The Catholic Church’s supine and pollyannish stance in the face of the advancing jihad, and active campaign to mislead Catholics about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, is a moral failure the likes of which have seldom been seen in history, and poses a severe challenge to any claim it makes to moral authority.
“We have to understand that totalitarianism based on Islamic creed is the worst among all systems of government. Yes, my friends, the very survival of Christians in the cradle of Christianity is quite in danger.” So said the patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church of Antioch, Ignatius Joseph III Younan.
Yet the Church as a whole is silent. Why? Why are Church leaders in the West so uniformly silent about the Muslim persecution of Christians? Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, gave an interview to a French reporter in which he was highly critical of the mainstream media and even of his fellow bishops for ignoring the Muslim persecution of Middle Eastern Christians. “The European media,” he charged, “have not ceased to suppress the daily news of those who are suffering in Syria and they have even justified what is happening in our country by using information without taking the trouble to verify it.” And as for his brother bishops in France, “the conference of French bishops should have trusted us, it would have been better informed. Why are your bishops silent on a threat that is yours today as well? Because the bishops are like you, raised in political correctness. But Jesus was never politically correct, he was politically just!”
Archbishop Jeanbart was not the first to say this. “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?” asked Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI). Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan himself has in the past appealed to the West “not to forget the Christians in the Middle East.” The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.”
But the Patriarch should have understood, since he is a major part of the problem. After all, he recently said: “No one defends Islam like Arab Christians.” It is to defend Islam that Western clerics do not raise their voice against such acts of brutality. It is to pursue a fruitless and chimerical “dialogue” that bishops in the U.S. and Europe keep silent about Muslim persecution of Christians, and enforce that silence upon others. Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, said it on February 8, 2013 as he was suppressing a planned talk at a Catholic conference on that persecution: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.”
Remember that Mohamed Atta, about the plane he had hijacked on September 11, 2001, told passengers over the intercom: “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.” The Catholic Church appears to have adopted that statement as its policy regarding Muslim persecution of Christians. When will Pope Francis canonize Atta?
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
“The Vatican Submits to Islam (2006-2016),” by Giulio Meotti, Gatestone Institute, October 16, 2016:
If 9/11 was the declaration of jihad against the West, 9/12 will be remembered as one of the most dramatic knee-bends of the Western cultural submission to Islam.
On September 12th 2006, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) landed in Bavaria, Germany, where he was born and first taught theology. He was expected to deliver a lecture in front of the academic community at the University of Regensburg. That lesson would go down to history as the most controversial papal speech of the last half-century.
On this, the 10th anniversary of the speech, the Western world and the Islamic world both owe Benedict an apology, but unfortunately, the opposite happened: the Vatican has apologized to the Muslims.
In his lecture, Pope Benedict clarified the internal contradictions of contemporary Islam, but he also offered a terrain of dialogue with Christianity and Western culture. The Pope spoke of the Jewish, Greek and Christian roots of Europe’s faith, explaining why these are different from Islamic monotheism. His talk contained a quote from the Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman”.
This keg of dynamite was softened by a quotation from a Koranic sura of Mohammed’s youth, Benedict noted, “when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat”, and which says: “There is no compulsion in religion.”
Pope Benedict’s talk was not a surprise. “It is no secret that the Pope worried about Islam”, Christopher Caldwell noted in the Financial Times.
“He has doubted publicly that it can be accommodated in a pluralistic society. He has demoted one of John Paul II’s leading advisers on the Islamic world and tempered his support for a programme of inter-religious dialogue run by Franciscan monks at Assisi. He has embraced the view of Italian moderates and conservatives that the guiding principle of inter-religious dialogue must be reciprocità. That is, he finds it naive to permit the building of a Saudi-funded mosque, Europe’s largest, in Rome, while Muslim countries forbid the construction of churches and missions”.
In Regensburg, Benedict staged the drama of our time and for the first time in the Catholic Church’s history — a Pope talked about Islam without recycling platitudes. In that lecture, the Pope did what in the Islamic world is forbidden: freely discussing faith. He said that God is different from Allah. We never heard that again.
The quotation of Manuel II Palaeologus bounced around the world, shaking the Muslim umma [community], which reacted violently. Even the international press was unanimous in a chorus of condemnation of the “Pope’s aggression on Islam.”
The reaction to Pope’s speech proved that he was right. From Muslim leaders to the New York Times, everybody demanded the Pope’s apologies and submission. The mainstream media turned him into an incendiary proponent of Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations.” In the Palestinian Authority area, Christian churches were burned and Christians targeted. British Islamists called to “kill” the Pope, but Benedict defied them.
At the same time, in Somalia, an Italian nun was shot. In Iraq, a Syrian Orthodox priest was beheaded by al-Qaeda and mutilated after the terrorists demanded that the Catholic Church to apologize for the speech. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood pledged retaliations against the Pope. A Pakistani leader, Shahid Shamsi, accused the Vatican of supporting “the Zionist entity.” Salih Kapusuz, number two in the party of the Turkey’s then Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, compared Pope Benedict XVI to Hitler and Mussolini. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that the words of the Pope belong to “the chain of US-Israeli conspiracy,” and accused Benedict of being part of the “Crusader conspiracy.”
Security around Pope Benedict was soon massively increased. Two years later, the Pope had been barred from speaking at Rome’s most important university, La Sapienza. After the Regensburg affair, Benedict would not be the same anymore. Islamists and Western appeasers had been able to close his mouth.
A few days after the lecture, exhausted and frightened, Pope Benedict apologized. I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address … which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,” the Pope told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence. The quote did not “in any way express my personal thoughts. I hope this serves to appease hearts.”
The Pope may have said that to stop further violence. But since then, apologies to the Islamic world have become the official Vatican policy.
“The default positions vis-à-vis militant Islam are now unhappily reminiscent of Vatican diplomacy’s default positions vis-à-vis communism during the last 25 years of the Cold War,” wrote George Weigel, a US leading scholar. The Vatican’s new agenda seeks “to reach political accommodations with Islamic states and foreswear forceful public condemnation of Islamist and jihadist ideology.”
Ten years since the Regensburg lecture, relevant as ever after ISIS’s attacks on European soil, another Pope, Francis I, has tried in many ways to separate Muslims and violence and always avoided mentioning that forbidden word: Islam. As Sandro Magister, one of Italy’s most important journalists on Catholic issues, wrote: “In the face of the offensive of radical Islam, Francis’s idea is that ‘we must soothe the conflict’. And forget Regensburg.”
The entire Vatican’s diplomatic body today carefully avoids the words “Islam” and “Muslims,” and instead embraces a denial that a clash of civilization exists. Returning from World Youth Day in Poland last August, Pope Francis denied that Islam itself is violent and claimed that the potential for violence lies within every religion, including Catholicism. Previously, Pope Francis said there is “a world war,” but denied that Islam has any role in it.
In May, Pope Francis explained that the “idea of conquest” is integral to Islam as a religion, but he quickly added that some might interpret Christianity, the religion of turning the other cheek, in the same way. “Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” the Pope claimed in 2013. A year later, Francis declared that “Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence.” He claimed that it is the ills of global economy, and not Islam, that inspire terrorism. And a few days ago, the Pope said that “people who call themselves Christians but do not want refugees at their door are hypocrites.”
Pope Francis’s pontificate has been marked by this moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam, which also obfuscates the crimes of Muslims against their own people, Eastern Christians and the West….
Pope Francis is still awaited for a visit at the church of St.-Étienne-du-Rouvray, where Father Jacques Hamel was murdered by Islamists this summer. That killing, ten years after the Regensburg lecture, is the most tragic proof that Benedict was right and Francis wrong.
Read the rest here.
Jac says
Well, isn’t the Catholic church a business? Isn’t it one of the richest institutions in the world? Perhaps it see siding with the ever-growing Islamic portion of the religious market as a really good business opportunity.
Lucienne says
Um no. see below.
Allan says
You write like someone who has never had any job other than menial laborer or workaday drone. And who never studied any finance or accounting, much less learned how to distinguish a liquid asset from an illiquid one.
Carmel says
Exactly .
Karen says
The Vatican has liquid assets aplenty. About $305 million/year from largely tourist activities. Not bad for a city state of about 300 permanent residents all pleading poverty. (Yes, of course, they are doing the Church’s work, I agree.)
Jac mentions that businesses follow markets, and they do. In this case, I think the Pope is chasing global public opinion; the many sins of the past haunt the church leadership. The Pope is trying to seek forgiveness through liberation theology. What he should do is publicly apologize for the Church’s failures, then stand up for what is right with a clean conscience. This would help to restore ‘market share’ among Catholics who are disillusioned.
Jac says
Dear Allan, are you referring to me (Jac)? I can hardly understand you due to your appalling standard of English.
Tom Davis says
His English seemed fine to me.
Mark Swan says
Jac
He needs to justify slandering working people, before I would read anymore from Him.
CrossWare says
I think you are absolutely right! Catholic (and other Christian) churches “customer base” is decreasing more and more, as people not religious anymore or just realize they do not need an organization to have God in their life. The church is looking for a new market and here it is an ever growing consumer base, fully indoctrinated and remain almost unchanged and unchallenged for the last 1400 years. As an added bonus for them, it making pedophilia an official part of the religious experience, not to mention adoring believers who are ready to murder anybody as being told by the priests (imams).
The New World Order needs a new world religion because a suppressing army and police are too expensive and they can turn on their masters. Fully controlled low IQ followers with a well organized religious leadership will become central for them maintaining control.
What we seeing now, this people rushing to apply for those new positions…
particolor says
You can almost see that Imam Dweep saying “Thank You Allan ! I’ve got another SUCKER !!
Les says
Spoken like a little child with an arrogant and ignorant attitude of rebellion and hatred for any authority whether it be from man or God.
Anarchy and arrogance is your drug of choice
LUCIA GIBSON says
The Pope is making an obscene exhibition of himself, an act of self-preservation perhaps, as a precaution about his safety by conveying to the enemy, that the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is wanting to demonstrate a positive message to Islam, he is on their side. Body language by the Pope is demeaning compared to those he’s trying to impress. To most Catholics, he may look like a skimming traitor by all that have been led to believe that Christ has a place in their lives just as Mohammedans have a place in the lives of his followers, Islam. No-one wants to have to dictate to the Pope if he no longer wants to tread the old beaten track by sticking with Catholicism, what is offensive is the Pope’s hideous behavior revealing utter selfishness by not acting fairly by retaining the throne to himself as Pope blocking the way for a replacement, for whatever his reasons may be, what is it that’s driving him to hug, hold hands, and kiss the Koran without taking into consideration that Catholics want to have a Pope for a variety of needs. Can it be that’s pushing him into this obscure absurdity and unnatural nonsense? He may want to be liberated from the dogma he’d despised, all along, it’s the untroubled way he risks ill-effect his attitude is having on the people he has abandoned, ignoring the law of conduct. Having said that, it’s intriguing how we haven’t heard anything official or that people are rebelling, is the Vatican in agreement? He’s not short of advisors he’s surrounded by a massive army of them, or can it be a game? if so, it’s a dangerous game to play with a brutal bunch of insanely obsessive followers over doctrine – unless, he’s received a sanctified vision/message from heaven to go and fulfill this mission. Whichever way, the portrayal of Juda’s reincarnation will be resented by Christians and suspected by Muslims, will the Pope’s name ever likely to enter the Islam’s book of good behavior, could the Pope be believed and trusted by Islam? not one iota, and should he feel safer for admitting his leaning towards Islam and the absolute truth in what he says, we should all be as one, able to live side-by-side – his beliefs have been loud and clear, he may still get his throat slit. Time will tell
Lucienne says
Welcome to satans one world government / religion in the making. Pope Francis rumored to be The False Prophet of the Book of Revelation and Islam rumored to have the Anti Christ from the eastern leg of the Old Roman Empire. Got Jesus in faith alone, because you are going to need Him? Crazy you say. Go to YouTube, search Pope Francis one world government religion, he did a great YouTube video straight out of the Book of Revelation. PS Jesus is coming back soon.
Allan says
Where’s the body? Is it zooming through outer space as if Jesus were Superman?
http://www.cartoonaday.com/superman-in-space-flying/
Lucienne says
Snicker, I will pray for you.
Allan says
Pandering.
It’s by the way that an omnipotent god would not be the prisoner of its own laws of human nature. So it would not need to decree any convoluted scheme of salvation and redeption from originated original sin.
Instead, after the alleged fall, the god could suspend the project in the garden, as by destroying the world. (There are other options, e.g. killing the inhabitants with a great flood.) Anyhow, the god creates a new, sinless world and designs a better human for it.
Of course, an omniscient god is a prudent god, so at the moment of creation of the new world, the god establishes security features sufficient to keep the Adversary out of his precious creation. Still further, once the new humans have been made, the god doesn’t criminalize eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The god does this just in case the Adversary finds a flaw in the god’s security features; the humans will be able to cope better with the Adversary’s sophistries once fortified with relevant knowledge.
Now, the Adversary isn’t a necessary being but a contingent, created one like the humans. So the god has a marvelous idea one day. “I will kill the Adversay before it can cause any more trouble!” And so he resolves to impose the death penalty at the soonest possible opportunity. Since the omniscient god can see what’s coming, he decides to execute the angel in question before its rebellion.
Lion of Judah's Cub says
Allan, you have left out two key elements free will and love. We were created to live with God at the center of our existence but we have the freedom to reject Him and His love. When we move away from God toward worship of ourselves as god then we cause chaos and suffering. Check out the last century of atheist totalitarian rule (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Military-Industrial Complex etc.) or satanic rule (Hitler, Islam). Let us not forget the evils of abortion tied to both atheism and satanism.
We are like cell phones with God as our power source. When we don’t plug into the source consistently we start to malfunction and then stop working all together (lose our humanity).
Also the morality inherent in your description — ie rejection of violence, punishment, suffering, demand for justice — is based on Judeo-Christian ethos and natural law (God given conscience), not on atheistic or pagan systems of ethics where relativism rules and eventually anything goes.
Karen says
Allan, a just God would follow his own laws. A just, transcendent God would follow his own laws while superseding the physical limitations of our natural world.
There is an interesting little book called ‘Flatland’ you might enjoy. It describes the problems a one dimensional people had in trying to understand a two dimensional people. Our powers of deduction are an awesome gift but inadequate to understand an infinite God.
Allan says
Lion, you merely skimmed over what I wrote in order to have a pretext to indulge in a favorite hobby, namely, roaring about “atheist totalitarian rule”. Had you bothered to pay closer attention to what I wrote, you might have noticed, for example, the prudent god’s solution to the angel who is about to rebel.
So much for your complaint that I’ve advocated pacifism.
Now, you allege that I forgot about free will. ‘Tis just not so, however. Erecting adequate security around the alleged garden, if not also around the whole world, would deprive humans of no freedom of the will. They would still be free to reject the alleged commands of the alleged god. I’d admit, however, that the aforementioned angel would have been deprived the exercise of its will upon being executed. But so what if it were deprived? Is there an inalienable right to freedom of action according to one’s will?
Like most people of your type, you are fixated upon the idea that humans “were created to live with God at the center of our existence”. Yet do not your own stories imply that angels were likewise created to have the god at the center of their existence? But of course they do, so you need another reason to explain the creation of humans. It will do no good to claim that the god made humans so that they could love him or be loved by him. He is supposed to be a perfect being, so he has nothing to gain by creating humans, or angels for that matter, and he would suffer no deprivation by their absence.
I would like to add a few remarks about the “totalitarian rule” to which you pretend to be opposed. Well, what law of existence do you and your god submit to? You complained, as is usual for theocrats, about “systems of ethics in which relativism rules and eventually anything goes.” That is a complaint about systems rooted in mere desire and willpower, yet this is a fair description of YOUR ethics, too. True, you disguise your ethics with spiritualism and sanctimonious claptrap about “love”, but it is VERY rare for any theocrat to affirm that his god is bound by objective standards of right and wrong. Instead, the theocrat makes such standards of ethics into a function of a god’s will, and this leads straightaway to a vulgar fetish for commands and obedience such as that found in any secular, communistic society.
It’s understandable, however, why you trivialize the notion of objective, impersonal rules of existence. If you affirmed without obscurantism that the god’s will is not supreme in existence, you would undermine your own superstition in favor of a very different religion centered upon impersonal law and order. That better religion would undermine the intense preoccupation with willpower at the core of both your superstition and systems like Nazism and Maoism. The better religion would also encourage contempt for people who preach a spiritualized doctrine of commands and obedience which is more like Nazism, Maoism, etc. than any of you outlaws would care to admit.
So, you cannot bear the thought of “God” being shackled, bound, and rendered a cripple by impersonal rules which can’t be changed by any willpower. It would threaten the rarified humanist egocentrism which lurks within your theism. And since your god is really just a literary mouthpiece, it’s fair to suspect that the relativist here is you. In other words, the malfunctioning outlaw is YOU.
Champ says
Oh “Allan” believes that God exists, but he’s REALLY **angry** with Him, and rather juvenile, too.
Les says
Thank you Lion of Judah. You would think Alan and others on this site would be embarrassed to post their juvenile arrogant and massively stupid understanding of God and His patient and loving attempts to try reveal Himself to humans like Alan.
It’s people like Alan that give God a good reason to come back sooner than later for a second time and to finally end human arrogance and stupidity.
Brit says
“It’s people like Alan…”
I assume from this you mean everyone who rejects your particular ideological viewpoint.
What a horrible fact of life it is that there are probably billions of people in this world, like you les, who are proud to proclaim that they are looking forward to the ultimate pain and destruction for billions of others, for the trivial reason that they just don’t agree with les.
Les says
Brit
You know what they say about people who assume? You assumed wrong about my condemnation of an atheist who knowingly is spewing lies about our understanding of God. You don’t have to accept my beliefs but to make a false assumption does not bode very well for you or Alan.
“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. THE COMING OF THE LAWLESS ONE IS ACCORDING TO THE WORKING OF SATAN, with all power, signs, and LYING wonders, and with all UNRIGHTEOUS DECEPTION among those who perish, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE LOVE OF TRUTH, that they might be saved. And for this reason God WILL SEND THEM A STRONG DELUSION, THAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE THE LIE, that they all may BE CONDEMNED who did not believe the truth BUT HAD PLEASURE IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12
nicu says
Rome will be the center of the caliphate !
catholic Church always was with those who rule !
