A few years ago the Pope wrote that Islam and the Qur’an rejected all forms of violence. Now he is contradicting himself. “The Pope went on, however, to acknowledge that the ‘idea of conquest is inherent to the soul of Islam,’ while immediately adding that ‘one could also interpret the end of Saint Matthew’s gospel, where Jesus sends out his disciples to all nations, as the same idea of conquest.’ It wasn’t clear whether the Pope actually believes that Jesus’ mandate to his disciples to evangelize the nations was truly equivalent to violent Islamic jihad, or whether he merely said this in order to appear balanced and self-critical.”
Pope Francis is profoundly confused. Christianity has no doctrine mandating warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Islam does. And he is supposed to be the head of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian body in the world. He should thus be defending Christianity, not indulging in politically correct and fallacious moral equivalence.
Note also that even though he acknowledges that the idea of conquest is inherent in Islam, he wants Europe to open its doors to huge numbers of Muslim migrants. He wants Europe to commit civilizational suicide.
“Pope Francis: ‘The Idea of Conquest Is Inherent to the Soul of Islam,’” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, May 17, 2016:
Choosing his words carefully, Pope Francis recognized that the idea of conquest is integral to Islam as a religion, though he was quick to add that some might interpret Christianity in the same way.
In an extensive interview with the French Catholic daily La Croix published Tuesday, the Pope offered his thoughts on a number of issues ranging from French secularism to immigration to Islam.
Asked point blank what he thought of the widespread fear of Islam in the West, Francis replied that his impression is that most people don’t fear “Islam as such” but rather “Daesh [the Islamic State] and its war of conquest, drawn in part from Islam.”
The Pope went on, however, to acknowledge that the “idea of conquest is inherent to the soul of Islam,” while immediately adding that “one could also interpret the end of Saint Matthew’s gospel, where Jesus sends out his disciples to all nations, as the same idea of conquest.”
It wasn’t clear whether the Pope actually believes that Jesus’ mandate to his disciples to evangelize the nations was truly equivalent to violent Islamic jihad, or whether he merely said this in order to appear balanced and self-critical.
In the interview, Francis also wondered aloud whether jihadism wasn’t exacerbated by Western incursions into the Middle East, in countries like Iraq.
“Faced with modern Islamic terrorism, we should question the way an overly Western model of democracy was exported into countries where there was a strong power, such as Iraq,” he said.
“Or into Libya, with its the tribal structure,” he added. “We cannot move forward without considering that culture. As said a Libyan said some time ago: ‘We used to have Gaddafi, now we have 50 Gaddafis!’”
The Pope expressed his fundamental belief that “coexistence among Christians and Muslims is possible.”
“I come from a country where they live together in good familiarity,” Francis said. “The Muslims venerate the Virgin Mary and Saint George. In a country in Africa, I’ve been told that for the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Muslims wait in a long line at the cathedral to pass through the Holy Door and pray to the Virgin Mary. In Central Africa, before the war, Christians and Muslims lived together and must learn to do so again today. Lebanon also shows it is possible.”
Asked whether Europe should be accepting so many migrants, the Pope recognized that “it is a fair and responsible question because we cannot open the doors irrationally.” He then immediately shifted to the “basic question” why there are so many migrants in the first place.
As he has done on other occasions, the Pope said that the problems at the source of Europe’s migrant crisis are the wars in the Middle East and in Africa, as well as underdevelopment throughout the African continent. If there are wars, he said, that’s because there are arms producers—which is justifiable for defense—and above all arms dealers.”…

ich says
he better brush on on his gospels
what a clown
ploome says
exactly..a clown
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
He’s not a ‘clown’. Alas! Would that he were!
He’s a liberation-theology-spouting-Marxist-loving-social-justice-adhering nightmare. What Obama is to Americanism, this Pope is to Catholicism.
And I say this as a traditional Latin Rite, Roman Catholic.
Shane says
This is the worst Pope in many years; he is a traitor to Christianity and an enemy of Western Civilization. He truly is a left wing fanatic who is too gutless to say anything negative about our enemy – Islam.
Betty Feldman says
I couldn’t agree more with these comments. I too am a Latin Rite Roman Catholic. This pope is such an embarrassment. The Abomination of Desecration in a place where it ought not to be. Perhaps? I am beginning to think so. I can only apologize to our many Christian (Catholic) brothers and sisters in those parts of the world being wiped out by Islam.
rabrooks says
Thanks, I thought it was me. I just remember the commands of “Feed my sheep” and “feed my lambs.” But I guess if you are used to goats, that could be threatening…..
DP111 says
I remember going to church one Sunday. After the service, I was forced to swallow slices angel cakes, lemon drizzle, apple pies with cream, and other stuff. Never been so scared for my life. I just managed to escape after promising that I would return.
paul says
muslim bootlicker
Phil Horaia says
Christ commanded his disciples to CONVERT not to KILL. Otherwise we would see St Paul massacring nonbelievers left, right and centre. Christianity is clearly not a religion of conquest but of conversion, one allowing non-obedience to the Gospel and apostasy even.
john spielman says
and we fight with the “sword of the SPIRIT WHICH IS THE WORD OF GOD” NOT with a physical sword as we “do not fight against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces in high places” according to St Paul
Me-You-I-We-Us-Them says
How is it that the pope can’t get this right but you can? i think you should take his place.
Alexius Comnenus says
That’s a great and unique truth about Christianity.
Stephen says
Why bother this Pope with such distinctions and cause him to leave his fantasy island. Come on! leave the poor guy alone, so what if it causes more Christians to be beheaded and crucified! Small price to pay for remaining in the la la land were everybody gets along. Any sarcasm detected was fully intended!
DFD says
Pope says: “…‘one could also interpret the end of Saint Matthew’s gospel…”
His advisers (?) should teach him the difference between “interpretation”, his, and “instruction”, quran.
If he isn’t too preoccupied kissing the quran or the feet of Muslims…
Stephen says
…. or Muslims asses.
Rev g says
“Fishers of men” doesn’t sound much like convert, subjugate, or slay.
Mark Swan says
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
To tell, or make aware of, nothing to do with trying to convert or insisting in belief.
Anyone, who lives anywhere in the world, can get a Bible, in their own language—the gospel is made available—to the world
Jay Boo says
The pope is living ” in the world” and ignoring his Bible.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Jay Boo
gravenimage says
Yes, Mark–who could honestly interpret urging peaceful preaching as “conquest”, in any but the most symbolic of ways?
Not just absurd, but calumny.
DFD says
Hi Graven,
Try or replace ‘calumny’ with ‘moronic’….
Mark Swan says
I like the word calumny—it supports Her first point really well.
DFD says
Mark Swan says: “I like the word calumny….”
Hi Mark,
‘was just one of my flippant remarks. Nothing to do with Graven, but an expression of my feelings for the current pope. Don’t take offense…
Mark Swan says
I am sure I already Knew that My Friend…I was just saying that calumny worked for me.
gravenimage says
Hi DFD and Mark–I think calumny works, because it is so libelous to peaceful Christians preaching the Gospel. DFD, you are also right that this comment from the Pope is utterly moronic.
Hope you both are well.
Mark Swan says
Yes gravenimage, Hope You and DFD are both well…ThankYou
DFD says
Yes gravenimage, hi Mark,
Hope You and Mark are both well…Thank You
There, I have the last word 🙂
Mark Swan says
Good One
خَليفة says
Xactly.
Christianity has no mandate to control the political system, and in fact warns against church and state being the same entity.
Islam, however, is a political system, with the guise of religiosity. And within Islam is the mandate to take over the world politically ( whether or not the inhabitants convert to Islam, as – they can always be enslaved or killed later )
Alexius Comnenus says
You captioned the whole truth about Islam and Christianity.
DFD says
Hi Kalifat,
You said: “Christianity has no mandate to control the political system, and in fact warns against church and state being the same entity….”
Indeed, you’ve got it. By non other than Jesus himself. Jesus answering Pilatus: “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
If that’s not clear, clarity requires redefinition.
WorkingClassPost says
By suggesting that islam has a distinct soul he’s treading on very sandy soil for someone who professes to be Christian, as well as head of the Catholic church and needs to decide whether he is primarily a Christian, or a political leader.
If it’s the latter, then it could explain his fascination with the cult of mohamed.
Vyx says
My feeling- for what it’s worth- is that this Pope has grandiose fantasies about making Islam,and all it’s rich, rich oil sheiks, part of Catholicism.
You know, “a one world religion.”
Crazy, I know, but it’s one of the only things that make sense.
Jay Boo says
If only that were true, it would be easier to expose.
Ironically, this pope who seeks out every opportunity to flaunt his (humility) is a narcissist. Get the cameras ready news media; it is foot kissing time.
—————–
“I come from a country where they live together in good familiarity,” Francis said. “The Muslims venerate the Virgin Mary and Saint George….”
Who gives a sh-t about Muzzies in Argentina?
This pope omits that Muslims in Argentina are a tiny minority. If he grew up in a place such as Egypt his perspective would be a bit less self-centered.
gravenimage says
Jay Boo quoted:
“I come from a country where they live together in good familiarity,” Francis said. “The Muslims venerate the Virgin Mary and Saint George….”
……………………..
The Muslim conception of Jesus is, of course, completely different from that of actual Christians.
Jesus is not the Savior, nor is he a healer or peacemaker. Instead, in the last days he is here to *kill Christians*.
The idea that Muslims “venerate Saint George” is even less plausible. In fact, Muslims in Britain have a special animus for the saint, who is there associated with Englishness.
And more importantly, none of this, in any case, has prevented Muslims in Argentina from waging violent Jihad, including the horrific 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed twenty-nine and injured hundreds.
DFD says
To Jay Boo & Gravenimage,
Hi both of you,
Jay, you say: “…Who gives a sh-t about Muzzies in Argentina?…” Consider what Graven said below your post/above mine. That’s exactly the point. What I am trying to say is this, if there are three Muslim converts among the Eskimos, they require watching. Again, see Graven’s reply.
I think we should re-institute the Inquisition, well controlled and supervised of course. Tiny problem, it still exists. It’s called ‘The Holy Office’, guess who rules…
Makes one wonder when the pope will have them apologizing.
Stephen says
Fulton Sheen made the same asine mistake the Catholic Church teaches that Mary gave birth to The Son of God in the flesh and remained a virgin before during and after this singularly unique salvation event. Islam in all its strains and forms teaches that the ultimate blasphemy is to teach that God became man. Which puts it diametrically opposed to the Church and hence the Churches teaching on Mary and the Pope knows this. This notion that mohammadans share anything in common with Christians is absurd except to say that the reason all Mohammadans don’t cut off heads is because they cannot bring themselves to violate the natural law written by God in the hearts of all men.
This man is reckless and dangerous.
cs says
Islam is bad but it is good! Oh ok, gotcha.
Reuben Scratton says
Note the weaselly “one could also interpret [that]” … Francis never says that that is *his* interpretation, merely that it’s possible.
(I have no idea why he can’t speak as plainly re Islam as he does everything else).
