'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

Yes, it was no accident. Omniscience means that when God created lucifer, He knew that if He did so exactly in the way He did, that the result would be as it happened. He chose to create anyway. When lucifer fell, God was not surprised

When God created everything, He made it perfect. Now you are telling me that in order for his perfect plan to play itself out perfectly, God needed to introduce imperfection?

Better yet, professional religious rationalizers are telling me that God actually allowed it, get this — for the greater good!

Now, what can be greater good than God's perfect creation? Is the tragedy of Lucifer's pride necessary to make God's perfect creation a "greater good?" or is human disobedience, preordained by God, a mark of perfection?

Is God dying on the Cross to free us from the bondage of death we bondage pf death we brought on ourselves a necessity even god has to submit to in order for us to return to the very pristine state of creation we were in to begin with?

Kosta: Did Lucifer really have a "free choice" in his "rebellion" or was it something that, as FK says, God said must happen?

FK: In all honesty, I don't know how to answer that. I don't know how grace works with angels. All I can say is that Lucifer's fall was just as predestined as man's. No surprises to God, and God always gets what He wants

So then God wanted a sinful man. He gave man a pristine home and then trapped him and threw him out?!

As for grace and angelic creatures, there is no redemption for the fallen angels. Their sins are higher because they are not temptations of the flesh but of envy and pride.

Yet the Bible tells us that God prepared hell for satan and his angels. So, if all this was predestined, God is not only the God of life but of death as well.

That's not Christianity, FK.

You underestimate the degree to which not merely ordinary clergy, but Orthodox laity, take and took theology seriously, and the degree to which there had been serious engagement with Western ideas in the centuries leading up to Florence.

The Tomus of 1285 (Finally available in English translation online, here!) Forcefully and constructively engaged Western ideas on the procession of the Holy Spirit, condemning the double procession, and the formula 'as from one source' of Lyons, but admitting an eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son (not merely the economical manifesation through the Son upheld by St. Photius).

Papadakis, in his scholarly exposition of the unionist controversy that lead to the issuing of the Tomus, argues that the Tomus laid the intellectual groundwork for the resolution of the Palamite controversies, which again involved interaction with Western ideas--the rationalism of Barlaam of Calabria, who was condemned by the Palamite Synods, but ended his life as a Cardinal of the Church of Rome.

The importance of the Palamite doctrine of the Uncreated Divine Energies to the praxis of monastics and to the Orthodox understanding of salvation as theosis is almost impossible to overstate. The monastic clergy were certainly among the leaders in the resistance to Florence, certainly in part because Florence in no way back-tracked on the rejection of the doctrine implicit in the welcoming of the anti-Palamite arch-heretic, Barlaam into the Church of Rome and his elevation to the rank of Cardinal.

The one hiearch who attended Florence/Ferrar, but did not accept the False Union, St. Mark of Ephesus, very much shows a keen appreciation for the Latin deviations from Holy Tradition in his Refutations of the Latin Chapters Concerning Purgatorial Fire. I see no reason to think that the lower clergy or the educated laity would have had less of an appreciation.

Wow, one has to work on several levels at once.

Someone who does not intend to receive Christ (let's take Hitler as our - somewhat mythical - example)
Actually, he is a pretty good example. My understanding is that he and his sister were heavily involved in the Catholic church and at least early on he wanted to be a priest. He later became apostate. But, that helps make the point. Hitler was a baptized Catholic from a Catholic home that actually went so far as to get a special papal dispensation so that his close-kin parents could marry one another.

There's got to be a formal intention
I think we are still heading down the wrong path a little bit but we'll get back to that. (The path that I was thinking about.

if the same guy came to me some years later, persuasively repentant and with good testimony I would entertain the possibility of baptizing him "all over again". I would probably end up NOT baptizing him, on the grounds that his current state of grace reached back in time and validated his baptism (and might even be evidence of its validity and efficaciousness.)
So if some Militant muslim were to mockingly get baptized and later become a Christian, you would consider his previous baptism valid?

IS that at least clear?
I think I understand where you are coming from to this point.

