 |
|
|
|
 Taking a page from Princess Diana's playbook, Pope Francis has taken the papacy into the streets.
July 14th, 2013
12:25 AM ET
Is Pope Francis the Catholic Princess Diana?By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)–It was a shipwreck of African migrants off the coast of Lampedusa, a small island in the Mediterranean, that spurred Pope Francis into action. In the past 18 months more than 500 people have died, or gone missing at sea, trying to escape Africa. The world barely noticed. Standing on Lampedusa on Monday, Francis prayed for the victims and cast a wreath in the water to commemorate the dead. More importantly, he drew attention to the desperate plight of migrants, in his country and around the world. “We have fallen into a globalization of indifference,” Francis said, as he stood near an altar made from the salvage of shipwrecks.
The pope wore purple – a color that symbolizes penance in Catholicism - and prayed that world leaders who ignored the plight of migrants might be forgiven. “The fact he wore purple and asking for forgiveness was very powerful,” Christopher M. Bellitto a church historian and Associate Professor at Kean University said. “This is a guy that socks you in the gut and touches your heart.” It was his first trip outside of Rome since Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was elected in March as the head of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. And it showed how quickly he is learning to shine the megawatt spotlight of his popular papacy on issues dear to his heart. There are obvious differences between a Catholic pontiff and a princess. But watching Francis’ first few months in office, it’s hard not to notice that he seems to have taken a page from the late Princess Diana’s playbook. The Princess of Wales knew where she went, the media followed. Her activism brought global attention to homelessness, HIV/AIDs, and, most prominently, land mines. Just as Diana ventured far from Buckingham Palace to wrap her arms around landmine victims in Africa and elsewhere, Pope Francis has taken the papacy out of the the Sistine Chapel and into the streets. Through acts such as embracing a child with cerebral palsy, washing the feet of juvenile delinquents and celebrating Mass on a migrant island, Francis is using the power of his celebrity to bring media attention to dark forgotten corners of the world. Spiritual life requires more than meditating and reading books, Francis says. Catholics and other people of faith don’t need a “refresher course” to “touch the living God,” he said. “All we have to do is go out onto the street.” Taking it to the Streets The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Canadian priest close to the Vatican, said the pope had wanted to go to Lampedusa with just a small group, flying commercial. “There was a simplicity to this that is not normally given to papal visits.” But challenging messages come with the pope’s simple style. While Francis was praying at the harbor, a tweet was sent from his @Pontifex account: “We pray for a heart which will embrace immigrants. God will judge us upon how we have treated the most needy.” [tweet 354180232221171712 hide_media='true'] The tweet was a 140-character shot across the bow at global leaders wrestling with immigration, most notably in Europe and the United States, said Rosica. “I think he was giving a very clear signal to many countries, including the United States, about its outreach to refugees and all the blocks that are put it,” Rosica said. “He’s not just speaking as Jorge Bergoglio; he’s speaking as the leader of the Catholic Church addressing the world.” The world has taken notice. Italian Vanity Fair named him “Man of the Year” this month in a cover story calling him “Pope Courage.” In the article, rock star Elton John called Francis “a miracle of humility in a era of vanity.” John hasn’t been the only non-Catholic to sing the pope’s praises. “It’s time to admit it; Pope Francis is kind of Awesome,” Stephen Marche, an atheist, wrote in Esquire Magazine’s website last week. Despite his popularity, Francis continues to live in at Casa Santa Marta, the Vatican hotel, instead of the opulent papal apartment. He prefers to drive through St. Peter’s Square to greet the masses in an open-topped Jeep instead of the bulletproof bubble. Last week he said that priests shouldn’t drive fancy cars. After his speech, Francis visited the Vatican garage to inspect his own fleet, according to The Associated Press. During Mass on July 3 at Casa Santa Marta Francis explained why he has been so hands-on, so insistent on greeting the disabled, the poor, the refugee, and the prisoner. "The body of your wounded brother, because he is hungry, because he is thirsty, because he is naked, because it is humiliated, because he is a slave, because he's in jail, because he is in the hospital. Those are the wounds of Jesus today,” he said. Setting up charities to solve society’s problems is not enough, he said. Catholics and other believers have to get their hands dirty. “We need to touch the wounds of Jesus, we must caress the wounds of Jesus, we need to bind the wounds of Jesus with tenderness, we have to kiss the wounds of Jesus, and this literally.” Big preparations for Brazil World Youth Day, which will be held in Brazil later this month, has the potential to show the full measure of the new pope’s popularity. Brazil is home to the world’s largest Catholic population, but in the past 10 years the church has been steadily losing ground to evangelical churches. Some 60,000 volunteers have signed up to help for the weeklong pilgrimage the week of July 22, 2013. Events include an opening Mass on Copacabana beach for pilgrims, Catholic DJs spinning records at a beach festival, and a final Mass that is open to the public at a giant field west of the city. Benjamin Paz Vernal, director of communications for World Youth Day communications said for the week they have ordered 4 million hosts for Holy Communion. Paz Vernal said site where the final Mass will be held is 2 1/2 times bigger than that of the last World Youth Day in 2011. At that Mass, Spain’s National Police estimated the crowd was 1.5 million people. The pope will be busy in Brazil: and it’s a typical itinerary for Francis. He will visit a drug rehabilitation hospital, a Marian shrine, hear confessions from young inmates, and tour a slum in Rio de Janiero that the