Lion of Judah's Cub says
This is bull. The Catholic Church was the original Church Christ established through his apostles and disciples. The Church suffered persecution for the first 300 years of the Church’s existence and after a brief period of tranquility the persecutions resumed in wave after wave throughout various parts of the world. The Catholic Church suffered many losses under the Nazis and was a prime target of the communists in Eastern Europe and around the world and now is a prime target of ISIS.
Unfortunately Pope Francis does not appear to be a true Catholic with many of his teachings that break away from the teachings of the Church and his predecessors such as Pope Benedict.
Ernie says
Lion of Judah’s Cub , the( Roman) Catholic church wasn’t established by Christ . It was established by Paul (Shaul) . Paul never knew Christ and changed the message of Christ . Much later , under Constantine , who ädopted “Christianity” to fit Rome’s need to unify it,s populations ,the Roman catholic church has adopted many elements of Mithras worship , and I can go on and on . Praying to Mary ( Isis worship ) , producing “saints” and praying to them , It’s idolatry . And now courting islam , the arch-enemy of Christ ? To me this is Mystery Babylon , and what ever this “pope” does , is wrong . I feel sorry for all those good and Christ-loving , G-d Fearing , Christians who are being deceived by this “pope” , and by the institution the Roman Catholic church has become . It makes me sad .
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The present Pope is kind and merciful like Jesus the Good Shepherd. He is the representative of Christ the Lord on earth. He never told that he is without any SIN though he represents Jesus the Lord on earth. Peter too was such.
Salvation comes from Jesus the Lord. The Church the Pope represents is that of the Lord, THE ORIGINAL one. ALL who SEEK THE TRUTH end up in the Church the Pope represents. If the process of SEEKING THE TRUTH is there in the lives of people, all will finally come to the Church of POPE FRANCIS.
Musalmaanmasala says
Ernie,
You are right the “Catholic Church” per se was not established by Christ. As “Hey, Peter go to Rome. You are Pope and head of the Catholics from now on” When he told Peter “on this rock I will build my church” I do not think he was talking to Himself.
Paul from a hater and killer of people of The Way did not become its greatest Apostle to the Gentiles WITHOUT HAVING MET OR KNOWN CHRIST.
Something, an encounter perhaps, must have changed him on that way to Damascus.
The Catholic Church has an over 2000 years unbroken history of Popes GOOD AND BAD right from Peter the first Pope and all the other “churches” WHAT KIND OF HISTORY DO THEY HAVE, P;EASE TELL?
As for “Mithras worship” firstly MARY AND THE SAINTS ARE NOT WORSHIPPED – , EVER.
Veneration or their intersession is sought just like the jews sought the intercession of Moses and other prophets. WHY? Couldn’t the jews talk to Yahweh directly.
Jesus could have worked that miracle at Cana. WHY DID MARY HAVE TO INTERCEDE for the embarassed bridal couple?
I do not think Peter and his band of illiterates ever knew about Mithra and the one person who “might have known” that is Paul who never talks about her.
The Catholic Church does not “produce saints”. Are the Nobel Laureates “produced” or are they honored for their work?
A long and scientific investigation goes into the miracle which the to be saint is alleged to have performed. And only after this investigation concludes that the miracle HAS NO SCIENTIFIC ANSWER OR SOLUTION is the miracle proclaimed as a miracle and that too after more than a year of watching and waiting to see if there is a reversing of the cure.
Your “Mystery Babylon: is nothing but a silly misinterpretation of Revelations.
If I as a person who has left Islam knows this then I expect you should know better than to rant nonsense about Catholics.
Champ says
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP wrote:
“Salvation comes from Jesus the Lord. The Church the Pope represents is that of the Lord …”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, salvation does come from the LORD alone …
But pope francis does NOT believe this. This pope says a personal relationship with Jesus is Dangerous!!
pope francis is DANGEROUS!!
Wake up! …this pope has the anti-Christ spirit!
Les says
Ernie please stop embarrassing yourself and putting your stupidity in writing. You must get your information from Islamic websites but certainly not from scholars.
Are you an ISIS troll?
gravenimage says
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP wrote:
The present Pope is kind and merciful like Jesus the Good Shepherd.
…………………….
Last I checked, Jesus did not whitewash the beliefs of those who want to rape and murder us.
Benedict says
Dream on
gravenimage says
Nicu, the Catholic Church has many times throughout history opposed Islam.
Lynne says
I left the Catholic Church because it allowed cover-ups of priest abuses. I am horrified about our Pope’s declarations of being charitable to Muslims. What does he say about honour killings, stoning, death to gays, apostates, Christians and Jews, wife beatings, misogyny and the other terrible abuses to humanity perpetrated by Islam?
Lucienne says
Good for you. The Church is found within ourselves, no need for mans inventions of religion.You may like a website run by an x Catholic.http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/
Wellington says
“Good for you.”
Ah, Lucienne, nothing like dismissing Roman Catholicism as you masterfully did, with reference of course to great Catholic thinkers like Erigena, Anselm and Aquinas, refuting them all, never mind the production of great Catholic achievements in the artistic sphere such as that exhibited by Romanesque and Gothic architecture, by Fra Angelico, Donatello, Michelangelo and Raphael. And of course you have read the Catholic Catechism in its entirety, now haven’t you? Of course you have.
But wait. Oh yes, wait. I can only imagine what you truly know about Roman Catholicism———- the subtlety of its theology (e.g., Aquinas), its take on the human condition, the history of the papacy, et al. Ah yes, a master in knowledge of Roman Catholicism are you. Who could doubt it?
Your ignorance is appalling, Lucienne. Beyond appalling actually.
Musalmaanmasala says
Your riposte to Wellington. Could not have put it in a better way.
Also Lynne says she “left the Catholic Church” because of “abuses”. I wonder if she will leave the country she is in just because a few politicians abuse their power forgetting the many who work for the well being of the people they serve.
Give Pope Francis a chance.
If someone like Paul who persecuted, hanged and crucified Christians and who watched and approved the stoning to death of St. Stephen could be changed WITH JUST ONE ENCOUNTER with Christ then I BELIEVE Our God who IS NOT A DEAD god but A LIVING GOD who works in wonderous ways CAN change the lives of these people who are on the wrong path and bring them to the right one.
Wellington says
With respect, Lynne, and I write this to you as the agnostic that I am, as someone who has no religious faith at all, shouldn’t one leave the Catholic Church, or any Christian sect—-or any religion for that matter—-because they have come to the conclusion that its theological blueprint, what it upholds to be true, is in error one way or another?
Why ever leave any belief system, spiritual or secular, because of human failing (e.g., the Catholic Church hierarchy falling most egregiously on the matter of child sexual abuse)? Such failing is inevitable from time to time in even the best of ideologically constructed systems, for instance the USA under the 1787 Constitution which has been most horribly betrayed by Barack Obama (and will be doubly so if Hilary Clinton is elected President).
In short, no ideology should EVER be rejected because of failings by some of its adherents, even by very powerful and influential adherents. Rather, a belief system, a set of principles, a code of whatever, should ONLY be rejected by what that belief system, what its set of principles, its code, etc., asserts, and NEVER by the fact that some adherents respecting what they adhere to have betrayed what they adhere to most egregiously.
Your turn if you care, Lynne.
Lucienne says
With respect, Lynne, and I write this to you as the agnostic.
Snicker, because it is always a great idea, snicker, to believe an agnostic on religious matters. snicker. Thanks for the laugh, now go collect your $s for your stupid comment. snicker. Gov / satans goons are so funny, but not very good at what they do. LMAO.
Wellington says
Too bad, Lucienne, you only provided insults but no arguments.
And you completely ignored my main point, i.e., that any ideology should be rejected on the basis of what that ideology says and never by the fact that many adherents of that ideology don’t fully implement its tenets—–or even sometimes betray it.
Jay Boo says
I have read a few of Lucienne’s other comments.
Lucienne must be aware that what he is doing is wrong.
Will he now lash out and toss a few KJV’s at me or will he Quote Old Testament Law and brandish Revelation like pointed weapon?
Does he know that Reza Aslan’s Jesus was a deception?
More Lucienne here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/obama-administration-strikes-jerusalem-from-israel#comment-1530933
gravenimage says
Wellington is a staunch Anti-Jihadist, and he has always been respectful to people of faith here.
Barbara says
Leaving an imperfect organization is easy. Staying and fighting to rectify takes time and commitment. It all goes to ‘let the government take care of us’. We are more interested in our play time. This is one of the reasons white collar crimes are rampant.
How many business go bankrupt because the owners use the money for play instead of paying the company expenses? Hancock Fabric, and Hastings Book Store are two of the most recent; and there are how many more?
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The Church is of SINNERS and SAINTS. EVEN Peter was a SINNER once. He denied Christ the Lord.
Mark Swan says
He had not received the Holy Spirit yet, when that happened, remember (Acts 2:)
Brit says
Hello Wellington,
I have read many of your interesting comments over the years. i only recently started commenting myself.
i am curious, why as an agnostic you would encourage someone to rethink a decision to leave an obviously corrupt institution, whatever past good it has done?
abad says
Pope Francis is keeping silent in response to your question for a reason.
And when Islam falls when Christ returns – so will Francis.
The TRUE Church (Body of Believers) of Christ will not fall.
Really, this is not a trick question, this is not calculus, this is not rocket science.
Champ says
“And when Islam falls when Christ returns – so will Francis.
The TRUE Church (Body of Believers) of Christ will not fall.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hear, hear, Abad! I believe this will happen, as well!
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The Church of historic RELEVANCE is the Church represented by POPE FRANCIS.
ALL other Christian Churches are BREAD-AWAY CHURCHES. THE MOTHER CHURCH remains on SOLID ROCK : PETER whom Jesus the Lord appointed in PERSON as the leader.
Champ says
I disagree. Please consider the following …
Question: “What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?”
Answer: https://gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html
Excerpt:
“The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter’s being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).”
abad says
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP:
No, actually, Constantine is the one responsible for the Roman Catholic Church PR, not Peter.
In fact, Christianity existed prior to the Roman Catholic church and as a historical tidbit, the very earliest Christians were in fact Unitarian.
Musalmaanmasala says
Champ, Abad,
Thanks for the “gyaan” or “intelligent knowledge” as it is called in the Hindi. But then on the other hand Intelligent people talk because they have something to talk about and others talk just because they have to talk about something.
I find you guys fall in the latter category.
Champ you are just fixated on the “rock” theory.
If you read further after the “Upon this rock….” episode you will find Christ telling Peter :Feed my sheep” 3 times He says that to Peter.
Wonder why Christ said that IF HE DID NOT HAVE A LEADERSHIP FOR PETER IN MIND.
Suggest you’ll read the whole episode end to end and not cherry pick verses that are in keeping with what you think is correct.
The Roman Catholic Church might not have been named as such, and loose talk that Contantine is the “founder of the Catholic Church” is neither here or there.
Christians were first called such in Antioch and the name evolved naturally to mean “followers of Christ”.
As for early Christians being “Unitarian” thats a hoot. They were UNITED yes but puhleez NOT UNITARIAN.
Musalmaanmasala says
Champ,
Would just want to add that your comment that I am “a very confused person – from a spiritual standpoint” shows your regressive and opiniated mindset.
You are welcome to disagree with me but please do not catch the bull by the tail and get BS.
If you do not have anything to say dont say it maybe then just maybe you will come off as an intelligent person.
Take care
Ernie says
Abad and Champ , I ‘m with you , this time .
Musalmaanmasala says
Champ,
There are a lot of things “scripture” does not say. The Catholic Church is over 2000 years old and TRADITION TOO PLAYS A GREAT PART in its early formation.
Peter WAS THE FIRST POPE is a given, Do you have any other name to put forward?
Please also what does “on this Rock I will build my Church” mean and does’t PETRAS mean ROCK.
Problem is the break away “churches” do not want to acknowledge Mathew 16:18 as it puts paid to their so called independence and heresy that they without any roots follow.
Scripture “does not record” according to you “Peter being in Rome” but History records Peter being killed in Rome.
In the early days of Christianity there was no established structure like there is now. So there was no one “supreme” or “all authoratitive leader: and please do not follow scripture verbatim you will stumble and fall.
The church evolves over time, it is not rigid, and what Peter and Paul preached and did 2000 years ago may not be entirely relevant in todays environment so Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter might have to be tweeked a bit.
Wonder if you Chamo will actually gouge out your eyes and cut of your hands when you see and do wrong in keeping with the scripture which you seem to follow verbatim.
Champ says
Thanks for sharing, but I *completely* disagree with everything you’ve put forth. In fact, you seem like a very confused person—from a spiritual standpoint.
Take care.
Champ says
Consider this …
Question: “What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?”
Answer: https://gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html
Excerpt:
“The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter’s being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).”
abad says
Champ:
Agreed, nowhere in the New Testament do the words Roman Catholic church exist.
Musalmaanmasala:
Actually I do have another name to put forward:
Jesus Christ Himself.
And unlike Peter – the Lord Jesus is Alive and Well!
Mark Swan says
In the original Greek text, 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,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).
Jesus Christ is this “ROCK”. God uses the term Mountain (huge rock here) to mean
God’s Government, rule, Authority. Christ is Lord, the boss, we do what He says—
we follow a church as far as it obeys Christ, not just talks about His teaching, but does
what He says.
Champ says
Abad wrote:
“Champ:
Agreed, nowhere in the New Testament do the words Roman Catholic church exist.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly! Thank you, Abad.
Champ says
Ernie wrote:
“Abad and Champ , I ‘m with you , this time .”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Ernie. 🙂
Peggy says
There is no need to abandon the faith, only the particular churches who preach submission disguised as tolerance.
There must be a parish somewhere you can be a part of where the priest is sane.
This is not the time to abandon the church, only avoid the infiltrated one.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
There are plenty of such parishes Peggy. They are called ‘Traditional Latin Rite’ Roman Catholic parishes, and they’re all over the world.
Google: ‘FSSP’, ‘SSPX’. Just today I went to Mass at the SSPX church in St. Mary’s, Ks., which is not far from my home in Topeka.
I teach at another such parish, ‘St. John Vianney’ in Maple Hill, Ks.
At all these churches the true Faith is still found, there ARE no ‘scandals’, the Mass is still the Mass (not some exercise in reduction in absurdum), and Francis is freely criticized.
‘Thou are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.’-God
Peggy says
It’s good to hear that there are churches free from this Pope. I just wonder where the money ends up. Hopefully these churches will keep the money they raise and not make the Vatican richer because money is power and the more that stays in right hands the better.
abad says
There is also the American Catholic Church (no jurisdiction under the Pope) I have read a little bit about it but don’t know anyone who is a member.
gravenimage says
True, Peggy and Kathy.
Lion of Judah's Cub says
Lynne,
I guess you have not heard that over 1100 communists infiltrated the Catholic Church via the seminaries in the 1930s and on and rose to prominence in the Church hierarchy over the years. This is according to Bella Dodd, former high ranking communist who converted to Catholicism. She was involved in this plot that was planned in Russia and implemented through Dodd in the United States and elsewhere. She testified before Congress in 1953 about these and other communist activities and plans.
Part of the communist infiltration plan to destroy the Church from within, its greatest enemy, was to corrupt priests via sexual depravity and to discredit it over time. Many seminaries emptied out of faithful good young men who wanted no part of the bizarre sexual conduct condoned and promoted by the seminary instructors – the same vile individuals who later turned a blind eye, participated in, or condoned the despicable attacks on innocent young people in the Church once they became bishops and top leaders.
The majority of priests or bishops who participated in the abuse of children or young people were not Catholics but infiltrators, not believers but atheists or satanists.
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The Church is opening up EVEN to Communists; they too NEED salvation. And then why not to MUSLIMS? Christ the Lord came to save ALL PEOPLE who have GOOD WILL.
gravenimage says
But Pope Francis is not preaching to Muslims–instead, he is castigating Christians who object to having large numbers of Muslims flood into the West to rape and murder them:
“Pope denounces Christians who don’t want Muslim migrants as ‘hypocrites’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/pope-denounces-christians-who-dont-want-muslim-migrants-as-hypocrites
Les says
You left the Catholic Church because it has sinners? What are you?
If you left the Church then you are spitting in God’s face and you are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus died on the cross, created His Catholic Church, promised the gates of hell and protesters will not prevail and then gives himself to you physically in the Euchrist.
If you now reject this truth that you confirmed, then you are a liar and you spit in His face.
Ernie says
And what are you Les ? The “Holy Inquisition” ? You are a quick accuser Les . I don’t see the brotherly love , the love that Christ taught ,in your harsh words .
Ernie says
Besides Les , you’ll know the tree by it’s fruits . ( am I cherry-picking now ? ) .
Les says
Poor Ernie
Did I hurt your feelings?
Oh wait Christians are only suppose to have “brotherly love” just like Jesus, right? That tripe is old, ignorant of Christ and not effective on true believers.
Ernie you obviously have no understanding for what Jesus said about why He came to earth. What Jesus said will shock you and your hurt feelings will only get worse.
Jesus did not seek unity at the expense of truth, but only unity in the truth and there is no mercy and acceptance without truth
I have no patience for so called “Catholics” who if they were truly Catholic would not blaspheme God’s Church by rejecting the Church because it has sinners in the Church.
We all are sinners but it is truly not brotherly love if I do not say that you made a very foolish and juvenile statement and not loving if I don’t point out that the former “Catholic” was spitting in God’s face.
Matt 10
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
35 For I have come to set
a man ‘against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36 and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’
Ernie says
No Les , I’m not hurt . You did not hurt my feelings . The Lord Jesus Christ is with me and in me . And I am in Him . Thank you for testing my commitment to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ . He is LOVE , and I feel/am the richest guy in the world , for He loves me . His LOVE fills me that much . The unloving vitriolic language you use , the getting personal and all…….well , I consider it un-clean and coming from an unclean spirit . The Lord takes care of me , and he’ll take care of you . He is perfect in all His ways . Thank You My Lord . and Saviour Jesus Christ ! Amen. : Ernst
Carolyne says
Lynne, to the best of my knowledge he hasn’t mentioned the subjects to which you refer.
Getting a bit carried away there aren’t you Les?
Les says
Dear Carolyne
Here God’s words and then tell me I’m getting carried away:
“That in the latter time some should apostatize from the faith, giving hews to deceiving spirits and doctrines of Devils.”
1 Tim 4:1
Vlad says
Pope Dhimmy the First = the Judas Goat of Christianity.
abad says
Pope Francis is not of the Body of Christ.
He has officially joined the Dark Side:
Islam.
Lucienne says
yep, well said!
