I know that some of you aren't Christians, that you are egnostics, Muslims, atheists, etc., but for those who are Christians (and for those of any faith) I want to ask a question: Are you finding that what happened on Tuesday the hardest thing for your faith to deal with? Let me clarify--Do you find that you can't pray for the ones who are responsible for this and that you have hatred in your hearts for these people? My father who is a retired Social Studies teacher and who is also by the way a "Christian moralist" or deist was telling my mother and me last night that one of the problems with Christianity and why other religions look down on them is that Christ instructed his disciples to do 2 things differently than other faiths: 1) Love and pray for your enemies 2) Turn the other cheek Yet, you would be very hard-pressed to find any Christians who follow these teachings. For the record, I know that with some of my posts this past week that I would come across to some of you as a war monger; however, all I ever was trying to show was that I would be behind whatever Congress decides to do--if that means war, then so be it. At today's service, my priest posed these questions to us--about how we need to be angry and seek for justice but at the same time to not live in fear because fear breeds hate and we don't need to hate. He then said something mind-blowing but unfortunately, probably true---that Christ himself would probably "associate" himself with terrorists like Bin Laden. After all, he was around sinners including tax collectors, prostitutes, homosexuals, etc. the whole time he was delivering his message. Now before anybody goes crazy and call me sacreligious--remember he didn't approve of their lifestyles and the things that they did, yet he was always hoping they would repent and turn their lives around. As my mom and me drove home, she mentioned how powerful but yet how difficult his message was to actually follow. I always tried to rationalize in my mind that these people (the terrorists) are not rational people, but yet I can't help but feel that wouldn't matter to Christ. Needless to say, this whole situation and how to resolve it has been not only one of the most difficult and emotional things to ever happen to our country but to me personally and to my faith. I can see why people want retribution, and I won't lie, I definitely want to see it, too. However, I worry about that old saying, "violence only begets more violence" being oh-so true. Now before people get upset about this--I just want to say a couple of things: 1) I don't claim myself to be a model Christian--there are many ways that I fall short in my faith every day. 2) This question that I'm posing is one that is not meant to have an easy answer or yes-no answer. 3) I really wanted to see if there are other people that are not only Christians but of other religious faiths that are having as hard or harder time of dealing with this as I am. 4) This thread is in no way meant to disrespect anybody who lost their life on 9-11-01 or to their grieving families. If anybody takes it that way, then I apologize. I will stand behind whatever our country decides to do. I pray that God will be in everyone's hearts that will be making the decisions on how we are going to seek justice. Peace
With that well-explained essay, you hit on one of the things (well two when you mentioned the 'sinners' but I won't get into that) that I have a difficult time coming to terms with on organized religion. I can't help but feel that many of the people who cried for war almost immediately are also ones who consider themselves Christian. Sometimes the values and rules that are placed are too cut-and-dried for me, and those who staunchly defend them are those that are among the first to break them - only because it's human nature. And by the way, this isn't meant to be a slam or negative attack on religion, just an explanation of my own conflicts and how they've again come up at this time. I'm interested in seeing how many people will answer your question and how they have dealt with this question on their own.
I am Christian and go to Sunday School on most Sundays and today one of the ministers at our Church was leading my class. He asked us what we felt about the people who did the attacks and what we should do to them. Some people were saying we should pray for them and to step up security so this wouldnt happen again. Then he asked us "who would just like to bomb the hell out of them?" a lot of us raised our hands because that is what we believed would be a fair punishment for what they did on Tuesday. We then read part of Mathew Chapter 5 (The Sermon on the Mount). And we talked about how we, as you said, are supposed to turn the other cheek but I for one want to retaliate. If we leave these acts unpunished then they will continue. There is one thing that i thought was very important in that sermon "Blessed are the peacemakers"
I'm a Christian and it's hard to want to be peaceful right now. But from things we have been shown or read, Christianity says it is OK to go to war and to kill if it is to defend yourself. As I see it, we are trying to defend ourselves by retaliating and in so doing we are trying to be the peacemakers. While we are obviously not being peaceful in our efforts, our ultimate goal is for peace and so that's how I would justify retribution.
Let me explain one thing about the power of turning the other cheek did have. It was once a sign of showing equality among your foe if you were to slap him with the front of your hand. To be slapped with the back of your hand displayed that the other human was inferior. Turning the other cheek was one way the poor were able to impower themselves against those that normally absued them. By turning the the other cheek after a back-handed slap, your foe would not followed up with a slap using the front of his hand. It was a awesome way especially for Christians to end the confrontation with a win. Those days of over with. Their are no traditions such as these to empower anyone. You turn your cheek and the other side will also get slapped.
At first, I found it very difficult to feel peaceful, but as I began to contemplate the complicated nature of the situation, I began to look at it from a more spiritual angle. To be honest, this has made me feel more spiritual and closer to my own version of faith. It has also made me want peace even more. I am still angry. I'm still upset. But, I'm still who I am. This event doesn't change that.
Few things I wanted to touch on . . . First, I understand the point you preacher was making, but I'm not sure if I'd agree that Jesus would be hanging out with terrorists. First off, there's a big difference between homosexuals and prostitutes and murdering terrorists. Prostitutes and especially homosexuals are not inherently harmful to anyone. Their actions do not lead to death or destruction (except maybe to themselves and even that's a big if). In fact, I would argue that the persons Jesus surrounded himself with would be better classified as outcasts. It wasn't their flaws that drew them to Jesus, but instead it was the fact that society had shunned and vilified them. Jesus' message was one of unconditional love, and what better way to exemplify this than by surrounding himself with person deemed unloveable. The tax collectors are a better example, but the only tax collector I recall Jesus associating himself with was Matthew. And Matthew ended his career with the Roman IRS as soon as he became a disciple. That leads me to my second point - Jesus surrounded himself with persons who believed in him. Someone like OBL would not likely be receptive to Jesus message. Maybe he could convert OBL, but then again, he failed to convert the people of his hometown (Nazareth). Jesus never used his miracles to make people believe in him - rather, his miracles (real or imagined - it doesn't really matter) were an extension of his followers' belief. Finally, Jesus' message of "turning the other cheek" is more applicable in the current conflict than you may realize. Scholars have noted that in Jesus' time, turning the other cheek in a confrontation was not considered meekness, but the highest insult (essentially that your opponent is not even worth the effort). I think humiliation (and in a form that all the Middle Eastern world would comprehend) is the best possible punishment for OBL as well as the best deterrent to future terrorist attacks.
