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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Quix]

Ordination and confirmation are acts of the Holy Spirit.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! NO WAY.

I suspect that even in your system . . . the statement has been made some time or other that

ORDINATION AND CONFIRMATION are merely human system confirmations of

WHAT HOLY SPIRIT HAS ALREADY DONE.

i.e. thoughtful flattering rubber stamping what Holy Spirit has already done . . . so that the officials feel like they earn their keep and the flock have all the formal accoutraments to clearly detect someone super kosher--especially according to man's sanction--vs someone 'merely' Holy Spirit alone seems to sanction.

I mean, we have to have something for the gold braid makers and the gold floss weavers to do.

[Quix]

Lovely zing, that. Very slick.

Methinks the criteria is grossly flawed.

[Quix]

Oh, I think satire is greatly fitting in religious discussions . . . as did Christ.

I have no clue what you're going on about here: Then you post a reference to sacramental introduction in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, do not notice it in the text, and say you claim no credentials.

Credentials can be significant and important in some settings. But mostly I don't put much stock in them nor bow to them. Either someone has something fruitful for me, or they don't. Plenty of highly credentialed people have been not only fruitless but destructive. And many humble farmers with a 6th grade education have taught me degrees worth.

Besides, in Christianity, Holy Spirit is more than sufficient at Sanctioning a person, an action, an idea. He did, after all, manage to create all and ongoingly sustain all. He knows the thoughts and intents of each heart and mind. I think He is very up to the task--and that I'd be an insulting idiot to avoid paying attention to Him.

And having paid attention to Him, to then put more stock in what a mortal said would be an insult to Holy Spirit.

Simple, but then, perhaps I'm not capable enough of logical thought according to some standards.

[Mad Dawg]

I get that you disagree. Typographical fireworks only raise the ambient temperature, leading to more heat than light. They do not persuade me of anything but rather tempt me to make judgments I ought not to make.

[Quix]

Gave with their lives . . .

Uhhhhhhhhhh. . . Christ at one point declared that John was the greatest born of women. But that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven was greater than he.

Then when John sent from prison not long before his death . . . to know whether Christ was really the Messiah, Christ was somewhat compassionate enough to provide a type of an answer--see the miracles--essentially--but in a sense, He was also somewhat detached. He did not belabor John's contribution nor his impending martyrdom.

Of course, all kinds of groups do all kinds of things contrary to Christ's model and exampole. We wouldn't want to claim the RC edifice was out of THAT group! LOL.

[Quix]

We have similar sensibilities on our side.

But I don't think God is near (if at all) as fussed up about our sensibilities as we are.

[Quix]

But when our sensibilities and biases blind us to truth . . . there is a problem. And God can care a lot about that.

[Quix]

The objective is to nudge my brothers and sisters in Christ in their walk with the Lord.
= = =

Which you persistently, by His Grace, do masterfully and charitably. Please keep up the Great Work.

[Love to foster your laughter.]

[Quix]

To say that the HS does not indwell them when God clearly says that He does and that He gives the power to spread the gospel is to deny the Word of God and the work of the HS. Dangerous territory.

DANGEROUS, INDEED

[Quix]

Not sure if I'd consider that a perceptual problem or a sensibilities problem. Probably the latter.

But then all of us choose what we get all fussed up about.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

Truly, Schroeder has broken the age of the universe into days, which I aver is entirely appropriate since reconciling Genesis 1 and physical evidence in nature was his objective - and God spoke Genesis 1 in terms of days and notably, the first day.

It is the observer problem again - I agree with Schroeder and assert we ought to be reading Genesis 1 with God as the observer, not man.

Your point about sun and vegetation does not hold if we accept that the Genesis account refers to the creation of not the physical realm alone, but both the physical and the spiritual realms (emphasis mine):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. - Genesis 2:4-5

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. - Gen 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. - Rev 2:7

If in referring to King David you are speaking of a thousand years as a day unto the Lord (Psalms 90:4) – I would offer the following back story from another thread:

Adam did not have a conventional "birthday" because he was specially created (Genesis 2 and Day 6 in Genesis 1).

My assertion is that he was created in heaven, in the spiritual realm, and placed in the Garden of Eden there. His “clock” began running when he was banished to mortality in Genesis 3.

The sixth day from the inception space/time coordinates is a quarter billion years ago from our space/time coordinates (Scripture and inflationary theory and relativity.)

On the Adamic clock (our space/time coordinates) - the day in which Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the first 1,000 years of the 7,000 allotted to Adamic man – the last 1,000 is Christ’s millennial reign to come. (Emphasis mine)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Gen 2:17

Adam didn’t die on day 1 of his mortal clock nor did he die on the 6th day of Creation week.

Rather, Adam died at age 930 in the first 1,000 year “day” according to Scripture which corresponds to Creation week. Or to put it another way, 6 days of creation plus 1 day of rest corresponds to 6,000 years of Adamic man plus 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth (the Messiah era.)

That is the Jewish interpretation (Sanhedrin 97a; Avodah Zarah Sa) of this Psalm attributed to Moses:

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4

It was the understanding among the Jews in Peter’s day:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet 3:8

And among the early church, too as we see in the ancient manuscript, the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5 (among others):

He speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the Creation, "And God made in six days the works of His hands and on the seventh day He made an end, and He rested on the seventh day, and He sanctified it. Consider, my children what this signifies: That He made an end in six days. The meaning of it is this: that in six thousand years the Creator will bring all things to an end, for with Him one day is a thousand years. He Himself testifies, saying, Behold the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, all things shall be accomplished. And He rested on the seventh day: He means this, that when His Son shall come He will destroy the season of the wicked one, and will judge the godless, and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then He will truly rest on the seventh day.