Wellington says
I don’t think it’s THAT bad, abad, about Francis. No Dark Side stuff unless humorously meant.
Francis is simply a fool. An influential and thus harmful fool to be sure, but “merely” a fool nonetheless.
So many times people see design in human affairs when, in fact, there is no design, “only” stupidity and sometimes excellence (and lots of shades of gray in between these two), each rooted in probabilities.
Thus, if I dare say, this hypothesis of mine applies to religion in general (and to other areas, for instance politics), where explaining things in terms of probabilities (examples being that it was probable that mankind would get a major religion which was rotten to the core, which it did with Islam, and that it was equally probable that mankind would produce a religion or two that would work quite well with democratic tenets because of an emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual, and which precisely occurred with Judaism and Christianity) is at least as much of an “explainer” of things as seeing fate and grand cosmic design in matters.
Oh yeah, probability versus pre-ordained design. Close call I guess. I made my choice long ago and nothing, absolutely nothing, I have come across has made me think said choice was in error. And thus I would close by averring that, were every Muslim to wake up tomorrow a committed Christian or Jew, the world would be infinitely better off. And so I hope you and others can see why I support Christianity and Judaism, having nothing but contempt for those who, by making a religion out of not having one, exceedingly stupidly lump Christianity and Judaism with Islam as being all worthy of condemnation, and why one can support the Judeo-Christian ethic without adhering to the Judeo-Christian theology.
In keeping with my “probability theory” and all that. Just sayin’.
Lucienne says
My Dear, you already lost the argument when you said you were agnostic, I will still pray for your deliverance though. By the way, If you cannot take the History of the Jewish people and match it tick for tick in the Holy Bible, prophesied hundreds of years in advance, if you cannot take the current times we live in now in which the Islamic barbarians will come against the Jewish people in Psalms 83, Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38 and 39, if you cannot take decades and decades of archaeology that proves the Holy Bible is true, and if you cannot Zechariah prophesy that nuclear war is coming in your future
Zechariah 14:12
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
, then you are looking for excuses for your own pet sin and may God have mercy on your soul, as for me and my house We shall serve the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Wellington says
Lucienne: I would contend you lost the argument by dismissing this agnostic out of hand and by referencing the Bible as simply unimpeachable, as though no other alternative exists.
But it does. Bit time. A la David Hume (of course you know who he is), no religious miracle (and prophesying is a subset of what purports to be miraculous) can be accepted unless the non-miraculous explanation would be even more astounding and improbable than the miraculous one. As Hume demonstrated with crystal clear logic, there is not a SINGLE alleged miracle in the Bible for which a non-miraculous explanation cannot be given. Not one. Including any prophecy in the Old Testament, the Resurrection, the Ascension, et al.
Doubt me? Then try me. No insults, mind you, just arguments. And I will respond should you try me here (and by historical extension Hume himself). Give it a shot.
Musalmaanmasala says
Wellington,
I for one would love to read what you have to say about “Hume demonstrated with crystal clear logic, there is not a SINGLE alleged miracle in the Bible for which a non-miraculous explanation cannot be given. Not one. Including any prophecy in the Old Testament, the Resurrection, the Ascension, et al.”
I am not doubting you, I am just curious.
Wellington says
Musalaamasala: Please consult Hume’s “Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding” for more complete elucidation here.
And I will leave you with this additional “tantalizer” by Hume, to wit, if God is all powerful and all merciful, then how does one explain a baby born with massive birth defects?
If you could prevent a baby, no more innocent person possible, being born with massive birth defects and you didn’t, ditto for me or anyone, then said person would rightly be treated as the pariah they are. So why isn’t God if said entity is both ALL powerful and ALL merciful? This was another of Hume’s query and I would contend that it has never been successfully answered, protestations to the effect that God operates in ways inscrutable to man functioning as not an argument but rather an excuse masquerading as an argument.
Understand, I support the Judeo-Christian ethic as an enlightened one. After all, not all religions can be heinous as Islam is. But said ethic DOES NOT prove the theology attached to it, something missed by many believing Christians and Jews. Very much so I would contend.
And let me close here by saying yet again, as I have said many times here at JW, the world would be infinitely better off were every Muslim to wake up tomorrow a devout Christian or Jew——or a devout Hindu, Buddhist, et al. Societies need a religious framework because man is so pathetic that he cannot stand on his own without one, though any society is better off with no religion than with Islam. Nevertheless, individual human beings can lead a good and enlightened life without religion, but, sadly, it seems very much the case that a society as a whole cannot. Such is the way of things in this very imperfect world in which we live.
Sorry for the length of my comment, but I felt it was imperative in this case. And thank you for your reply. It was an eminently understandable and salient one.
Peggy says
How do you know that he is simply a fool and not one of them?
A man In his position should be able to recognize evil and fight it. If the Pope is unable to recognise evil what hope do the rest of us have then?
You’re letting him off the hook too easily.
Wellington says
Well, Peggy, may I congratulate you on being the first person to accuse me of letting that great fool, Francis, off too easily. And so, if he is not “merely” a great fool, as I have asserted many times here at JW, tell me, Peggy, exactly what he is.
P.S. You’re mentioning that Francis could be “one of them” is a little vague. Please expand upon this if you will. I would be most interested in how you think Francis is “one of them,” whoever “them” might be.
Your turn.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“How do you know that he is simply a fool and not one of them?”
Do you have any evidence to the contrary that can shed a new light on the issue? Can you read Francis’ mind to know he’s one of “them” (whoever it is that “them” are)?
Peggy says
Wellington says
October 16, 2016 at 9:32 pm
Well, Peggy, may I congratulate you on being the first person to accuse me of letting that great fool, Francis, off too easily. And so, if he is not “merely” a great fool, as I have asserted many times here at JW, tell me, Peggy, exactly what he is.
P.S. You’re mentioning that Francis could be “one of them” is a little vague. Please expand upon this if you will. I would be most interested in how you think Francis is “one of them,” whoever “them” might be.
Your turn.
==============================
Wellington I merely asked you a simple question which is how do you know he’s simply a fool which you haven’t answered yet but you want me to answer your questions.
Maybe it’s your turn to answer my question before you ask me one.
It seems that I have upset you by asking this question. That was not my intention.
When I said he could be one of them I mean one of the Satanists who have infiltrated the Vatican and other places.
Now your turn. How do you know that he is simply a fool and not a traitor?
I don’t know what he is and so I don’t claim anything for sure but I do think he is not a fool but one of them and I have given my reason why I think that.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Wellington I merely asked you a simple question which is how do you know he’s simply a fool which you haven’t answered yet but you want me to answer your questions.”
No, that’s far from being a “mere, simple” question. It implies something you have yet to prove – i.e., that Wellington *knows* it for a fact when his post was quite clear in that it was what he thinks.
“It seems that I have upset you by asking this question. That was not my intention.”
Or so you say. I guess that you making a loaded question was just a harmless mistake, eh? Well, if that’s the case, I expect you to acknowledge and amend it.
“Now your turn. How do you know that he is simply a fool and not a traitor?”
Instead of proving what you say, in insist on a loaded question. And yet, you would have us believe that your intentions are as pure as white snow…
“I don’t know what he is and so I don’t claim anything for sure”
Did Wellington claimed anything for sure? Did Wellington claimed he knows what he is? Or is your cringe-worthy KGB impersonation just a petty revenge for a completely different reason – i.e., do you have a grudge against Wellington?
“but I do think he is not a fool but one of them and I have given my reason why I think that.”
So did Wellington. Several times on different topics. That you keep insisting that he “knows” reeks of personal grudge.
Wellington says
Well done, Angemon.
Les says
I did not know Wellington to be an agnostic. Your posts show a loving heart that can only come from a loving uncreated creator. As sophisticated as your words seem you then dismiss miracles because the human mind is too feeble to understand miracles which makes your dismissal an illogical statement.
If you can’t understand creation then you can’t understand God and His miracles.
Wellington says
“Your posts show a loving heart that can only come from a loving uncreated creator.”
With respect, Les, what you stated is an assumption and not a fact. Understand, you COULD be correct, but necessarily so. And regarding miracles, I would again invoke David Hume who brilliantly explained why miracles cannot be accepted UNLESS the non-miraculous explanation for the alleged miracle is even more astounding than the miraculous one.
As for creation, no one understands it fully. One can believe a certain thing about it and that belief may be correct but then again it may not be.
Two other matters. First, no one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that God does not exist. Faith is needed here. In fact, those who are religious and assert that God’s existence can be proven actually unwittingly undermine faith because if one can prove something, then faith is not needed; it is irrelevant. Second, one of two events occurred, either God created man or man created God. You clearly believe it is the former but my hunch is that it is the latter.
I write all this in a sprit of friendship and a love of the exchange of ideas. Best to you and yours.
Wellington says
That’s “but not necessarily so” and not “but necessarily so.”
Mark Swan says
Wellington, once, Your own true statement acknowledging that Religion takes faith.
I don’t remember your exact words, then, but it was the best way to put it then and
now, I think.
abad says
I suppose my saying “Dark Side” appears humorous at first glance but I was being quite serious.
I know maybe some people do not often think of it this way but here goes:
The Body of Christ – which is a Living Church (a living organism) is not just made up of a hierarchical body like the Roman Catholic Church and laity. Neither is it brick-and-mortar like the Vatican with fancy architecture and art.
I have Born-Again Christian friends who understand the Salvation of Christ, and are not even members of any church.
On the other hand I have Born-Again Christian friends who home-church and meet in each other’s homes (as the earliest Christians did in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 16:19 and Philemon 1 for example). I am a strong supporter of such groups.
Baptism is another story and there are just as many opinions on that, too – but again, that comes after the acceptance of Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior. There are even some people who will claim baptism is not even necessary after acceptance.
Wellington says
Really, abad, do you truly believe, as you asserted, that the Vatican through some twenty centuries represents no more than “fancy architecture and art?” Or that the Roman Catholic Church is merely a “hierarchical body” and not much more? Really?
Can you actually reduce Roman Catholicism to this de minimis amount——-and without one encomium at all, for instance that it was a bulwark for centuries against the onslaught of Islam, never mind its developing as sophisticated of an assessment of the human condition as ever formed by any religion per its greatest thinkers like Anselm and Aquinas, and never mind that post-Reformation it also did laudable things like inventing Baroque art and establishing probably more hospitals and schools, extending into the twentieth century, than any other religion in history? Hmmm. Seems so.
Now, I am an agnostic, as I have stated many times here at JW. My intellectual “hunch”
is that God is a legend. Nevertheless, I would note the following matters: 1) the Judeo-Christian ethic is far superior to the Islamic ethic; it puts forth a Golden Rule for all and does not, as Islam does, disallow religion being separated from politics (and herein, respecting Islam, is why in part, but only in part, it is such a menace to mankind, i.e., no separation between the theological and religious spheres); 2) over the years here at JW I have noticed a tremendous animosity towards the Catholic Church by many non-Catholic Christian commenters, whether Protestant or Orthodox; and such antagonism is almost never reciprocated by Roman Catholic commenters here at JW who seek unity among Christians, in my experience, more than do Protestants and the Orthodox who regularly take shots at the Catholic sect of Christianity——easily more than the other way around; and frankly I ordinarily find said “shots” replete with ignorance about what Catholicism is really about as well as being pathetic; 3) Catholics tend to understand the non-Catholic points of view by non-Catholic Christians far better than do non-Catholic Christians understand the Catholic point of view——not even a close call here.
That’s all for now. Your turn if you care, abad.
TJ says
Maybe Wellington would believe in God if he/she understood the bible better. The bible depicts God as Someone Who saw human beings all like to participate in a wicked charade. That wicked charade being some little ones are killed while others are kept and they all just walk on by the places where this goes on like nothing is happening. This is who you are and what you do, Wellington. It is not all of who you are, but it is a big part of you are and who everyone else is. You and everyone else do not deserve guaranteed support from any God as the conduct of people is both good and wicked. The God of the bible is in favor of these dead little ones over people who walk on by. Their blood is on the whole world, and it is the most powerful force around, because their deaths damages God’s motivation. This is why the bible depicts God as a God who somewhat thinks people deserve the gospel, and somewhat thinks they deserve to die today. The bible’s view of God is perfectly tuned with the elements as they are both friendly and deadly. If it wasn’t, it could not be truth.
gravenimage says
TJ wrote:
Maybe Wellington would believe in God if he/she understood the bible better. The bible depicts God as Someone Who saw human beings all like to participate in a wicked charade. That wicked charade being some little ones are killed while others are kept and they all just walk on by the places where this goes on like nothing is happening. This is who you are and what you do, Wellington.
…………………….
This is *not* who Wellington is, TJ. Wellington is, in fact, a deeply moral person, as anyone who had read here for even a short period of time knows quite well.
The idea that he is indifferent to the suffering of innocent people is just calumny. His caring is why he is an Anti-jihadist who stands against the savage evil of Islam.
Les says
First, if Hume’s principle concerning uniform experience were correct, then we would have to deny many things we hold as true. For example, the Big Bang was a singular event that is unrepeatable. Have you experienced any Big Bangs lately? I would also venture to say you haven’t experienced anybody landing on the moon in recent times.
Now, if we hold to Hume’s principle, it would be irrational to believe the scientific account of the Big Bang and the historical fact that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, since these occurrences contradict our uniform experience. But this is absurd. The Big Bang is one of the most rigorously established theories in all of science, and all who are not obsessed with conspiracy theories hold Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon is a historical fact.
Moreover, Hume’s principle nullifies science itself. As an inductive discipline, science necessarily presupposes the possibility of discovering new things that may contradict uniform experience. Scientific laws are revised all the time based on new contrary evidence. But if Hume’s principle were correct, scientists would never have reasonable grounds to revise laws, and thus replacing the Newtonian view of the universe with Einstein’s view would have been irrational. No skeptic can hold this and still be seen as intellectually credible.
A third reason why Hume’s argument from uniform experience fails is that it sets the standard for authenticating a miracle too high. It views rarity as that which disqualifies rational belief, yet rarity is of the essence of a miracle. A miracle, by definition, is an unusual event, something contrary to the ordinary course of things. So, according to Hume’s view, every miracle is disqualified from the start, because every miracle is a rare event.
This is analogous to making a fifty-foot bar the qualifying height for a good high jumper, when no jumpers can even clear an eight-foot bar. It is simply unreasonable to set a standard so high that no one can ever reach it. If skeptics desire Christian beliefs to be subject to falsification, then they ought not set standards where Christian beliefs cannot be proven true.
A fourth critique of Hume’s argument is it commits the fallacy of special pleading, a fallacy in which one deliberately ignores aspects unfavorable to his point of view. Hume is basing his argument on his experience, or perhaps the experiences of those he knows. Perhaps there were people in Hume’s time, or even people of the past, whose common experience involved miracles. This is precisely the claim of the early Christians. While Hume is within his rights to speak authoritatively about his own experience, he cannot do so with regard to others. His own uniform experience cannot be used to exclude the testimony of another person’s experience.
Source: http://www.catholic.com/blog/karlo-broussard/should-i-believe-in-miracles
Wellington says
Your premise, Les, which your link provided me an indication of, is built upon an entirely faulty premise, i.e., that of asserting that “uniform experience” was the basis of Hume’s main objection to miracles. But it wasn’t.
Uniform experience is at best an ancillary argument by Hume. Interesting, telling and even damning that the link you provided made this fundamental error. Hume’s main objection to miracles was that, once again here, unless the non-miraculous explanation for an alleged miracle is even more astounding than the miraculous one, then one cannot accept the miracle. Let me illustrate by way of an example or two.
Take the Resurrection of Jesus, certainly a cornerstone of Christian belief. Well, even a second-rate detective could come up with alternative (and purely non-miraculous) explanations. As examples, the body was never placed in the tomb in the first place; there was a secret passage to the tomb; the Roman guards were bribed; the Roman guards were drunk; the Roman guards were both bribed and drunk, etc.
Another: Old Testament prophecies said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Well, how convenient that the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, written in Greek some forty years after Jesus’ death, a man who left no writings and spoke to others in Aramaic, would place his birth in Bethlehem in order to fulfill an OT prophecy. Fact of the matter is we have no idea where or when Jesus was born. He most likely was born somewhere in Galilee in the midst of the reign of Augustus, far away from Jerusalem and its “suburbs,” i.e., Bethlehem.
Les, no matter what miracle from the Bible you proffer, one can proffer an alternative, non-miraculous explanation. No exceptions. And this doesn’t even take into account all the contradictions in the Bible (e.g., Matthew has Jesus born when Herod is still alive but Luke has Jesus born when Cyrinus was Governor of Syria—–trouble is Herod died in 4 B.C. and Cyrinus became Roman Governor of Syria only as of 6 A.D.; yet another example of contradiction in the Bible and just downright sloppiness is that Matthew has Jacob as the father of Joseph, Jesus’ father, but Luke has Heli as the father of Joseph).
It is not my intention to denigrate Christianity. Indeed, as I have asserted many times it and Judaism developed an enlightened ethical system (contra Islam), but said ethical system does not in and of itself prove any theological proposition. And religious assertions, without exception, must rely upon faith and nothing truly approaching verifiable fact.
Les says
Wellington
I’m not accusing you of denigrating Christianity and I do appreciate your kind words for the teaching of Jesus Christ who was prophesied centuries before His arrival and is unprecedented in human history.
But to use physical arguments to deny the existence of the spiritual and miracles is illogical especially since the arguments come from the mind of a mere man like Hume or any man who cannot even explain creation or rational thought.
I wish you well, I look forward to more JW posts and I will never again accuse you of having a loving heart
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
VERY wrong on your side to say that. OR may be it is your IGNORANCE or fixed ideas. The Church the Pope represents is that of Christ THE LORD. This Church of the Lord welcomes ALL people (MUSLIMS, HINDUS, Parsees, Buddists, atheists, agnostics etc. etc.) irrespective of their RELIGIONS or their PAST LIFE.
Why NOT attend a Retreat in THE DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE, or THE SEHIONE RETREAT CENTRE, Kerala, INDIA. In THE DIVINE, you will find a MUSLIM MAULAVI who became MARIO JOSEPH. He is preaching now God’s Word in THE DIVINE.
THE DIVINE has a branch in U.K. : RAMSGATE. Please search on GOOGLE.
gravenimage says
No one here is opposed to Muslims leaving Islam–just the opposite, in fact.
But this is not what Francis is suggesting–instead, he wants to let hordes of violent, conquering Muslims into the West, which endangers not just us but also Muslim apostates.