As a quibble, wasn't the "By your fruits" thing about prophets?
It was both a statement concerning the prophets and a general statement concerning all "trees". Matthew 7:15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

But in general, yeah. Only problem is some fruits are slow ripening. Rough soil, bad summer, and the jalapeno plant only yields one or two peppers and waits until September to do it. So I'm not going to judge til the harvest is in.
I think some fruit is so rotten that it is safe to judge it. Adolf Hitler, for example, had some excessively putrid fruit. In spite of his earlier upbringing, his statements indicate that he was not a Christian. Others may just be a bit backslidden and after a little thwacking from the Lord (Pastor Charles Stanley once spoke of how God prunes the Christian - and said, sometimes you can just hear him sharpening the shears)the life will turn around. Sometimes, the person is truly a Christian but gets so warped around the axel that God's chastisement means taking them home (if Ananias and Sapphira were truly Christians, they would be an example of this as would Christians who took the Lord's supper in an irreverent way).

What I learned in the vineyard was some years you get way fewer grapes, but those fewer grapes have a higher brix and make better wine.
True. You dont' rule out God's hand on anyone's life; but sometimes it is better for the health of the body to be rid of the rotten fruit.

You haven't followed where I was coming fromb One of my skills is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. People keep me around so they can figure out which the right end is. It's the one I'm not holding.
That's okay. I knew that point would be hard to follow. Donatism, as I understood it, believed that the folks who had renounced Christ during persecution should not be lifted up as ministers now without rebaptism, etc., I haven't looked that one up recently, but that is what is sticking in my head. I am not talking about the minister, but the laity. I'm also not talking about one who left the church, but one who is in the church like Hitler was a practicing Catholic externally, but has a life with horrific fruits. Alex VI was another example of someone who had a certain external persona but inward was rotten. Would that person, unrepentant over the "secret things" in their lives still experience any efficacious quality in the Sacraments. Again, I believe in two ordinances personally and not in Sacraments, but I'm just inquiring to understand your point of view better.

Rephrase? What if we had a telegram from God (notarized) saying Adolf Hitler was validly ordained priest, before he turned into a monster. Then, after turning falling full foul into sin, he celebrates Mass with, oh, some good Catholic as his altar boy. Both of them communicate. Did anybody receive all the benefits that sacrament has to offer after adjusting for their capacity (not regarding moral influence on capacity)?

Wow, is THAT a great question! I'm going to run it by a priest I know.
Actually, I think it has been answered in regards to the Donatists. That will be my guess as to what he will say. And the good altar boy need not be present for it to work this way since the efficaciousness was deemed to be in the sacrament rather than the person administering the sacrament. My question wasn't regarding this one. It was just the opposite. A sinful person taking a sacrament, one who is not saved yet outwardly appears Catholic, is there any efficaciousness in that sacrament in the view of RCs?

My money is that the altar boy assuredly received the Body and Blood of our Lord. Valid priest, valid stuff, the right words, the right intention on the part of the altar boy.
Hitler would have still been a valid priest after he had done and said all that he had done and said?????

But I could be wrong. And I have no clue what Adolph got - except I KNOW he got in BIG trouble. Communicating when in a state of mortal sin (And you have every reason to know that the Church thinks you're in that state) is NOT good at ALL.

I think, and this is the weakest expression I can come up with: Say I"m having a bad day. I have made a confession and have managed to avoid committing murder since then. But right now I wouldn't trust God any further than I could throw Him. I slouch up to the altar saying to God and myself,"I don't know what I'm doing, but I am here doing what better and happier people than I intend me to do, what the Church intends me to do." I think that's a valid intention. But it's very formal, like programming with pointers: I intend obedience and conformity to the Church's teaching and am taking this sacrament because I want whatever it is that the Lord and His Church promise, but right now I don't know what that is; I'm just a blind beggar here." To me that's as valid as can be.

What if he hadn't gone to confession? What if, like Alex VI, he had just had an orgy in the Vatican and then turns right around to go say mass before adoring followers? He is doing what he is doing because it is what he does as Pope. But, his heart is very far from God indeed. For the Pope, in this case, not the people, what happens? I think you will say he's in big trouble.