Vatican notes was “recently pacified.” But what everyone will be watching is what is not what on the itinerary from a pope who seems to relish improvisation. “I’ve utterly given up trying to figure out what he’s going to do,” said the Rev. Paddy Gilger a newly ordained Jesuit priest who runs the website “The Jesuit Post.” In Francis he sees a pope unafraid to push the boundaries and keep his minders – as well as the media - on their toes. “It’s very Jesuit: whatever it takes,” Gilger said. “He’s unafraid to use any tool he can to share the gospel. If it wasn’t so sincere it’d be very manipulative.” Back to the clown Masses? Francis’ style is not without critics, most notably in his approach to worship. When he first stepped out on the balcony to meet the world as pope, Francis wore a simple iron cross instead of one made from gold. The throne of St. Peter has literally been stripped of its jewels and the brocaded papal cape left with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. In its place: a simple white cassock. “Benedict, in his relatively short papacy of eight years, worked very hard to bring back a lot of things that were identified with Catholicism. With the Vatican it was splendor, it was dignity,” Kenneth Wolfe a writer for traditionalist Catholic publications such as Rorate Caeli. “Francis is more of a … American Protestant,” he said with a sigh. “Not in beliefs but in demeanor and approach to religion. Dressing as one of the people.” The pope’s trip to Lampedusa was charitable, Wolfe said, but the Mass there summed up what Wolfe dislikes about Francis. “The Mass was pretty much a joke. I mean to have an altar made out of a boat, a wooded chalice, a lectern that had a ship’s steering wheel on it and altar girls?” he said. “It resembles the clown Masses of the 1960s. It’s not a serious way to present liturgy.” After the Second Vatican Council, Latin was dropped from the Masses in favor of local languages, opening the door for a host of new hymns and practices, some of which traditionalists derisively refer to as “clown Masses.” And, as Wolfe notes, it also opened the door for Masses that featured actual clowns. “I would be lying if I said I hadn’t seen a little disgruntledness,” Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with the Catholic Association said about the response to Pope Francis. But the distaste is limited and mostly concerns matters of liturgy, according to McGuire. “The overwhelming response has been positive,” she said. The path forward When he returns to the Vatican after World Youth Day, the new pope will finally have some down time, the Vatican said. But Francis still has an ambitious to-do list – and no one expects the 76-year-old to slow down. In fact, he’s already pledged to reform everything from the Vatican bank to the Curia, the professional staff at the Vatican. Monsignor Kevin Irwin, a theology professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington, offered some insight into why the pope has been so busy. “The clock is ticking. He’s got one lung. You’d better do it now.”
Next entry »Behold, the six types of atheists
« Previous entryTwitter theme: Zimmerman will face a higher Judge
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Pope Francis is really doing everything that he can to make the world a better place. He is such a good man. He is a symbol of hopefor many. I hope that he will do many great deeds and live long in this world.
Including real estate, the Catholic Church is worth trillions, easily the wealthiest organization on the planet. If he wanted to make the world a better place (from his own, leftist economic position, not my conservative one), he could sell off all their assets and end global poverty in one fell swoop.
The pope does not have that kind of power. Read about the hierarchy of the catholic church.
are you sure?
Papal infallibility? If he says it, surely they have to do it?
You can double check, but I beilive a group of bishops have the real power.
They probably do, most of them probably being trained accountants. I'm just saying, if there isn't Papal infallability, get rid of the doctrine.
I neglect to see how selling land would end poverty, someone will always make the least and be considered as poor, but, if the church's mission is solely to end poverty then it would fail to be the church.
Remember it is about spreading the gospel and proclaiming truth for all soles to enter heaven, not just those that may lack a few resources.
And then six months later, the poor would be poor again. I'm sorry Dave but you can't be taken seriously.
Ah, but who said I wish to be taken seriously? And how do you know? Let the church take the risk.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Sorry
They will lose it a drop at a time.
It is a Ponzi scheme. They ALWAYS collapse.
Most drops these day go towards paying legal bills and compensation for child s,ex offences.
The question isn't whether the Catholic curch can do good. It certainly can and has and I believe this pope might improve work on some valuable causes. The issue is whether it can do more good than harm. The catastrophic economic and environmental consequences of the anti-birth control, anti-abortion and anti-condom movements in developing countries are so far gone that it would be nearly impossible ever to make up for the damage the church's lobbying has already done. To create an economic disaster and then act as if you are helping by trying to feed a population now several generations out of control is delusional at best and borders on evil. If you don't understand basic demographic and economic realities, stay out of the 'helping' business.
Saraswati
Very true, and I agree it is NOT from ignorance (of which they have plenty) but for immoral intent.
Lets call a spade a spade, they are evil. literally in the biblical sense of the word.
A good pope, a good human being, would admit to the world that the bible is fiction. I would never call him a "good man" for continuing the delusion otherwise. As far as I am concerned, he is a monster.
Goodness has nothing to do with susceptibility to superst.itious belief.
Sara, I think the Church would say it's the catastrophic consequences of rampant promiscuity, disregard for the santiity of life, exploitation of workers and the poor. You're just upset because the Church won't adopt you're feminists bandaids but offers a response to the root problems instead.
