So during the passion, Peter denies Jesus. Jesus warns Peter that he will do this and still Peter does it.
Now Peter was faced with certain death if he does not deny Jesus. So Peter does what 99.999999% of humans would do and that is self preservation over the greater cause. After the cock crows, Peter slumps and weeps and follows it up by asking for forgiveness. He is forgiven, later becomes a saint, yada yada yada.
Here's my problem with that result. Peter was never faced with the sacrifice for the cause again, so we really don't know how he would react. I personally think he would have done the same thing since he has shown that self preservation is #1 concern. I understand (at least as my priest puts it) that asking for forgiveness and given foregiveness needs to be illustrated and in the bible, Peter's redemption is one of the top examples. However, I just don't hold Peter in as high regard, because to me, it seems like it could be accomplished via just lip service. He was given the opportunity to show his faith and he decided not to when it REALLY mattered.
What am I missing here? Or is the anointment of Saint Peter the promotion of the #1 disciple who was ultimately a pussy when it mattered.
I couldn't go on social media without seeing March for Life stuff. One of the movie channels had Saving Private Ryan on it, so I watched it instead (good call on my part). And I just thought, you have 2 people here. You have those who March in DC, and you have those who March up a beach on some foreign land really to protect foreigners and liberate them, and these guys running on that beach had to know that there was a very high chance that they were going to die. And yet, they still did it. I hold these soldiers in the highest regard and thought that the actions of someone like that was better than actions of Peter.
Help me out here.
Now Peter was faced with certain death if he does not deny Jesus. So Peter does what 99.999999% of humans would do and that is self preservation over the greater cause. After the cock crows, Peter slumps and weeps and follows it up by asking for forgiveness. He is forgiven, later becomes a saint, yada yada yada.
Here's my problem with that result. Peter was never faced with the sacrifice for the cause again, so we really don't know how he would react. I personally think he would have done the same thing since he has shown that self preservation is #1 concern. I understand (at least as my priest puts it) that asking for forgiveness and given foregiveness needs to be illustrated and in the bible, Peter's redemption is one of the top examples. However, I just don't hold Peter in as high regard, because to me, it seems like it could be accomplished via just lip service. He was given the opportunity to show his faith and he decided not to when it REALLY mattered.
What am I missing here? Or is the anointment of Saint Peter the promotion of the #1 disciple who was ultimately a pussy when it mattered.
I couldn't go on social media without seeing March for Life stuff. One of the movie channels had Saving Private Ryan on it, so I watched it instead (good call on my part). And I just thought, you have 2 people here. You have those who March in DC, and you have those who March up a beach on some foreign land really to protect foreigners and liberate them, and these guys running on that beach had to know that there was a very high chance that they were going to die. And yet, they still did it. I hold these soldiers in the highest regard and thought that the actions of someone like that was better than actions of Peter.
Help me out here.