Stephen says
Because he’s never read or chooses to ignore Christ’s command to speak simply letting your no mean no and your yes mean yes.
Wakeup says
Where do I start ‘The Comission’ Mathew 28 tells Christians essentialy to share the gospel with everyone and it is an act of love for the world. Nobody knows what is going on in another persons mind so it is the Christian duty to be a carrier of this gift so at the very least a Christian should be known to be a Christian, not necessarily standing on a soap box preaching in the market square wear a cross and as Jesus would put it don’t put your light under a bush.
One last point eating halal and Kosher food. Eat Kosher food as much as you like Jews are only people from my point of view who do not understand the nature of Jesus as God but they are worshiping the same God as Christians. At the end of days they will know him and accept him job done. Rather like one telling a blind man a wall is painted blue he doesn’t see it but if he regains his sight he does job done. The problem with the halal food is that it is blessed in the name of allah not the same God, not God at all, an imposter by eating halal food I would be validating this imposter contravening the first commandment.
What if there is no choice when travelling through a muslim airport for example surely Jesus would not want us to starve no. Just say grace and ask JESUS to bless this food in his name.
elizabeth says
Perhaps the most Islam-illiterate Pope in history.
maghan says
Not just a pathetic ignorance of Islam but of most things. With all that free time one would think that the Pope would at least read up on Islam. But no. That Pope is not very bright–and in some cases kinda dumb. Oh well.
Westman says
The most blatant and obvious example of Pope Francis’ ignorance of Islam, is his urban myth that, “..in Africa, I’ve been told…..Muslims wait in a long line at the cathedral to pass through the Holy Door and pray to the Virgin Mary”
That would change a Muslim into a Polytheist and an Apostate for which the punishment is death.
Muslims are only allowed to revere the Mother of Jesus. Praying to anyone but Allah is an Islamic mortal offense.
Sog says
…For which one should be denogginized… Now that the pope pointed it out, the Islamist enforcers may very well show up to rein in such blasphemies. More human smithereens thanks to Pope Frankie.
john spielman says
Pope Francis IS A LIBERAL weenie when it comes to ‘ fighting the good fight” – which does NOT mean a physical fight but a spiritual fight against the demons behind the theology of islam
Paul says
He should check out Revelation 21:8. That applies to him perfectly.
Cowards will not inherit the Kingdom.
John A. Marre says
He says, “The Muslims venerate the Virgin Mary and Saint George. ” He is deliberately fooling himself. He would like to believe that Muslims are peace-loving people who are just misunderstood.
Sog says
A lot of them are. A lot of Muslim individuals *do* hold the golden rule principle, written on their hearts, above the precepts of their own religion. The problem with Islam is that there are multitudes that don’t .
gravenimage says
The other problem, Sog, is that there is no way to tell the difference.
Canto28 says
This stunningly foolish and naive pope must be a great embarrassment to all educated Catholics, at least I hope he is.
Ginger says
Yes.
AvantiBev says
An embarrassment and sword in our hearts, an insult to our minds. This is especially true for those of us old enough to have been schooled by preVatican II nuns who based learning on the Trivium: grammar, LOGIC, rhetoric.
Westman says
This inconsistent blather could be a product of old age, inexperience with Islamic Ideology, and the influence of political/religious advisors all coming into muddled confluence.
I’m guessing the scenario was something like this:
Catholics were receiving increasing persecution in Islam dominated countries. A private decision among Cardinals was reached that no speeches or sermons would be made that would cause further persecution.
First they “retire” a Pope who wouldn’t consider Islam and Catholicism to be compatible and install an insulated dreamer who genuinely loves everyone. The sweet dreamer makes overt public pronouncements and fealty to Islam.
ISIS makes posters of the Pope kissing the feet of Muslims to show they have Catholicism on the run, members start questioning church sanity, and the Cardinals realize the Pope needs some external steering.
“idea of conquest is inherent to the soul of Islam……one could also interpret the end of Saint Matthew’s gospel, where Jesus sends out his disciples to all nations, as the same idea of conquest.” – change of position after counciling, throws a bone to complaining members and Islam.
“..we cannot open the doors irrationally.” – after counciling, a changed posture.
“We cannot move forward (in Libya) without considering that culture.” – what does he mean by “move forward”?
“..I’ve been told that for the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Muslims wait in a long line at the cathedral to pass through the Holy Door and pray to the Virgin Mary..” – where are the pictures and MSM stories on this astounding piece of dementia? Muslims are forbidden to pray to anyone other than Allah. This Pope has a poor BS filter.
“If there are wars, he said, that’s because there are arms producers” – more liberal dementia, arms do not have motives.
“coexistence among Christians and Muslims is possible.” – for how long and at what cost, Francis? Lions and Zebras live in a non-integrated coexistence until the lion gets hungry.
gravenimage says
Westman wrote, quoting the Pope:
“If there are wars, he said, that’s because there are arms producers” – more liberal dementia, arms do not have motives.
……………………
You are quite right, Westman–if Muslims did not want to wage violent Jihad, arms dealers would have about the same sort of customer base as manufacturers of buggy whips and typewriter ribbons do–very small.
Arms dealers do not cause wars.
Peggy says
I agree that arms dealers do not cause wars but then why are we so upset with drug dealers?
Drugs don’t kill unless someone takes them. Guns don’t shoot unless someone fires them.
Peopel have to take responsibility for their own actions and if there is a market for a product, someone will oblige and exploit that.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
I see a major difference between arms dealers and drug dealers.
Drugs are inherently tempting. They deliver euphoria. They are also addictive.
Guns are none of those things. In fact, quite the reverse. Guns are a good and useful tool, both for national and personal defense.
Certainly it is true that , as Peggy notes, ‘people have to take responsibility for their own actions’. But drugs-given their addictive quality-are, as it were, unforgiving in their appeal. A one-time user is greatly at risk for addiction.
All of which goes to show that, once again, the Pope has said something really, really, STUPID.
Mark Swan says
I Agree With Both of You
gravenimage says
I can see being upset with some arms dealers–certainly, I don’t want *anyone* arming JIhadists. I can also see working to stop them where possible.
But they are not creating the market.
Mark Swan says
A century of sternly enforced drug prohibition has resulted in drugs being more available than ever to inner-city youth. The fact should offer a caution to anyone who imagines that gun laws can succeed where drug laws have failed, and somehow keep a commodity away from a market that demands it.
Improving the juvenile justice system is a first step toward reducing teenage criminal violence. Taking violent teenagers off the streets is a more effective approach than leaving them on the street and enacting gun control palliatives.
It is long past time for us to stop fixating on the gun supply, and to start dealing with the persons who misuse guns, and the social conditions under which innocent babies grow in less than two decades into callous murderers.
A better strategy to reducing drug abuse should be to offer inner-city youth a future brighter than the false and numbing consciousness offered by drug pushers.
The true need: the economic, social and moral resurrection of the inner city. Just how this might be accomplished and at what cost can be debated; the urgent need to do so cannot.
Gun control is not merely a phony solution to inner-city youth violence. It is a formidable political obstacle to genuine solutions, because gun control offers political officials a high-profile (but empty) way to tell the public that the legislature is “doing something.”
Every gun control bill that is introduced, and every editorial demanding that we “do something about guns,” makes it that much harder to force the political system to do something real about the desperate conditions of the inner city, to address the fundamental social pathologies of modern America.
common sense says
Does anyone believe anything this guy says anymore? He is killing off access to Catholic faith by dropping these turds giving communist and fascist’s everything they want.
Hope says
The Pope is either a liar or a pathetic, deluded old fool if he thinks islam’s mandate to commit murder is equivalent to Christ’s command to spread the Gospel.
Compare and contrast the Gospel with the koran regarding the appropriate reaction to those who reject the teachings:
Jesus told his followers to go from town to town, teaching. He said, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town, and shake the dust off your feet as you leave.”
Matthew 10:14
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore, strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
Quar’an (8:12)
So simple, even a third-grader could figure it out.
gravenimage says
Yup.
Jay Boo says
Muhammad was a clueless sociopath.
When he tried to imitate Judeo-Christian teachings by rote during his early peaceful Mecca verses period his audience would likely had detected this shallow sociopath’s ignorance of the deeper meanings of his attempted plagiarism and self-centered insincerity.
Like all narcissists, he had two choices, either to become depressed and suicidal or to pick up a sword.
Muhammad chose both options
Face_The_Truth says
Christianity finds equivalence in Islam in terms of converting others into one’s fold.
However, Christians did accomplish conversion of others by words and Muslims did accomplish the same outcome by swords throughout the history.
His Holiness Pope Francis knows the history of human civilization very well while only deficiency His Holiness shows in comprehending the pain and suffering of all those Pagans and Jews who perished under the cruelty of Islam and who did not fight the Sword of Islam with their own in order to terminate the ideology of Islam and Islam’s followers during the first 500 years of Islam’s inception.
Like today’s Christians in Europe and America, during the first 500 years, Pagans and Jews probably considered Islam an ideology of imbeciles while consoling themselves into believing that Islam’s followers would someday come to the realization of truth, humanity, and the natural greatness of non-aggression and non-violence towards the weak.
But, what today’s Christians in Europe and America don’t realize is Islamic violence, Islamic aggression towards the weak, and Islamic iconoclastic mindset have always been essential component of groups of humans in some parts of the world and Islam as a very potent diabolic ideology literally emboldens and encourages those groups of humans into manifesting of those diabolic traits over and over.
German sociologist Karl Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
So, history will repeat in the forms of many more 9/11 Islamic attacks on non-Muslims in Europe and America while many Christian politicians will comfort themselves by saying the ideology of Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, barbarism and sadism.
History will also repeat — similar to the very tragic end of the Christian Byzantine Empire — when Muslims will decapitate His Holiness Pope Francis and, before taking the final breath, His Holiness Pope Francis will declare that there is no God, but Allah and Muhammad was Allah’s final messenger!
Jay Boo says
And Muslims will continually kill other Muslims for Allah.
Kepha says
Depends on which Christianity, Face_the_Truth. We Evangelicals have always wanted the conversion of our Muslim neighbors to Christ–and by Christ, we mean Jesus of Nazareth as he is presented in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (we do not disparage the first four-fifths of the Bible).
We have also long been aware of the violence latent in Islam, especially towards Murtad.
Further, when we see a statement like the one above from the Pope, we conclude that the Pope doesn’t know the religion he professes (Christianity) all that well, and urge him to dust off the Scriptures. As for the so-called “Christian” politicians who get all EmCeePeeCee about Islam, we note that many of these will disparage Paul or the Old Testament at the drop of a hat–when we Evangelicals believe that God knew exactly what he was doing in all those centuries before becoming man and pitching his tent among us, as well as when he intervened dramatically in Paul’s life on the road to Damascus (Ac. 9).
Sure, we don’t want war. We hate it. We pray God might not enter into such a temporal judgment with his servants. There’s more evidence for you that the “fundament” which we read makes a big difference in doctrine and practice. Sure, we tend to think Augustine’s just war doctrine hews closer to the spirit and letter of the Scriptures than Menno’s utter pacifism (even if we recognize Menno as a slightly errant brother). But unlike Islam, we do not glorify violence.