"You’re just upset because the Church won’t adopt you’re feminists bandaids but offers a response to the root problems instead."
If they are part of the problem, their "solutions" are the band-aid. "Have more kids because we want to populate the church."
And that is the ONLY reason for the "no birth control" edict.
Grow up, Bill.
@Bill,
"Sara, I think the Church would say it's the catastrophic consequences of rampant promiscuity, disregard for the santiity of life, exploitation of workers and the poor. You're just upset because the Church won't adopt you're feminists bandaids but offers a response to the root problems instead."
Don't ever assume you know what upsets me or anyone else. Are you calling birth control a feminist bandaid? Do you really think that's the only group that supports birth control? And exactly what other ideas do you think I have regarding development in poor couontries? Please tell me because you seem to think you know. A heads up that I've done graduate work in both international economics and demography so I do have some very definite ideas, but I want to hear your guesses as to what you in your arrogance are assuming those are.
Well, perhaps you only seem upset. I should admit that I don't know what drives your call for the church to abandon the well reasoned philosophy it promotes and embrace the exact polar opposite. I'm old enough to recall that when "the pill" first hit the scene, liberals announced that it would seexually liberate women from the consequences of pregnancy and usher in an era of equality where women could freely express themselves just like men did. They called it feminism or seexual liberation or some such. You seem to operate from that platform so it would only make sense to you that people who support the idea of seexual responsibility within marriage would be an obstruction to the advancement of your social vision. It may surprise and you may even scoff but there are people, some of whom initially embraced the promise of seexual liberation, who think that traditional marriage, fidelity and even chastiity are more valid responses to the world wide epidemics of overpopulation, disease and poverty. We call it Catholicism.
You might have the beginnings of an argument there if the Catholic church hadn't been actively fighting against distributing condoms to married couples.
I don't see what being married has to do with it. Whenever teh abortion issue comes up, some wit always talks about the sanctiity of sperm. The truth is that theologically, the Church holds just that tenet. That the procreative powers of men and women are unique, God given, particular and divine. We've created a culture that treats seex as a sport of conquest and an extreme pleasure addiction. The consequences of which, I think you and I are in agreement about. My solutions entail are reset of values and behavior. Your solution include externally and artificially applied prophylactics which do not address the root causes. That root being the value we place on ourselves as agents of creativity with obligations to both our spouses and our neighbors.
Sex sometimes end in pregnancy. Sometimes, pregnancy is undesired. Expecting people not to have sex because it may end in an undesired pregnancy is Never. Going. To. Happen.
The best solution, given that celibacy isn't a choice for much of the sexually active people residing in this world, in contraceptives.
I have the feeling that, if people were suddenly to support celibacy en masse, even the married ones within the RCC, the RCC wouldn't like that, much, either; they would come up with some interesting dogma, I suspect.
Akira, you can suspect what you like. My comment to Sara was to illustrate that the programs she chides the Church for not accepting are antiithetical to the beliefs of the Church. At the same time, the Church offers teachings, which are successfully followed by millions on millions, that address the issues without the superimposition of artificial, corporate band aids. Is there another descriptor for something you put over a wound rather than treating the cause?
My goodness, Bill, aren't you the snarky one today?
Let me rephrase what I said: in talking to the RCC clergy over the years, the biggest reason for their being against BC is exactly what Geri stated before: it goes against the "be fruitful and multiply" dogma. And I was told this in the early 60's, by my parents, AND the parish priests. Now, admittedly, this isn't a very popular mindset, and they may have changed what they told people later on, but this is, in fact, what they were putting out in the 60's, in my area, at least.
@Bill, you state that the teachings are followed by millions and millions, which is likely true but still notably (and thankfully) represents a small subset of the world's Catholics. Most of the world's Catholics of childbearing age use 'artificial' birth control, which is the only reason the wealthier countries haven't fallen subject to the environmental and economic rav.ages that those who don't have access (in large part due to Catholic lobbying) have suffered in many of the world's poorest countries.
Not trying to be snarky Akira. Just pointing out that your suspiicions are not really justifiable. I think you possibly suffer from.,what a lot of folks do, which is an improper teaching on the doctrines of the Church. I blame your parents as well as any priest that told you that, presuming they did. It was probably out of laziness from not wanting to learn or explain the depth of the doctrine. But at this point, I would hold you accountable for accepting something your parents and an old priest told you without doing the work yourself to understand why the Church teaches what it does. The fall out is that you reject the Church based on a falsehood and not out of an accurate understanding of the doctrine because it's just easier and requires no thought. When you project your suspiicions about the motives of other people based on bad information and lack of education, I think you are deliberately confounding the issues when you are really just doing what you've been trained to do.
Sara, the fact that millions adhere to the teachings of the Church doesn't make it right any more than the fact that some ignore it makes it wrong. I only use the example of people accepting the teaching to show that the methods are utilitarian. I suspect we will always find self professed Catholics who reject some teachings ala carte. But that is not what you argued for. You argued for the Church itself to reframe its position and that isn't likely to happen. It specifically will not happen towards the direction you suggest for just the reasons I've stated
And at this point, I think it is unlikely that any view that dissents from your personal indoctrination is going to be taken very seriously by you.