It is also a really big clue in Scripture that we should be looking at Creation week from God's aspect as creator and not from our aspect as creatures, i.e. the Schroeder point.

The way all of this reconciles beautifully is the assertion that the Creation was not just the physical realm, but the spiritual realm as well. (Gen 1:1) The Garden of Eden, like the Temple, is in the Spiritual realm (albeit in both cases there is a “type” in the physical realm.)

I do find your interest in the Kaballah to be fascinating. The ancient Jewish Kaballah is of keen interest to me - but not the new age version of it which has hijacked some of the mysticism and incorporated it into something "new" (and wrongful.)

By tradition, the Jewish Kaballah was passed down orally from Adam to now and the secrets of it - in particular the powers associated with certain sounds - were never to be written. Some (but not all) of the Kaballist mysticism was recorded centuries ago - and even now some aver to reveal these ancient oral secrets.

But I do not dismiss the Jewish Kaballah out-of-hand because I lean on the indwelling Spirit to guide me into Truth. As an example, the teaching that the firmament is a boundary and not a geometric location per se is Kaballistic in origin. And that rings true in the Spirit. But the extension of it, that the firmament is the speed of light neither rings true nor false for me.

Likewise, I suspect that much of what has been captured for millennia in the pseudepigraphral manuscripts have their origin in this Jewish oral tradition.

Some of these are directly referenced in Scripture, such as in Jude – others are carried forward in tradition. But in any case, the Spirit draws me to certain points in the pseudepigraphal books – such as what provoked Abraham to be called by God, how Job got into a mess with Satan, the back story of Genesis 6 and the Noah Flood and so on. And likewise, I am drawn to certain teaching of the Jewish Kaballah.

[kawaii]

Personally i like Christ paralells...

when one of these diverges form what Christ said Christ' version wins for me...

[kawaii]

thats hilareous.

protestants reject the oral tradition which Christ and the apostles gave us but find the aledged oral tradition of the first sinner to be 'fascinating'.

speaks volumes

[Mad Dawg]

I'm personally suspicious of lines of thought which seem to justify being rude and insensitive. There is an awful lot of stomping around using needlessly repetitive and offensive language and then explaining that doing what is almost guaranteed to raise hackles is "just" an effort to prod or poke people into understanding the "Truth" which, mirabile dictu, just happens to be what the eager and persistent giver of offense claims to have an inside track on.

In fencing matches this behavior would lead to an ejection from the piste. Here leaping roughshod on the sensitivities of others, refusing to show the least comprehension of each other's point of view is implausibly attributed to an excess of love for the person one is abusing.

It's very like the way Democrats do social programs. The intention is noble so the outcomes don't matter. And this is explained as an example of "fruits of the Spirit".

[Quix]

Holding Christ pre-eminent is certainly a winning preference, in my book.

[Quix]

Will prayerfully ponder your thoughtful exhortation more.

My initial response is that there's entirely far too much thin skinned pride and brittleness in most RELIGIOUS circles and discussions.

Christ sliced through such rather brazenly, typically, and usually the slice was kattywumpus to what others would have predicted a slice should have been.

If something's not true--it's not true. It may be dramatically and horrendously and devastatingly not true--but it's just not true. I can treat it as just not true or I can get all energized about it not being true. My choice.

The same is true about whether I construe something as insulting, insufferable, blasphemous-to-me, an outrageous affront to my current most cherished icon or idol or champion; or whatever such. I choose the focus, the perspective and the attitude.

I could, imho, legitimately, Biblically be utterly outraged and foaming at the mouth ranting over every "MOTHER OF GOD" phrase I read hereon--because I see it as an outrageous TEN COMMANDMENT VIOLATING affront to my Lord Jesus The Christ. But I don't. I understand that for at least many RC folks, such is an aid, however mystifyingly to me, an aid instead of a violation in their Christian walk.

The obliviousness to the spiritual and Biblical hazard is beyond me, however--and one which I feel constrained in my mind and spirit to continue to pontificate about.

And, in my construction on reality, as long as my heart is right . . . lots of things are fair in love and war and religious 'dialogue' . . . exchanges, holding forths-ings . . . . . . . especially if there's a chance that something startling will provoke a new thought, a new perspective, a new openness to Holy Spirit's wooing and leading into all truth.

CHRIST WAS BRAZENLY AFFRONTIVE in most things He said--particularly to the religious pontificators of the day.

I'm happy to follow in His model, pattern, way.

however flawdly.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your blessing, my dearest sister in Christ!

[annalex]

Just for the record, unless I specify differently in the post, the bulk of my posts refer to the Reformation or Protestants as characterized by some form of belief in Bible Alone, Faith Alone, and individual salvation preceding sanctification (goes by Once Saved - Always Saved, or Perseverance of the Saints) as these are your defining heresies. The additional heresy of Predestination of the Reprobate is indeed found in a subgroup only.

[kawaii]

what abpout neo anabaptistism?

[Mad Dawg]

So because Jesus and John called the Pharisees a viper's nest, it is somehow laudable for you to be insulting. Your spiritual walk involves and commends needlessly offending other people.

And it is commendable and a fruit of the Spirit to come into a thread and pretend to be about having a conversation or a debate when the real intention is to accuse and blame and offend? So Jesus lauds dishonesty as well as needless hostility.

And when you use offensive language with the intention of causing people to be offended and the targets of your abuse get offended it's their choice.

Wow.