So, please do not lump all of us Christians in with those who are selling out the civilization their forefathers built. And please note which Christians are those who are also most resistant to the moral relativism of the post-modern age.
Paul says
Maybe the rubbish he constantly talks will be of some comfort
to him WHEN the Islamic State attack Rome and storm the Vatican.
somehistory says
In the book, Act of the Apostles, we are shown the reality of what Jesus told His disciples, in that they were doing as He commanded.
Chapter 13 gives us the results: All of the people who wished to have eternal life, became believers.
Those wishing to live forever become Christians.
Those wishing to die and and take others into death with them, become moslims.
Jesus said he “conquered the world.” Jesus maintained His faith and obedience to His Father all the way unto death. He didn’t take anyone into death with Him, but He also didn’t allow the world to take away His perfect integrity as they took His perfect life. As He was dying, He asked His Father to forgive those who murdered Him.
He told His disciples that they could also *conquer the world*. Christians can remain faithful even to death, if necessary. Many have done so, and without taking their murderers into death with them.
This *pope*…this imperfect human…is trying to alter what Jesus told His disciples. For whatever *reasons* the man is saying the things he does about Christianity, he is wrong. Maybe he knows it…he certainly should.
Whatever his reasons, it looks from here like the *world has conquered* this *pope*.
If Christians are tired of hearing this guy spout lies about Christianity, we can only imagine how our God and His Son feel about it.
Jay Boo says
Muslims do not believe that:
Jesus and the Father are both one and distinct.
And
Yet they accept that someone as disgraceful as Muhammad to be their example to follow.
Jay Boo says
Munchausen Islamic syndrome by proxy.
The attention-seeking pope poisons his ‘child’ with
— (co-exist) Islamo-philia.
Then he treats the disease with more poison
— by his exhibitionistic kissing of feet.
DFD says
Jay Boo says: “Munchausen Islamic syndrome by proxy….”
Brilliant! Applause, clap, clap, clap. Nah, standing ovation.
Bloody Hell! Why didn’t I think of that for my flippant one or two liners?
Carmel says
If Lebanon is such a success, how come so many christians left ?
gravenimage says
Carmel wrote:
If Lebanon is such a success, how come so many christians left ?
……………………….
A success for whom? Until the 1970s, Christians still constituted a majority in Lebannon.
After the huge influx of “Palestinian” Muslims and the following violent Jihad, they are almost certainly a minority there now. At one point Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East–no more.
Now Christians are just an increasingly threatened minority there–just like every other Muslim hell hole.
Peggy says
That’s what happens when you allow Muslim “refugees” in.
Instead of learning from Lebanon, we copied it. I was just speaking to my next door neighbour last night about all this.
We are having elections in July and I was telling him not to give his vote to either main party. Tell his family to do the same. I urged him to visit this site and gain better knowledge and learn what can happen to his children and grandchildren if we don’t fix the situation now.
I also asked him to spread the word.
Being charitable is fine as long as it’s not taken as far as being suicidal. You can give a kidney to someone in need but you can’t give a heart. There are limits to charity. This Pope is suicidal and by the same tokan homicidal.
gravenimage says
True.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely
Angemon says
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nope.
Look to the history books. “Jihadism” came from the ME to Africa, Europe and Asia long before the Western incursions into the ME you’re alluding to.
Ralph says
Roman Catholics believe that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that the power of Hell will not prevail against it. The last two popes were towering figures of intellect and Holiness. Pope Francis seems to be a well meaning, charitable, bishop who is not possessed of a world class intellect. Nonetheless, he means well and, in this world, that means something.
Dan Jones says
So pope on a rope is a follower of the pedophile now…
More End Time News At:
http://www.shininginthedark.com/?page_id=7760
Guest says
Insult! Francis is no longer a Christian in my eyes. He just called Jesus and his followers conquerors! They spread the message of God with words, kindness. They gave them the option to love God, and when they refused they didn’t murder the non-believers (like Muslims) they left them be.
Pipe Francis is a traitor to our religion.
Annak says
And he is more than that as he also twists scripture and blasphemes. He is a dangerous traitor to all of Christianity. He has the blood of the present Mid-east and African martyrs on his head as he has done nothing for them, when he could, he just praises their murderers , in fact, AC Islam.
DFD says
Due to a real Pope, Benedikt, resigning for ‘health reasons’. He’s still around and quite well.
My guess, he saw what’s coming, wanted no part, and quit. Honorable man.
Annak says
My guess is he got thrown out to make room for this Jesuit commie !
AvantiBev says
Annak, My suspicion as well. I miss Pope Benedict, a man of logos in an era bathed in pathos.
I am a Latin Mass tradition Roman Catholic. Please remember the Left culture wars rage inside my Church too and can be traced back to the Sixties, the decade that has infected both secular & sacred spheres.
Stephen says
I’m a Catholic and this man is off his rocker!!!
Rev. William Cook says
Almost persuadest thou me to become a Catholic
Richie says
This pope has commited heresy on multiple occasions. He is an ENEMY of the Catholic faith
Is there a mechanism in the church to ‘impeach’ this pope?
vlparker says
The president of the US is trying to destroy his own country and the Pope is trying to destroy his own religion. Beyond words.
Peggy says
It doesn’t matter which denomination you belong to becaue they have all sold us out.
Archbiship of Canterbury is no different. He might not be in the news as often as the Pope is but he sucks up to Islam just as much.
Orthodox patriarchs aren’t actively promotiving Islam but they are not speaking up against it either. What’s the Dalai Lama doing? Is he warning against Islam. Leaders of Hindus and Sikhs aren’t speaking up against islam either or they are doing it so quietly that nobody knows.
Yes, this Pope is more vocal and therefore more dangerous than others but none of them are warning their followers of the danger.
Mark Swan says
Good Point Peggy
gravenimage says
Yes–there are, sadly, idiots in many denominations at this point. It is not just an issue with Catholicism, I’m afraid.
Peggy says
Even if it were true and Christianity was equally bad it still doesn’t explain why so many are imported into our counties. Are they trying to start a war in every country? If we are so radical then we are going to start killing them every day and then all of a sudden we have wars all over the world.
The fact that we don’t and we have been patient and tolerant this long proves that the Pope is lying.
K. says
If Christians don’t start to seriously question the infallibility of the pope, then there is no hope for them either. Personally I couldn’t be happier if ALL of religion was finally thrown out into the trashbin of history, but while we’re still living with it, there are quite obviously friendlier choices and less friendly ones.
Rev g says
About half of Christians have no stake regarding papal infallibility.
Of those who hold to some measure of papal infallibility, it is not extant on matters such as these.
K. says
On what kind of matters then? Sorry Reverend, but it sounds like a cheap excuse to me. Either one believes that the pope is chosen by God to be his representative who is not to foul up the Lord’s image, or one doesn’t. I should add to above disclosed disbelief, I grew up in a catholic environment.
Rev g says
So what? I grew up around muslims, that doesn’t make me know their doctrines.
Papal infallibility is not what you think. Generally, it regards only his pronouncements regarding matters of his own faith.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
K. says
“So what? I grew up around muslims, that doesn’t make me know their doctrines.
Papal infallibility is not what you think. Generally, it regards only his pronouncements regarding matters of his own faith.”
There was no reply button to the latest comment, limited nesting levels.
I didn’t say I grew up “around”, but “in”. How is saying “one can see Christianity that way, too” not a pronouncement regarding his own belief?
Rev g says
It most absolutely is not a pronouncement about his faith.
For the record, I was raised Catholic.
Did you even peruse the link?
Rev g says
From the link:
” A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching”
Not that difficult.
Michael says
Papal infallibility isn’t relevant to this. That becomes an issue for ex-cathedra pronouncements. We’ve had some very good -not perfect, but very good- popes for the last few decades, so it is all the more shocking when someone like Francis comes onto the throne of Peter.
R says
Papal infallibility doesn’t mean that the Pope cannot sin or that everything that he says is infallible. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Sergio says
“I come from a country where they live together in good familiarity”. This is actually not true. I am from Argentina and Muslims are less than 1% of the population in my country. Actually, the first time I had the chance to talk to a Muslim was in Europe. In spite of Islam being a very tiny minority in Argentina, my country has suffered two major Islamic terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of people. It is likely that these attacks were facilitated by the man who was our president at that time, Carlos Menem. Menem was raised as a Muslim and then claimed to have converted to Catholicism. However, his conversion might have been a scheme to ease his way to the presidential seat.
michael says
The man is an embarrassment
to the Bishops of the Catholic Church the sooner he retires the better
tom mcmorrow says
Well, let’s follow the Gospel of Luke then and take care of business in the name of Jesus! Meanwhile, it’s our elected pols opening the gates of the West, not Borgoglio.
MoreHamEd says
This pope is such a dope! Catholicism might be a lot like islam but Christianity is not!
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
More: Your abysmal ignorance is showing.
Point #1: Christ founded His Church-the Catholic Church-when He was personally present here on earth. ‘Christian’ comes from ‘Christ’. The Catholic Church is not only ‘Christian’; it is the SOURCE of all Christian religions! We were here first! ‘Protestantism’ would not exist, literally, but for the existence of the Catholic Church, since the Reformation came in reaction TO, the Catholic Church.
Now I understand that some Protestants hate and detest the Catholic Church. You appear to be one of them. That’s their/your problem. But to state that ‘Catholicism might be a lot like islam but Christianity is not!’ is a contradiction in terms. If one is ‘like islam’, so is the other. Catholics are Christian. Baptists are Christian. Lutherans are Christian. You follow?
Point #2: You may not like the Catholic church, but only muslims go so far as to say that those embarrassing their ‘religion’ literally AREN’T members of that religion. When THEY say that, they’re ludicrous liars. When YOU say it, you are too.
Point #3: All the posts here are in response to an article critical of the Pope. I-and tons of Catholics on JW-have written posts RESOUNDINGLY critical of the Pope, too. Do that as a muslim and you’re dead. So do we Catholics seem ‘like islam’ to you? Hello?
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Kathy.
Betty says
I agree good post.
Mark Swan says
The “primacy of Peter” doctrine asserts that Jesus gave Peter, and Peter’s successors, authority to function as the sole custodians of true Christian teaching—and as Pope Benedict asserted, “This primacy is for all time” (ibid.). Supporters of this doctrine point to one key passage of scripture, in which Jesus said, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matthew 16:18–19).
A careful study of this passage and other scriptures, however, reveals something very different from what Benedict has in mind. In the original Greek text, Jesus’ statement is actually a play on words. The Greek word for “Peter” is petros (meaning a small stone), and the Greek word for “rock” is petra (a huge rock or mountain). The Bible clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the Rock (see 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:4; see also Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16). He was referring to Himself as the petra, and to His disciple Peter as the petros.
