Christianity turns the other cheek-Where is the outrage when a church is desecrated?

National Post Online ^ | 05/13/02 | Raymond J. de Souza

[sonserae]

You just don't get it. This is the last time I'll explain it. None of us, not one of us has jurisdiction over the earth or any part of the earth. Not me, not you, not any Christian, not any non-Christian. End of discussion.

[lavaroise]

You just don't get it. This is the last time I'll explain it. None of us, not one of us has jurisdiction over the earth or any part of the earth. Not me, not you, not any Christian, not any non-Christian. End of discussion.

Then prove it by going away from this thread and giving up its jurisdictions for others to enjoy. I'm still waiting. If you claim such worship, apply it.

[JeepInMazar]

But perhaps the greatest testament to this particular spot -- the only one SOME people will accept -- lies in the gospel of John. Mary herself said, "The place is sanctified."

What translation of the New Testament are you using? And what is the exact reference in the gospel of John for this quote?

[Aquinasfan]

He is not here; he has risen, just as he said (Matthew 28)

He is also present in the Eucharist in the tabernacle in the Church:

John 6: 52-59

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [not interpreting this metaphorically]

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" [Why would this be a "hard saying" if Jesus was speaking metaphorically?]

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?..." [Not, "Oh sorry! I meant that metaphorically!] He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. [Does Jesus say, "Hey wait, you misunderstood! I was speaking metaphorically!" ] "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." [Peter answers with a statement of trust and belief. Note that he doesn't say, "Oh yeah, you were speaking metaphorically."]

[Doug Loss]

I think it's worth mentioning that the Church of the Nativity is not a Catholic church as seems to be assumed here. It's part of an Armenian Orthodox monastery, and is jointly administered by the Armenian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches. But the Orthodox monks are the ones responsible for its maintenance and upkeep. It's also worht mentioning that those same monks kept their liturgical duties throughout the siege of the church, holding their services as their vows required.

[pabianice]

>>Raymond J. de Souza is Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Register. He is to be ordained a Catholic priest in July

Maybe not, after this piece. He just offended peace-loving Muslims.

[Aquinasfan]

And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars-all the heavenly array-do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." (Numbers 21:8)

And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18)

If you take these verses together you can see that God does not object to "graven images" per se but He does object to the worship of graven images.

Catholics do not worship graven images any more than Protestants worship paintings of Jesus or photographs of family members.

[Aquinasfan]

There is no mention in the scriptures of what you are speaking. The Eucharist concept is a Catholic belief and not scripturally based at all.

_________________________________________

Try reading the Bible, you may find it to be very refeshing.

See #44

[TaxMe]

But don't Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham?

[Beau Schott]

'Jerez'is the one who quoted that in his post, I was asking him where he got it, as I have never come across it myself in the bible.

[yankeedame]

I was very pleased that the vast majority of Christians kept their cool while those with agendas attempted to get them riled up over the situation.

Perhaps that's because revenge is a dish best served cold.

[yankeedame]

14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

=========

At the risk of being the skunk at the orphan's picnic allow me to says this:

The money changers, merchants, etc. in the Temple courtyard were there for the sake of those who came to worship at the Temple. The money changers would --like modern international bankers-- change the money of the pilgram/traveler to the local, useable currency; not only for non-religious uses (food,drink, lodging) but for donation(s) to the Temple itself.

The men selling animals were also there for the benefit of the pilgram, who would buy the animal-- chiefly birds, in some cases sheep, and every great once and awhile cattle would find a buyer (but not too often as cattle was extremely expensive. Like donating a brand new Lexus to your church or temple) to offer for sacrific in/to the Temple.

I am not saying that Christ had no reason to be angry. I only bring this up to show that the courtyard of the Temple was not some sort of jumbo flea market.

Also intresting to note is that fact that the Roman SPs (for want of a better term) were not called in. Giving thought that actions of Christ "upset" only a few of the Temple merchants. A symbolic gesture, as it were...and there is nothing wrong with that. After all, one doesn't have to drink the whole glass to tell if the milk's gone sour.

[wheezer]

Todays Christians confuse cowardice with Christian.

I disagree. I think smart Christians understand the importance of picking which fights to involve themselves in, and which fights are in their interest to fight. Both sides (Israeli-Palestinian) at the church standoff wanted to get the Christians riled up, and each for their own reasons....neither of which served Christian interests in the long run.

Christ was NOT weak and pitiful, and those who followed him were not either.

I agree 100%, but I'll also add that Jesus was not a SCHMUCK, and he'd be embarrased to have those who follow him played liked cannon fodder suckers by peoples who don't repect them.

When it's really time to fight, nobody needs to worry about whether the Christians will show up. ;o)

[mafree]

I had wondered about this myself. I know that a true church is not bricks and mortar, but I couldn't stand by and allow a church to be desecrated any more than I would another property that is being used. Still, it was good to see clips of people worshipping there yesterday.

[MWS]

A few thoughts:

First of all, offering the other cheek is all well and good when it pertains to ourselves, as individuals. I would argue, however, that there is a problem when we as Christians turn the other cheek when it is other people who are being harmed or when it is the sacred things of God that are under attack. The occupation of the Church of the Nativity was clearly a case of the latter. Particular places and churches are not holy in themselves, but I would argue that God does sanctify such places by His grace and that we should treat them as belonging to God.

I have my own little theory as to why there is not more outrage. It goes back to the liberalism that has invaded the Catholic Church. Liberalism has very effectively changed the de facto practices of Church life. Art is different, music is different, architecture is different... even the liturgy is different from the way it has been for many years now. It has all been secularized in a sense.

The outward expressions of faith play a very strong role on the way the faith captures our hearts. When we find ourselves expressing our faith in the forms in which we worship, that faith becomes real. It is practical. It captures our hearts to a great degree.

But, when worship and religious practice is secularized, what do we do then? What do we do when it does not reflect our faith? In such a case, we become disconnected from what we believe. I believe this is the case in the modern Catholic Church.

Do not misunderstand me- I am not advocating for Catholics to become Traditionalist schismatics. However, I do think that we must have a movement towards orthodox expression to compliment and to teach our orthodox faith, lest our hearts move even further from our souls.

(Note: I am not saying that this problem applies to all Christians. As a Catholic, I simply speak from the condition I know within my own Church.)

[Young Werther]

Puhlese! Islam is the religion of peace!

Just because the Turks used the Parthenon for a gunpowder storehouse and it blew up and devastated that marvelous antiquity doesn't mean that Islam has no respect for other religions.

Its not like they go around doing that...oops except maybe the Buddahs in Afghanistan.

Surely there is some evidence of their respect for other belief systems. How about India? Oh well, wrong again.

[MissAmericanPie]

Maybe Christians are more in tune with God's will. I don't think God would appreciate pressure being placed on Israel to withdraw because of Christian outrage over stone and timber which shall fall to the ground at His appearing.

Yes it was an outrage for these terrorist to over run and invade the Church of the Nativity and use it for a urinal. But here in the last days, dark is called light, good is called evil, and it would have been Israel that would take the heat from evil in high places for a situation they did not create if Christians had thrown the kind of fit that Muslims would have had it been a Mosque that was invaded.

We love God's people more than the Church of the Nativity, even though it is well loved also, it is repairable.