Kelly says
“but unfortunately, the opposite happened: the Vatican has apologized to the Muslims.”
What apology exactly does this refer to?
gravenimage says
Kelly, did you miss this part of the article?
“I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address … which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,” the Pope told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence. The quote did not “in any way express my personal thoughts. I hope this serves to appease hearts.”
………………….
Certainly, this is an apology.
Lucienne says
Allan says
October 16, 2016 at 7:27 pm
Unreadable claptrap, but nice touch of the
lowercase G in God. snicker. Try harder.
John Marst says
And what does Islamic State, the best and purest of all Muslims, have to say about Pope Dhimmi the First? They are not impressed by his nonsense.
In an issue of their magazine Dabiq, they said the pope “has struggled against reality” to portray Islam as peaceful, and they urged all Muslims to engage in violent jihad.
They also indicated it was utterly deluded to suggest that real Muslims want peace with unbelievers or that economic factors motivate Islamic terrorism.
“The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you,” they have said.
It’s a hideous state of affairs when Islamic State speaks more truthfully that the Vatican. Will the pope finally see more clearly with his head on an Islamic State pole?
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The PROBLEM is NOT outside there or anywhere. It is is WITHIN.
The Problems is WITH The Christian World. The Christians have NOT brought SALVATION in CHRIST THE LORD, “Go out to the WHOLE WORLD and preach the GOOD NEWS…… the Lord had said.
John Marst says
“The PROBLEM is NOT outside there or anywhere. It is is WITHIN.
The Problems is WITH The Christian World.”
Nonsense. The problem is Islam. Muslims will continue the slaughter and persecution regardless of what Christians say, do, or believe.
Nice try, although you do seem to be in step with the dhimmi pope. Why blame others for the misdeeds of others, when you can blame yourself?
Champ says
Indeed, John Marst!
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP has been spreading a lot of nonsense on this thread …
And Thomaspj seems like a genuinely nice person, but he’s *terribly* misguided (spiritually speaking) and his wrongheaded views remind me of this famous phrase …”the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
gravenimage says
It is not Christians who are raping and murdering people all over the world.
That would be Muslims.
somehistory says
John, the Apostle, who sat next to Jesus Christ, who heard His voice, and walked with Him and was inspired to write the Book of Revelation, and John, and 1.2 and 3 John (letters to the faithful Christians and to us today),
said in 2 John 1, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching…Never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”
He was talking about people such as the pope is hugging….and yes, even the guy the moslim is hugging.
They do not “bring this teaching.”
Ernie says
Well said Somehistory . ” They ” do not “bring this teaching” indeed ! And that goes for both “guys” . Thank you .
David says
Mohammed, Mohammed, Mohammed.
Just the name makes me want to vomit.
And now, their teaching their Satanic lies to our own children in public schools!
When will the public WAKE UP ?
Enough of this islamic (really SATANIC ) filth. The creed is dedicated to subvert our Constitution and our Culture.
It’s trying via stealth, to supplant our religion with the Cult of penis worship. I for one WILL NEVER SUBMIT to their filthy lies. They can take their book and shove it right up their own ASSES.
I’ve see the truth. And if I bow my head in prayer to anything, it will NOT BE SATAN, HIS DEMONS, OR THE DEMON ALLAH.
There is one God!
His name is NOT allah,
There were many Prophets!
But none were named mohamed!!!!!!
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
SPITTING venom is not GOOD.
Spreading THE LIGHT the one who said, “I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD” will bring PEACE and SALVATION to ALL.
Mark Swan says
Christ is called the Prince of Peace. Jesus Christ preached peace. Many think that He came to bring peace on earth. But, right up to present times, no true or lasting peace exists on earth. There is only continuous war. Did Christ fail in His mission to bring peace to this world?
Many have read the famous words foretelling the birth of Jesus Christ: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The well-known story of Jesus’ birth tells of the angel announcing the birth of the Savior to the shepherds in the fields. When the announcement was made, a multitude of angels praised God and said, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (Luke 2:14).
Jesus stated in His Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). Christ told His disciples, “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).
What happened? Where is the peace? The world is filled with war. Did Jesus simply fail to deliver peace to the nations?
Most people want peace in the world, yet we do not have it. We spend billions upon billions of dollars for armaments and soldiers and “peace-keeping” forces. Leaders of nations, representatives to the United Nations, educators, politicians and even beauty contestants talk about world peace.
After World War II, in 1945, the United Nations was formed. One of the aims of the United Nations is the achievement of lasting world peace by sponsoring peacekeeping forces and numerous programs aimed at preventing conflict. There is a Security Council, a Committee for Disarmament and International Security, a Peacebuilding Commission, a Disarmament Commission, and programs for peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and even a University for Peace. But there is no peace.
Some think democracy and globalization are the way to world peace. Some think mixing the races, ethnic groups and religions will bring about world peace.
But the history of man shows very few years when the world had a moment of peace. The lulls in war were nothing more than periods of rebuilding and rearming for war. Most of man’s existence on the earth has been a time of warring by individuals, tribes, nations and groups of nations. We live in a world of war.
But many do not know that Christ did not come to bring peace to the earth! In fact, He said we should not think that He came to bring peace on earth! “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Luke 12:51–53). That is the exact opposite of what most people think.
When Christ was born as a flesh and blood human baby, His purpose during that life was not to bring peace to the world. However, He will accomplish that at His Second Coming. The Bible foretells the events leading up to His return when He will establish His kingdom and a Millennium of peace.
The Bible reveals that peace comes from following the laws of God (Psalm 119:165) and that Jesus Christ is going to return to this earth as the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7) to show mankind the way to peace and put an end to war forever (Isaiah 2:2-4).
Seekers of peace need to read the Book that reveals the way to lasting peace.
Obedience to God’s commandments would bring peace and fulfillment and joy to all the nations and peoples of this earth. It is the real answer to all of our problems, individually and collectively. It is the way of life Jesus Christ is going to teach when He returns to rule this world (Micah 4:2).
abad says
Peace as Jesus spoke of it – is a spiritual concept, a state of mind.
Are there be people (Christians) who can hold their own against the growing menace of Islam?
Of course there are. I’m one of them.
Real fear isn’t of Islam; it is the loss of peace – the peace that Jesus spoke of.
Did Jesus speak of hard concepts that even his own disciples could not understand?
Of course He did – and it is clearly documented in the Gospels.
The most important thing I can say here is this:
Regardless of how much time one spends reading the news, or on JW – stepping away from it all is vital for self-preservation. Go outside, go for a walk, appreciate the little things in life.
Do not allow the Islam menace to control you in any manner.
Sure it can be hard at times but guess what – Jesus gave us the tools to deal with these issues.
Let go, let Jesus take care of the rest.
Mark Swan says
abad, I really like what you wrote here, thank you.
Les says
Fantastic post Mark and may God continue to bless you and bring light to those in stubborn or arrogant darkness.
Mark Swan says
Les, I do of course thank You, of course when we have attended a concert we do
not go up and thank the piano, God will always amaze those that love Him, may
He continue to do that for You.
In some religious circles, professing Christians argue that preaching Bible prophecy is irrelevant, or even contrary, to preaching the Gospel message! Bible prophecy may be an interesting topic, they say, but prophecy is not significant to our salvation. Is that true? Many professing Christians believe that the gospel is only about the person of Christ, and they ignore what He preached. So, let’s first of all examine what the author of true Christianity preached. What gospel did Jesus the Messiah preach? Did His message oppose Bible prophecy? Or could it be that the Gospel itself is prophetic?
The gospel writer Matthew describes Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. What gospel did Jesus preach? “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people” (Matthew 4:23). Later in the book of Matthew, we see that Jesus continued to preach the gospel of the kingdom! “Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching [what?] the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matthew 9:35).
So, we see the clear historic record of Jesus’ preaching the gospel, the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel writer Mark further describes the gospel this way: “Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel'” (Mark 1:14–15).
What is this “gospel of the Kingdom of God”? When you read through the New Testament, you will understand through many biblical references and prophecies that Jesus Christ will come again to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.
He said in John 14:3: “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” Yes, the Messiah, Jesus Christ will return to this earth to rule all nations, as Prince of Peace, and as King of kings and Lord of lords! You can read that dramatic announcement in Revelation 11:15!
The gospel of the Kingdom is the good news of the coming Kingdom of God, and how we can have a part in that Kingdom! Let’s understand this truth: the gospel that Jesus preached, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, is prophetic! The gospel is the good news of the future. Therefore, the charge that preaching Bible prophecy is contrary or irrelevant to the gospel, is a false charge.
Again, let’s understand: salvation is a gift, and there are past, present, and future aspects of salvation. Our ultimate salvation is future! It takes place at the resurrection. Be sure to read the resurrection chapters in your Bible: 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. The good news of humanity’s future is revealed throughout the New Testament. Be sure you read the book of Revelation in your Bible—it is the revelation of Jesus Christ, your Savior! The book of Revelation describes our ultimate destiny in the Kingdom and the family of God for all eternity.
The heavenly Jerusalem—the new Jerusalem—comes down to a renewed planet earth. You can read about that in Revelation 21. You and I can be a part of that glorious future! The great Creator God tells us in Revelation 21:7: “He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.”
The good news that Jesus preached, the good news of the coming Kingdom of God, is prophetic. And prophecy reveals that you can be a part of that Kingdom.
We can all be thankful that the living Jesus Christ is now guiding His servants to preach the true Gospel. As Jesus said in 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.”
Thank God for the true gospel of salvation and His coming Kingdom.
mortimer says
Pope Francis needs to let his scholars teach him about Islam. There are many scholars-priests who know Islam perfectly.
It’s time for the knowledgeable scholars to join together and admonish Francis publicly.
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The Pope is exercising THE CHARITY OF CHRIST THE LORD, who said, “LOVE your enemies, pray for them that persecute you….; it is in this way that we become WORTY Children of the FATHER IN HEAVEN.
Dom107 says
This site today needs an injection of rationality as it is full of deluded religious fools too stupid or lazy to think properly. Mr Poopthinker your partial quote shows that you probably live in a free and tolerant western country which allows you to spout such b/s.This freedom was bought with the lives of brave men and women who stand up to the sort of ideologies like you and your pacifist pope(when it suits him) want us to bow the knee to.
You can love Daesch,pray for Daesch etc etc as much as your daft religion tells you but like the old priest in France they will cut your head off given the chance
Brit says
Excellent points.
Mark Swan says
Good point mortimer
Agustinus Daniel says
I am a Catholic and I am sick of this false Pope Francis and all Vatican II doctrines. Since Vatican II, Catholic Church has gone wrong with its ecumenical attitude. They even call we worship the same God with muslims!!!!!
It is wrong and it is a betrayal of the true teachings of The Catholic Church.
abad says
Well maybe Francis worships Allah but like the Bible says no man can serve two masters – in this case, Allah the False God, and Jesus the One True Living God. Allah is just a black rock (idol) in Mecca a rock that is as dead as dead goes.
Tony46 says
Saint Francis of Assisi’s prophecy:
”…….Because in those days, the Lord won’t send to a Church a Shepherd, but a Destroyer”
Evidence in the papers.
Cecilia Ellis says
Tony46, I was unaware of this prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi, my favorite of the canonized saints. After reading your comment, I searched the Internet for more information. Regrettably, I found it. Thank you for posting this.
Tony46 says
He is my favorite too…
It’s a long prophecy but at the end it says what it says.
Thanks.
Matthieu Baudin says
Pope Francis has brought a peculiarly Argentinian perspective to world affairs. His country, like Sweden, sat on the fence during the great moral battle of WW2. Argentina is a country unfamiliar with traditional Islam, a country located on the very edge of the world, trying to keep up with European fashion, but failing to feel its living pulse. The current Pope draws heavily upon fashionable New Left attitudes, the values that helped his country sink into social chaos and civil war. It was hoped that a non European Pontiff would bring with him a closer focus on the lives of Catholics in the developing world, but instead we have an incumbent who reserves his voice for his own pet concerns and has effectively turned his back on his flock in their hour of need.
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
VERY sorry for you.
Steve K says
Benedict was forced out because he wasn’t a PC pope like the current one. While Pope Francis MAY be a catholic, that is not his first religion. His first religion is leftist political correctness.
TBA says
You seem to want the Pope to blurt something out about how violent Islam (clearly) is knowing full well what would happen to the christian nearest when some nutty jihadist gets the memo.
Your beef shouldn’t be with Pope Francis it should be with Google, Clinton, Obama, Podesta, etc.
These are the powerful groups who wield the most influence over western society.
They actively censor the flow of information, look after their own middle eastern financial interests, insist on promoting faux science of man made climate change as the main concern of humanity, keep the average (ill informed) individual in the dark about the reality of their future…
These are the people who should draw your wrath not a man of peace who is looking after his flock by not poking a stick at the always angry dogs of islam. It isn’t like the Pope can mobilize any troops anyway. This isn’t the middle ages.
gravenimage says
The idea that Islam can be appeased is simply incorrect.
The idea we are safer with floods of violent Muslims entering the West is mistaken, as well.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely gravenimage, He is doing more harm than good, and could make a difference, if,
He would just use that bully pulpit, to warn people of Islam and its intent.
gravenimage says
Very true, Mark.
Louis says
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman”.
Under Sharia law, there is no freedom of the press, speech, expression, or religion. Everything from dress to social media is heavily monitored for offenders guilty of insulting Islam. Since everything that disagrees with the Quran, Hadith, and Muslim clerics is an insult to Islam, even preaching a different religion that contradicts what Islam teaches is considered blasphemy, which is punishable by death.
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
The WILL of Christ the Lord for us all Christians is to do the WILL of the FATHER in Heaven as he himself DID. “LOVE…..PRAY” ” Proclaim the GOOD NEWS….”
Mark Swan says
What do you consider the Good News Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP.
gravenimage says
Do you believe that Pope Benedict was wrong to quote the Byzantine Emperor on the true nature of Islam?
f c king says
Bring back the Borgia’s. ( I may have spelled the name wrong, too lazy to look it up. )
I’m not religious, but the Popes of old called for crusades, at least partially because of the advance of the muslim hordes. What happened ?
Not that we really need anymore primitive, tribesmen at all, but why so many muslims, and almost no Christians being taken in here ? Hussein Obama has managed to bring in over 12,000 muslim syrians, impossible to vet, yet only a handful of the Christians, that are being wiped out in all muslim countries.
Michael Dowd says
Perhaps Pope Francis would like to become an Iman so he can have orthodox Catholics whipped.
Benedict says
This Pope is going to rot and burn in hell
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
FOR following Christ the Lord in his Charity and goodness?
billybob says
I well remember the reaction to Ratzinger’s lecture back in 2006. The Muslim mobs were implacable. Back then, I was uninformed about Islam like many of us. It is interesting that even so for me to recall that I did not think what Ratzinger said was so shocking. It was the fact he said it that was shocking, in the sense that in my eyes, it appeared to be a serious blunder on his part. I didn’t like Ratzinger. His “political ineptitude” for me, confirmed my bias against him. In any event, I appreciate the perspective Robert has provided. When I recall the reaction to Ratzinger’s speech, clearly it put Catholics in danger in countries where Muslims have free reign.
So thinking now from the broader perspective, suppose you are the head of a clan of Christians living in, say Mosul or some other territory conquered by ISIS. Suppose you are the current head of the clan, after the previous patriarch or matriarch was killed by the Muslims for saying things about Islam they didn’t like. Worse than that, members of your clan have now become targets for the Muslim mobs. The lives and well being of the clan are your greatest concern. They are all in a very vulnerable position. How do you respond?
I would think the answer to that would be for anyone – at least “prudently”. You would be very careful about what you say. But how far would you go? Would you simply remain silent while from time to time a member of your clan is slaughtered as retribution for what the previous clan ruler had said about Islam? Would you try to make amends so that your people could survive to live another day?
Is the Pope in a position like the clan leader above? I do appreciate it is rather sickening how he is sucking up to Islam. There has to be a better way. Then if you were Pope, how would you handle it?
Michael Poulin says
Pope Pius XII was in much the same position during the Nazi era. Catholics priests were rounded up and executed. Despite this he saved upwards of 80,000 Jews by hiding them, presenting them with false baptismal records etc. Preists such as St Fr Maximillian Kolbe volunteered to be starved to death,taking the place of another prisoner in a Nazi death camp.
gravenimage says
Billybob and Michael, this *might* be apt if Pope Francis were quietly spiriting thousands of Christians out of Dar-al-Islam–but he is not. Instead, he is aiding in bringing millions of Muslims into the West. This is a very different matter.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely, Very Different.
Ali Bey says
Theology is as searching at midnight in a dark cellar a black cat that doesn,t exist. (Stephan A. Heinlein)
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
“Theology” is DOING AWAY with the Word of God by filtering it through SINFUL human intelligence. It makes us all spiritual idiots and relativists. Let us ALL learn to put into practice THE PURE WORD OF GOD and the World will be evangelized. For this WE all NEED to become true APOSTLES of the Lord as it was the case with the PRIMITIVE Church.
Crusades Were Right! says
Pope Francis:
In the style of Comic Store Guy from the Simpsons: “Worst – pope – ever!”
Florida Jim says
Muslims like Progressives, Marxists, Socialist and Nazis always are trying to take over every country they infest. They want to rule the world nation by nation and they are Godless heathens not to be trusted or even listened to.Power, power power is their mantra.
AnneCrockett says
What our latest Nobel laureate might call “corpse evangelists”…
JIMJFOX says
And so many deluded, frightened ‘children of god’ STILL think religion is a good thing.
Astonishing and depressing…
m meyers says
Interesting comments about Catholicism, the Catholic Church is the number one target of Islamists and has been the number one target of fascists throughout history. That is because it has always stood as the bulwark against them and always will, yet they continue to try to destroy it. Pope Francis and the clergy may be misled politically, and as a Catholic I am free to disagree with them on these matters. But the end game is how to get to heaven, and I know that the Pope will never misled us on that one…we have withstood 2000 years and will prevail until Christ comes again. The Muslim god cannot strike us down, and neither will secularists.
Carmel says
In real life which situation is most probable: an employer puting his hand on his boss shoulder or a boss puting his hand on his employee shoulder? The second one . This means persons in higher grade posts can be familiar with an inferior but it is badly seen an inferior grade man or woman to do so.
So if one looks at the photo above , who consider himself the boss? Who consider the other an inferiror in the hierarchy ?
Mark Swan says
Good eye, there, Carmel.
le mouron rouge says
What’s all the fuss about. Why not follow the words of that “great philosopher” John Lennon?