Scripture also shows that the Church was not founded on Peter alone, but was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). Jesus described His petros—Peter—as a foundation stone of the Church, along with the other apostles and prophets. However, Jesus Christ and His teachings would remain the true foundation of the Church. This is the true meaning of Matthew 16:18–19. Attempts to twist this verse into a statement of Peter’s exclusive authority are simply not biblical.
This is why the Roman claim for power based on Peter’s supposed primacy has never been accepted by the Eastern Orthodox churches, and why it was rejected by the Protestant reformers (see Civilization Past & Present, Wallbank, p. 133).
What does the Bible reveal about Peter’s role in the early Church? Peter is placed first in lists of the twelve apostles (Matthew 10:1–4; Luke 6:13–16). He was often the spokesman for the group (Matthew 16:13–16), and he gave the first sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter, along with James and John, was one of three pillars in the Jerusalem Church (Galatians 2:9). Peter, Paul and Barnabas made observations about doctrine at a conference in Jerusalem, but James—not Peter—chaired the conference and rendered the final decision (Acts 15). Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles—but neither one is listed as above the other (Galatians 2:7). Paul even corrected Peter (Galatians 2:11–14). Peter refused homage when it was offered (Acts 10:25–26); no one kissed his ring. The Bible reveals that Peter was a leader among the apostles, but he neither had nor claimed primacy over the others.
Was Peter the first pope to preside in Rome? Even Catholic sources acknowledge that the term “pope” was not used in the West “until the first half of the 5th century” (Short Biographies of All the Popes, Lozzi Roma, p. 2). As scholar Hans Küng states: “Catholic theologians concede that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in charge of the church in Rome as supreme head or bishop” (The Catholic Church, Küng, p. 20). Professor Küng also mentions that “there could be no question of a legal primacy—or even of a pre-eminence based on the Bible—of the Roman community or even of the Bishop of Rome in the first centuries” (ibid., p. 49). The New Testament does not link Peter with Rome, and it mentions no successor to Peter. The apostles urged Christians to look to Jerusalem and the churches in Judea—not to Rome—as their models (Galatians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 2:14). Historians know that the bishop of Rome was “at first only one of several patriarchs” (Civilization Past & Present, Wallbank, 6th ed., p. 133). There were also patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria who were regarded as equals—but history records that they were also competitive and grasping for power. Around 160ad, Bishop Anacetus of Rome tried to pressure Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to keep the Roman Easter instead of the biblical Passover held on Nisan 14. Anacetus was unsuccessful, because Polycarp said he was following a tradition learned from the Apostle John.
Fifty years later, another Roman bishop, Victor, threatened to excommunicate the eastern churches for not adopting the Roman date of Easter. Again they refused, and they continued to follow true apostolic teaching. The Petrine theory holds that Peter’s successors are to decide doctrinal matters for the Church. Yet, at the Council of Nicaea in 325ad, records show that the Roman bishop, Sylvester I, did not attend and exercised no primacy when the date of Easter was set as a replacement for the biblical Passover, and when Sunday worship officially replaced the seventh-day Sabbath. The Council of Nicaea was called and presided over not by a Roman bishop, but by the Emperor Constantine. As emperor, Constantine held the title of Pontifex Maximus in the pagan Roman religion—a title that Roman bishop Leo I would adopt a century later when arguing for the Petrine primacy over all other bishops.
In 451ad, however, the Council of Chalcedon rebuffed Leo, and decreed that the bishops of Rome and Constantinople had equal authority. By 1200ad, Pope Innocent III was claiming to be the “Vicar of Christ,” and the Supreme Sovereign of the Church and the world (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 776). For about 600 years during the Middle Ages, Roman bishops pointed to the “Donation of Constantine” as evidence of their right to preside over all the other bishops, but the document was later proven to be a fraud (Kung, p. 50).
Prophetic Warnings Scripture and history both show that the early Church did not recognize the Roman theory of Petrine primacy. Rather, it was ambitious Roman bishops who developed the doctrine to gain power over other bishops and their churches. Jesus Christ warned that at the end of the age, many would be deceived by false teachers claiming to represent Him (Matthew 24:3–5). Paul warned that in the latter times hypocritical teachers would spread lies (1 Timothy 4:1–3) and would delude people into believing ancient heresies and unbiblical traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:1–15). These long-standing warnings are coming alive today!
SoliDeoGloria says
Excellent Mark! Thanks for unpacking a bit of history and some biblical exegesis to explain to our Roman Catholic friends where many of us stand and why we find Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s attitude so abhorrent.
I also commend your clear yet respectful tone, nobody can take offense by your approach, even though they may disagree with your position.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Your ‘facts’ Mark, aren’t facts. But I get it: You detest the Catholic Church so much that you actually don’t consider ‘Catholics’ to be ‘Christians’.
That is such an absurdity that it beggars further comment.
I reiterate: It’s one thing to consider Francis to be an idiot. It’s quite another to leap from that, to: ‘The Catholic Church is a colossal ‘misunderstander’ (to use a favorite Robert-word) of Christ/Christianity.’
You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Now I’d suggest we pool our common Christianity the better to fight the REAL enemy here, islam. But hey: That’s just me.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Kathy.
Mark Swan says
No one despises anything here…the Catholics are as Christian as the Protestants.
You dropped the bomb by stating the superiority of Your church…yes the Protestants did come
From the Roman church…and both are adherents to Christianity…not the originators of it, nor the
Church that Christ founded, which was taken over by Rome.
Human Institutions (with Human error) are not perfect and full of mistakes. That is all I tried to point out.
What does history reveal about long-standing claims of special authority for the Bishop of Rome?
Your Bible shows that religion and religious figures will play significant roles on the world stage at the end of the age—and that religious deception will be widespread. Jesus Himself warned, “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name… and will deceive many” (Matthew 24:4–5). So it is vital that we understand what is behind the claim of papal primacy. Is it an indisputable fact, a legendary tradition, a myth or a matter of political intrigue? This issue will have a dramatic impact on your life and the future of the world in the years just ahead!
Two informative books by noted Roman Catholic scholars (Saints & Sinners by Dr. Eamon Duffy of Cambridge University and The Catholic Church by Dr. Hans Kung of the University of Tubingen) provide parallel accounts of the rise of the idea of papal primacy and the dogma of apostolic succession from Peter. Both acknowledge that nothing in the New Testament links Peter with Rome. The Bible reveals that the Apostle Paul wrote the book of Romans, and Paul fails to even mention Peter in the greetings he conveys to more than 20 brethren in Rome (Romans 16). When Paul came to Rome ca. 60ad, he found that the Jewish leaders there had not even heard about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God (Acts 28:17–24).
If Peter had been the bishop of Rome for decades by that time, would Christ’s message really have been unknown there?
The idea that Peter was in Rome is a second century ad notion that grew in prominence in the fourth century ad, after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Scholars Duffy and Kung demonstrate how bishops of Rome made a concerted effort to gain preeminence over other churches through a variety of claims and schemes. Irenaeus of Lyon compiled a list that purportedly traced the leaders of the Roman Church back to Peter and Paul. However, Dr. Kung points out, “Bishops of the Catholic Church (like those of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches) are fond of calling themselves ‘successors of the apostles’… [yet]… It cannot be verified that the bishops are ‘successors of the apostles’ in the direct and exclusive sense… the earliest list of bishops [compiled by Irenaeus]… is a second century forgery” (Kung, pp. 30–31).
Several early bishops of Rome tried unsuccessfully to assert that their power rested on Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:18–19. Toward the end of the second century ad, Bishop Victor of Rome tried to force the churches of Asia Minor to keep the Roman Easter instead of the Passover, but his efforts were resisted by Church leaders in Asia Minor, who traced their observance of the Passover to the teachings and example of the Apostle John. Around 250ad, a bishop of Rome named Stephen claimed supremacy over other churches in a dispute over which church had the better tradition, but the other churches resisted his claim (Kung, p. 49). A bishop of Rome named Damasus (ca. 380ad), described as a “ruthless power broker,” used the saying about Peter as the “rock” to bolster his claims for power. He also spoke of his “apostolic seat” as if no other church mattered, and he constructed monuments to martyrs to enhance the position of the Roman Church (Duffy, pp. 37–39).
It is important to remember that although all of these bishops of Rome are called “Popes” today, the first to actually claim that exclusive title was Siricius (ca. 390ad). By 450ad, Leo the Great was “hammering home” the supposed Petrine link to Rome and the papacy, even likening the founding of the Roman Church by Peter and Paul to the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus (Duffy, pp. 43–44). At the Council of Chalcedon (451ad), Leo’s supporters declared that “Peter had spoken through Leo” (Duffy, p. 45), yet the Council rebuffed Leo’s expansive claims of supremacy and gave Rome and Constantinople equal status (Kung, pp. 64–65). Increasingly grandiose papal pretensions continued into the Middle Ages, as ambitious and unscrupulous Popes used blatantly forged documents to support their assertion of universal power. One such document is the Donation of Constantine, purportedly formulated by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 330s ad out of his supposed gratitude for being schooled in the Christian religion and healed from leprosy by Pope Sylvester I. This document granted Sylvester and his successors sweeping power to preside supreme over all other bishops, and also over much of Europe and Africa. Although widely accepted as authentic during the Middle Ages, the document was later determined to be an outright forgery, created ca. 750ad. In fact, during Sylvester’s lifetime, he was never referred to as a universal Pope, and his cure of Constantine’s leprosy is nothing more than legend. Another notorious forgery, the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals, contains hundreds of falsified documents— purportedly from earlier centuries—seeming to support medieval Popes’ claims to power. As later scholars recognize, the forgeries “gave the impression that the early church had been ruled by papal decrees down to the details of its life” (Kung, p. 82). Even today, some careless teachers accept and repeat these papal claims for universal authority, forgetting or ignoring the fraudulent basis of these claims.
Roman Catholic claims for papal primacy also rest on the idea that their organization has faithfully preserved the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles down through the ages. Yet, when you actually compare Roman Catholic teachings with Scripture, glaring discrepancies become obvious. The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the early Church all observed the Sabbath and the biblical Holy Days (see Luke 4:16; John 7:8–10; Acts 17:2; 1 Corinthians 5:7–8). However, the Roman Catholic Church, beginning around the time of Constantine, appropriated Sunday worship, Easter, Christmas and a host of “saints’ days” from paganism—yet not only is there no biblical precedent or command to do this, Scripture actually warns against adopting pagan practices (see Deuteronomy 12:29–32; Jeremiah 10:2).
Scripture shows that the early Church taught that the Kingdom of God would be established on this earth at Jesus Christ’s return, yet the Roman Catholic Church has taught that it is the Kingdom of God, and has rejected as heresy the true biblical teachings about the Kingdom of God. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary, Jesus’ mother, remained a perpetual virgin, yet Scripture clearly shows that she had other children after Jesus (Mark 3:31–32; Luke 8:19–21). Even though Peter and other apostles were married (Mark 1:30; 1 Corinthians 9:5), the Roman Catholic Church has established a “discipline” of priestly celibacy, despite Scripture’s plain instruction that the forbidding of marriage is a Satan-inspired idea (1 Timothy 4:1–3). It is interesting to note that in contrast to the long-standing Roman Catholic custom of kneeling to kiss the ring of a bishop or pope, the Apostle Peter refused such homage (Acts 10:25–26).
