Back here in Northampton, one of the chief delights is going on walks, as I have said many times before. Although this evening's excursion was uneventful, besides the normal fare of squirrels, raccoons, and whatnot, black bears are not uncommon, and a person usually ends up seeing one or two every year. Though this is not the country by any means, a delightful array of animals can be seen. On a fairly recent occasion, my father saw a coyote, and a few years ago I came across a red fox in a local park. Further, moose are frequently seen by others, and elsewhere in New England, rarely, mountain lions have been sighted. I have been pondering the variety of regional wildlife for about a week, since speaking with a friend of mine who is going into education. She was up late in the library designing a lesson plan, and I noticed a handout on, typically, the endangered giant panda. Little different from the handouts I came across when I was in grade school, I immediately asked, "Why a lesson on the
educate our children about the plight of animals they'll probably never encounter. Thinking of subsidiarity, I asked, "Have you ever thought of doing a lesson on squirrels?" That would be awesome, but to her it was a novel thought. Recently, I have lamented the lack of knowledge moderns have of flora and other plant life (in a particularly distressing sign of the times, the Oxford Junior Dictionary recently removed natural, Christian, and historical terms, replacing them with mainly technological terms). Lessons on anything from commoner New England wildlife to critically endangered animals like the mountain lion, would have a much greater utility for the greens themselves, and help to remedy ignorance of nature.
16 Comments:
I see your point about the giant pandas... there are a lot of endangered animals in North America that a lesson plan could be done on.
I'm not sure I understand what your position is on overseas missionaries. Most, if not all, people in North America and Europe will come across someone in their lifetime who is willing to share the Gospel with them, but in many remote tribes in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, they have never seen anyone outside of their own tribe, let alone hear of the Gospel. If someone's calling is to be a missionary in a foreign land like that, I don't consider that to be ignoring their literal neighbors. After all, Christ Himself used the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate that everyone, not just those who live close to you or share your lifestyle, should be considered your neighbor whom you must be willing to share News of Christ's death and Resurrection.
I think there should be a lesson on black squirrels. They're pretty interesting creatures to look at.
http://www.black-squirrels.com/Pictures/Toronto/Black_Squirrel.JPG
Oh no, Steve! I wasn't advocating a position! I was just making a comparison, since I assumed most readers were aware of the criticisms. Myself: as one of those "act locally" types, I usually support nearby missionaries like our friends just over the border in Richmond, New Hampshire.
And the black squirrel lesson is a good idea!
Ahh! Okay, that makes more sense. Yes, I agree with that. I apologize, my intention wasn't to criticize, I just wasn't sure why someone preaching the gospel to anyone was a bad thing, but I understand you now.
I guess that one man's missionary is another man's anti-semitic hate group.
Been spending a little too much time on the SPLC's guide to hate groups, I see. You've got nothin' on them! Desiring to convert Jews to Catholicism, and dispensing with the sappier pleasantries of false ecumenism, is not hate.
Indeed, these days anyone who speaks a politically incorrect truth is liable to be charged for discrimination. Those who still pay attention labellings and accusations of this sort demonstrate their inability to think for themselves.
Desiring to convert Jews to Catholicism is arrogant, and calls to mind all of the good times we had during the Inquisition.
Converting Jews to Catholicism is charitable. It is no less than acquainting them with the Messiah they await, the King of Israel sprung from the root of Jesse.
If I had my way, you'd be in an auto-da-fé just for insulting the Holy Inquisition, though I imagine it would be acceptable to let you off with a prohibition from spewing any further nonsense in the blogosphere.
Well-spoken, Leslie!
You have a funny definition of "charity."
For summer reading, I recommend "Jesus Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus" for your reading list.
Meanwhile,if you are threatening to burn me at the stake or to physically prevent me from commenting on the internet, I would be happy to meet you in front of La Maison on the first day of classes to see how that turns out. I'll even let you take the first shot, you puerile punk.
And now let the backpedaling begin . . .
I stand by everything which I said.
At an auto-da-fé, burning at the stake was not uniformly given out, so I was not threatening you with that. Sadly, there being no Inquisition, I cannot carry out the previously recommended sentence. However, I would be glad to meet you outside of the Maison as well, though not with the intention of fighting. No need to get violent now!
I totally disagree with the other anonymous, who says wanting to convert Jews is arrogant. That's possible to think only if you're not Christian. If he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, then it would hardly be charitable to tell others they shouldn't believe, or to hide your own Christianity. At the very least we should be letting people know, when appropriate, that we're Catholic, and being a good example, and not hiding our practices from others. At the very least we should plant a seed of interest. I'll be the first to admit that when driving on the interstate to work, I always pray but usually try to cross myself when it's unlikely someone in a neighboring car will see me. At least I realize that this instinct on my part is wrong, though ( a fear of looking like a wierdo). Also, it seems one of the main points of early Christianity and the New Testament was to spread the gospel. That being said, obviously a person of any or no faith is free to reject Christianity for themselves and nobody's advocating forcing it on anyone.
I, the other, other Anonymous, still feel that Christians who actively attempt to convert Jews are indeed arrogant.
However, the other Anonymous made me think about this. I wholeheartedly agree with and endorse his or her view that if, by the example of one's life, one can so influence another that that other wants to embrace Christianity, that is the type of conversion that occurred in the early church.
And it makes me wonder what the truer conversion of the heart and soul would be; one where the person converted because of the example of a follower of Jesus, or one who converted because they believed the drivel that the only way to heaven was through Jesus and everyone else was going to drown/burn in a lake of fire, etc.
I am glad we have come to a partial agreement, though I do not see how the two motivations one speaks of are mutually exclusive. Although I believe that the theology behind the salvation/damnation imagery you referred to finds support in the Gospels, epistles, and in Sacred Tradition, it is nonetheless true that we must follow Christ foremost out of love for Him, irrespective of the fate of our souls. The Act of Contrition expresses this idea best:
O MY GOD, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.
Naturally, though, the need for personally good intentions should not prevent us from a concern for the fate of others' eternal salvation through Christ, and hence the compassionate missionarying we have been discussing.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home