiphat:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Randy,
Sorry to keep bringing it back to the “kingdom” agenda. Your comments, you must admit, show who you think is the “ingroup”, and who you think is the “outgroup”. It is part of our nature to develop such ingroups and outgroups.
As I said before, Jesus calls us to become free from our nature. His contemporaries, as you may recall, loathed the Samaritans, the “outgroup”, and Jesus used the Samaritan as an example of the “good” person who ends up doing the loving thing for the injured person. It was no accident, of course, that the Samaritan was used in the parable.
So, I am quite certain that Jesus would tell the modern parable using a Muslim as the person who does “good”.
Randy, the Kingdom is not about upholding ingroups and outgroups, remember? Jesus even asks us to leave our families behind, to erase the security and status of belonging to an ingroup.
We are called to forgive Muslim people who we hold anything against, too. Do you hold anything against them? If you do, you are certainly not alone in such grudge-holding. It is very commonplace, even admired, in our society to resent the Muslim people.
Food for thought, I pray!
God Bless your day!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi again! Are you ignoring me?
More from the article I quoted:
This participationist approach is also implicit in the later Franciscan understanding of redemption, which as we noted last week was based primarily on the teaching of John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. Duns Scotus did not believe in any “substitutionary atonement theory” of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us; he was paying no debt, he was changing no divine mind. Rather, God gave us Jesus as a sacrament of transformative encounter. The divine Word was incarnated into the historical Jesus to change our mind about the nature of God!
So, this all makes sense to me, and I am not lying!
This approach, the approach that we had “no debt”, is also supported by our Pope Emeritus, who pointed out the “sinister” God depicted by Anselm.Jesus came to show us the real face of God, plain and simple. He forgave the unrepentant from the cross, He loved us unconditionally. That doesn’t make sense to you?
Thanks for participating here!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello PRmerger.
Yes, your approach is certainly under the Catholic umbrella, but this is exactly the approach that our Pope Emeritus said depicts a “false picture” of God.
robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html
Now, I would not have used as strong language as Cardinal Ratzinger, but I do agree that there was no need for an “expiation” from man, a debt to pay. I also have respect for those who see it differently, though. A person could believe in the “debt” approach and not have a “sinister” image of God, IMO.
I think it behooves all Christians to know and understand both positions. Individuals will agree with the position that makes more sense in light of their own relationship with God, with others, and even with the “self”. This is a pastoral approach, it is an inclusive approach, an approach that, like our wonderful Popes have emphasized, centers on the Eucharist, rather than opinions and disagreements over doctrine.
Comments?
God Bless your evening.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, good point. The article basically says that there are problems with the notion that man had to pay for his sins. If God is a loving God, then why can’t he just forgive us without the bloodshed? So, Franciscan John Duns Scotus called back the original thinking, not the Anselmian view. Jesus died because people rejected his teaching as blasphemous, resented Him, and killed Him.You have to be a theologian to understand all this.
Jesus would have had no followers if He preached like this! Good thing the Sermon on the mount wasn’t as complicated.
Jesus came to show us the nature of God, as the article says. What Jesus shows me is that He forgave us, unconditionally. He loved us, unconditionally. He cared about the poor and downtrodden. He erased the lines between ingroups and outgroups, gentile and Jew. He called us to let go of the slavery of our (albeit good) nature and to live a life where the yoke is easy and the burden light. Would the God that asks us to forgive 70X7 times need to have someone pay for sin? No, not in my view. Sin has its own natural consequences.
Is that more understandable?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think you misunderstand my “approach”.
What Pope B16 is rejecting as a “false picture” is not what I have embraced.
Reducing my soteriorology to 1 sentence is a mistake. I gave a 1-line answer to the question, and while it is 100% representative of my belief, it would be improper for you to distill the conclusion that this depicts a “false picture” of the Atonement, as proclaimed by the CC.
Read all of my posts first, from 2006 to today, then you may make that assessment.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I’m sorry, PRmerger, I misunderstood!
So, let’s go through your brief post, and you can explain what you actually meant:
Okay, first of all, this indicates that God is injured, and that God requires expiation. What did you mean to say?
This, again indicates that there was an injury that required payment. What did you mean to say?