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today… Aha-ah…
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace… You…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world… You…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
Presto, all the problems of the World are instantly solved.
Now, whose turn is it to clean the toilets?
Champ says
Curious to know …
Are “Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP” and “Malcolm (SouthAfria)” the same person?
Probably not. Just wonderin’ …
gravenimage says
I was just wondering the same things, Champ…
killerjools says
We non Catholics aren’t really surprised. This is nothing new. It has its own fantasies from which it claims its authority.
Having said that, it’s fairly clear why the pope is heavily in appeasement mode. It’s because the alternative is full on armed conflict.
Peace is not possible with Islam.
gravenimage says
killerjools wrote:
We non Catholics aren’t really surprised. This is nothing new.
…………………………..
Not really. Pope Benedict was not in such willful denial. And sadly, it is not Catholics who are often in denial about the threat of Islam–many Protestants are, as well.
More:
Having said that, it’s fairly clear why the pope is heavily in appeasement mode. It’s because the alternative is full on armed conflict.
…………………………..
Not really. The Pope acknowledging that Islam is violent is not going to make Islam any more violent than it is now.
After all, pious Muslims beheaded a Priest in France *despite* all of Pope Francis’s appeasement.
Michael Poulin says
Dear Robert Spencer,
.
I was one of the attendees at the Worcester Catholic Men’s conference when McManus dis-invited you. I was severely disappointed that you were not there and angry at the cowardice and foolishness shown by this bishop. He has left thousands ignorant by his actions.
.
I apologize to you for the un-manly behavior of McManus.
.
I want you to know that because of the dis-invite I helped many Catholic men friends of mine to investigate Islam further on their own and to educate themselves.
,
Many traditional Catholics such as myself are simply ignoring the effeminate and foolish men such as McManus and Francis now in leadership positions, who are in way over their heads and not qualified to lead, and quite frankly don’t even believe the Catholic faith.
.
gravenimage says
This is good to hear, Michael. And *you* have nothing to apologize for–any more than does Robert Spencer himself.
Michael Poulin says
Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church
by Steve Ray
https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Tiber-Evangelical-Protestants-Historical/dp/0898705770
Michael Poulin says
Catholic Biblical Apologetics
http://catholicapologetics.org/cabiapbk.htm
Michael Poulin says
Dr Peter Kreeft
http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm
particolor says
Now that all of that is said and done ! I hope he washed his feet, the Pope will want to Kiss Them !!
Michael Poulin says
“God and Science”, Fr. Robert Spitzer S.J.
https://youtu.be/Jj8qUx9Vzns
Peggy says
Angemon says
October 17, 2016 at 6:32 am
Peggy posted:
“How do you know that he is simply a fool and not one of them?”
Do you have any evidence to the contrary that can shed a new light on the issue? Can you read Francis’ mind to know he’s one of “them” (whoever it is that “them” are)?
———————————————-
Angemon, Wellington made a statement and I asked him how he knew that. Are you suggesting that I can’t ask him or anyone a question regarding a statement they make even if as you say I am implying something myself?
Here is what he said.
Wellington says
October 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm
I don’t think it’s THAT bad, abad, about Francis. No Dark Side stuff unless humorously meant.
Francis is simply a fool. An influential and thus harmful fool to be sure, but “merely” a fool nonetheless.
——————————————–
Wellington, as anyone else here has the right to make statements and have opinions. I never said otherwise but for you to jump down my throat for asking him a question about his statement indicates that you believe that he should not be questioned at all.
So please do explain to me how I was out of line.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Angemon, Wellington made a statement and I asked him how he knew that. Are you suggesting that I can’t ask him or anyone a question regarding a statement they make even if as you say I am implying something myself? “
How about you reply to what I actually wrote instead of the strawman you’re trying to create?
“I never said otherwise but for you to jump down my throat”
Which I didn’t. Trying to play the victim much? If anyone here jumped at someone’s throat it was you at Wellington’s. As I said, your question was loaded, so the question becomes: what motivated you to make said loaded question? And look, dual standards – you asking something to Wellington is “asking a question” while me asking you a question is “jumping at your throat”. A shame you don’t place 1/10th of the effort you use to try and play the victim into making cogent points – it would prevent your posts from becoming the borefests of self-indulgent whining and victim playing you are seemingly so fond of.
Peggy says
You are the only one who thinks that asking him how he knows something is a loaded question.
Like I said, my question was never meant to upset anyone and frankly I can’t see how it upsets you except that my mere presence here upsets you. Not playing a victim, just stating a fact.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“You are the only one who thinks”
Oh, you’re a mind reader now? You can tell what everyone here thinks? Is that it? How about you start explaining how you *know* I’m the only one? And please, no nonsense about “oh, there’s no one else saying so” – there are other reasons that can explain why others who see your loaded question for the rubbish it was may not be weighting in on it.
“that asking him how he knows something is a loaded question.”
I’ve explained it several times. That you refuse to admit it won’t change a thing. I’ll just copy/paste from a previous post:
“Like I said, my question was never meant to upset anyone and frankly I can’t see how it upsets you except that my mere presence here upsets you.”
Nonsense. Your question was loaded and nonsensical in context. Asking how Wellington “knew” something he clearly framed as an oppinion was an unwarranted attack on him. Pointing that out is not being “upset”, is, well, pointing a fact.
If anyone here is upset at something it is clearly you, seeing how you are talking about me “harassing” you (without, of course, giving any substance to the accusation).
“ Not playing a victim, just stating a fact.”
Oh, but you *are* playing the victim. You accused me of harassing you. You claim your presence here upsets me. None of that is true, and anyone following our exchange so far will have see no evidence to back your libellous accusations, it’s just you trying to play the victim.
So, Peggy, where’s this harassment you mentioned? You accused me of harassing you, so go ahead – prove it. Unless, of course, nothing I did was actual harassment and you were just trying to play the victim – tossing an accusation around in the hopes of shutting me up, much like the usual suspects toss around “racism” and “islamophobia” to try and silence critics of islam.
Angemon says
“You are the only one who thinks”
Peggy, did you run that by your persona responsible for your October 16, 2016 at 9:13 pm post before posting? Would you say the lack of internal consistence is one of your defining features? Because I’m seeing a lot of instances where you fail to abide by the standards you judge others on. For example, you demanded Wellington to tell you how he “knew” something (even though he clearly framed it as an opinion) but here you are, so very sure that I’m the “only one who thinks” something, something that would require mind-reading over the internet, without even knowing how many people read what I wrote. How do you know that? How do you know what people think?
Michael Poulin says
From Louis Verrecchio: AKA Catholic
Roman Catholic Church v. Francis
THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
v.
JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO aka FRANCIS,
Defendant.
======================================================
CHARGE NO. 1: Heresy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly denies that the state of mortal sin, with specific reference to adultery and fornication, entails the loss of sanctifying grace; even on the part of those who are not ignorant of the demands of the divine law.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation [adultery, fornication] are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.” (Amoris Laetitia 301)
APPLICABLE LAW: Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV:
“In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification [sanctifying grace] is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defendingthe doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins…”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
======================================================
CHARGE NO. 2: Heresy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly denies that divine grace makes all deadly sins avoidable, citing the existence of particular circumstances that do not allow for one to meet the demands of the divine law.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“A subject may know full well the rule [divine law concerning the mortal sins of adultery and fornication], yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” (Amoris Laetitia 301)
APPLICABLE LAW: cf Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV:
“With the help of divine grace, one can refrain from the deadly sins of adultery and fornication.”
APPLICABLE LAW: Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XVIII:
“If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
======================================================
CHARGE NO. 3: Blasphemy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly accuses God of willing mankind to sin.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“It [the conscience of the adulterer / fornicator] can recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it [persistence in adultery / fornication] is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.” (Amoris Laetitia 303)
APPLICABLE LAW: Epistle of Saint James 13:1
“Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
======================================================
CONCLUSION: Jorge Mario Bergoglio aka Francis is a blasphemous heretic; not because any human power says so, but because the Holy Catholic Church, divinely endowed in such way as to teach the truth without error, says so.
May those who are charged with the duty of shepherding souls unto salvation, by the grace of Almighty God, be moved to protect the flock by publicly condemning all of the above mentioned offenses; lest they one day find themselves standing before the just Judge answering for each and every one as if they were their own.
Peggy says
Angemon said:
“Did Wellington claimed anything for sure? Did Wellington claimed he knows what he is? Or is your cringe-worthy KGB impersonation just a petty revenge for a completely different reason – i.e., do you have a grudge against Wellington?”
========================
Asking a question is NOT attacking him and I certainly don’t have anything against Wellington but judging by your angry response over NOTHING you certainly have a huge problem with me to the point of obsession.
What on earth is this KGB impersonation you are talking about?
————————————-
“Or so you say. I guess that you making a loaded question was just a harmless mistake, eh? Well, if that’s the case, I expect you to acknowledge and amend it.”
First of all it wasn’t a loaded question and you should really stop reading into things that are not there.
What you expect from me means nothing to me just like my expectation of you to stop harassing me means nothing to you.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Asking a question is NOT attacking him”
Is is when it is a loaded question, such as “when did you stop beating your wife”. Anyway, here’s what you said about the question I asked you:
Funny how that works; when I ask you something perfectly reasonable I’m “jumping at your throat”, when you ask Wellington a clearly loaded question that implies he claimed to knew something for sure – and on a post where he literally started with “I don’t think it’s THAT bad, abad, about Francis”, thus framing everything he said as his personal view and not as a statement of fact – is not an attack.
Dual standards much?
“and I certainly don’t have anything against Wellington”
Your actions belie your words.
“but judging by your angry response over NOTHING you certainly have a huge problem with me to the point of obsession.”
And the mudslinging begins. Why bother making a case for yourself when you can simply cry “U MAD BRO” and “OMG, OBSESSION!!!”.
“What on earth is this KGB impersonation you are talking about?”
Yours, of course. Was that not clear enough?
“First of all it wasn’t a loaded question”
First of all, it was, And I already explained why. Funny how you ignored that part when deciding what to copy/paste from my post. I wrote, and I quote:
Again, funny how you ignored that. How you willingly chose not to reply to what I said but to pretend I said nothing instead. I explained why it was a loaded question. That you have no rebuttal and instead opt to ignore it is enough evidence to corroborate my induction.
“and you should really stop reading into things that are not there.”
Says the person who, reading a post where Wellington started by making it perfectly clear it was his opinion, decided to go after Wellington with a loaded question, as if he made some sort of statement of fact. Of course, I explained why and how the question was loaded. That you choose to ignore it doesn0t make my explanation any less existent. Or valid.
“What you expect from me means nothing to me just like my expectation of you to stop harassing me means nothing to you.”
And another of your wild accusations. How exactly am I “harassing” you? Is it OK for you to ask Wellington a loaded question but when I ask you about it it suddenly becomes “harassment”?
Are you sure you’re not a muslim or a Democrat? Because that’s the kind of double standards they thrive on to silence critics – make wild accusations and cry “harassment” when called out on it.
Peggy says
Amazing how you can turn a reasonable question into something this big and even accuse me of having KGB tactics.
I understand that you wish it to be so but it’s all in your warped mind.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Amazing how you can turn a reasonable question”
Which it wasn’t, and I’ve explained why. Several times. It was a loaded question along the lines of “have you stopped beating your wife?”. That you refuse to acknowledge it won’t change a thing. And please, go easy on the personal attacks – you’re clearly upset and not thinking straight if you think petty name-calling lends any credence to your claims.
Peggy says
Angemon says
October 19, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Peggy posted:
“Amazing how you can turn a reasonable question”
Which it wasn’t, and I’ve explained why. Several times. It was a loaded question along the lines of “have you stopped beating your wife?”.
==============================
And I am telling you that it wasn’t. It was a question that’s all but if you think that you know better than I do what I mean when asking a question then you are an extremely powerful psychic.
You seem to be the best judge of what people mean when they say anything.
Only someone with extreme anger issues or ill feeling towards another person would turn a question like “How do you know that” into an issue of this proportion and insist that they know that it is a loaded question and there can be no other way.
I have been away from this site for a while now and as soon as I return you are finding something, anything to bash me over the head with.
So I ask you for the last time.
What is loaded about this? How do you know that? That was all I asked and you have accused me of using KGB tactics on Wellington.
Don’t go turning this into something more. That was all I asked so if you are going to address it then address all I said not something you have fabricated.
KGB tactics. How paranoid are you?
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“And I am telling you that it wasn’t”
I already explained, several times, why it was. You can keep saying it wasn’t, but that’s not going to cut it.
“It was a question that’s all ”
A loaded question,a s I have explained. Several times. And you haven’t even tried to rebut it.
“but if you think that you know better than I do what I mean when asking a question then you are an extremely powerful psychic.”
Did I say I was a psychic, extremely powerful or not? No, I didn’t. I expained why your question was loaded. You have yet to rebut it. Going on irrelevant red-herrings won’t change it.
“Only someone with extreme anger issues or ill feeling towards another person would turn a question like “How do you know that” into an issue of this proportion”
Nope. Ad hominems won’t help you. I explained why your question was loaded – Wellington never stated he knew this or that, he framed it as his opinion, and your question implied he tried to pass it as a fact. I don’t see logic and facts on your side to rebut my assertion, only petty personal attacks. Which is ironic because you’re accusing me of anger issues. What would someone with anger issues do: start flaming and insulting other users or calmly use logic and reason to rebut an assertion they disagree with?
“and insist that they know that it is a loaded question and there can be no other way.”
What a gross mischaracterization of my position. I *explained*, several times, why your question was loaded. You have yet to rebut my case – again, irony, since you’re the one arguing that things are what you say they are and there’s no other explanation.
“I have been away from this site for a while now”
Irrelevant.
“and as soon as I return you are finding something, anything to bash me over the head with.”
Paranoid much? And this brings us back to what I said about you playing the victim. I pointed your question was loaded and explained why it was, and here you are, accusing me of trying to “bash you in the head”.
“So I ask you for the last time.
What is loaded about this? ”
For the nth time: Wellington never stated he knew this or that, he framed it as his opinion, and your question implied he passed it as a fact. Why are you still pretending that I never explained this?
“Don’t go turning this into something more.”
Again, irony – you’re turning this into a chance to insult me while accusing me of turning it into… well, whatever “something more” means to you.
“KGB tactics. How paranoid are you?”
Says the person who is seemingly serious about “Satanists who have infiltrated the Vatican “…
Musalmaanmasala says
Ah! gravenimage,
Mohammed IS BETTER than David Hume as he has more followers.
And as usual you have given that statement a spin of your own with “Argumentum ad Populum” when I in no way made any allusions towards that fact.
With you at the helm we will have to close democratic norms and go home.
Please tell me why did Hume write his thoughts if not to influence people to his way of thinking. Was Hume twiddling his thumbs one day and having a brandy when he suddenly got up and wrote his thoughts down.
If that was not the case (as per you) then he was wasting his time. Mohammed was better. He not only made his point known but stuffed it down peoples throats.
I have said it before and say it again you are quite adept at giving certificates to others. Whether I am articulate or not, I do not require or intend a certificate on my intelligence from you.
Your disputing me is welcome and why we are having this debate. As for me “trying to violently coerce” you or anyone else, you must be joking or I assume that is your idea of a joke right?. – its not working.
Kepha says
As a God-bless-King-Billy Protestant, I believe that saving faith is receiving and resting in Jesus Christ and him alone for salvation; not in receiving and resting an institution that claims infallibility and the sole power to dole out divine grace in little tiny bites through a handful of men.
As long as the Spirit of God hovers over the face of our human sea and uses the Gospel of the saving acts of God in Christ to produce faith, there will be a remnant which will not heed the false prophet.
Pope Francis is what Christianity’s cultured despisers desperately want the Christian clergy to be–a good-hearted nebbish who cannot say no. This is why he cannot bring himself to say that Islam is full of falsehood and blasphemy. It is why he is an enabler of that destructive thing called jihad. It is why he chooses to be blind to the centrality of violent jihad to Islam, and to the numerous places where Islam contradicts the Gospel and produces not a shred of evidence save the laziness and ignorance of Christians to justify this contradiction. It is why this Poope faalls for the moral equivalence garbage.
There is a world of difference between Christ’s imperialism which calls for making disciples by teaching, prayer, and all the spiritual weapons of which Paul teaches (and I am certain that the risen and glorified Jesus knew exactly what he was doing when he called the hitherto hostile Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road) on the one hand and the political-military program that is transparently the meaning of jihad in the Qur’an.
This is why, even though there are many Muslim people whom I love, I will not heed a self-styled “Christian” leader who cannot tell where the Gospel ends and Islam’s falsehoods begin. Sure, I can sympathize with the desire of the Poope and his liberalized so-called ‘Protestant” counterparts to be “loving”, but “love” is not a ccontentless term. It is not loving to declare saving truth the equivalent of a not-too-clever spiritual counterfeit.
As we approach the 499th anniversary of Luther’s nailing up the Ninety-five Theses Against the Sale of Indulgences and a like anniversary of Huldreich Zwingli’s decision to preach salvation through Christ alone rather than the sacerdotal system, it seems that the Reformation is more relevant than ever.
Les says
Pope Kepha just spoke like all the protesters who were nothing more than arrogant humanists that despise authority and in their arrogance created anarchy, death and thousands of unbiblical popes. Pope Kepha probably despises the final word from any human authority but understand that the gates of hell and pope Kepha will not prevail his Church
gravenimage says
No one who knows Kepha would *ever* refer to him as an “arrogant humanist”! Assuming he wants to be pope is every bit as absurd.
Far more seriously, though, the idea that it is *opposition* to the horror of Islam–rather than Islam itself–that is causing “anarchy and death” is just ridiculous.
Les says
Gravenimage
Pope Kepha stated:
“As we approach the 499th anniversary of Luther’s nailing up the Ninety-five Theses Against the Sale of Indulgences and a like anniversary of Huldreich Zwingli’s decision to preach salvation through Christ alone rather than the sacerdotal system, it seems that the Reformation is more relevant than ever.”
Luther, Calvin and all the protesters bought into the humanist movement which rejected the scholastics. This arrogance became the fuel for the protesters to rebell against the Church which had as its primary motivation the arrogant rejection of authority of the Church. The church needed reformation at that time but instead of reform the protesters rebelled and deformed Christianity into thousands of churches and all claiming for themselves the sole right of declaring God’s word. Sola scriptura and protesters made themselves their own pope.
The death and destruction I was referring to was from the anarchy created by Luther and all of the protesters.