I called several people after I spoke with you last re: why the RCC started the edict on birth control. I called, in addition to my MIL, (an 80-yo woman who puts YOU in the shade when it comes to being a devout Catholic) her Monsignor, and two different Deacons from two different churches. The Monsignor himself said: "long explanation short: to propagate the Catholic Church."
Now, you will turn this onto me and my supposed ignorance of the RCC, as you have already done. So be it. And you can also pat yourself on you back and proclaim that you know ever so much more than the Monsignor does. So be it. And you can blame my parents and Harvey the Rabbit for my supposed "ignorance." So be it. But the reasons that started the whole ball of wax rollin is that when the ban on contraceptives was first instigated, it was to propagate the Church.
What they say TODAY is totally different, which you have repeatedly stated.
My whole "if everybody practiced celibacy, the RCC would chance it's dogma" was supposition. The rest of it is FACT.
And when I asked the good Monsignor if that is what is taught today, he said "no, of course not. The rise of the pill made the Church teach differently." He also invited me to take some classes to learn what they teach today, as opposed to back then. I politely declined, as I had my answer: it was first adopted to propagate the Church.
Now, I suppose you would think that you are more learned in the RCC doctrine that the man who dedicated his entire life to God, and that is your right.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, Bill.
"Hold me accountable", lol. Whatever, Bill. Your condescending manner in dismissing everything I said is one reason why people may not find engaging you a worthwhile endeavor.
So, I am done.
It appears while Bill gives great value to his statements, most on here do not. If Bill does offer value here it is in the form of a chuckle.
The Catholic public relations department is working overtime these days!
Yes
They are suppressing any reference to the deviant behavior of the clergy.
It seems the truth is no longer PC, and all we can be permitted to hear is how benevolent this Pope is
Hmmm... seems the thread I was involved with earlier has disappeared. Why?
Perhaps an act of God! 🙂
I would guess it's the hand of Daniel, but this piece is by Eric Marrapodi.
Hmmm.... there were no personal attacks on either side that I know of. Strange.
Ironic actually. but both "positions" they individually hold are demeaning to the masses, obsolete and out of place in both democracy and modernity.
Kings and Queens, Popes and other forms of Court Jesters were obsolete a thousand years ago.
Time to sweep histories trash into the recycle bin.
Agreed. Let me grab the broom.
Well, I'll come out in favor of this pope. It is entertaining to watch this fellow embarrass his gilded, jewel-encrusted fellows by reminding them that poverty and humility are in their mission statement somewhere.
Tom
Surprising naiveté my friend
History teaches us the truth after time. Granted this guys PR machine is better than the Nazi's was, but he is still the Pope, the head of a corrupt criminal organization that is one step removed from the other Mafioso's we have known.
When one is the best of the worst, one is still one of the worst.
I agree that it is probably the most corrupt institution ever created (it surpasses others that were more frankly evil by its longevity), but they do know how to put on a show.
Only for the new members of this blog:
Francis and Diana? Hmmm, the only similarity is that both forgot the "first things first" principle.
Diana should have put the royal family in its rightful place, the myth pile. She did not and therefore we still have this family conning the British and rest of us with their divine right absurdity to the tune of millions of dollars in support each year directly or indirectly with the expenditures of tourist dollars.
And Francis, he continues the absurdity of Christianity to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars wasted each year on pomp and circu-mstance.
Romney i dont wanna be a theolegian.
I only want to do as Jesus said.."Love GOD with all your heart and your Neighbor as yourself".
IF start analysing word by word we wont reach anywhere.See the Bible as the messaeges of Love from the God the father.
No. I believe in no ancient angry gods.
You said belief is a choice. Can YOU believe in a pink elephant in your yard if you "just try hard enough" ?
No.
Au Contraire !!!
As with all NT passages, Mark 12 : 31 (.....love thy neighbor) has been thoroughly analyzed for historic authenticity by many contemporary NT scholars and has been classified as being historically nil.
For example:
"Professor Gerd Luedemann [Jesus, 85f] suggests that Mark was handing on the tradition he had received without any significant change, but he sees the two fold summary of the law as a reductionist and anti-cultic development from the early Christian community, rather than as a saying of Jesus:
The historical yield of the tradition is nil, since it is firmly rooted in the community and is to be derived from its needs. This community has detached itself from the temple cult and justifies this with reference to 'Jesus.' Moreover at another point Jesus gives a completely new definition of the term neighbor (see on Luke 10.30-37).
See also: http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb201.html
Dear Romney,Do you Belive in Jesus.Or Are you wating for the Father to draw you to Jesus
Neither.
They are figments.
I believe in Zeus.
Dear Friends,
We all got a choice to Belive in God.For belivers all things are happening today what is mentioned in Bible.Make a choice.If you sit in the comfortzone you wont understand what Pope Francis Or Belivers doing..Go to the street,see the poor people.speak to them.Since you have all the three time food & everything you may not understand it..You know able pray is gift from God.In your mind if you can say God thank you for giving me today,thank you for my parents,friends.If you have a loving parents,how they loved you when you are small.Same way God loves us Allways.To understand this we Have to have the innocence of small child..Thank God for Today for this moment that we are alive ..Make a Choice ...
Wring. No one who seriously does not believe has a "choice" to believe. Are you saying your god is SO dumb, she would know if some was just *saying* they believe if they don't. You Jesus said "No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him", and "Many are called but FEW are chosen". You need to study you Bible a little, before you make a fool of yourself.