I do not intend to pin you down and condemn, not at all! (In fact, feel free to avoid answering the questions I wrote above.) What I am saying is that the statement you made was quite natural, it makes sense, it flies off the tongue! Indeed the “theology of expiation” is pervasive, and is to be respected, as I said before. Do you see what I’m saying? The Church must accept differences in the way people view God, in the way that “salvation” makes sense to individual believers. When I was young, the idea that God needed to be “paid back” for injury made sense, and I did not think of God as sinister at all, as the Cardinal suggested. It was a matter of justice, in my mind, and the mindset did not change for me until after my wife and I made our vows, and I knew that God loves unconditionally because that is the way I committed to loving my wife.
Please, send your thoughts, and know that I am also quite capable of one-liners that can be misconstrued. But do you see what I’m saying? Even as I did misconstrue, I did not think less of your position.
The fact that Anselm’s position has never been condemned speaks to this end. Do not all heresies and anathemas present a false image of some type? Yet this “false image”, the one depicted by Anselm’s view of atonement, is tolerated. Is it a “false image”? Well, yes, I think so, but out of respect for others and my own past perceptions, saying that the image is “false” is a non-starter, it can be seen as a bit demeaning. No one thinks that their image of God is false, right? These issues have to be approached very gently. How do you, (or would you, if you do not currently make it your task) PRmerger, help people to transition from the God who seeks expiation to the God who seeks to reconcile Himself with man, who shows man, by incarnation, who He really is?
God bless your day, I look forward to your response!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
It says a great deal, and much that is very good and full of wisdom.
Our God is the God of love, the same God who told us that a man has no greater love than to lay down his life for a friend. And the best way to prove that was for Jesus to lay down his life for all mankind. Very likely that is why there were so many martyrs in the early Church. They wanted to show Jesus proof of their love just as he had shown them proof of his.
E
Emily2014
Guest
Well - hope you feel better now! Didn’t do much for me
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have no problem with any of this. Not sure why you think I have something wrong…Hi Randy,
Sorry to keep bringing it back to the “kingdom” agenda. Your comments, you must admit, show who you think is the “ingroup”, and who you think is the “outgroup”. It is part of our nature to develop such ingroups and outgroups.
As I said before, Jesus calls us to become free from our nature. His contemporaries, as you may recall, loathed the Samaritans, the “outgroup”, and Jesus used the Samaritan as an example of the “good” person who ends up doing the loving thing for the injured person. It was no accident, of course, that the Samaritan was used in the parable.
So, I am quite certain that Jesus would tell the modern parable using a Muslim as the person who does “good”.
Randy, the Kingdom is not about upholding ingroups and outgroups, remember? Jesus even asks us to leave our families behind, to erase the security and status of belonging to an ingroup.
We are called to forgive Muslim people who we hold anything against, too. Do you hold anything against them? If you do, you are certainly not alone in such grudge-holding. It is very commonplace, even admired, in our society to resent the Muslim people.
Food for thought, I pray!
God Bless your day!
T
truetofaith
Guest
You are saying " Jesus died because people rejected his teaching as blasphemous, resented Him, and killed Him." In other words, Jesus had no intention of dying and had no control of what happened?Well, good point. The article basically says that there are problems with the notion that man had to pay for his sins. If God is a loving God, then why can’t he just forgive us without the bloodshed? So, Franciscan John Duns Scotus called back the original thinking, not the Anselmian view. Jesus died because people rejected his teaching as blasphemous, resented Him, and killed Him.
Jesus came to show us the nature of God, as the article says. What Jesus shows me is that He forgave us, unconditionally. He loved us, unconditionally. He cared about the poor and downtrodden. He erased the lines between ingroups and outgroups, gentile and Jew. He called us to let go of the slavery of our (albeit good) nature and to live a life where the yoke is easy and the burden light. Would the God that asks us to forgive 70X7 times need to have someone pay for sin? No, not in my view. Sin has its own natural consequences.
Is that more understandable?
Why then, when St. Peter told Jesus, He will not be killed…Jesus said : "Get thee behind me, satan…etc.? Read - Matt. 16:23
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi truetofaith,
This is a bit of speculation on my part, and there are many options. I do not have the Bible with me to check the commentaries.
I know, generally speaking, the impulse on Peter’s part was to protect Jesus in a big way. It makes sense to me that Jesus did not see His ministry as one that involved overpowering the enemy, His ministry, His showing of Abba, involved forgiving enemies to the very end.