A house divided will fall and what is relevant today more than ever is to put an end to the trashing of God’s vicar Pope Francis and instead we need to have more humility and an urgent need for Christian unity to stand against a unified and growing surge of Islamism who is laughing at and killing divided Christians.
Michael Poulin says
Some random thoughts: if God is all powerful and all merciful, then how does one explain a baby born with massive birth defects?
There is no good or evil in a purely materialistic worldview. There is no guilt or innocence in a purely materialistic world view. There just is IS. A baby with birth defects feels like an evil tragedy, a cruelness that has no reason. But evolution happens precisely because of suffering and death. Without suffering and death, evolution comes to a screeching halt. So how can a person who holds to a materialist world view say a baby born with birth defects is evil? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it is better that this baby die. It’s just survival of the fittest.
For a person with a spiritual world view why would a good God create such a creature? Again the assumption is suffering is evil. Perhaps this baby’s life is a test for you, to see whether you are man enough to love a baby that others would throw in the trash. Maybe that is God testing you to see if you are even remotely worthy of an eternity of happiness. If God created that living soul, can He not take it back to Himself in any way He want’s ? Maybe the “mistake” of a birth “defect” is only a reflection of your personal values Won’t the innocent baby’s soul be in a state of bliss forever after death ? So what is a few years of suffering compared to eternity? From a Christian spirituality view, did not God Himself suffer and die for you? To satisfy God’s perfect justice would require a perfect sacrifice no?
.
True love it seems is always self-sacrificial. The entire universe seems to operate this way:
Stars had to die in supernovae to make the carbon in your carcass.
A tree in the woods falls and dies so that mushrooms and insects can have a home.
A father labors to provide for his children….
Wellington says
Bottom line: Had you the power to stop a baby being born with massive birth defects and you didn’t, you would rightly be considered heinous. No offense, but all arguments, such as yours, for why an all powerful God “gets off the hook” here have long been looked upon by me as not true arguments but excuses masquerading as arguments——and partially dispositive of my conviction that man most likely created God and not the other way around.
Comforting for many to believe in an all powerful and merciful God who functions in inscrutable ways, but I have long suspected this is a sustaining device to make a brief and often difficult and sometimes even terrible existence more meaningful and palatable. But whether it is true is entirely something else. And if it is true, I have another conviction and that it is that God has a lot to answer for. Besides, if God exists, it’s easy being God. What is really difficult is being human. I mean how can being all perfect be so damn tough? Imagine a bumper sticker that says, “God has it easy.” I’d buy one.
Michael Poulin says
I am not sure how the words “right” and “heinous” have any meaning in a purely materialistic world view. How can a lump of atoms be “good”or “bad.” ? Is a lion “bad” when it kills a gazelle and eats it? How can I be “bad” then if I kill my neighbor and steal his truck if all he is a weaker bag of chemicals than me ? Am I not doing humanity a favor by killing him?
Peggy says
Interesting way of looking at it, but I’d still say that you were bad if you did that.
Wellington says
Your point’s not a bad one, MP, and this is why I have said that if absolute values don’t exist we have to pretend they do. Or, as Voltaire, himself a skeptic, opined, if God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him.
I do think because of the instinct for an entire species to survive, and not just for a member of that species to, a kind of ethics can be based on this. There is also the fact that Homo sapiens is so complex a species that it can actually sympathize and empathize with fellow Homo sapiens and thus this too can serve as a basis for a sound ethical system.
There is no doubt that assuming and believing in a just God does help things along in this regard, i.e., having a proper ethical system, but assuming and believing isn’t proving and that has been the basis of my overall contention here in previous posts.
gravenimage says
Michael Poulin wrote:
How can I be “bad” then if I kill my neighbor and steal his truck if all he is a weaker bag of chemicals than me ? Am I not doing humanity a favor by killing him?
………………………
Michael, many Agnostics and Atheists have a good moral sense. The idea that they all think as you imply above is not the case at all.
Michael Poulin says
I am not questioning anyone here’s personal moral sense, after all we tend to agree jihad is bad. I am simply interested in hearing how an atheist or agnostic arrives at his decision about what is good and bad. Yes I am using an argumentation method of the extremes, but to try to tease out the basis for people’s moral sense. If this basis is simply a subjective idea, then how can we say the jihadi’s subjective idea of “good” is actually bad??
gravenimage says
Michael, I think the influence of Judeo-Christian values is still strong in the West–even among many people who are agnostics or atheists.
Peggy says
Imagine a bumper sticker that says, “God has it easy.” I’d buy one.
==================
Me too.
Ever seen that movie “Bruce almighty”? He thought God had it easy until he became God for a while.
Les says
Wellington.
No God? Man must prove that there is a God?
Man can’t even explain creation and man states that it is mathematically impossible that evolutionary mutations of cells result in man. Can you have infinite regression?
Philosophy has the best arguments for God and Christianity has the best proof. Man has no proof that God doesn’t exist but then again for man to understand the uncreated non contingent creator is like an ant trying to understand man.
Les says
Beautiful words Michael. The Holy Spirit is alive and well with you. May God continue to bless you!
Michael Poulin says
From CFNews:
Archbishop Lefebvre, Islam and the Media
During a gathering of the press in France on November 14, 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre was accused of affirming that “the best [thing] for the Moslems [to do] would be to go back home.”
He added that, in France, the Moslems are going “to impose their laws little by little. Christian law cannot be in accord with Islamic law… Moslems cannot be Catholic, they cannot be truly French. We must not allow them to organize themselves politically or religiously. The construction of mosques is a catastrophe!” Turning towards the journalists, His Grace added: “It will be your wives, your daughters, your children, who will be kidnapped and taken away to hidden living quarters in Casablanca.”
The International League Against Racism and Anti‑Semitism (the LICRA ‑ The French equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union) brought a civil lawsuit against Archbishop Lefebvre, accusing him of racism and defamation with respect to the Moslem community. At the conclusion of the trial, His Grace was cleared of the charge of racism but, as if making a gesture of compromise, he was found guilty of defamation with respect to the Moslem community and fined 5,000 French francs($1,010.). Archbishop Lefebvre has, of course, appealed this iniquitous judgment! He has only to prove that what he said about the kidnapping of white girls for the harems of the Moslems is true. Since this is a public fact there is no defamation whatsoever with respect to the Moslems. On the contrary, it is an extraordinary scandal and a fact which must be published so that people will realize that we are in the midst of a giant struggle between the true religion and Mohammed’s substitute, Islam. It is in the midst of the threat of a Middle Eastern war that we realize who are the true enemies of the Catholic and European civilization, of which we are the heirs. (Archbishop Lefebvre’s statement is below)
Declaration Preliminary to the Court Case of June 21, 1990
Sirs,
Invoking the laws of July 29, 1981, and July 1, 1977, 1 am accused firstly of the crime of provocation to discrimination, to hatred or to racial violence with respect to a group of persons on account of their origin or their belonging to a particular ethnic group, nation, race or religion.
Secondly, of the crime of public defamation with respect to this group… I am supposed to have pronounced these provocative and defamatory words when I held a press conference at the Crillon Hotel on November 14, 1989. I affirm firstly that I did not hold a press conference. I had nothing written and I made no declaration. I only wanted to reply to the journalists’ questions on the occasion of the ceremony for the 60th anniversary of my Priestly Ordination at the Bourget.
You must admit that Moslem immigration had no special reason to be brought up on this occasion. The least one can say is that my reply was not pre‑meditated. I therefore replied very freely, giving my opinion of the danger of Islamic penetration into a country whose Catholic religion is violently rejected and despised by Islam. The Koran, which is the law of Islam, provokes to discrimination, to hatred and to violence. Do not attribute to me that which I denounce.
The proofs of this hatred and of this violence are legion both in the past and in the present.
For as long as Moslems are an insignificant minority in a Christian country they can live in a friendly way, because they follow the laws and customs of the country which accepts them. But as soon as they are numerous and organized they become aggressive and they seek to impose their laws, which are hostile to European civilization. Examples are abundant. Soon they will take charge of our city councils, and will transform our churches into mosques. We will either have to become Moslem, leave the country or become their captives. This is in the profound nature of Islam. It is not I who am racist in denouncing this very racism.
The pretended defamation is only the statement of obvious facts. Kidnapping of white girls is well known to the police and it still exists today. It is not defamation to denounce the kidnappers of our compatriots. It is to call upon justice and demand the protection of our fellow citizens. If you prevent us from crying out against the nefarious consequences of Islam’s penetration of France and Europe, you render yourselves accomplices to the violence committed in the name of the Koran by Islam in our Christian countries. It is they who have undertaken this procedure against us, a procedure which truly shows the fundamental racism of Islam against the French, against the Jews and against every religion which is not Moslem.
It is not I who am racist because I denounce racism. I lived all my life in the midst of other races ‑ thirty years in Africa, among animists and Moslems. There I strove to bring them both spiritual and material goods ‑ schools, hospitals, etc. They showed their gratitude in decorating me as Officer of the Equatorial Star of Gabon and Grand Officer of the National Order of Senegal, and the French government recognized my overseas services by making me Officer of the Legion of Honor.
To condemn me as a racist because I seek to protect my country which is menaced in its very existence and Christian traditions… this would be to use justice for injustice. This would be the justice at the service of executioners whose victims have at most the right to keep quiet and to perish. This would be the summit of injustice.
† Marcel Lefebvre Ecône
May 12, 1990
(Founder of the SSPX)
gravenimage says
Thanks for quoting Archbishop Lefebvre here.
Mark Swan says
Michael Poulin, Marcel Lefebvre Ecône seems to be a true hero. I looked Him up, He died
in 1991 (aged 85).
Michael Poulin says
Yes, it seems the current crop of bishops and cardinals and Popes all hated him, and yet they all still fear him from the grave because he convicts them of their sins.
Mark Swan says
He was a great man in a little world.
Mario simonelli says
If the pope was a true Christiam he would preach Jesus to the muslims and the need for them to repent; for that is the best that Christianity can offer, because Jesus GOSPEL is the message of love. But the pope is not a christian he hasn’t got the courage to be a Christian
Jac says
I actually thought this JW site was for sensible people who shared a common interest in monitoring the (all too often atrocious) activities of those who follow the Islamic religion/culture /ideology, whatever you want to call it; a place to read about the things mainstream media may not wish to report; and somewhere to share genuine (admittedly sometimes tongue in cheek) opinions etc. Having read through all the comments submitted in this particular discussion I now realise this may have been a flawed assumption on my part.
I didn’t realise it was frequented by so many pseudo-intellectuals and religious zealots.
Fascinating to observe but ultimately quite unpleasant due to its overly didactic tone and tedious diatribe, with just the odd voice of reason popping up now and then to lighten the mood.
I do hope all that passion is put to good use in more positive ways than for when sitting behind a computer screen squabbling amongst yourselves.
Mark Swan says
This site is above all else about freedom to express one’s views, now are there
real humans with real thought, feelings, views, beliefs, and opinion—yes—
they express them here, if what they say does not appeal to you, skip past it,
if you wish to add something to it, do so. If you want to tell them what to post,
you will not find much consensus there.
Islam is getting momentous traction, now, because of PC and social monitoring.
Our freedom to express our own views is precious, and being attacked, enjoy it
while you can.
gravenimage says
Jac, passions do tend to run high on threads about religion, and sadly things can occasionally descend into squabbling.
But the great thrust of this site is indeed opposition to Jihad, and posters here seldom get distracted for long.
And fine post, Mark Swan.
Mark Swan says
Fine post Yourself gravenimage, thank You for being You.
gravenimage says
🙂
Mirren10 says
”I actually thought this JW site was for sensible people who shared a common interest in monitoring the (all too often atrocious) activities of those who follow the Islamic religion/culture /ideology, whatever you want to call it; a place to read about the things mainstream media may not wish to report; and somewhere to share genuine (admittedly sometimes tongue in cheek) opinions etc. Having read through all the comments submitted in this particular discussion I now realise this may have been a flawed assumption on my part.
I didn’t realise it was frequented by so many pseudo-intellectuals and religious zealots.”
It would be strange if an article entitled ”The Vatican submits to islam 2006-2016” *didn’t* elicit posts from those religiously inclined. *pseudo* intellectuals ? Where ?
Ali Bey says
Feet-washer Pope will end washing arses sticking up while praying.
Marty says
The problem with most Christian leaders is that they lack the faith of
their forbears
Intelligent & educated Westerners recognise that religions are man made
forms of political control from the pre scientific age.
Accordingly, “faiths” (as we are now meant to call them), are seen
as being like football teams by Christians. May the best team win, we’re
all in the same business etc.
Sadly, mohammedans don’t see it that way.
Christianity, which i quite like, despite being an atheist, is on the way
out & is due to be replaced by aggressive, evil, islam, whose indoctrinated
devotees are taught from birth to exterminate all that is non islamic.
Civilisation’s best hope is that assorted muslim sects will exterminate
each other.
An Iranian atomic bombing of Saudi Arabia would be a good start.
Les says
Marty
So religion is man made and just for political control?
So Atomic bombing is your religion of atheism’s solution?
Please tell us more about your religion of atheism, from what authority does your atheism come from and please tell us what is the religion of atheism’s solution to world peace besides atomic bombing?
Can’t wait.
Brit says
Atheism is not a religion.
Atheists don’t believe in gods for the same reason that you presumably do not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. There is precisely the same amount of evidence for both – zero.
Musalmaanmasala says
Wellington,
Seems like the Bible you are adept at interpreting is written by David Hume. A person who takes his own experiences and tries to ram it down as “Gospel truth” down gullible throats. lol
FYI, In Luke Heli is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matthew 1:16, Jacob was Joseph’s father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow “shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent.
And further FYI Your take on any “second rate detective could come with an alternative (and purely non-miraculous) explanation about the Resurrection of Jesus is so silly that it is laughable.
First: WHERE IS THE BODY.e
Second: Do you know that Roman Guards WERE EXECUTED IF ANY CRUCIFIED PRISONER ESCAPED or WAS SPIRITED AWAY.
Forget getting bribed the guards would have crucified the person who tried it and as for drunk – forget it.
Read the Gospels (the Canonical ones) not the ones by your mentor Hume and you will find out WHAT THE JEWS TILL TODAY are saying about this episode.
Your “second rate detective” now sounds like a refugee from a third rate novel.
And further more FYI the Resurrection is not a cornerstone BUT THE CORNERSTONE OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF.
People much better than Hume (INCLUDING MOHAMMED THE SO CALLED PROPHET) have been trying to destroy this BELIEF & FACT for over 2000 years AND HAVE HADE NO SUCCESS.
And further further more FYI you said “Old Testament prophecies said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem” and then went on to say “He most likely was born somewhere in Galilee in the midst of the reign of Augustus, far away from Jerusalem and its “suburbs,” i.e., Bethlehem.”
There are umpteen prophesies about where the birth of the Christ would take place that are proclaimed and recorded years before Jesus was born.
And further further further more FYI Herod WAS A TITLE not the name of a person. There were many Herods SO WHICH ONE DIED and btw it is Quirinius, St. Luke changed it to Cyrinus and you are right he became Governor of Syria in 6 AD but then no one knows WHEN Jesus was born and certainly not in winter as there would be no sheep on the hillsides bcos of the cold, may be be April but then that is conjecture and not important.
SO SEE NO CONTRADICTIONS.
Wellington says
Quite a screed on your part. Frankly, not very convincing. Sorry.
In no particular order of what you asserted, the Herod mentioned in Matthew was obviously Herod the Great, who reigned from 37 to 4 B.C. It wasn’t Herod Antipas. It certainly wasn’t Herod Agrippa. And so on. Off hand I don’t know of an historian or Biblical scholar who has maintained that the Herod mentioned in Matthew was any other than Herod the Great, an Idumean who was technically Jewish though many Jews saw him for the subservient person to the Romans which he was, although he was a great builder, for instance the magnificent harbor at Caesarea.
As for Jesus being born in Bethlehem, it is irrelevant how many times in the OT it is asserted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Whether one time or a dozen, it doesn’t refute my argument that it was very convenient to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in order to make it look like an OT prophecy came true.
I have functioned under the impression that the Crucifixion was one of three major cornerstones of the Christian faith, the other two being the Resurrection and the Ascension (the last of which the Gospel of Luke in its last lines says it occurred on the very day Jesus rose from the dead while in Acts, first chapter, it says it occurred forty days after the Resurrection). However, if you wish to treat the Crucifixion as THE cornerstone of Christian belief, be my guest, but I believe you will get an argument from many Christians that it is exactly what I said it was, A cornerstone of the Christian faith and not The cornerstone.
Yes, I am quite aware that Roman soldiers could be severely punished for dereliction of duty but nonetheless it happened all the time. Regularly emperors like Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Vespasian had to send out emissaries to check up on Roman military matters, which included making sure dereliction of duties by both officers and enlisted alike did not occur or was at least kept to a minimum. Surprised you don’t know this. In any case, forget Roman soldiers being derelict, other possibilities could have occurred, such as the body never being put in the tomb in the first place. Interesting too that Jesus only appears after his resurrection to those who already believed in him, not to, say, Pilate or Caiaphas or the Sanhedrin en masse. Also, in the early centuries of Christianity there were many Christians, e.g., the Gnostic Christians, who looked upon the Resurrection as being spiritual and symbolic and not literal and physical, but such Christians were ruthlessly stamped out after Constantine became the first Christian Emperor (though as you probably know he didn’t officially convert until he was on his death bed) and endorsed one type of Christianity over all others, as hammered out in the Nicene Creed. And, as they say, the winners get to write the history, in this case the four canonical Gospels (as opposed to suppressed Gospels like those of Thomas, Philip and Mary).
Respecting the “Jacob versus Heli” matter, I will quote for you here from a scholarly edition of the New Testament about just this issue, the edition being the Confraternity Version annotated by one Father Joseph Grispino. In a footnote on page 33 of this version of the NT, Father Grispino writes, ….”there is no satisfactory answer to explain the discrepancy between this text, i.e., Matthew, which makes Jacob the father of Joseph, and Luke 3, 23, which makes Heli the father of Joseph.” Your explanation is plausible and Father Grispino proffers the suggestion that it could be the difference between a father and a stepfather, but you’d think divinely inspired writers would have gotten things less vague from the get-go, now wouldn’t you?