The world has always been in turmoil. Now it just gets more press coverage.
I don't believe in god simply because there is no evidence to show that any god exists. I was raised to be honest. I can't force myself to believe in a myth, not even a myth that pervades the society in which I live. I certainly can't force myself to believe in a myth because of the empty threat of "you'll be sorry if you don't".
You don't know what to believe because you have "no evidence".
You have Paul as he's about to die, writing his last letter, soon to be executed, and he told you the truth. That's not good enough?
Show me a video of a god making a rock.
You got nothing.
No, it is you that has nothing.
I have first hand, second hand, and third hand eye witness accounts of God interacting with people and doing what he does. To you, they are a long list of zeros. To me, they are lottery wins, so many of them, can't even comprehend them all. But they are there and I'm satisfied just with what God said, that he is God. All the rest was added in, all the more saying and showing that he is who he said he is. I have no reason to doubt God and never will have any reason to doubt him. That is something that can never change.
The type that is impossible to change, wallpaper obvious, where are all the friends? Thought there were more of them... songs of last summer.
Why do people forget God? I can't imagine it.
@show me
Can you tell us of a few of these eyewitness accounts?
Yes.
1st hand – 2 Tim 4:6
Paul is about to be executed, and he doesn't fail to tell his own son to stay strong with God. If it was all a lie and he's about to die, and wants his son to prosper, why not tell him tips about how to dupe people? Right to the end Paul is going with Jesus, rather than his upbringing, the high priests that had Jesus put to death.
3rd hand – John 20:19-29
John describes the others telling Thomas that they saw Jesus appear after he rose from the dead, but Thomas doesn't believe them because he wasn't in the room to see Jesus appear. He said he had to see it for himself... so Jesus appeared.
Show Me: That's circular reasoning. You can't use the only book that tells those stories to defend those stories. Outside of the buybull there is no evidence that those people even existed, let alone spoke a word.
So using these examples we can deduce that all manner of things happen and exist, yes?
Elves really can cast magic spells because an eyewitness in a book said they saw an elf cast spells?
Lots of things happen, that God does. The bible is true and wallpaper obvious.
The bible is a collection of scriptures. Multiple. It is not a single work. "outside the bible" spans a large number of scriptures all pretty much saying the same thing. In the case of Paul's letter to his son, he's going to his death, and saying his last words. You think he was a liar, or a non-existant person, I think he was a man offering what ever last things he could to help his son... with the truth of God.
We both got what we wanted out of Paul's letter to his son. I got the truth, you got a lie.
If the word is supposedly perfect, how can one get a lie and the other get truth?
Nope. You still got nothing.
1. None of those texts were written actually by the eyewitnesses. None.
Any scholar knows that. You obviously have never taken ONE course on the Bible.
2. It was an age of "pious fraud." Lying for the Lord was considered as perfectly acceptable. There was no word in Hebrew for "historical accuracy". The Romans at the time were arguing (see Tacitus) what that even meant.
"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'." Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus
"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result." St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)
Was Saint Paul a liar? Looks like it. "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" St. Paul, Romans 3.7.
Anything written that ended up in the Bible is circular and no evidence of any sort. You need extra Biblical evidence. The Bible is belief statements by believers about what they already believed. It would NEVER be admitted as objective evidence in any court or any science text or journal.
You got nothing.
Belief... faith... what ever you believe about it, is what it becomes to you.
That's why Jesus said their faith had made them whole. If they didn't believe, they're calling God a liar and nothing would happen.
It's like a huge filter... sorting through...
Of course faith is a "mind-filter." That's why muslims aren't Christians. What moron ever said that nothing produced a rock?!? That would be stupid. Rocks come from the elements which come from big star explosions. Certainly not the "lesser lights" stars barely mentioned in the genesis account where a big, invisible sky wizard chants magic spells, but the super-massive dynamos of the cosmos.
The Koran has better examples. Mohamad moved a mountain in front of hundreds of people. Why don't you research that, and convert to Islam?
Paul was God's man who trashed marriage. He said that people shouldn't get married but since they couldn't control their lust, they needed to.
After numerous requests, no one has shown that nothing can form anything, even a simple rock. There are entire planets, solar systems, galaxies, and even the universe left for nothing to form, and it can't even form a rock. I'm not impressed.
God formed everything, so I believe him regardless.
I would guess that Paul thought they could end up executed and getting married could also slow them down on the road.
Mohammed denied Jesus dying for our sins and makes Gabriel out to be a liar because of this. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and offer love instead, even to enemies, but Mohammed wanted followers to seek revenge (revenge is owned by God), and to chop off unbeliever's heads, while Jesus said to turn and walk away if they didn't believe. Mohammed is not even a consideration.
It's not a game of miracles, who has what... they're done by God, they're his in the first place. Any credit for what God does, goes to him. His name is glorified, it doesn't matter who said what as long as he's given credit for whatever he wants to do, and has done... such as forming everything in the universe... the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did that, and he sent Jesus, his only begotten son, to die for others sins that believe him and repent of their sins... and do God's will.
All of you would be better off believing him, if you don't already. Way better off.
