Jesuit magazine calls for people to abandon the distinction between good and evil

Deutsch

A Jesuit magazine calls for people to refrain from distinguishing between good and evil when it comes to their fellow human beings. Instead, Jesus’ call should be followed. However, this appeal is presented in a distorted form. It is not God’s word that is decisive, but the striving for “fraternity”.

Jesuit “theology”

Clearly, this is an attempt to blur the clear line between “good” and “evil.” Such a distinction should not exist, said the author and co-editor of the Jesuit magazine “America – The Jesuit Review”, on the occasion of the feast of “Saint Anthony of Padua”. (Source).

Anthony was born in Lisbon around 1195. However, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the anniversary of his death, June 13, 1231 in Arcella near Padua, Italy. He was a monk of the Franciscan order and is venerated as a saint and doctor of the church in the Roman Catholic Church. A legend says that due to the “stormy desire of the people” Antony was canonized by Pope Gregory IX eleven months after his death on May 30, 1232. The elevation to Doctor of the Church, however, only took place on January 16, 1946 by Pope Pius XII.

Statement of Jesus Christ misrepresented

The author of the article in the Jesuit magazine names the verses Matthew 5:21-22 for her comments:
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.“

It is already clear here that the author’s following arguments will be built on sand. She only gives a third of verse 22, but in the quoted verse excerpt alone a small but crucial detail is missing. Following Matthew 5:22 in the original and in full:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.“

The small, crucial, missing detail about “angry” (or “angry”) is: “without a cause”.

Based on the distorted presentation of this important statement, it is already possible to estimate where the journey should go. To “brotherly love in the exercise of unconditional, all-accepting tolerance.”

This omission of the crucial detail is a good example of the absurd “theologies” that can allow such falsifications in, especially modern, Bible translations. Therefore, choosing a non-corrupted version of the Bible is crucial (Info).

A touch of your own experience

The author tells us how she behaved towards her mother as a child. She was resolute and got into trouble, shouting at her mother in her indignation: “Don’t you know how much worse you could have a child?!”.
She was an absolute follower of rules. There were “bad kids” at school who always got into trouble. But she always tried very hard to maintain an upright posture when sitting, to fold her hands, put her feet up, look forward and keep her mouth closed. The author saw herself as a “good child”. She was unaware of any difficulties.

According to the author, her mother had high expectations of her. The mother therefore did not hesitate to say immediately if something could be done better. When the author bitched or complained as a child, she was asked to apologize and phrase it in a different way. The author had already begun to think she was good. That’s why she was outraged by the difficulties because she thought she was a better child than the others. She wonders if the mother didn’t realize that she could have a much worse child.

Defining your own morals

When it comes to morality, there is no scale on which comparisons can be made, says the author. You don’t get an award just because you haven’t behaved as badly as others. Jesus’ words to the disciples in Matthew 5:21-22 call people to an even deeper moral life. This must be a life in which man has to be more accountable to God and Jesus than to our own perception of others. It’s not enough to say, “Well, I don’t kill and I don’t steal.”

If people want to look better by emphasizing the failings of others, then they are missing out on an important part of how Jesus describes the moral life in today’s Gospel: “the reconciliation of our differences with our brothers and sisters.”

It was already foreseeable

And the author has already let the foreseeable cat out of the bag. It is standard practice for theologians taught according to Jesuit philosophies to speak of a “today’s gospel.” This suggested that God’s words needed to be adapted to our current values ​​and morals. It is clearly stated in that Gospel that neither God nor His Word ever change. Consequently it says in Revelation 14:6:
“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,“

“The reconciliation of our differences”, as the author describes it, leads precisely in this direction to a complete fraternity with all people, regardless of what religion they belong to and regardless of whether they worship the God of the Bible or a fictional deity. The extensively propagated “human family”.

She reiterates how dependent this thesis, supported by the author, is on her incorrectly quoted verse. Accordingly, Jesus not only told the disciples that killing and stealing led to responsibility before God’s judgment, but also that “whoever is angry with his brother.”

Quotation falsification was a prerequisite

The construct created by the Jesuit-influenced author inevitably collapses if only the arbitrarily removed detail is added again: “without a cause.”

The author finally suggests moving away from the labels “good” and “bad”. Such judgments about yourself and your neighbors are not helpful. This judgment should be God’s task. Our task is reconciliation.

Without this falsification of the quote by omission, the author’s thesis cannot stand. The actual statement of Jesus Christ is that it can be justified to be angry with your neighbor if there is a specific reason. But this is exactly what contradicts the agenda of the Roman Catholic Church to lead humanity into a united family, fraternally drunk on tolerance. To follow Rome’s moral and ethical guidelines together and thus lead open rebellion against God. Of course, there is no place for criticism of others. Such deviation by an individual could only be detrimental to the common good.

God’s laws are to be ignored

Strong tobacco. However, a prime example of Jesuit thinking. A mixing of truths with targeted lies and this with the help of falsified, supposed little things. The author calls for everyone to be accepted by exercising unrestricted tolerance. A distinction between good and evil should therefore be avoided.

This means nothing other than a request to disregard God’s clear laws or statutes. However, like the Gospel itself, this is precisely the standard rejected by the author. A result that is already visible today: warning your neighbor because he is disregarding God’s law is therefore viewed as inappropriate criticism, a (spiritual) attack, intolerance and even as “hate speech”.

Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat from the “Tree of Knowledge”. The knowledge between good and evil. As is well known, both ate from this (forbidden) tree and since then a distinction was necessary due to the entry of sin, i.e. evil. God even caused enmity between good and evil so that there was a clear distinction or dividing line (Genesis 3:15). From then on, man was able to recognize this elementary difference between good and evil, Genesis 3:22:
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil“

A distinction is absolutely necessary

With the entry of evil through sin into this world, man must even be able to distinguish. The standard for discernment is the Word of God, the Gospel. By attempting to remove this clear line, the author and co-editor of the Jesuit magazine is acting like the snake in the Garden of Eden. Seductively well-sounding words, but still just wrapped lies. If it’s any wonder? The three lies of the serpent in the Garden of Eden are official teaching according to the Catholic Catechism (Info).

Paul knew about the conflict between good and evil and therefore warned the church in Corinth, 1. Corinthians 15:33:
“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.“

The ability to differentiate between good and evil is essential and should therefore be acquired through the study of the eternal(!) Gospel, Hebrews 5:14:
“But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.“

The law of God, specifically the 10 Commandments, is valid without restriction. Claims to the contrary mislead people into ignorance, often by confusing the 10 Commandments with the so-called ceremonial laws that have actually been repealed (Info). This is exactly the standard for distinguishing between what is good and what is evil.

The following is a clear warning from Isaiah to those who have in mind a reversal of the gospel:

Bible verses from King James Version