Getting back to the whole Crucifixion story, there are many things that don’t quite fit. For instance, Pilate only becomes aware of Jesus on the very day he sentences him to death, but this makes little sense since Pilate would have been Prefect of Judea approximately four years by the time Jesus is brought to him. Every Governor and Prefect would have had informants. Also, Pilate would have been in regular communication with Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, which chief priest and said body had been after Jesus for some time, and yet he doesn’t know about this preacher, Jesus, who has attracted huge crowds and supposedly performed miracles aplenty, until the day he is brought to him? Hmmm. Then there is what the Romans intended crucifixion for, treason against the Roman state and for slaves who rebelled. It was meant to be brutally painful and the one crucified would take days to die, an agonizing death to be sure. But Jesus dies in three hours. Also, those crucified were left to rot on the cross for weeks. Pilate agreeing to have Jesus taken down the same day he dies is also out of character for a Roman Governor or Prefect. Moreover, those who were crucified were crucified naked, contra every Christian account, artistic or religious. Then there is the whole Barabbas story that seems contrived. There is zero evidence that a Roman official would have ever left off a criminal because of the religious holiday of some people. As many historians have noted, e.g., Michael Grant, the most that might have occurred was to delay punishment and not exculpate it. In fact, the very name, Barabbas smacks of being a contrived one. In Aramaic “bar” means son of, and ‘abba” means father. So this guy’s name was “Son of the Father?” Doubtful at best as, yet again, many scholars have commented.
If you really believe that David Hume tried to ram anything he thought down other persons’ throats, you have an abysmal understanding of the man. He was as gentle, as gracious, as unassuming as a person could be. However, many Christians of his time were not these things towards him. He jokingly said, “I have no enemies except all Christians, all Tories and all Whigs.” Take a little time to learn about this person who had a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament.
I close here by conceding the possibility that what Christians maintained happened actually happened, i.e., the Resurrection et al. But do you concede the possibility that I could be correct and you wrong? Or is this simply not possible? And if you believe you could not possibly be wrong, then what is the point of faith. Doesn’t faith imply there has to be at least some doubt. As David Hume himself shrewdly observed, the only true Christian is a skeptic.
Your turn if you care.
gravenimage says
Wellington, I’m not sure if you saw my reply to TJ on this long, long thread. It is here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/the-vatican-submits-to-islam-2006-2016/comment-page-1#comment-1540022
Wellington says
I did see that, gravenimage, and I thank you for it. It touched my heart to be more specific here.
And Champ’s noting that this Musal guy actually places Mohammed above Hume serves as his single most startling contention——easily so. I should have addressed this too but I didn’t, though I am glad Champ did. Hume may have been wrong, but he was not evil. Mohammed was both wrong AND supremely evil. Mohammed was also a fraud and, though one might disagree with Hume, even vigorously disagree with Hume, there was nothing fraudulent about this first-rate philosopher.
Mark Swan says
Wellington, that is one of the qualities of your comments,
that, you will not go along with someone coloring the facts.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington.
I have always admired your moral sense as much as your intellect.
Les says
Wellington
You should read Trent Horn’s book “Hard Sayings”.
The Church has dealt with your kind of arguments for over 2,000 and she has a superior and reasonable response to your arguments which Trent adressess very nicely.
You make a critical mistake if you do not consider the cultural context of the people when they wrote the Bible, that the Bible has two different senses: the literal sense and spiritual sense and that the Bible was never a book to teach, science, biology, genealogy or geography.
If you would read the Bible in the proper context and from the perspective of an infinite uncreated creator trying to progressively communicate with a finite and limited human being with the primary message of His revelations are for our salvation, then you might find the inerrant and beautiful truth that is in the Bible.
Mark Swan says
Don’t be too sure Wellington, has not made some intelligent observations that God would not commend Him on, for applying the reasoning He was born with.
Have you ever asked yourself these basic questions?
If there is a real God and if the Bible is His inspired revelation to humanity, then we should carefully consider what the Bible clearly says about these questions! For the Bible specifically says: “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV).
Again and again, the Bible clearly shows that most human beings are deceived. Describing the end-times, the Apostle John described the Devil in this manner: ”So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:9).
The more than two billion “Christians” in the major denominations are part of the “whole world” that John described—and many are deceived! These people and their preachers do not intend evil. For a deceived person does not know that he is deceived! It is important that we understand that distinction.
So I am not being “mean” by writing the above, we are now nearing the very end of 6,000 years of human history under the influence of Satan the Devil—whom Jesus Christ called the “ruler of this world” (John 14:30).
You truly think that the form of religion you grew up practicing is what Jesus Christ and the apostles taught. Many ministers and priests also sincerely believe the same things. You mean well.
What you need to realize is that billions of other human beings have lived and died without ever understanding or practicing any type of professing Christianity. The majority of the world’s population has never—at any time—professed Christianity! And most of these people have also been very “sincere”—just as you may be. So it is not a matter of “sincerity” or of following the majority. It is a matter of finding the genuine Truth regarding the purpose of human existence, and finding the true way to fulfill that magnificent purpose.
If you are willing to prove to yourself that the One great Creator is the true God and that the Bible is His inspired revelation to mankind, then you must understand that there is only one way to eternal life. And that “way” is through the true Jesus Christ of the Bible!
This is the ‘stone which was rejected by the builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10–12).
Yet very few professing Christians even begin to grasp the enormity of the deception orchestrated by Satan the Devil. They find it hard to grasp the fact that Satan has not only deceived those in the pagan, non-Christian world, but that he has devised a counterfeit Christianity and has foisted it off on millions who sincerely think they are following the Christ of the Bible!
As the Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians: For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!” (2 Corinthians 11:3–4).
Indeed, another “Jesus”—a totally different Jesus Christ—has been palmed off on an unsuspecting humanity! Seeing the apparent similarities, people are often deceived into accepting the counterfeit. So it is with Satan, the Master Deceiver!
The Apostle Paul was also inspired to tell us that Satan the Devil is the literal “god” of this world’s society! Paul wrote, “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them” (2 Corinthians 4:3–4).
Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day for their hypocrisy. Those ecclesiastical figures made a pretense of being godly, yet refused to follow the spiritual intent of God’s law. Jesus attributed to them Satan’s own character, using the analogy that since their father was Satan, they could only behave “like father, like son.” The Devil lies and murders, so who should be surprised if the Devil’s children do the same, preaching a perverted gospel of deception and falsehood?
As part of his conspiracy to thwart God and overthrow His great plan for mankind, Satan has his own ministers! The Apostle Paul warned Christians about the great deception caused by Satan and his ministers: “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works” (2 Corinthians 11:13–15).
Satan’s ministers often look like and sound like what deceived people think Christ’s ministers should sound like! But they preach “another Jesus” and proclaim a “different gospel.” It is up to each individual—including you!—to genuinely study the Bible and to prove what Jesus and the early apostles taught and practiced.
Later, the Roman Empire assimilated into its system the gods and religions of the countries over which it ruled. Since Babylon was the source of this paganism, we can easily see how Rome’s early religion was a form of Babylonish worship that had developed under different forms and different names in the countries to which it had gone. In his well-documented book, Pagan and Christian Creeds, Edward Carpenter wrote: “The similarity of ancient pagan legends and beliefs with Christian traditions was so great that they excited the attention and undisguised wrath of the early Christian… not knowing how to explain it, they fell back to the theory the devil, centuries before, caused the pagans to adopt certain beliefs and practices” (p. 25).
Carpenter also quoted Tertullian, an early “church father” living between 160–220ad, as saying: “The devil, by the mysteries of his idols, imitates even the main part of the divine mysteries” (ibid.).
Since the practices of today’s churches are not the same as the early true church recorded in the New Testament, it is vital to know whether there has been a purposeful mixing of false pagan practices with the true teachings of Christ, the apostles and the Bible. Many historians, such as Edward Gibbon, have noted the change brought about by great numbers of pagans flocking into the early Christian Church and mixing their pagan customs and beliefs with those of the Church (see Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, chapter 15).
Notice how today’s churches have sprung from the same root as paganism! Satan has created an entire system of “counterfeit Christianity.” He has cleverly guided vain religious leaders to introduce completely pagan ideas, concepts and practices into “Christianity.” Since the word “Christianity” is stamped on the outside of the package, most people assume that the religion of Jesus Christ is being offered. Little do they realize that totally false concepts of God, of Jesus Christ and His message, of the purpose of eternal life and of the way to eternal life—have been wrapped up in a package called “Christianity.” But theirs is a “counterfeit” Christianity that has cut most of mankind off from the true God, and has caused enormous confusion, suffering and death!
Note these excerpts from Pagan and Christian Creeds: “The Christian Church has kept itself severely apart from discussion of heathenism, taking the stand that it, the church, represents a unique and divine revelation and has persuaded mankind of this to such a degree that few people nowadays realize that it has sprung from just the same root as paganism and that it shares by far the most part of its doctrines and rites with the latter” (Carpenter, pp. 11–12).
“The common idea is that the pagan gods fled away at Christ’s coming, yet it is well known to every student that this is contrary to fact. At the time of the recorded appearance of Jesus, and for some centuries before, there were temples without and dedicated to Apollo or Dionysius among the Greeks, or Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persian, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians, and temples dedicated to many other gods.
Carpenter goes on to write: “The idea of God sacrificing His Son for the salvation of the world is so remote and remarkable—yet it ranges through all ancient religion and back to the earliest times and is embodied in their rituals” (ibid., p. 133). These unusual customs were so similar to the truth that they strongly suggest there must have been some guiding force behind them. A counterfeit Christianity was being created by the invisible “god” of this age whom Jesus Christ called the “father” of lies (John 8:44).
Wellington says
For years now, Les, here at JW, I have invoked Thomas Aquinas, who over 700 years ago counseled against treating the Bible as a scientific treatise. In fact doing so is why fundamentalist Christians so quickly look ridiculous often times, for instance on the matter of evolution for which the evidence is voluminous (and in and of itself does not detract rom the majesty of the Judeo-Christian conception of a monotheistic deity). I fully comprehend that the Bible is often to be taken metaphorically. Also, unlike the Koran, it is many times only descriptive rather than always being prescriptive.
As for cultural context, I have always read the Bible while keeping in mind said context. Not doing so quickly leads to all kinds of erroneous conclusions. Indeed, many who claim to read the Bible in its cultural context actually often times don’t do so, for instance not dealing with the last book of the New Testament, Revelations (a very strange book to be sure and one where a person can read into it most anything they want to), in the context in which it was written.
As for reading this or that book, Les, I have spent over fifty years reflecting on religion in general and I a convinced that all are fairy tales (with of course some historicity attached to them) and do not accord with ultimate reality in any significant way. One of them, Islam, is an evil fairy tale, and the others serve, more or less, a constructive purpose in societies with them. Judaism and Christianity are my two favorite religions because they place the greatest emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual and thus work quite well with democratic tenets. I admire the Judeo-Christian ethic, think it a very sound one, though I don’t think the many theological doctrines attending such ethic are true.
As I have written before, I deal in probabilities, not fate or some kind of cosmic design. I think it was probable that mankind would produce some very impressive religions, examples being Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism, but also it was probable, not a given but probable, that mankind would produce a major religion which would be inimical to things like freedom and equality under the law and a true Golden Rule for all. Mankind did. Mankind produced Islam. Damn shame it happened but it happened.
As for my arguments being inferior, may I offer you to tell me yourself why there are superior arguments to mine rather than sending me to some book to read. So many times people here at JW, including well meaning people like yourself, say, oh, you need to read this, that or the other thing. Even I on a rare occasion here at JW have done this (e.g., encouraging those who think JFK was killed by some conspiracy to read Gerald Posner’s work, Case Closed, which very effectively demonstrates that Oswald alone killed the President and that there was no conspiracy of any kind), but I overwhelmingly prefer to argue points myself and expect others to do so. I can tell you that I think I have read all the arguments for why the Bible is the Word of God and I have found none of them convincing. This doesn’t mean I am denigrating the Bible here. I see it as a sophisticated transference from humans to a supposed deity that in turn conveys to humans how to conduct themselves. In short, it is highly useful, BUT it doesn’t prove that any God exists.
Why not yourself hit me with your three best arguments why my arguments are in error. I would be most interested. Give it a shot. And thanks for the exchanges we have had.
Wellington says
No offense, Mark Swan, but I do not believe Satan exists and I think it most probable that God is a legend. It is my conviction that the universe is indifferent to us. And the many horrors that can attend human existence has led man to construct religions, some of them very sophisticated and noble (Islam of course doesn’t make it here) which bring great comfort to those who believe a particular religion is “the true faith.” Such good religions also aid in leading a proper moral life. But it should be kept in mind that believing something is true, even though it is not true, looked at from a psychological standpoint, is as good as though it were true.
As I wrote to Les, I think I have come across all the arguments for the theological truth of this, that or some other religion and I have found none of them convincing. I do wish that every Muslim would wake up tomorrow a devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu because were this to happen the world would be infinitely better off, but this doesn’t translate for me into thinking any of these laudable religions are true in the sense that they accord with ultimate reality.
I enjoy your posts, Mark, here at JW. We certainly are on the same side where Islam is concerned. And I leave you with what two Christian thinkers said. The first is Tertullian who wrote that he believed in Christianity precisely because what it averred is absurd, and the second is Kierkegaard who understood quite well that there is no way of proving God exists and that therefore one must take that leap of faith. Though I respect Tertullian and Kierkegaard’s intellects, I refuse to believe anything that is absurd and I am completely devoid of faith.
Best to your and yours, Mark. Take care.
Mark Swan says
Wellinton
NOVA’s Cold Case JFK, an excellent documentary with a sound scientific conclusion.
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365118537/
Wellington says
The video, it says, is unavailable. Why not just tell me what its thesis is? BTW, I have a deep skepticism of PBS. It very much leans left. For instance, in its Presidents series it presents a sympathetic picture of Carter, even, get this, calling him decisive, but the one on Reagan is a hatchet job.
For the record, I would say just about the biggest myth of the twentieth century is that JFK was killed by some conspiracy. In my view, God, whom I doubt exits, is more probable than that JFK was done in by some conspiracy. Lee Harvey Oswald, a true loser but an excellent marksman (he received the second highest level for marksmanship when in the Marines and any Marine is already an above average shot), alone killed Kennedy. There was no conspiracy. No conspiracy of any kind, whether by the KGB, by Castro, by the Mafia, by the CIA, by the Federal Reserve, et al. None.
Mirren10 says
Hi, Wellington. How much I have enjoyed reading this discussion ! Quite fascinating.
Like you, I am agnostic, and have never yet found any convincing evidence of an all loving deity,.
However, I have never yet found an answer to this: Where does our (humanity’s) desire/demand for fairness, truth, love, preparedness to sacrifice oneself for another, et al, come from ? Must it come from something ? I can’t see it coming from nothing, Dawkins, I believe, states it comes from a simple desire to to prolong and protect the race, but the many cases where people have sacrificed themselves, with no discernible advantage to the human race, seem to me to give the lie to this.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this conundrum.
Wellington says
It’s not an easy one, Mirren, all that you have asked about. Of course if one sees extrinsic purpose by way of a deity, then answers to the conundrum you mentioned come relatively easily (though the Islamic version of the deity is itself not worthy of any true respect, but I digress). Absolutes exist, per the religious, because God exists and so on (though a fascinating query that can be posed to religious people, say Christians, is does God decree something because it is good or is something good because God decrees it—-if the former, then arguably even God is subservient to goodness and this cuts in on His omnipotence; if the latter then it arguably makes God into an entity that is Itself, and only Itself, the determiner of good and bad, which has a faint whiff, at the very least, of tyranny and authoritarianism about it—-but again I digress).
But what if God does not exist? As I asked my students over the decades, is the existence of God a prerequisite for absolute values or can absolute values exist in a Godless universe? Another tough one, no?
Immanuel Kant demonstrated why all the intellectual proofs for the existence of God, however clever (and some were very clever like Anselm’s Ontological Argument), ultimately don’t prove anything because, as he pointed out, existence is not necessarily a category of an idea (I’ve long found this assessment by Kant to be brilliant, simply stunning—–and correct). In one fell swoop Kant destroyed all the intellectual proofs for the existence of God——-and he was mortified in doing so since he believed God does exist. So this is why he came up with the Moral Argument for the existence of God, which, briefly stated, maintains that since at least some people some of the time do good, this implies a higher moral order which could only exist were there a higher power.
This argument is very clever but I have developed two objections to Kant’s thesis by way of indicating why at least some people some of the time will do good. One reason is essentially what Dawkins has said, that it is on our interest to preserve the species, as other species like ants and bees also do, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for the greater good of their ant or bee colony. But I would go further than Dawkins here (and I think he neglected to do so) and add to this that preserving the species is also in the interest of a particular member of a species for purely self-preservation purposes. If one goes around harming or killing one’s neighbors, then there is a very high chance such a person will also be harmed or killed and this acts as a deterrent to terrible, egregious behavior and, arguably, serves as a rudimentary basis for developing an enlightened ethical system. Yes, treat others terribly or ruthlessly and you increase your own chances enormously that you will be harmed as well.
The second objection I have developed to counter Kant’s laudable thesis is rooted in our biochemical complexity, which gives rise to the capacity to sympathize and empathize with fellow human beings. We are so complex a species that at least some of us some of the time can, to a significant extent, and occasionally even to a well articulated extent, comprehend another person’s suffering. Herein lies, I believe, the ultimate non-theistic reason for a decent ethical system, hopefully mirrored by an enlightened legal system infused with such an ethic. In short, there is a nobility about being human that resides in at least some humans. And if we do live in a Godless universe, what a wonderful way to defy the impersonality of a universe that does not care a whit about us.
I don’t often recommend books here at JW, but I would specifically recommend to you a most fascinating work I came across about ten years ago. It is “Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe” by Erik J. Wielenberg, published by Cambridge University Press no less. While I don’t agree with all that this author states, he makes a compelling case for why humans can and should act morally even assuming there is no higher cosmic authority. Worth a read to put it mildly.
In the final analysis, and easy answers aside (and I mean no disrespect to theists who conclude that absolutes exist because a good and gracious God exists, which tends to end therein any further discussion as to why absolutes MAY exist and THUS is indeed an easy answer as well as being a definitive cut-off of further debate), there may be no really good reason why some of us do good at least some of the time. Like so much else in life, existence is wrapped up in mystery for those who wonder why there is life at all. As the great Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, said, the only real question, certainly the ultimate question, is why there is anything rather than nothing? Indeed. All other questions, about ethics or any matter, are beholden to this query, are a subset of this query.