These are just a few of many examples of how the Catholic Church has departed from apostolic teaching! For more than 1,500 years, ambitious individuals have sought to use the Roman Catholic bishopric of Rome to advance their claims of universal authority, using social, political, theological, legal—and even military—pressure, along with deception and forgery, to achieve their goals. These clever and sometimes unscrupulous men have departed from the doctrines of the early Church—even claiming to be the supreme and exclusive vicar of Christ on this earth. But even many Catholic scholars recognize the falsity of their claims. As Kung plainly states, “The claims that they made may have had no biblical and theological foundation, but over the centuries these [claims] entered church law as accepted facts. Thus to many people today, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, what the Roman bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries attributed to themselves in a growing awareness of their power seems to be what is originally Catholic” (Kung, p. 50). Thus we see that the claims of papal primacy based on apostolic succession from Peter do not rest on solid evidence, but on dogma—ideas stated with authority, but lacking in real historical evidence! In the last analysis, these claims rest not on history or Scripture, but on dubious human traditions!
Just how do these sobering facts of history relate to us today? End-time Bible prophecies offer important and informative insights. As we have seen, Jesus warned that false teachers would cause massive deception at the end of the age (Matthew 24:3–5). The Apostle Paul warned that leaders would depart from the true Church and use false and misleading teachings to gain followers (Acts 20:29–37). Paul also warned that at the end of the age, many people would “turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 3:1–8; 4:1–4). Paul further warned that just before the return of Jesus Christ, a powerful and influential religious leader would do miracles that would delude many people into believing lies—because they would not love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:1–12). This false religious leader will be in league with a powerful political leader who will gain control of a revived Roman Empire that will arise in Europe (see Revelation 13; Revelation 17; Daniel 2). You need to realize that the claims of a soon-coming religious leader, who will use his supposed “apostolic succession” to assert primacy over a universal church, will be based on nothing more than dogma and fraud. Beware
Mark Swan says
SoliDeoGloria, Thank You for Your Kind Comment.
Laura says
I think this pope is as ignorant and Christian-hating as some Jews, who, for some unknown reason, are pro-BDS/anti-Israel…it just makes no sense, logically.
jewdog says
I finally figured out who Pope Francis is: He’s Bernie Sanders’s Frankenstein Monster. Bernie created him in his secret laboratory in the Green Mountains and has unleashed him on an unsuspecting world.
Rev g says
Are you calling the pope a JAP…..a Jewish Argentinian Papist?
jewdog says
Yes, and he likes his diet Pepsi.
sham says
How Islam improves on Christianity?
1- Islam forbids alchol, Christianity does not.
This essential law is a main improvement on Christianity, unlike Christianity, no amount of alcohol is allowed to be consumed or sold in Islam.
O ye who believe! Intoxicants (al-khamru) and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are AN ABOMINATION,- OF SATAN’S HANDWORK: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants (al-khamri) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? S. 5:90-91 A. Yusuf Ali
This law essentially will help the community in many ways, it will lead to less drunken people, and with less drunken people you have a safer and better environment. As we all know, alcohol contributes to several negative factors. It makes people drunk, and when people are drunk they can get violent, or they could get exploited, or they could get into a major accident.
Alcohol also causes addiction, and damage to the human body.
2- Islam calls for faith and good works, Christianity is all about faith only
One of the most common things we hear from Christians is that Islam is about good works. That Muslims get to heaven by works, while for a Christian it is about believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However so, this is a mistake from the Christian, since like the Christian, the Muslim must also have faith and without faith his good works means nothing. As the Quran says:
Surah Al-Asr:
103.001
YUSUFALI: By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
103.002
YUSUFALI: Verily Man is in loss,
103.003
YUSUFALI: Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy
Tafsir of Ibn Kathir on these verses:
Al-`Asr is the time in which the movements of the Children of Adam occur, whether good or evil.
Malik narrated from Zayd bin Aslam that he said, “It is the evening.” However, the first view is the popular opinion. Thus, Allah swears by this, that man is in Khusr, which means in loss and destruction.
(Except those who believe and do righteous good deeds) So Allah makes an exception, among the species of man being in loss, for those who believe in their hearts and work righteous deeds with their limbs.
(And recommend one another to the truth,) This is to perform acts of obedience and avoid the forbidden things.
(And recommend one another to patience.) meaning, with the plots, the evils, and the harms of those who harm people due to their commanding them to do good and forbidding them from evil. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surat Al-`Asr, and all praise and thanks are due to Allah.
So note, in Islam it is a combination, you must have faith and you must also do good works. Both are combined together, and without one, the other is useless. This is absent from Christianity, in Christianity good works means absolutely nothing as the Christian always says, its only about faith.
3- Islam prohibits the killing of women and children, Christianity advocates it’s and does not prohibit it.
Christians always like to claim that Islam is a religion of terror, and promotes the killing of innocent people etc. However so, when we examine the claims, we find it is the Bible which is terror filled. Islam explicitly prohibits the killing of women and children as this authentic hadith of the prophet proves:
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By ‘Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn ‘Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah’s Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah’s Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.
The prophet of Islam ordered the Muslims to not kill women and children, Allah the God of Islam orders the Muslims to obey the prophet Muhammad in the Quran. There will be no need for me to post the Biblical passages showing women and children being slaughtered in the Bible, just visit this article:
http://muslim-responses.com/Terror_in_the_Bible/Teror_in_the_Bible_
4- Salvation in Islam is very pure and simple, to submit to God. In Christianity your salvation rests on believing in torture and blood-shed
One of the most disturbing things about Christianity is that to be saved, you have to believe that an innocent man died for you, an innocent man who did no wrong, paid for your crime. This innocent man was tortured, and given one of the most painful deaths, and basically you have to believe in such barbarity to be saved!
This is nothing like the beauty of Islam, were you only have to submit your will to God and believe in him. Why should you lay your salvation on a man who was beaten, tortured, for a crime he did not commit! Christians are saved by the blood, and torture and the brutal death of Jesus. You would think this is Satanism unless someone told you it was Christianity!
5- Islam is a non-racist religion, Christianity is racist
Christians often like to claim that Islam is a racist religion; however to the contrary, they seem to have mixed Christianity with Islam, since it is their own faith which is the racist one. For starters, Islam is not racist at all:
The prophets’ farewell sermon:
“O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.
O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that he will indeed reckon your deeds. Allah has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligations shall henceforth be waived. Your capital is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Allah has judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn ‘Abd’al Muttalib [the Prophet’s uncle] be waived.
Every right arising out of homicide in pre-islamic days is henceforth waived and the first such right that i waive is that arising from the murder of Rabiah ibn al Harithibn.
O People, the unbelievers indulge in tampering with the calender in order to make permissible that which Allah forbade, and to forbid that which Allah has made permissible. With Allah the months are twelve in number. Four of them are holy, three of these are successive and one occurs singly between the months of Jumada and Shaban.
Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope of that he will be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.
O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right, then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste. O People, listen to me in earnest, worship Allah, say your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadhan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belogs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware: do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.
O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me, and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Qur’an and my Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray.
All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O Allah, that I have conveyed Your message to Your people.”
It can’t get any more clear than that, the prophet Muhammad made it clear, an Arab is no better than a non Arab and a white is not better than a black and vice-versa.
Now when we look at the Bible, we found that racism is advocated:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Note the racism, only the non-Israelites can be made into slaves, however if you are an Israelite then you cannot be a slave.
We also find racism in the New Testament placed on the lips of Jesus:
Matthew 15: 21-28
21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
So note, a lady comes to Jesus asking for help, but since she is a non-Israelite Jesus ignores her at first. But after a while, he finally answers her and likens her to a dog! It is obvious that this fake Jesus had the same racist mentality of the Jews of his period, which is that gentiles were not equal with them, and was basically inferior etc.
Now let me make it clear, I do not believe Jesus was ever racist, I very much doubt that Jesus would ever speak like this, I believe this to be a lie placed on the lips of Jesus to simply insult gentiles. Similar to the insults against Ishmael in the OT.
Jay Boo says
Buddhists refrain from alcohol too.
While Budists — Budweiser drinkers do not.
So What.
Buddhists unlike Muslims are peaceful.
Muslims have no other choice but to prohibit alcohol.
Imagine Muslims drunk on alcohol and — Islam .
They would all kill each other in less than a day.
Angemon says
sham posted:
“How Islam improves on Christianity?”
It doesn’t. End of story.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Hahahahahahaha Ange! I just saw your post.
Under ‘succinct’ in the dictionary? There should be your picture.
Angemon says
🙂
That would ensure people wouldn’t buy dictionaries XD
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Your modesty becomes you Ange. But I’m quite sure you overstate the matter!
gravenimage says
More crap from the vile sham:
How Islam improves on Christianity?
1- Islam forbids alchol, Christianity does not.
This essential law is a main improvement on Christianity, unlike Christianity, no amount of alcohol is allowed to be consumed or sold in Islam.
…………………………
Hey–you can rape little girls, rob Infidels, and mass-murder Kuffar–but you can’t drink a cold beer. Muslim “morality” in a nutshell.
More:
This law essentially will help the community in many ways, it will lead to less drunken people, and with less drunken people you have a safer and better environment…
…………………………
Actually, the environment in Dar-al-Islam is chaotic and hideously violent. I am no fan of drunkenness, but it is far less harmful and dangerous than is Islam.
Besides, the idea that Infidels spend all their time soused is bs. I’m an Infidel, and I don’t drink at all.
More:
2- Islam calls for faith and good works, Christianity is all about faith only
…………………………
Only someone who understands nothing about Christianity could say this.
But far more important than this is to see how things work in the real world–Western Christians are the most charitable people on the face of the earth. The *least* charitable? Muslims, even when adjusted for income.
Christians and other Westerners–Jews and secularists–run most of the world’s charities. Most charity *in the Muslim world* comes from these Western charities–not from their fellow Muslims.
And to understand that, we need to grasp the concept of “good works” in Islam–it includes anything that extends the spread of Islam itself.
And this is why using Zakat to fund violent Jihad is *far* more common than anything civilized people would consider charity.
More:
3- Islam prohibits the killing of women and children, Christianity advocates it’s and does not prohibit it.
…………………………
What crap. You don’t find Christians murdering babes in arms as Muslims do in Israel, or taking schools full of hostages as they did in Russia, or blowing up schools as they do in Pakistan and Nigeria.
More:
4- Salvation in Islam is very pure and simple, to submit to God. In Christianity your salvation rests on believing in torture and blood-shed
…………………………
In Christianity one must believe that Christ died for our sins; in Islam to be saved a Muslim must *murder* for it. The only ones guaranteed a spot in Muslim “Paradise” are violent “Mujahideen”. *Ugh*.
More:
5- Islam is a non-racist religion, Christianity is racist.
…………………………
What rot. The “Prophet” himself reviled blacks as “raisin heads”. Jesus never uttered a word of racism.