So the problem with out fantastic example is WHY in heaven's name would hitler do that? And good old fornicating Alexander: maybe when he wakes up -- and remember they didn't have Alka-Selzer back then -- and feels just incredibly awful, and he groans his way into his vestments and into the chapel ... who knows what he intended then? (And of course there are cultural issues. It has taken a long time for us Christinas to act like Christians. it wasn't that long ago that we thought slavery was permissible and expected a lot of men of a certain class to have mistresses, if they could afford to maintain them: Marriage for economics and heirs, mistresses for love. Cranmer was married before he broke with Rome. It didn't seem quite so awful then as it seems now.
Well, and the church was an arm of the aristocracy in those days. The Second sons all joined it to get a certain amount of wealth and power for the family. They couldn't inherit the land. That was Son #1's job. So, be a priest. That's how the Borgias even got there. It wasn't piety, but greed.

I don't think Luther left Christianity. He was, as I am, forsworn. He and I both think we left corruption and falsehood for truth. We passed each other going opposite directions. He made out better than I did. (I have skin in this game, don't forget.) I think he left the plene esse for some lesser being of the Church.
I am glad to hear you say some of this, though I'll disagree with you on the last. Most of the time, though, Catholics just froth at the mouth when one says Luther.

I always hope and trust that God is merciful and the benefits of His promise far over-reach my opinions. But I think we CERTAINLY have the sacraments in all their fullness, while I am not certain about Lutherans (though certain of God's mercy.) For the rest, I already know we have a different ecclesiology.
I believe God did a new work at a time when Christianity threatened to become a corpse. It looked different from the old work, yet it gets its heartbeat from Scripture. Yes, there is much disagreement. But I appreciate a civil discussion between the two groups. I don't believe that Rome's doctrine of salvation and Luther's are the same. And, I believe Luther got it right. But that doesn't mean I think that all Catholics got it wrong. As a matter of fact, I know several who I believe show all the fruits of having gotten it right. You'll notice that I mainly concentrate on Salvation with Catholics. Salvation by grace through faith alone is what I believe Scripture teaches. That faith is a faith that will work. But the works are the effect and not the cause of being saved. As a former Protestant, I'm sure you recognize that well. On that essential, I find the striving worthwhile because it is THAT important. On some of the other things which are less essential, we can cordially disagree. And on a lot of essentials we have unity which is cool. We both believe in the trinity and the virgin birth for example. So, may the Holy Spirit continue to lead us all into all truth.

Thank you so much for your reply and for sharing your musings with us!

Please remember that Schroeder is a Jewish Physicist, so his insights will come from a different aspect than yours or mine.

Also God has given us a lot of "wiggle room" in understanding some Scriptures, particularly prophesy and Creation.

My personal epistemology - how I know what I know and how certain I am that I actually know it - is simply this: my most certain sources for knowledge are the revelations of God the Father in 1) the Person of Jesus Christ, 2) the indwelling Holy Spirit, 3) Scripture and 4) Creation.

Every other source for information is cast in uncertainty – including my own sensory perception and reasoning - and those of my correspondents. I do not value even my own hearing and sight by comparison to the revelations of God the Father. If what I see does not comport with what He said, then it is my sight that is in error, not His words.

Thus I do not value my musings - or those of others - anywhere close to the revelations of God.

So for me, geocentricity was a musing that turned out wrong. Young earth creationism is a musing. Dispensationalism is a musing. Day-age interpretation of Genesis is a musing. And so on.

If however I have a leaning in the Spirit one way or another, I'm happy to say so. That Genesis 1 and 2 are speaking of creation of both the spiritual and physical realms is one such leaning. Scriptural evidence includes the tree of life which is in the middle of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2) and also Paradise (Rev 2.) Likewise, in Gen 2 God declares that He created the seeds before they were in the earth. Genesis 1:1 and Colossians 1 speak to the creation of heaven and earth, spiritual and physical.