Well, I don’t know that I have satisfactorily answered you, Mirren, but I gave it a shot. And from one agnostic to another, good luck trying to figure out why the hell we’re here in the first place (maybe this very question is irrelevant because there could be no “why”). It used to bother me that I couldn’t figure all this stuff out. Theistic explanations ceased to satisfy me long ago. But no longer am I bothered. I just pop another cold one and watch a football game (meant in an American sense) or a soccer game (I played goalie on my college’s soccer team and it was the only time I lettered in a sport—–still to this day proud of this modest accomplishment). Or I may watch a fine film (btw, have you seen Groundhog Day with Bill Murray?—-it is not only a great comedic film but manages to do something that almost no film, however great and whatever the genre, accomplishes, i.e., it manages to be profound—–and with none of that heavy continental European angst (ugh!) one come across in films by directors like Fellini or Bergman).
Well, enough for now. I have gone on far too long. Always look forward to your eminently sensible posts here at JW and I wish you and yours the best from a guy across the Pond. Take care, my friend. And should you find the time to respond to my comment here I would welcome it most surely. Bye for now.
Mirren10 says
Hi, Wellington, thanks for your response.
What you say makes a lot of sense to me, but only up to a point ! 🙂 But, as you note, the question itself may not have an answer, in that there *is* no answer. (I like your Kantian quote).
I shall certainly try to get the book you recommend, it sounds fascinating.
All the best Wellington, and I concur with your praise of JW, and the posters you’ve mentioned.
By the way, I’ve just been reading C.S. Lewis on Miracles; the bulk of what he says is outside the scope of this discussion, , but he does provide an interesting discussion of Nature versus Supernature, or Naturalism versus Supernaturalism, which I thought had some merit. Have you ever come across it ?
All the best, again.
Mirren10 says
Whilst I was looking on Amazon for the Wielenberg book you recommended, , I came across this, by the same author, which looks like it would an interesting read, although a bit pricey !
God and the Reach of Reason: C. S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell Paperback – 15 Nov 2007
by Erik J. Wielenberg
gravenimage says
Interesting exchange, Mirren and Wellington.
Ayn Rand has the idea–I don’t agree with her on everything, but think she has a very important point here–that when a person sacrifices himself, with the exception of being coerced by a sacrificial creed like Islam, that it is not really a sacrifice at all.
By that I mean that a good person will give his all to uphold his values–in other words, that it is not a sacrifice to fight for one’s values, but is rather an affirmation of one’s most deeply held convictions.
This is something, I think, that can work morally for both agnostics and atheists as well as people of faith.
I know this is true for myself–while I have no desire to sacrifice myself if I do not need to, and hope I would have the courage to do so if I had to, that there are some things that are more important than life itself to me to uphold–and this is true whether there is a deity or an afterlife or not.
Wellington says
:,,,,that there are some things more important than life itself,,,,,’
I agree, gravenimage, but where does this conviction come from? Herein lies a rub that eclipses Hamlet’s rub. And it goes to the essence of what Mirren asked.
If we live in a God created and ordained universe, the answer is relatively easy (and here I would assert that being non-religious and good in a Godless universe is actually more difficult than being religious and good in a God ordained universe——this tends to escape even the most subtle of religious thinkers).
But what if there is no God? Yes, what if? Where does your noble impulse, that you stated, come from? How do you ultimately defend it, more importantly explain it, noble though it is? What is your ultimate source for your conviction, assuming God is a legend and we are alone?
And I would like to end here by extending my deep gratitude that people like you and Mirren regularly post here at JW. And I would additionally extend this encomium to religious people like Les, Mark Swan, Kepha and Champ.
My God, JW is a great site on the Internet for just about the most profound gives and takes I have ever come across on the Internet, not only about Islam, but by about all of life. Islam, of course, should always take front and center attention. No doubt about this since it is inimical to so many good things that both religious and non-religious people can agree upon. But in dealing with Islam it is inevitable on a great site like JW that highly pertinent ancillary issues will come up. And again, for this, kudos to Robert Spencer, who, in my mind, is just about the greatest living American of our time.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Agree about Mr. Spencer.
Wellington when you read and replied to this below, this was to Les in response to
His Post right above it. I was pointing out that your views should not be unexpected by God.
That is why I put it the way I did here below, while starting the religious reply.
“Don’t be too sure Wellington has not made some intelligent observations that God would not commend Him on, for applying the reasoning He was born with.”
I wrote the religion part to show the condition the whole world is in.
My religious posts are to keep things clear with the Bible, for anyone to consider.
I did not expect you to reply to it—but thanks for the reply.
Now on that documentary—I feel it shows scientifically that Lee Harvey Oswald did
shoot the President. I am sure that NOVA “Cold Case JFK” will air again on PBS,
it is logical, you might appreciate it.
You take care Wellington, I consider You a Man of principal and Friend.
Les says
Wellington
Thank you for your responses. I read your response to Mark, Mirren and gravenimage and I too greatly appreciate the discussions but more so I appreciate the civility of the discussion which to me points to a loving God who created us in His likeness.
“As for reading this or that book, Les, I have spent over fifty years reflecting on religion in general and I a convinced that all are fairy tales (with of course some historicity attached to them) and do not accord with ultimate reality in any significant way”.
You also said good luck in trying to find out why we are here in the first place.
I would not give up on this most profound question and dismiss it by saying that you would go for another cold one however I certainly would love to join you for a cold one.
I had previously asked you to explain creation, can there be infinite regression and is it mathmatically possible for a single cell to Evolve by mutatation into a multi cell intelligent human being.
You did not answer but this may be because as you said there is no explanation. And the truth is that man has no answer for this most basic and profound question.
I believe the answer is very simple, there must exist a single uncreated loving God.
God is ipsum esse or the sheer act of being. Devine condescension is needed for God to speak with man. Man has severely limited modes of understanding and expression in trying to describe and understand the unchanging, infinite, immaterial and uncreated creator. But simple reality points to and is still sufficient to explain God.
Detractors try to denounce the existence of God but in doing so they are denying reality. Atheists have no answers for the question why are we here and how did we get here so they try to poke holes in the Bible and Christianity.
God’s creation is still unknown but the more man learns about creation the more it points to a loving God.
So for me, I think reality, the Bible and Christianity have superior arguments and proofs for God and therefore it is up to the detractors to answer how and why did creation begin?
May God continue to bless all of you!
gravenimage says
Wellington, I would still posit that one could argue from rationality. Having such convictions helps us create better and more nearly just societies, as well as better lives for the individual.
Those who argue that it is only reasonable for people to act on their whims and spur-of-the moment desires–let alone an evil creed like Islam–are short-sighted at best. I know I would not act differently, in any case.
But yes–humans–moral ones, in any case–have been wrestling with this for millenia.
And I very much agree with you about Jihad Watch. What I value it most for, of course, is the its strong moral stance against the horrors of Islam.
But–like you–I very much enjoy the frequently high and thoughtful level of dialogue here on a myriad of topics, including this one.
And like you I also very much value posters like Mirren, Les, Mark Swan, Kepha and Champ–and others, like Dumbledore’s Army.
And thank you, Les, for your blessing. Blessings to all good people here, especially Robert Spencer!
Mark Swan says
Here is a very simplistic over view~
We are here because God is reproducing, that is the all importance of Human existence, everything of necessity was done for our existence. What is God’s story,
He limits us to what He is doing with us. He does say he has done everything by knowledge, He is the master scientist. I continually use the term Him, when in fact
They is more appropriate, for now, there are two. The Father, and the Son, the One that emptied Himself and was born as a Human. They have plans for a large family, thus the tremendous universe, which is still expanding as I write this.
When God the Father draws a human to Him, it is Christ who judges that Human, they both join their minds with that Human, through the power called the Holy Spirit, the very power used to do all the things found in the entire universe, it is beyond speculation, and our view is limited to the results it brings about. Christ is the One who judges, and logically so, He lived as a Human, and was tempted, just as we are, but did not sin. Sin is the breaking of God’s law. The penalty for this is death. It would take a perfect being to pay that penalty. They knew before they made humans this would be the way.
Humans like Adam, would choose to teach themselves. All Humans would have chose this, and they knew. So to make it possible for Humans to be forgiven sin, there is why Christ had to be beat unmercifully to heal us of physical sin, and He had to die to heal us of spiritual sin.
For now they are allowing humans time for experimenting with everything, Religion, Government, Education, and everything else. That time is nearly up. The time of Man and Satan’s rule will end. Man will be on the verge of destroying all live on earth, if God did not intervene all life would be destroyed. At that point Christ will return to this earth.
Just like now nearly all Humans who ever lived were not taught by God, they will remain asleep. The ones who were taught and remained faithful until they died, will be resurrected, along with those who were still alive who have been taught and remained faithful, all these will be changed into Spirit Beings, just like God, His real Children will be added to the number with Christ the first born. He will remain their Lord and King.
All the Humans still alive will now be taught by God, during a thousand year period, with Satan taken away. At the end of the thousand year period, all those that lived and died before the thousand year period, will be resurrected, and taught. After this is all
completed, then comes the judgment, of all who learned the truth of God and rejected it. Then no more Humans.
All those who loved the truth, and remained faithful to it, are then in God’s Family, a large and very God Family.
Those who are being taught now, should take everything God says, to heart, now.
gravenimage says
Musalmaanmasala, there is a lot in your post, above.
But what struck me most was your assertion that the “Prophet” Muhammed is better than David Hume.
In what *possible* way was he “better”? Even if you are no fan of the philosophy and work of Hume, he was not a warlord, caravan raider, pedophile, rapist, and mass murderer. I am at a loss as to why you would consider Muhammed better than Hume.
Champ says
Indeed, Graven. I, too, am at a loss, since ‘prophet’ muhammad was probably the most evil man that ever existed—hands down!
gravenimage says
True, Champ.
Les says
Bravo Musalmaanmasala!!
Thomaspj Poovathinkal SSP says
“The Catholic Church’s supine and pollyannish stance in the face of the advancing jihad, and active campaign to mislead Catholics about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, is a moral failure the likes of which have seldom been seen in history, and poses a severe challenge to any claim it makes to moral authority.”
The Church has not only MORAL authority but also SPIRITUAL authority in the case of her own flock. Outside of the FLOCK it is different.Waging WAR is not in her capacity or duty but PROCLAIMING the Word of God is her fundamental DUTY. Listen to the deputy P.M. of Poland, Mr.Jaroslaw Gowin, he says, “The Pope s concerned with your SALVATION. I am concerned with your safety.”
musalmaan says
gravenimage & Champ and Wellington,
This was my post “People much better than Hume (INCLUDING MOHAMMED THE SO CALLED PROPHET) have been trying to destroy this BELIEF & FACT for over 2000 years AND HAVE HAD
NO SUCCESS.”
I said “including Mohammed” and put it in brackets and nowhere did I say Mohammed WAS BETTER than Hume (Maybe he was better than Hume in denying the Crucifixion and Resurrection and getting over a BILLION FOLOWERS to endorse his claim while Hume cannot match these figures apart from a few chaps like you) but one fact remains you’ll seem to be better than Hume in twisting words and expounding “gyaan” to suit your own ends.
gravenimage says
musalmaan wrote:
gravenimage & Champ and Wellington,
This was my post “People much better than Hume (INCLUDING MOHAMMED THE SO CALLED PROPHET) have been trying to destroy this BELIEF & FACT for over 2000 years AND HAVE HAD
NO SUCCESS.”
I said “including Mohammed” and put it in brackets and nowhere did I say Mohammed WAS BETTER than Hume
…………………………….
Um…you said “People much better than Hume (INCLUDING MOHAMMED THE SO CALLED PROPHET)”, which certainly implies that you consider the malignant Mohammed to be better than is Hume.
I suppose it is possible you did not mean this–but then what you did mean is entirely unclear.
More:
(Maybe he was better than Hume in denying the Crucifixion and Resurrection and getting over a BILLION FOLOWERS (sic) to endorse his claim while Hume cannot match these figures apart from a few chaps like you)
…………………………….
The idea that the Champ is denying the Crucifixion is just bizarre. You won’t find a more devout Christian here.
Her considering David Hume to be better than the evil founder of Islam does not mean she necessarily agrees with all of his views.
More:
but one fact remains you’ll seem to be better than Hume in twisting words and expounding “gyaan” to suit your own ends.
…………………………….
I noted that I disagreed that Muhammed was a better person than was David Hume–I don’t see how that is “twisting” knowledge at all.
Hume said, “A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow real poverty”; the “Prophet” Muhammed said, “I have been made victorious through terror”. Compare and contrast….
And perhaps the most salient quote of his here would be this one, “Truth springs from argument amongst friends”.
Wellington says
All that you wrote, gravenimage, seconded. This musal guy is, at best, sloppy and imperious.
And thank you for your October 19th, 2:20 P.M. post above. Most gracious of you to write what you did. And may I say here that I became an admirer of both your moral intelligence and overall intelligence long ago. You possess each in amounts considerably above the average.
Take care, my California friend, from your admirer here in Pennsylvania.
e Musalmaanmasala says
Since you guys are hell bent on twisting my words.
I change my stance and aver that the Mohammed is better than David Hume in that he has more than a billion followers for his clap trap, how many do you say does David Hume has for his (not counting you three stooges)?
Wellington says
That’s your dumbest argument yet, Musal. Might as well claim that Adolf Hitler is better than David Hume because he had far, far more followers than has Hume. When has truth ever depended on the number who believe in it? Jeesh, you have serious defects in your capacity for proper ratiocination.
gravenimage says
e Musalmaanmasala, I am not twisting your words. I asked for a clarification if your meaning was different from the one you appeared to be conveying.
Unfortunately, you did not deign to provide one.
As for arguing from numbers, that is nothing that should be considered valid. Many people have followed the most appalling creeds–Islam, Fascism, hard-core Communism–that does not make Muhammed, or Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, or any other bloody thug “better” than a decent or even morally neutral individual–just more influential.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington. 🙂
Ali Bey says
Although Pope Ratzinger expressed odd opinions as that Inquisition was a progress and that the condemn of Galileo was justified he had the “cojones” of mentioning Miguel Paleologo opinion on Islam.
Musalmaanmasala says
gravenimage, I did reply but if you intend not to see the trees because of the wood then I suggest you invest in a good pair of virtual reality spectacles because it seems you and a few others of your ilk who support each other right or wrong are living in a virtual world far removed from reality.
Mohammed IS BETTER than Hume as he has over a billion followers for his credo while Hume’s following can be counted on ones hands that is not including you.
AND I NOTICE YOU BYPASSING this part of my argument with a flippant “Many people have followed the most appalling creeds–Islam, Fascism, hard-core Communism–that does not make Muhammed, or Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, or any other bloody thug “better” than a decent or even morally neutral individual–just more influential.”
Hume might have not been a thug but his trying to stuff his beliefs down peoples throats by using fancy words and thoughts is a kind of “thuggery” by use of “inte;ligence”
I think a person with over a billion followers IS MORE INFLUENTIAL seeing the mayhem Islam is creating.
gravenimage says
Musalmaanmasala wrote:
gravenimage, I did reply but if you intend not to see the trees because of the wood then I suggest you invest in a good pair of virtual reality spectacles because it seems you and a few others of your ilk who support each other right or wrong are living in a virtual world far removed from reality.
……………………………
Actually, Musalmaanmasala, I *never* support anyone “right or wrong”. I always endeavor to act ethically, and that includes addressing the ideas and actions even of friends and colleagues if necessary.
More:
Mohammed IS BETTER than Hume as he has over a billion followers for his credo while Hume’s following can be counted on ones hands that is not including you.
……………………………
Numbers have nothing to do with sound morals. This argument only works if you merely appeal to numbers.
This is, in fact, an ancient logical fallacy: “Argumentum ad Populum”, or arguing from popularity.
In this case, one could make an argument for the horrors of Islam being just fine, because “1.6 billion Muslims can’t be wrong”. I doubt you actually believe that.
And no–while I consider David Hume a *far* better person than the vicious “Prophet” Muhammed, I am not a particular follower of his. I think he made some good points, and also made some definite errors. This is different from promulgating a creed–as did the vile warlord Muhammed–that is evil in almost all its particulars.
More:
AND I NOTICE YOU BYPASSING this part of my argument with a flippant “Many people have followed the most appalling creeds–Islam, Fascism, hard-core Communism–that does not make Muhammed, or Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, or any other bloody thug “better” than a decent or even morally neutral individual–just more influential.”
……………………………
There is nothing whatsoever flippant about this–I am merely showing you the end result of your argument from popularity. A popular idea *may* be good and true–or it may be superficial, or it may be entirely evil–that is the whole problem. An idea’s being popular tells you nothing about that idea–except that it is popular.
More:
Hume might have not been a thug but his trying to stuff his beliefs down peoples throats by using fancy words and thoughts is a kind of “thuggery” by use of “inte;ligence”
……………………………
There is no ‘thuggery of intelligence’. Hume never tried to coerce people to accept his ideas–nor, to my knowledge, have any of those who were impressed with his ideas.
You yourself are quite articulate–if not consistently logical–but I do not feel you are thus somehow trying to violently coerce me or anyone else here.
More:
I think a person with over a billion followers IS MORE INFLUENTIAL seeing the mayhem Islam is creating.
……………………………
Well, this certainly true. But “influential” is in no way a synonym for “better”. That Muhammed was influential–and that his vile ideas remain so to this day–is a simple acknowledgement of fact.
Hence considering these ideas “better” is very much a value judgment–and that I very much dispute.
Musalmaanmasala says
Gravenimage,
I thank you for all the “gyaan”. Youi call me “articulate” Wellington calls me “imperious”. Thanks but no thanks. I do not require any certificates on my intelligence from 2 characters hell bent on trying to peddle their thoughts to people who know better.
David Hume did not one day put down this brandy and write his thesis because he did not want to influence people to his way of thinking. What a loser – he wasted his time, energy and money writing something he did not want anyone to follow.
Am I right gravenimage thats the understanding I get from you and then you play safe by saying “I am not a particular follower of his”.
Your “Argumentum ad Populum” took the cake. If that is the case then all Democratic Governments will have to close shop and follow either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Russia.
You are basically trying to harp on my statement “Mohammed was better than David Hume”. I still stick by it.
Mohammed made his point of view and stuffed it down peoples throats and got himself over a billion followers (right or wrong is not the point here – you are arguing from that perspective or atleast trying your best). Hume too tried to do the same type of thuggery – but intelligently – very few botught it. He just could not emulate Mohammed.
As for trying to “violently coerce you or anyone else”, you are joking right? Good. – The jokes on you for you penchant of labelling people.