The most salient point, though, is that “by their fruits ye shall know them”.
Right now, Muslims are enslaving and slaughtering people all over the world. This is not the case in the civilized West, which is based in Judeo-Christian values.
Peggy says
I was going to reply but you said it all.
Just one more point. This guy is trying to convince us how Islam is an improvement of Christianity by pointing out verses. The only thing he has managed to prove is that it’s all opposite to what he says and prove how satanic Islam is.
gravenimage says
All true, Peggy. Thanks.
Mark Swan says
Thank You gravenimage, for taking th time, in breaking apart, into the truth for all to view.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Mark. It’s easy to parse this nonsense. Why do these Da’wa artists even try?
Mark Swan says
With You My Friend They will Always meet their Match…and I Know You are also a Peacemaker, when it is possible…I appreciate You for that as well.
Cecilia Ellis says
Sham, your posts on May 19, 2016 at 11:03 a.m. and 11:04 a.m. — on this thread — are a complete plagiarism of an entire article, “How Islam Improves Christianity,” an article written by Sami Zaatari, which may be viewed by all at the following link:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=70d_1222125743#wu43G5rivxEsqFpk.99
In the future, simply provide us a link to the article you want to plagiarize. It will save us all a lot of time.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Cecilia: People like you are one of the reasons I LOVE this group.
And ‘sham’ is apparently even more of a sham than we all thought he was. But isn’t that just a muslim, all over? I mean the ‘jizya’ is just the muslim way of saying, ‘O infidels! Verily I say unto you, YOUR stuff is really OUR stuff!’. Which-given sham’s shameless theft here in his post? Applies, apparently, to intellectual property too.
Masterful Cecilia.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Kathy Brown, Esq.
Cecilia Ellis says
‘O infidels! Verily I say unto you, YOUR stuff is really OUR stuff!’.
Kathy, absolutely hilarious . . . like the Reader’s Digest version of the Qur’an!
Also, thank you for your most kind reply. ?
gravenimage says
Thanks Cecilia. sham is too witless to even post his own Da’wa and Taqiyya–he has to crib it from elsewhere.
Champ says
Good catch, Cecilia!!
sham says
6- In Islam slaves are equal to you, in Christianity slaves are mere possessions
It may come as a surprise to many, but the black slave trade committed by white European-American Christian’s is completely legitimate with the Bible. These men believed they were doing no wrong because they were simply being good Bible believing Christians.
The Bible advocates the torture of slavery, and the slave trade in all its forms. Here is an example of the Bible allowing the torture of slaves:
Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property
So as you can see, if you hurt your slave a lot, and IT doesn’t die, then you get away with it. The reason I refer to the slave as IT, is because the Bible views slaves as animals, even lower!
This has no place in Islam:
Some teachings from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: “When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) – (another narrator) Dawud said:” i. e. a morsel or two”. 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)”
Narrated Al-Ma’rur: “At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, “I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names.” The Prophet said to me, ‘O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)”
Narrated Anas: “The Prophet said, ‘None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother [this includes slaves, since a slave is considered a brother as shown above] what he likes for himself.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)”
Narrated Abu Musa: “Some people asked Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?’ He replied, ‘One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 10)”
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr: “A man asked the Prophet, ‘What sort of deeds or (what qualities of) Islam are good?’ The Prophet replied, ‘To feed (the poor) and greet those whom you know and those whom you do not Know.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 11)”
Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: “The Prophet said, “Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom).” (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)”
Narrated Asma: “No doubt the Prophet ordered people to manumit slaves during the solar eclipse. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Eclipses, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 163)”
“‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported that ‘Umar b. Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as he was at ji’rana (a town near Mecca) on his way back from Ta’if: Messenger of Allah, I had taken a vow during the days of Ignorance that I would observe I’tikaf for one day in the Sacred Mosque. So what is your opinion? He said: Go and observe I’tikaf for a day. And Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave him a slave girl out of the one-fifth (of the spoils of war meant for the Holy Prophet). And when Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) set the war prisoners free. ‘Umar b. Khattab heard their voice as they were saying: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set us free. He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: What is this? They said: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set free the prisoners of war (which had fallen to the lot of people). Thereupon he (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: Abdullah, go to that slave-girl and set her free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4074)”
If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:
“Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)”
“Abu Mas’ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: “I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah’s Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)”
Islam puts Christianity to shame with this, Christianity still advocates the brutal days of slavery, which still goes on secretly in many European countries, and America. In fact the Zionist state of Israel which is widely supported by Christians is amongst the highest country for slave sex trafficking, they have turned the holy land of Palestine into filth thanks to these sick actions of theirs.
7- In Islam a lady is free to get a divorce, in Christianity a lady is like a prisoner and cannot get a divorce
One very strange law in Christianity is that women are not allowed to divorce their husbands! The women are only allowed to divorce their husband if the husband commits adultery, and then off course the lady needs proof of this!
How ironic is it that you always hear Christians claiming that Islam doesn’t grant freedom to people, especially to women, yet when we actually look at the facts, Christianity advocates barbaric slavery and doesn’t give women the basic right of divorce!
Imagine that, in Christianity, a lady who is beaten by her husband or tortured or any of that cannot get a divorce! Here are the relevant passages:
1 Corinthians 7:39
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord
Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mark 10:10-12
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
How sad.In Islam:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: “A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)”
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 198:Narrated ‘Ikrima:
The sister of ‘Abdullah bin Ubai narrated (the above narration, 197) with the addition that the Prophet said to Thabit’s wife, “Will you return his garden?” She said, “Yes,” and returned it, and (then) the Prophet ordered Thabit to divorce her. Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I cannot endure to live with him.” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Will you return his garden to him?” She said, “Yes.”
8- Islam is for mankind, Christianity is not
Whether Christians like to admit it or not, Jesus Christ was sent to the Jews only, and not to the gentiles. So basically the faith that Jesus preached was to the Jews only, not you the gentiles. I already showed a verse showing Jesus’ attitude toward a gentile lady, he would not heal her daughter until she begged and begged, and Jesus made it clear that he was sent the Israelites only.
In Islam however, the prophet Muhammad was sent to ALL of mankind:
007.158 Say: “O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided.”
034.028 : We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not.
Islam is for all of us, Christianity is not.
So in conclusion these are 8 ways in which Islam improves on Christianity. It must be said that there are many other ways in which Islam improves on Christianity.
Jay Boo says
Slavery in modern-day Mauritania
Islam and the slave trade still exists.
When Muslims say slaves to Allah
This is what they mean
Jay Boo says
might need to Google
Slavery in modern-day Mauritania
if video does not play
Angemon says
sham posted:
“6- In Islam slaves are equal to you, in Christianity slaves are mere possessions”
This is hilarious because it was Christian ministers who fought against slavery. Slavery is halal in islam. Muhammad captured, bought and sold slaves. And slaves were not equal to their masters because they were, well, slaves.
“The reason I refer to the slave as IT, is because the Bible views slaves as animals, even lower!
This has no place in Islam:
Some teachings from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:”
According to Al-Tabari:
He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam, his favorite sex slave) and ordered her to veil herself, he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property.
gravenimage says
All true, Jay Boo and Angemon.
gravenimage says
More from the repulsive sham:
6- In Islam slaves are equal to you, in Christianity slaves are mere possessions
…………………………..
The appalling sham appears to be unaware that the Christian world abolished slavery ages ago–and that many of the abolitionists were devout Christians who opposed slavery on the basis of their faith.
Contrast this with Islam, where places like Saudi Arabia only abolished slavery under pressure from the Christian West–they had open slave markets in Riyadh up until 1962, within my lifetime; that places like Mauritania have *never* ended slavery, and a full 17% of the population are slaves; and that there is a huge *revival* of slavery today in the Islamic State.
As for slaves being treated “as equals”, tell that to these poor abused sex slaves:
“Hugh Fitzgerald: ‘Raping me is his prayer to God. It’s allowed. It’s halal.’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/hugh-fitzgerald-raping-me-is-his-prayer-to-god-its-allowed-its-halal
More:
It may come as a surprise to many, but the black slave trade committed by white European-American Christian’s is completely legitimate with the Bible. These men believed they were doing no wrong because they were simply being good Bible believing Christians.
…………………………..
Some Christians did cite the Bible for support of slavery; many more, as already noted, believed that Biblical morality *forbade* slavery.
This dispute was settled well over a century and a half ago.
Again, how can sham pretend that he does not know that slavery has been abolished long since in every Christian nation?
More:
The Bible advocates the torture of slavery, and the slave trade in all its forms. Here is an example of the Bible allowing the torture of slaves:
Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave…
…………………………..
No Christian–or Jew, since this is from the old testament–beats his slaves, because there are no enslaved people in the civilized world. How can this simple fact continually escape sham and his proxy?
Exodus was written an estimated 2500 years ago.
No one emulates this today.
Would that this were true in Islam, where pious Mohammedans like sham are rushing to defend Islamic slavery. And why not? The vile “Prophet” enslaved his victims, engaged in the slave trade, and raped his sex slaves.
Jesus never took or kept slaves. Christians, in fact, often ministered to slaves.
More:
Narrated Anas: “The Prophet said, ‘None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother [this includes slaves, since a slave is considered a brother as shown above] what he likes for himself.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)”
…………………………..
What absolute bs. Muslims enslave *Infidels*, and have no need to treat them decently. Again, look at the story I linked to above as to how Yezidi and Christian sex slaves are treated.
More:
Narrated Abu Musa: “Some people asked Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?’ He replied, ‘One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 10)”
…………………………..
Again, this has nothing to do with treating slaves well, since Muslims enslave the “filthy Kuffar”.
As for Muhammed urging Muslims to manumit slaves, this is not about ending slavery–this is as penance for the Muslim slave-owner.
The fact is that Muhammed is proudly credited with enslaving huge numbers of his victims, including all the women and children of the Banu Qurayza tribe (the men and adolescent boys–up to 900 of them–were all beheaded).
More:
“‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported that ‘Umar b. Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as he was at ji’rana (a town near Mecca) on his way back from Ta’if: Messenger of Allah, I had taken a vow during the days of Ignorance that I would observe I’tikaf for one day in the Sacred Mosque. So what is your opinion? He said: Go and observe I’tikaf for a day. And Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave him a slave girl out of the one-fifth (of the spoils of war meant for the Holy Prophet). And when Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) set the war prisoners free. ‘Umar b. Khattab heard their voice as they were saying: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set us free. He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: What is this? They said: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set free the prisoners of war (which had fallen to the lot of people). Thereupon he (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: Abdullah, go to that slave-girl and set her free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4074)”
…………………………..
Doesn’t the witless sham realize what he is admitting here? This is not Muhammed freeing the slaves–this is Muhammed enslaving people and then capriciously deciding to let them go. These people were not slaves until he enslaved them.
Note further that Muhammed regularly took one-fifth of the spoils–which included not just what they stole from Infidels, but the enslaved Infidels themselves.
Any decent person would be disgusted by this evil–not the vicious sham.