That a thousand years is as a day to God also rings very true in the Spirit in the interpretation given at post 8311. IOW, it is not a poetic term but a very specific time table for Adamic man, he has a total of 7,000 years and the last 1,000 is the Sabbath, Christ's millenium reign on earth. On the Christian interpretation of the amount of time the Jews were exiled to Babylon, Christ is due any time now. But there is an approximate 250 year difference with the Jewish interpretation; their calendar is at year 5767.

Then again only God the Father knows the day and hour. Either way, Maranatha, Jesus!

The bottom line is that each of us will develop an understanding of Creation and prophesy in Scripture as the Spirit leads us whether directly or through trusted religious leaders.

The only recommendation I have for you in your seeking is to take a little time to meditate on your own epistemology to determine in advance how much weight you will be giving to the various sources of knowledge.

Yes, we have our differing viewpoints but all either point TO the truth or AWAY from it. I come from a sceptical scientific viewpoint because I know the devil is a trickster who leads many a believer astray. For instance : my own national presbyterian church just voted to go with the homosexual perverts.

After 50 years in that church : deacon, choir singer....I'm GONE; not going there again. They made their bargain with the devil, now let them live with it.

People either GRASP the bible as their linus security blanket or reject it out of hand as fairy tales for children. I look at it for scientific gems of wisdom.

Take for example the statement : "And the morning stars sang together"(in JOB I think), what does THAT mean? Well, LO and BEHOLD : astronomy(the hubble telescope and other 'scopes)has looked to the very dawn of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago. The COBE mission shows the almost uniform distribution of the 2.73 deg K background radiation and yet galaxies started much earlier than expected(quasars and black holes).

So, what came between the BIG BANG/radiation-matter decoupling era at 300,000 years and about 1 billion years and the first galaxies? It's a real poser. The only model that fits is a first generation of massive stars(100 to 500 solar masses)that quickly formed, burned, and went supernova within 50 million years or less.

Thus they seeded the gas/dust with heavier elements(beyond H and He) and the shock waves thereof created the "soap bubble" texture we see in galactic structure today.

The point? Higher intelligence gives us a phrase, a clue; but only later does SCIENCE learn : AHA, that's what they meant : a first generation of massive supernovae that blew up at almost the same cosmic instant("sang").

There's another clue : Gen 2:6; what does that mean? I know the answer. It has to do with the formation of the earth-moon system, but could you guess what it is?

Are there mistakes, wild, implausible numbers in the bible? Of course there are. Remember, the old testament was written BY old jews for young jews, not YOU. If 600,000 MEN went with moses into the desert, with women and children, that's around 2.4 MILLION people. That's probably as many or more people than were living in all of egypt at the time.

Obviously an inflated number. Or the 25,000 main men of Israel that attended a royal dinner by King David, another inflated number. Or the city of GOD. A league is 1/8th of a mile. An object 12,000 leagues by 12,000 leagues in area = 1500 miles by 1500 miles, HALF the diameter of the moon.

As a pyramidal form(half of an octahedron), the base center would be about 145 miles below the curved surface of the earth, well within the HOT mantle. Obviously an outlandish-sized object to SIT on the earth. Try 12 leagues by 12 leagues = 1.5 miles by 1.5 miles = a rational size.

Then GOLD from the planet mercury. By the TEDF theory it should have a high percentage of AU79. Then robots, computers and Wa-La a city of GOLD made without hands.

See, science and religion don't have to be at odds with each other, just different ways of arriving at the TRUTH.

Here's a test for you : is that JESUS on the shroud of Turin? Yes or no....

First, if you haven't, you should at least skim the Divine Comedy. Lots of Popes in hell. The notion of vicious Popes is not some huge problem for us. Now for the rest of my response:

And the good altar boy need not be present for it to work this way since the efficaciousness was deemed to be in the sacrament rather than the person administering the sacrament.

If one party to a marriage clearly demonstrates (but NOT to the other party) that he is only getting married because it might get him a spot on American Idol, there is no marriage, and the other party loses.

So if one party to a sacrament, Hitler the celebrant, has a potentially deficient intention, we can see how it might affect another party. So what if Alexander the luxurious has a deficient intention when he ordains. (I'm trying to do your work for you.)