A rejection, on Peter’s part, of this ministry was against the plan of demonstrating the love of Abba, including forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross.
I do believe that Jesus had control over what happened. By dying on the cross, every human on Earth, regardless of who they are or where they are from, can truly relate to Jesus in a human sense. The abandonment, the loneliness, the humiliation, which we experience can be remembered as experienced by God incarnate.
You may not agree with what I wrote there, but does it make sense to you, or are there some holes, unanswered questions? There probably are.
What do you think why did Jesus rebuke Peter?
Thanks for the conversation.
9
987mk
Guest
If God is real, he is neither.
If God is real, he is an indifferent Deity.
If God is real, he is an indifferent Deity.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Randy!I have no problem with any of this. Not sure why you think I have something wrong…
I did not exactly say that you have something wrong. However, this comment is a possibly a bit problematic:
Randy Carson:
There is no doubt that many of the Palestinians have a great deal of hatred for the Israelis, understandably so. On the other hand, there are many Israelis that have a great deal of hatred for the Palestinians, understandably so. If the Muslims are used by “satan”, and satan represents hatred, then “satan” also uses Jews to kill Palestinians
To say that the Jews are “chosen” implies that the Muslims are not, which rings a bit of predestination and indicates that some populations are not all chosen. Are not all of us chosen? All of us loved by Abba? This was Jesus example, Samaritans chosen. Paul extended this to showing that the gentiles are chosen. The CCC states:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
Do you see the trend? We are all chosen by God in the respect that God wants everyone to come to Him.
In addition, to say that the “Muslims” are being controlled by satan appears to assume malicious intent, unless you are saying that satan means well. The statement does not give the benefit of the doubt, which is our calling, and it does not reflect the intent of the Palestinians. Their intent is no more malicious than the Americans who fought in the revolutionary war. Do you have an understanding as to why many Palestinians hate the Israelis, or are you only familiar with one of the narratives?
Randy, destruction of the lines between ingroup and outgroup involve forgiveness and understanding. As I asked, do you hold anything against the Palestinians? If so, do you forgive them?
Thanks for the conversation, I had no idea I would be going into this when I started responding to this thread.
God Bless your day
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi.
Did you read or watch Life of Pi? If so, what did you think of Pi’s experiences and conclusions regarding deism?
9
987mk
Guest
Neither.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I personally have no dog in that fight on either side. I’m simply looking at things from a decidedly Judeo-Christian perspective. And I agree with you that God loves everyone and desires that none should be lost. I’m also familiar with the Catholic Church’s position on the question of whether Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. Finally, I’m very conscious of the fact that God will save whom He will regardless of what I think about the situation.Hi Randy!
I did not exactly say that you have something wrong. However, this comment is a possibly a bit problematic:
There is no doubt that many of the Palestinians have a great deal of hatred for the Israelis, understandably so. On the other hand, there are many Israelis that have a great deal of hatred for the Palestinians, understandably so. If the Muslims are used by “satan”, and satan represents hatred, then “satan” also uses Jews to kill Palestinians
To say that the Jews are “chosen” implies that the Muslims are not, which rings a bit of predestination and indicates that some populations are not all chosen. Are not all of us chosen? All of us loved by Abba? This was Jesus example, Samaritans chosen. Paul extended this to showing that the gentiles are chosen. The CCC states:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
Do you see the trend? We are all chosen by God in the respect that God wants everyone to come to Him.
In addition, to say that the “Muslims” are being controlled by satan appears to assume malicious intent, unless you are saying that satan means well. The statement does not give the benefit of the doubt, which is our calling, and it does not reflect the intent of the Palestinians. Their intent is no more malicious than the Americans who fought in the revolutionary war. Do you have an understanding as to why many Palestinians hate the Israelis, or are you only familiar with one of the narratives?
Randy, destruction of the lines between ingroup and outgroup involve forgiveness and understanding. As I asked, do you hold anything against the Palestinians? If so, do you forgive them?
Thanks for the conversation, I had no idea I would be going into this when I started responding to this thread.
God Bless your day
Now, to get to the answers for the questions you ask, we have to go back a few steps, so to speak, and three questions need to be answered first.
Was Judaism founded by God or man?
Was Christianity founded by God or man?
Was Islam founded by God or man?
9
987mk
Guest
- Status