More:
Islam puts Christianity to shame with this, Christianity still advocates the brutal days of slavery, which still goes on secretly in many European countries, and America. In fact the Zionist state of Israel which is widely supported by Christians is amongst the highest country for slave sex trafficking, they have turned the holy land of Palestine into filth thanks to these sick actions of theirs.
…………………………..
I would wonder if sham was on crack, but more likely he is just “high” on Islam.
Slavery is illegal in Europe, Israel, and America–and everywhere else in the civilized world.
Some of the few cases that come up of *illegal* false imprisonment are *Muslims* keeping slaves–until they are caught:
“California: Muslim couple charged with keeping housekeeper as slave”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/04/california-muslim-couple-charged-with-keeping-housekeeper-as-slave
More:
7- In Islam a lady is free to get a divorce, in Christianity a lady is like a prisoner and cannot get a divorce
…………………………..
Uh–has sham noticed that women can divorce in all Christian countries?
In Islam a man can divorce his wives–including any child brides–simply by voicing the “Triple Talaq”. Any woman–or little girl–must have permission granted by a Shari’ah court. Often even abused women are sent back to their abusers.
Of course, Muslimahs may get civil divorces in the civilized world–but they may still be “Honor Killed” by their families. This is, in fact, horrifically common, even in the West.
And forced marriage is *rife* in the Muslim world. The vile “Prophet” himself said that “silence equals consent”–in other words, if a girl is too terrified of being “Honor Killed” to speak out, then this is taken as “consent” in Islam. And these fears are *hardly* unwarranted; more girls are “Honor Killed” by their own violent relatives for resisting forced marriages than for any other reason.
More:
8- Islam is for mankind, Christianity is not
Whether Christians like to admit it or not, Jesus Christ was sent to the Jews only, and not to the gentiles. So basically the faith that Jesus preached was to the Jews only, not you the gentiles…
…………………………..
Uh huh. Christianity is the largest and most widespread faith in the world. sham and his proxy can pretend this is not so, but it is just as absurd as their pretending that slavery continues under Christianity and that women do not have equal rights in Christian nations.
What is the point of this? sham just shows here what an incredibly inept Da’wa artist he is…
Mark Swan says
gravenimage…You did good…truth always reads better than nonsense…thank You for taking the time to demonstrate this.
Cecilia Ellis says
Graven, I concur wholeheartedly with Mark’s reply. Thank you for all that you do . . . so well.
gravenimage says
Thanks, guys.
Champ says
Graven, I appreciate your hard of defeating these lies with the TRUTH, too! You are a *wealth* of information, dear friend! 🙂
Champ says
o0ps: I appreciate your hard *work*!
Angemon says
I second that feeling, Champ 🙂
gravenimage says
Thanks, Champ! Great to see you posting!
Mark A says
I’m Catholic, but I have to admit that I’m really having major problems with statements like this one coming from Pope Francis.
There is absolutely no way that the Gospel of Matthew can be realistically viewed as advocating conquest in the same way that, say, Sura 9 does.
There is nothing in the New Testament which comes remotely close to the explicit instructions in Sura 9 that Muslims offer Christians and Jews three stark choices: conversion to Islam, payment of jizya and acceptance of dhimmi status with willing submission; or death.
If Pope Francis keeps making statements like this, he is going to find many people leaving the Church. I’m very close to doing that myself.
Mark Swan says
This poor man’s take on things is no different from other religious leaders, our societies have allowed
Islam to appear respectable, a position it should not be in, but is in, for now—publicly.
When and if strong popular public opinion forms against Islam, the religious leaders will follow.
Benedict says
I said it before and I say it again this Pope is an idiot and he doing everything to prove it
Lexa456 says
I am (Protestant) willing to talk peacefully to Catholics about the following. Correct me (objektively) if you considered my view of things wrong.
In my understanding, the idea of the “Church as an institution”, as is the case in the Cath. Church, originates not from the Bible. Also, the Pope presents himself as a leader of the Cath. Church, taken on the role of Jesus, what I oppose strongly. Jesus was a man, but he had been sent by God. He announced firsthand. The Pope is NOT a prophet and just NOT deserves this position on earth.
Now it is also an unfortunate fact that celibacy (for men and women) has brought much suffering to people. Very bad incidents are known all over the world. Since centuries children are victims of violence and abuse in the care of the Cath. Church. The worst thing is that the Church has always tried to keep such a secret, protecting the perpetrators. In my opinion it is a great crime against Jesus, God and the Bible. I think it is every Christian’s duty to openly despise such practice and to stand up collectively against it!
Human sexuality is not given without reason. Why force women and men to suppress it, so that they “meet” their calling to serve God and the Church? What sort of BS is that? For a healthy person it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to suppress this natural urge for a longer period without any medication OR escalation! It is totally inhuman and therefore logical, that the children will be sacrificed at some point, because they are simply at the wrong time, wrong place with the wrong person.
It is not even just about the sex. I think the nuns and priests also lack the intimacy, closeness and comfort (what contributes a healthy soul!), which are known only from partnerships and/or fatherhood/motherhood. Without these things there is a risk to become bitter and cold-hearted. I’m not telling that ALL of them are so. But I think the majority has been or still are struggeling with this stuff.
That being said, IMO the Cath. Church urgently needs to be reformed (again), as well as Islam. Islam, of course, even more, because of the obvious errors.
Peace to all of you
Lexa
gravenimage says
Dear Lexa, I don’t think any of this is specifically salient to the issue of this current pope being so clueless–and worse–about Islam.
And, sadly, many Protestants have been just as gormless about Islam as have Catholics.
There are, thankfully, some Catholics and Protestants who are savvy about the threat–but they often appear to be outnumbered. This is something we *all* face, whatever our doctrinal differences.
Mark Swan says
Lexa…no religion is without Human error…if You decide to follow any religion…let it be
only as far as it follows God…if you read your own Bible that is the mind of God,
follow that, and You will be on the right path.
Peace To You, Also
DP111 says
Christianblood says
May 18, 2016 at 6:22 pm
German Church leaders, instead of seeking ways to convert some of the millions of muslims that came into their midst to Christianity are fighting for new mosques for the muslims and they are even changing some of their churches into mosques for them:
Germans are known to fall for the BIG LIE.
Minas says
While Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of Muslim migrants on Western Easter, the Muslim Turks were busy manufacturing shoes and slippers with a cross engraved in the sole. The shoe is considered unclean in the Islamic belief. This is a sign of contempt and humiliation to Christianity, each time you take a step, you are stepping on the cross !
About a year ago The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece had made a statement condemning the fact that shoes with a depiction of the Holy Cross on the soles had entered the market in Greece. No doubt they are still being made and used in Turkey and other Islamic countries. They must make great Ramadan gifts. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/78553.htm
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Graven: Thank you.
I must say: Until I moved from NYC to the midwest some 20 years ago, I’d not been acquainted with the Bible Belt hatred of the Catholic Church.
So imagine my surprise when I first tuned in to ‘Bott Radio’. I knew that it was Protestant station, but I listened to it on occasion because of course both Catholics and Protestants share many social causes. Also, it’s conservative talk radio and I love that.
But one fine day I happened to hear one of their ‘stars’-an ‘expert’ on Biblical exegesis yet!-opine on the horrors of Catholicism. ‘The Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon!’ this genius shrieked. He went on to hurl invective at my Church, screaming that: ‘These people [Roman Catholics] WORSHIP the Virgin Mary! They are idolaters! They WORSHIP saints!’ I mean the spittle fairly flew from the radio…
I literally could not believe my ears.
However: When I shared my shock with fellow [midwestern] Catholics, they went into hysterics. ‘Kathy: Don’t you KNOW? Tons of Protestants don’t know ANYTHING about the Church, but hate it? Oh-100%!’.
Well: Me being me, I went to Bott Radio station. I introduced myself as a Roman Catholic. I then asked to see the Station Manager and told him I didn’t much care for his libel/slander of the Church.
Now you’d think this guy would have the ‘courage of his convictions’, yes? You’d be wrong. This man blushed, stammered, and perspired. He and his several ‘cohorts’ squirmed, fidgeted and paled.
And then? They apologized. Profusely. They said they ‘hadn’t known’ the actual teaching about the Virgin Mary and the saints. They fell all OVER themselves with their ‘I’m so sorry’s’ and their ‘regrets’.
And they did all this BEFORE I gave them my card, identifying me as a-oh God no-LAWYER.
Once I did that, they…fled.
So Mark and his fellow travelers are nothing new to me. They’re not surprising anymore. They’re just stupid. They’re possessed of what we call in law, ‘invincible ignorance’, which means you’re really, really stupid.
Ho hum. Oh-but Graven? I didn’t have a chance to thank you for your splendid riposte to-what did you call him? ‘The repulsive sham’? Now there’s another case of invincible ignorance. But at least he knows what to call himself.
gravenimage says
Hi, Kathy. Thank you for your considered reply.
My English mother was Church of England (Episcopal or Anglican here in the States), and *hated* Catholicism. But I also grew up in a Catholic neighborhood in San Francisco. My mother’s best friend wound up being a devout Catholic Italian lady married to a devout Catholic Irishman (my mother hated the Irish, as well–except for this fellow, somehow). The neighborhood changed a lot when I was a kid–it became heavily Hispanic. Everything changed except that our neighbors were still mostly Catholic.
I sometimes went to mass with friends, and found it was not all that different from my own church services.
I also noticed my own church had no such animus towards Catholics; neither did the local Catholic priest have any issues with Protestants; he was always welcoming. This dissention began to seem pretty silly.
But even if I hadn’t had such personal experiences, I would find this stuff here absurd–and harmful. Catholics are no danger to their neighbors–and neither are Protestants.
Would that the same were true of Muslims–who regard all Christians as “Polytheists” and “filthy infidels”–and, more importantly, fair game to rob, rape, enslave and murder.
Pope Francis is indeed a fool when it comes to Islam–but his predecessor was pretty savvy. And there have been Protestant leaders–including a former Archbishop of Canterbury–who are just as clueless.
The fact is that we *all* have to stand together–that is certainly the stance Robert Spencer takes.
I found your experience both amusing and depressing. Good for you for taking the folks at the radio station to task. I hope it gave them something to think about. Please don’t think all Protestants are like this!
Always good to read your knowledgeable posts, Kathy; especially on the law. Be well.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Thank you for your lovely post Graven! Given your marvelous contributions to our SIOA here, I’m flattered by your kind remarks.
No-by no means do I direct my remarks to ‘Protestants’ in general. Nor do I think that ‘most’ of them in any way resemble the post-ers to whom I responded. Instead the reverse is true.
We do indeed need to ‘stand together’. Islam has earned every syllable of the opprobrium directed at it. And given all the absolutely marvelous people on JW and SIOA-united, we can’t be beaten.
Champ says
But at least he knows what to call himself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ahaha!!! …now *that’s* funny! 😀
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
See what I mean about ‘invincible ignorance’?
SoliDeoGloria says
Instead of throwing about insulting comments aimed at people who are endeavoring to engage in an intelligent debate, why don’t you give us your BIBLICAL reasons to support the Roman papacy? And please refrain from quoting the “you are Peter…” verses.