Paul's letters indicate that some guy calling himself Paul wrote letters. His personal belief is no more proof of god than is yours. Anecdotal accounts can be a starting point for looking for evidence, but they prove nothing in and of themselves.
Belief in Allah is why Muslim men flew planes in towers. Yup. Belief. That's all you need. Yes indeedy.
The next time you have a heart attack will you just pray, and believe that will cure you ? Nope.
YOU will use science. If YOU were in prison, and DNA, (which proves Evolution is true) could get you out would you use it ? Yes. YOU believe in science and evolution.
You and others miss the point made. To me, what Paul wrote is a letter to his son, I believe him. What he said matches what I know about someone that would write a letter when they're about to die. They'd say the important things, things with real meaning, like holding on to their faith in God and trying their best to help others while they have time, that he had no regrets in fighting the good fight, maybe not the best person doing such. But you don't want to believe him, so his letter becomes "made up". It's like that over and over again.
If someone today told you 75 times God interacted with them, and that even then they lost count, you wouldn't believe them anymore than you believe Paul. Reasons given are the same, you didn't see it first hand, so they have to have lied, Paul or anyone else. It never changes, they're always liars to you.
I knew God was right based purely on what he said in the bible. I searched and didn't have an eye towards disproving him, but of proving him right, and each time, he was right. In some cases, awe inspiringly right, purely based on words he said through prophets, angels, Jesus, the apostles... the list goes on and on. It is hard for me to fathom that you see those very same instances as reasons to doubt, but you do. You see the exact opposite that I do, because what you want is the opposite of what I want. I want the truth, you want a lie.
You got what you wanted, so did I.
You could have found this in any religion. The biggest ones all have a lot of the same messages.
Why choose christianity?
You'd know if you proved God right.
Time advances...
Show me...,
David Koresh wrote a letter before he died - in fact he wrote a manifesto. He was interviewed live on TV, Radio and in newspapers - right in front of our faces. Would you be a follower of his, then? Was he lying? Or was he nuts? I think that all of the Heaven's Gate folks wrote letters. I wouldn't be surprised if many of "Allah's" suicide bombers wrote letters too.
(Paul of Tarsus had a son? Really?)
2 Tim 1:1-2 "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."
It's possible Paul is referring to Tim as being his son through the Holy Spirit, and if so, again the claim he's lying is bogus. That's Paul's letter before execution, so he's being about as honest as someone can be given he's about to meet his maker.
False messiahs and such were warned of by Jesus.
God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all still there, the bible accounts are valid, even today.
Cancer – Joni's Journey: Part 1
Part 1: “Breast cancer always happened to other women, not me,” says Joni Eareckson Tada. “Forty-five ...
Was there a point to that ? Anyone can plagiarize the work of others.
"Part 1: “Breast cancer always happened to other women, not me,” says Joni Eareckson Tada. “Forty-five years of living in a wheelchair provided enough challenges, without thinking of cancer.” All that changed in June 2010 when Joni was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer.
This powerful 56 minute episode (broken into two parts) traces Joni’s fierce battle against this dreaded disease. Also included are four special features highlighting an intimate interview with Joni and Ken, as well as the latest in cancer treatments. “I want to pass on the amazing insights I learned through my struggle,” says Joni. If you are battling cancer or know a friend or family member who is, this episode is for you!
This program was made possible by the generous support of our friends at Regency Lighting and an anonymous donation in honor of Judy Butler.
Related DVD: Cancer: Joni’s Journey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FHSZn3uWXW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TU3W64Fa25Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0ENzQcjrM
Insulting Stephen Hawking only shows your insecurity with your own intelligence. As all your posts consist of spamming lame christian music, I'd say you have every reason to be insecure.
Posting YouTube videos is beyond lame.
"We pray for a heart which will embrace immigrants. God will judge us upon how we have treated the most needy."
Show me any evidence that any prayer ever uttered has been answered in affected the outcome of any event in the history of the world.
why?
Open the bible, read about people praying to God and miracles happening. Notice that 1/3rd of the population believes it centuries later.
Show me evidence,
Show me evidence that God came from nothing and then created everything from nothing.
Prayer refutes, if it works, the omniscience of a god. Either it knew what it was going to do in the first place, or it didn't.
If it changes it's mind, it proves it did not really know what it was going to do, AND it proves that the god REQUIRES space/time, and NEEDS to operate in a dimension in which it supposedly created.
No one has ever shown proof that nothing forms anything. Why not?
God has always existed and always will.
God can easily know what we'll do and for sure knows what he himself will do.
Not because you say so.
Saying "gods always existed" makes no sense. That means they always existed, along with spacetime ?
Who created the time they "always" existed in ?
It means the fundamental nature of Reality was not created by your "creator of all things".
Gods don't "know" anything. "knowing" is a projected human activity. How do you know what humans do is what gods do. You don't. You're guessing, and projecting. Wishful thinking. You NEED there to be a god, or else you have no explanation for anything, and your world falls apart. It's a psychological crutch. (And don't even start with the ancient desert dwellers, who knew NOTHING more than you do, with the "created in his image" stuff).
"Eye witnesses to what gods did " LOL
There were none around to see what she was up to during creation, BEFORE she created Adam and Eve.
Maybe you better stop pointing people to dumb old books.