Most of the time, though, Catholics just froth at the mouth when one says Luther. All Catholics? The majority of Catholics? Cahtolic Academics?

This would go better if we could stay on track. Am I just supposed to absorb this blow and ignore it, or what. Shall I say,"Most Protestants monomaniacally foam at the mouth as a matter of principle?" so that we can be "even"?

In any case, foaming at the mouth has nothing to do with it. I'm angry at Luther, if it comes to that, but we weren't talking about my anger but about 'where the "esse" of Church is'. And since evidently the thesis needs to be restated every few minutes, I still think the plene esse is to be found in the Institutions of the RCC and the EO, and, assuredly a lesser esse among other ecclesial assemblies where baptism in the name of the Trinity is performed.

But the works are the effect and not the cause of being saved. As a former Protestant, I'm sure you recognize that well.

WHY do we have to do this? I recognize that as a current Catholic even MORE than I did as a Protestant. I think I have a richer and deeper understanding of what that means and of how it's true, and how ecen so feeble attempt at a life in Christ as I am able to manifest has mometns when one feels like a gazelle (instead of a dork? - subtle biblical joke there.).

Can we look at the argument again? Is it part of the rules that one can say no more than 150 words or so before was has to take another lick at the Catholics? If so, include me out. I'll talk theology with just about anybody. I don't play Mexican Stand-down. It's fruitless and boring.

IN general, I think we know that there were some rather splendid scoundrels in high positions in the Church. But I do not think we have enough data to know either way about the every day RC in the parishes and pews. If i may take myself as an example, while the Episcopal Church was crumbling around me and demonstrating that not only were its orders invalid but they didn't give a hoot whether they were valid or not -- or even Christian or not -- I drew from Cranmer, Hooker, Herbert, Lewis, and yes Luther and Calvin and even a very little Zwingli (as well as Augustine and Aquinas, et al.) enough good that finally I packed up my pension and threw it overboard, left Ur of the Anglicans and travelled down the fertile crescent to the Tiber. Pipes rusty to the point of crumbling still can deliver good water.

SO clearly I don't think the plene esse left the RCC in the early 16th century. But I can appreciate the argument, to a certain extent.

I was trying to set up a situation where the priest was vicious and there was a congregation of "virtuous" people. The altar boy wasn't there to make the consecration happen. The priest is, ceteris paribus, all we need for the consecration. The question is the range of the effect of the insufficient intention of the priest. If Leo the whatever can say Anglican orders are invalid because of defective intention, then, we are coming close, but without crossing the line, to saying the worthiness of the minister affects the validity of the Sacraments.
Again, I am not arguing Donatism. Donatism says the sacrament is invalid because of the priest. I was arguing from the point of the participant that had an evil heart.

So if one party to a sacrament, Hitler the celebrant, has a potentially deficient intention, we can see how it might affect another party. So what if Alexander the luxurious has a deficient intention when he ordains. (I'm trying to do your work for you.)
Hitler was my object, not the priest or other celebrants.I also think you already answered.

Most of the time, though, Catholics just froth at the mouth when one says Luther. All Catholics? The majority of Catholics? Cahtolic Academics?

This would go better if we could stay on track. Am I just supposed to absorb this blow and ignore it, or what.
On this thread. Catholics on this thread. And yes, you should take it as the compliment to you that it was meant to be.You don't say "evil Luther, evil Luther" at all costs, nut managed to find some Christian charity that others have lacked.

Shall I say,"Most Protestants monomaniacally foam at the mouth as a matter of principle?" so that we can be "even"? You can say whatever you wish.

But the works are the effect and not the cause of being saved. As a former Protestant, I'm sure you recognize that well.

WHY do we have to do this? I recognize that as a current Catholic even MORE than I did as a Protestant. I think I have a richer and deeper understanding of what that means and of how it's true, and how ecen so feeble attempt at a life in Christ as I am able to manifest has mometns when one feels like a gazelle (instead of a dork? - subtle biblical joke there.)
Why? Because it is the key point. Your response is refreshing considering I have argued around Robin Hood's barn with some others on this thread who say that works are salvific.