I for one I’m not impressed by your lawyer-like combative stance – quite the opposite in fact; you’re coming very close to resembling a hot air balloon running out of hot air, not impressive.
This is not about “hating the Catholic church”, it’s about a leader you called the pope coming very close to compromise his role, position and credibility by “entering into dialogue” and trying to find common ground with someone whose intent, at its very core, is only one of supremacy, superiority and total subjugation of anybody – ANYBODY- who will not bow and scrape to their false prophet and god.
Kathy Brown, Esq., get down from you high horse, bring to the table cogent, biblical arguments that can be discussed.
I was born and raised in Rome, not far from the Vatican. I’ve met “travelers” like you aplenty; you can pull the wool over the eyes of uninformed radio station manager in the US with your Roman Catholic doctrine, but please spare me your convoluted diatribes.
Open the Scriptures and state your case. Even though we will agree to disagree, I’ll respect that journey.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Madam: You and others appear to believe that Roman Catholics have an obligation to justify our faith, to such as you. You are incorrect. We have no such obligation.
It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether you, as a non-Catholic, believe that my Church is ‘valid’. I note for the record that I do not find Catholics demanding that Protestants ‘justify’ their faith.
It is clear that you harbor considerable animus v. my Church, to wit: ‘I’ve met ‘travelers’ like you aplenty; you can pull the wool over the eyes of uninformed station managers in the US with your Roman Catholic doctrine…’. Certainly you are entitled to your animus. But I have no obligation, nor any inclination, to disabuse you of it.
I wish you well.
SoliDeoGloria says
K Brown, isn’t the point of this whole conversation the stance of the ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE vis a vis islam?
I wish you well too, but I note how you circumvent my request to state your case biblically. Well done, very lawyer-like.
What makes you think I am “madam”?? Just curious. in actual fact I am a man. But please don’t bother replying.
Ciao
gravenimage says
SoliDeoGloria, I don’t think the point here is whether Catholics can ‘justify’ the existence of the papacy to you or not–they probably would not be able to, whatever their arguments.
The point is that the Pope is an influential world figure, whatever you think of his theological status.
And this pontiff–unlike the last one, Pope Benedict–is dangerously clueless on Islam, and regularly makes false moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
This presents a danger to *all of us*–not because he is Catholic, but because he fails to recognize the danger of Islam. This is dangerous not just to Catholics, or even other Christians, but to all Infidels.
As I have noted, there are Protestants who are as clueless as this current Pope; Archbishop Canterbury Rowan Williams was one; Rick Warren is another. These two Protestants could not be more different in matters of doctrine or style–but like the pope, they are both well-known and influential religious leaders, and their ignorance of Islam *matters*.
I am not saying that theology is unimportant–but this is not Catholic Watch, or Protestant Watch, or Christianity Watch. Let’s keep our priorities straight here, please.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Graven: WHAT excellent points!
This is the crux of the matter: When the Pope does/says the things he does, he does indeed ‘pose a danger’. That is why it is essential to note, and condemn, such idiocy.
But as you also note: His ‘dangerousness’ does not proceed from his catholicity. Enough Catholics on these sites have noted his departure from Catholic doctrine! ANYONE in a position of prominence-particularly one in a position of spiritual prominence-is SO influential!
Finally: I applaud your call to ‘priorities’. Muslims do not differentiate between Catholic and Protestant, Hindu and Buddhist, atheist and believer. TO THEM, WE ARE ALL INFIDELS.
And infidels are who they want to kill. Subjugate. Rape. Plunder.
We have a million times more in common than we do at variance. We are all WESTERN. WE all claim the theses of the ENLIGHTENMENT. Here is Douglas Murray on ‘The Superiority of Western Culture’: https://youtu.be/SNWWWgoKGp0li
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Sorry! The relevant part of the video is from 36:50-45:24
Jay Boo says
@Kathy Brown
in reference to your comment above about moving from NYC to Midwest Bible Belt
Glass half full or half empty
I have had many good experiences with Protestants here in Bible Belt North Carolina since moving from a very Catholic area in New England.
However, I have also come across some wackos like you described and even worse. At the risk of over simplifying, there seems to be two types of Protestants in the (Bible Belt) (IMHO).
In a nutshell.
1. The vain preachy Graspers
Those who practice politics in the name of religion.
Their own ministers and co-religionists apparently could care less whether or not they actually believe in their religion or if they sin non-stop Monday till Sunday as long as they make a public show of support of the church amongst each other and in front of the minister and display their gold cross necklace at politically opportune moments.
2. The ones who preach by — their example
Those who sincerely want to share their joy and fellowship with others. They seek a personal relationship with God and don’t get all stressed out about worldly issues.
When I first came to North Carolina I was a bit cynical about all religion. Group # 2 changed that a lot. They are truly a pleasure to be around.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Kathy and Jay Boo.
SoliDeoGloria says
Gravenimage, I refuse to believe that a person of your clear and sharp intelligence (I’m being serious, no sarcasm) fails to to see that Jorge Bergoglio is regarded by hundreds of millions Roman Catholics as their leader, a person whose words and behaviour is to be, at the very least, noted and pondered upon.
As I have had occasion to mention elsewhere, I was born and raised in Rome, I know about Roman Catholic theology and I’ve seen Vatican’s politics/antics up close.
Do I need to remind you and the Roman Catholics participating here what the official stance of the Roman Church is on the one they call “Holy Father”?
You’re right, this is Jahdwatch BUT may I suggest that you please got back and read the blog again. What is it about? Why has Robert Spencer written about it, singling out Jorge Bergoglio, his speech, his behaviour?
I totally and unreservedly agree with you that some Protestant/Evangelical leaders are just as clueless, mis-informed and ignorant – that’s inexcusable. But they are not THE POPE! I grant you, the Anglican/C.o.E. Archbishop is the one that comes closest, but the underlying theology and praxis is not the same as the Roman Catholic one.
With respect Gravenimage in my view the title, the photo and the blog itself dictate the priority.
Ciao
gravenimage says
SoliDeoGloria wrote:
Gravenimage, I refuse to believe that a person of your clear and sharp intelligence (I’m being serious, no sarcasm) fails to to see that Jorge Bergoglio is regarded by hundreds of millions Roman Catholics as their leader, a person whose words and behaviour is to be, at the very least, noted and pondered upon.
……………………………………..
Thank you for your kind words, SoliDeoGloria (I like your erudite username).
Pope Francis is indeed regarded by most Catholics as their leader, and most respect the office of the pontiff. That does not mean that they are prohibited from regarding specific stances of individual popes quite critically. That is what Robert Spencer is doing here.
In the secular sense, many regard the office of the president (or prime minister, in other nations) with respect; that does not prevent them from being quite critical of some individuals who occupy the Oval Office. That is true for myself and many others here; I have a great respect for the office of the presidency, yet I consider Barack Obama a dangerous fool at best, and knowingly complicit in appeasing Islam at worst. I do not consider this contradictory at all.
More:
As I have had occasion to mention elsewhere, I was born and raised in Rome, I know about Roman Catholic theology and I’ve seen Vatican’s politics/antics up close.
Do I need to remind you and the Roman Catholics participating here what the official stance of the Roman Church is on the one they call “Holy Father”?
……………………………………..
Well, he’s not considered infallible in all matters, if that’s what you mean.
But, certainly, many consider the entire structure of the Catholic church bloated, or irrelevant, or worse. That is certainly anyone’s right.
I am a historian, and know that the church has had moments of both greatness and shame over its 2000+ years of existence–as has human history in general during this span.
More:
You’re right, this is Jahdwatch BUT may I suggest that you please got back and read the blog again. What is it about? Why has Robert Spencer written about it, singling out Jorge Bergoglio, his speech, his behaviour?
……………………………………..
Robert Spencer has singled out Pope Francis here–and in other articles–because his views on Islam are dangerously naive.
This has not been true of all Catholic popes–many of who defended Christendom against the depredations of Islam in centuries past. Nor is it–I believe–to be taken as a condemnation of the papacy in toto. Certainly, articles here about Pope Benedict were overall quite different, because his views on Islam were quite different.
More:
I totally and unreservedly agree with you that some Protestant/Evangelical leaders are just as clueless, mis-informed and ignorant – that’s inexcusable. But they are not THE POPE! I grant you, the Anglican/C.o.E. Archbishop is the one that comes closest, but the underlying theology and praxis is not the same as the Roman Catholic one.
……………………………………..
Well, it is certainly true that the Pope is a more influential figure than, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the leaders of the Church of Latter Day Saints or your local minister. Even many non-Catholics pay attention to his views.
But this is not in and of itself a condemnation of the Catholic structure itself.
More:
With respect Gravenimage in my view the title, the photo and the blog itself dictate the priority.
Ciao
……………………………………..
I do agree; I think we just interpret what this means somewhat differently.
Robert Spencer comments here on the views of many influential leaders regarding Islam–including, of course, religious leaders. He is as apt to write about Barack Obama or David Cameron or Ban Ki-moon as he is the Pope.
I think I will leave things here–we will probably continue to have some differences of opinion.
But that is the wonderful thing about Jihad Watch–people from many different faiths and backgrounds meet here to learn about and discuss solutions to the Jihad threat. We may disagree on other matters, but we all see the threat of Islam to ourselves and to others.
Be well and keep up the fight! I will look for your comments in future.
SoliDeoGloria says
Thank you Gravenimage; please receive a hearty handshake from “down under” (geographically speaking).
Ciao
Jay Boo says
SoliDeoGloria says
” I was born and raised in Rome, I know about Roman Catholic theology”
Yet so far all I see is simplistic generalizations.
I believe that SoliDeoGloria is being disingenuous.
He says he wants to discuss Pope Benedict but then also to challenge the existence of the Pope.
I think SoliDeoGloria has a classic case of — POPE ENVY
SoliDeoGloria says
Jay Boo, I’m sure you don’t want a history lesson from me; others have responded in regards to that [see above Mark Swan, May 23, 2016 at 11:42 am], hence my “generalizations”, as you call them.
I can admire Pope Benedict’s courage in speaking out as he did in the context of his role, without necessarily agree with the Roman Catholic theology of the papacy. Can’t I?
As for your charge of me being insincere and lacking in frankness (disingenuous, is how you put it), I think you should be more careful with your accusations and undermining other people’s integrity.
POPE ENVY?!?! With respect Jay Boo, I think you’ve got me all wrong.
Have a good day 🙂
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Hahahahahahaha Jay! ‘Pope envy’, forsooth!
I think you’re right in your post. But for the PE…
Hard to imagine anyone ‘envy[ing]’ THIS particular Pope. I mean: Lots of people ‘envy’ the USA and its wealth and freedom. But how weird would it be to think that we were envied,for, say, Carter? Or-even more unimaginable-Obama?
However I think you stated that particular part of your post with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. And if anybody DOES ‘envy’ Pope Francis, well, all I can say is: When he’s holding forth on the subject of ‘islam’, hey-you can have him!