BTW take Physics 101, if you can even get into a college to take it. Physicists have proven there is no such thing as "nothing" in this universe. You have no idea what exists in other universes. There really is no such thing as "nothing".
See Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing". Nothing is a quaint idea cooked up by humans who had no clue what exists in the tiny realm.
Still waiting for nothing to form a rock, or any eye witnesses saying it.
I don't expect you'll produce any witnesses, because no one ever has in the past. The only witnesses there are are the one saying God did what he did, and they were willing to die over it. You can't find a witness even willing to say it, let alone die over it.
The reason they call it nothing, is because that is what it is, nothing. Nothing doesn't do anything. Everyone but atheists, knows this. Atheists OTOH, describe all kinds of amazing feats to nothing, when if you ask them to prove it, they remain silent.... you for instance are silent when asked to prove your assertions.
When I'm asked, I point people back to the bible where eye witnesses describe what God did. You rejecting that for nothing, is what you wanted, you didn't want the truth, you wanted nothing.
Rodents for Romney
"Eye witnesses to what gods did " LOL
There were none around to see what she was up to during creation, BEFORE she created Adam and Eve.
Maybe you better stop pointing people to dumb old books.
BTW take Physics 101, if you can even get into a college to take it. Physicists have proven there is no such thing as "nothing" in this universe. You have no idea what exists in other universes. There really is no such thing as "nothing".
See Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing". Nothing is a quaint idea cooked up by humans who had no clue what exists in the tiny realm.
There is no such thing as "nothing" Take a Physics class, (after you get your GED).
Looks to me like you just denied your 'nothing god' exists. You apparently base this on measurement noise, rather than any matter forming from nothing.
I don't know if I can get a GED. Learning about nothing forming things when no one has ever proven that, seems like a waste of time when I have all the answers in the bible. What grade did God have to pass to form the universe? Did he take PHY 101?
When the apostles went up on the mountain with Jesus and saw, as in saw, like seeing, watching Jesus and two others there with him, do you think Jesus had to take PHY 101 to be part of that? Do you think God cares about whether or not someone takes PHY 101 or gets a GED?
I'm guessing the original poster is a poe, a troll, or someone who flunked science class. Multiple times.
Show me evidence,
"God has always existed and always will." – Christians
"Matter always existed and then the big bang happened" – some atheists.
So no winner here.
You appear to be giving up on proving that nothing forms anything. Not surprising given that it's always been this way. Your 'nothing god' is a waste of time and thought.
Contrast that with the bible accounts where witness after witness testified that God formed things and did things, talked to them, and showed them things. God predicted future events and told them things that would happen to them, and others, and some, their past, such as Jesus telling the woman at the well. God's words are sufficient to prove him as being the creator of the universe, including us, and that he sent Jesus Christ of Nazareth to die and raise again the third day for our sins, if we repent, believe him, and do God's will.
Quantum fluctuations, and virtual particles. Something from nothing. Happens so many times a second, no one could count. Too bad. You lose.
@ Rodents for Romney
"Quantum fluctuations, and virtual particles. Something from nothing. Happens so many times a second, no one could count. Too bad. You lose."
And where did you get your information? You read it somewhere? Somebody told you? You believed the source? So where your source’s proof and evidence? Do you believe everything you hear or read? I think evolution’s theories are just as preposterous as you think the Bible is.
Prove it, show a rock forming from nothing. If you can't do that, you have nothing.
You also avoid the obvious, there are no eye witnesses saying these:
– nothing formed a rock in front of me
– nothing told me what I'd do in the future
– nothing said what I'd done in the past
– nothing opened up the earth and the disbelievers vanished within it
– etc...
Something else, the gospels described what happened to those that "lied" then. The high priests had Jesus put to death because they felt he was lying about God, that he was sent by the devil, or of the devil based on what he was saying. That's how they felt, death if someone lied about things of God.
If someone lied about God... death.
The bible is filled with people describing events concerning God's interactions. They described those in a historical record held by a country that would put someone to death if they were thought to be lying about it. The bible just by this, is true. And it's one of many markers that give away the truth within it.
Don't be so infantile. "Forming a rock" ? What are you, like 2 ?
1. The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive, (Relativity, Uncertainy, the Math of Dirac). I realize that stuff is WAY over your pea brain, but nonetheless it refutes you 100%. What is logical to human brains, has been proven NOT to be the universe works. So much for your stupid rock.
2. YOU do not decided who has and who does not "have nothing".
You have no eye witnesses in the Bible. If you think you do, it simply proves you have never ever taken even ONE Biblical Studies class. No scholar agrees with that crap. And you cannot quote one. Obviously YOU are not one.
The high priests did nothing. The trial was a made up story . NO JEW EVER was tried on Passover weekend. NOT ONE. WHy does one gospel say he was silent, and one says he gave a speech ? One is lying.
If he even existed, Jesus was executed by standing order, (in the Pax Romana), because he was a trouble maker, in the temple. There was NO trial. He was a Galilean peasant. NO Galilean peasant EVER got a trial before Roman aristocrats. EVER. They were summarily executed. Every word of the Bible is political propaganda. Very very little of it is true. and you cannot prove a word of it is true.
The high priests captured him the night before the passover started and Pilate was forced by them to decide to have him put to death the morning prior to the start of the passover that evening, or they'd rile the people up all the more and Pilate would be in pretty deep, real quick.