You make some excellent points and maybe my priest saying that Jesus would hang out with terrorists like Bin Laden is stretching things, but you know that Jesus would be praying for him and his followers, something that is hard for everyone here especially for me. That's probably true, but if Bin Laden was exposed to Jesus and his followers and saw how they led their life by example maybe he could be persuaded, I'm not saying he would, but persuaded to maybe listen and follow Jesus. Yet, I feel that is probably a hopeless cause but I'm one to say never say never. I think that you are right about this, although not many people would see the reasoning that you have and would feel that it is cowardice and not humiliation. Sub--I appreciate the well thought-out responses. I'm not saying that the others have not given good responses, but yours are very thought-provoking. BTW- I just ordered Lamb's debut CD, so I'll let you know how good that CD is. I have gotten Maxinquaye, Protection, and Dummy and all 3 are excellent although Maxinquaye is my favorite.
I would want to express this a bit differently: Jesus hung around nobody; they hung around him. Yes, he approached people indiscriminately, but he also showed them the dust on his sandals.
Manny please give me a quote where Jesus talks about homosexuality at all cuz I don't think I've ever seen/heard one.
Outlaw I agree, I do not think there is any specific mention of Jesus speaking with homosexuals and/or discussing it. I searched my Bible (on my computer) and the word homosexual (and derivatives, thereof) does not appear. The only part I remember that even mentions homosexuality in passing is (I believe) in the Old Testament where it says something about "man laying with man" (I probably butchered the paraphrasing).
Outlaw, Bobrek is right. I don't think I have ever seen that, yet I have heard that several times from preachers and other religious people. I have also heard it from, believe it or not, homosexuals or people advocating rights for homosexuals. I know, I know, don't believe everything you hear, but my point is that Jesus spent time with people who as one other person said were outcasts. That's was one reason why the Pharisees despised him so much because they thought they were better than those people and they couldn't believe that he would associate with them.
Technically, that's the Old Testament. I'm not sure that the concept of "an eye for an eye" is compatible with "turn the other cheek" or "love your enemies."
While we are all in the pondering mood. They're called fingers and yet they don't fing, noodle that one for a while.
jeff.. if im not mistaken..isnt "eye for an eye" hammarabi (sp?) code? i think this concept has nothing to do with the bible. thats another reason that Jesus's teachings were so revolutionary, because he preached of love for your enemies.
"an eye for an eye" is in the Old Testament, and the OT is not Christianity. There was no "Christianity" until Christ came. As I've stated in many threads before (at least I think I have), the Old Testament was not written with "Christians" in mind. It was written for (or more correctly, to) the Jews. This does not mean that Christians cannot learn very valuable lessons from the OT, nor that the OT has "nothing" to do with Christ's teachings. It's sorta like a manual. Say you find yourself alone on a giant ocean-liner. All you have is yourself and a manual on how to steer the thing. The manual is definitely not useless to you, but without the knowledge and experience of a sea captain you would not be able to perform anything but the most basic tasks. I don't know if that makes sense of not. ---------------------------- As far as military actions against terrorists.... I believe that by stopping terrorist organizations we are protecting the lives of not only U.S. citizens but other innocent people around the globe. There is a big difference between Islam and Christianity. In Islam (from what I gather) the main thing is to live your life the way Muhammad did. Pray like he did. Eat what he ate. etc. In Christianity, we too believe that we should live like Christ. But, we are also told that Jesus was perfect. He was God. We are not perfect. We are human. He knew we would sin. But, he told us that He would forgive us. No man can live the life of Christ. All of the Apostles sinned. All of the disciples sinned. Mary sinned. Moses sinned. Mother Teresa sinned. Pope John Paul sinned. Heck, I'm sure even Jeff has either sinned, or one day will sin. I could be totally off, but I think Islam is designed to be all things to its followers (Muslims). It is their religion. It is their form of government. It is their laws. It is their social structure. I think that Christianity is different. Although Christians should always be Christians, and not leave it at the door, so to speak, it doesn't necessarily need to be enforced as the way of life for all. Even Jesus told his disciples to pay their taxes, after they argued that they shouldn't because they believed in Him and were not followers of Ceasar or the government in power. He said (something to the effect of), "Give unto Ceasar what is his", and then there's some more that I forget.
That's wrong isn't it. I mean it was called the Immaculate Conception because Jesus and Mary were without sin right? I guess I could've have missed this part in Church but it was my understanding she was without sin too and that was why she was Assumed into Heaven before she died. I will gladly acknowledge my error if something proves me wrong.
f4p, Nope, she sinned too. Everyone who has ever lived has sinned, except Christ, but that's because he was God. (And, nope, I can't explain that very well.) The "Immaculate Conception" only meant that she conceived Jesus without normal human intercourse. God planted the seed in her. It's not called "The Immaculate Mary Conception".
Immaculate Conception THE DOCTRINE In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." "The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. ". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. ". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. ". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor. Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception." Unless I'm missing something here, I'm right.