Can we look at the argument again? Is it part of the rules that one can say no more than 150 words or so before was has to take another lick at the Catholics? If so, include me out. I'll talk theology with just about anybody. I don't play Mexican Stand-down. It's fruitless and boring.
Mad Dawg, if by stating what the Catholics on this thread have stated is "taking a lick at Catholics" then fine. Its within the rules to discuss belief systems. I wasn't specifically naming individuals. And, I was giving you a compliment. If you can't take a compliment then I guess we should just stick to discussing Hindus in some ecumenical fashion so that everyone is happy.

IN general, I think we know that there were some rather splendid scoundrels in high positions in the Church. But I do not think we have enough data to know either way about the every day RC in the parishes and pews. If i may take myself as an example, while the Episcopal Church was crumbling around me and demonstrating that not only were its orders invalid but they didn't give a hoot whether they were valid or not -- or even Christian or not -- I drew from Cranmer, Hooker, Herbert, Lewis, and yes Luther and Calvin and even a very little Zwingli (as well as Augustine and Aquinas, et al.) enough good that finally I packed up my pension and threw it overboard, left Ur of the Anglicans and travelled down the fertile crescent to the Tiber. Pipes rusty to the point of crumbling still can deliver good water. SO clearly I don't think the plene esse left the RCC in the early 16th century. But I can appreciate the argument, to a certain extent.
And, if you found true Christianity in Roman Catholicism, then more power to you. Gotta run now.

Good morning Timer,

Your assumption of "eventually you'll understand the noah flood story as a myth based on a KATRINA type hurricane" is incorrect. I will not. And please stop referring to Noah and his family as "illiterate pakistanis" that passed their tribes history down through lore. God's Word has been carried through the generations and it has not changed. It
is the only constant you can base your soul on in this world. Do I picture the ark as paintings from Sunday School - no. Do I picture the ark, as you do, as some raft covered with goat skin - no.

Your analogy of children whispering a phrase in each others ears and it becoming unrecogizable is true and when I was a child I did that. For that reason I agreed with you in my last reply, however you may not equate that with God's Word.

Also you believe the story of Noah is a "security blanket" and allows me to hide from the truth - How?

Your next paragrph of "the devil has always been a trickster....he'll snare you too", is partly true. I pray he will not snare me or others. But yes, he warps and changes the Word to fit his plan. At times he even says it is a myth and shouldn't be listened to. Things are hidden in the Word and it is up to us to search for it. We may find that truth on different levels but it should never contradict each other's idea of the truth. It has to fit together, to become one.

Your statement of:
"Once again he'll use the trick hitler used on the german people : You are BEAUTIFUL, FANTASTIC, SUPERIOR in every way. A CON ALWAYS SOUNDS WONDERFUL. It wouldn't work if it didn't SOUND WONDERFUL. That's how the SUCKER is always hooked."

That is not the trick he will use. If he could trick us so easily, if we were so vain, if we had not read God's Word with understanding and knew that He loved all His children, we would not be true Christians. He will deceive many of those that love Christ but not with that ploy.

Your next paragraph:

"Jesus said that you are worth more than the whole earth. What he's referring to is your QUALITATIVE SPIRIT, not your puny little body walking around on an ocean bottom. When you die it's your SPIRIT body that goes on. Me? I'm a righteous guy, finding out the TRUTH of things is what I'm about, not going with the buffalo herd over the cliff...."

Of course Jesus was talking about our soul, all of it is about our soul. (by the way - my puny little body never walked around on the ocean bottom). I'm glad that you are a "righteous guy" but be very careful. If you continue to step on His Word and disregard it so blatantly by believing yourself to be so much wiser than it is you may indeed walk over a very deep cliff. Remember, "And the Word was God".

So Timer, I don't wish to be conned, be a sucker, look for the Big Prize in the mail, and certainly have no ambition to be a nazi, or any of the other slurs you threw my way but I do search. That is the reason I ask for your opinion and others. I do value those opinions but I must have them witnessed from His Word.

Thank you for this reply and I look forward to your next in which you speak of "cliffs and floods: the flood road".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.