It's so accuate, that bible is like precision technology from thousands of years ago... 'cuz it's from God.
Kenneth Wolf sounds like a German Jew....and you can't trust him. Wolf has a lot of nerve calling Mass said on alter
made from a boat by Pope Francis a joke. I guess Wolf likes Pope Benedict because he is a German Jew. Wolf is
satanic and will go to Hell.
Ted Sakhleh,
Why be so bitter about issues beyond one's ability or desire to wantonly do something about such issues? I am a lowlife upon our nation's totem poles. I live upon the handshake within socialism's net of securities as do the many who are intellectually insecure and emotionally restrained...
Two useless people
K Wolfe's comments are offensive to Catholics who believe the Mass is sacred because in the Eucharist we recognize the real presence. No Mass celebrated by the pope should be viewed as a joke because of the style of cross or altar. The hubris in those quotes is off the charts.
No Jew would EVER even think about drinking blood.
It was an abomination to even touch it.
It you have insane beliefs, you cannot complain when they are called out as such.
I'll try not to be too offensive here, but can you see how utterly ridiculous transubstantiation is to a rational mind?
They say the "substance" is changed.
The concept is a Greek pre-scientific one.
There is no "substance" of anything actually apart from the atoms and molecules.
There is not a shred of evidence that bread is in anyway changed into anything, after majic words.
Dawkins and Cardinal Pell had a great argument about this in their debate in Australia.
Pell lost very badly.
Actually they got the whole "Eucharist" idea from Mithrism, and the Greek mystery cults.
They needed to compete. Guess what was a hot-bed of Mithraism ?
Tarsus.
Go figure.
If you accept paper currency, then perhaps you should accept transubstantiation, wingnut.
Diana was probably the most pointless human being in history to achieve global fame. Think about it. Who else of her recognition is as pointless as she was?
Paris Hilton
Maybe not global, but it's hard to keep Snooki off any "pointless" list.
What will make a difference is if the rich share the poverty of poor rather than the poor share the richness of the rich
How about I just keep my money and the poor can either stay poor or actually get up off their asses and do something with their lives.
Sorry Dave,
I know of folks who are destitute and became poor due the U.S's economic conditions. Many folks I know are homeless and living day to day upon food charities at food banks and church handouts while living in tents. Calling a person lazy for not being able to find work is a copout and also there are many folks with mental disabilities/challenges unable to function in any workplace let alone live out their life without social help. May God give comfort to our needy folks who seem to be the forgotten ones...
Yeah, those starving kids are lazier than hell.
lionlylamb2013
Judica
I promise you, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for all those poor children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdofmoYcJNE
I know, we can allow the wingnuts to keep their money. We just print more money and devalue rather than tax what they have. We take care of the poor and let the wingnuts rot in their McCastles.
See video above.
All money is ours. You watch cartoons. We'll keep your money.
Exactly, although I'll keep my money whilst simultaneously watching cartoons.
Hello Deol,
It is my opinion that many folks who are well off give a percentage amount to charities but the richer then rich seem to be an uncle scrooge with their ungodly share of wealth. Do you feel that the Pope himself gives his fair share to charities?
How much does a Pope even earn??
That's a good question to consider Akira! I for one do not know the answer. Anyone here know?
Does anyone here care?
Did the Pope really affirm quack faith healer 'john of god' to Knighthood in the Order of St Gregory the Great????
A fake medium who pretends that the spirits of dead heal people. This is either a bizarre story or a lie. There must be big money involved for this lie.
http://lakishajj.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/faith-healer-medium-john-of-god-honoured-by-pope/
This will make a fantastic newspaper story!!! Complete with photos.
Interesting comparing a Pope to a Princess – both fake positions. I liked Diana as a person not as a Princess. As for the Pope his fake position is causing a lot of grief suffering and ignorance. Part of being human is knowing we become our own sovereign, sacred, spiritual beings. The Pope should facilitate everyone getting in touch with this truth rather than taking advantage of ignorance and fear. The Pope keeps people dependent rather than teaching independence and responsibility for self. No wonder we are all kept in this childish state. Take a look around the world. Children with bombs, children using drugs and poisons no matter what the consequences. We have to grow up.
Darlene:
I dare you to go out and do what the pope is doing quietly, without seeking fanfare, and never to tell a soul you have done it. You will accomplish a lot more than ranting on a CNN forum.
I'll respect Francis when he tell his sheep that they should use birth control if they cannot afford to support a future child.
Hello jazzy guitar man,
I am in your corner when it comes to potential parents that are not financially capable to support another human child...
Jennifer is apparently writing a script for a movie. Or pimping her website. You decide.
I wonder if this is brother owner Jennifer Ann Weatherstone who was accused of employing a 14 year old runaway. This story mentions her name as well as the name of Juanita Nielsen.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/child-prostitution-claims-a-set-up-claims-sydney-brothel-madame-jennifer-ann-weatherstone/story-e6frg6n6-1226674505898
(that's brothel, not brother)
I’ll respect the pope more when he does more than just hugs victims and fires, no, when he makes sure pedophile priests are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. (Even at that I will still not be respecting him a whole lot.)
Darlene, your last comment was interesting. "Children with bombs, children using drugs and poisons no matter what the consequences. We have to grow up." Isn't Pope Francis shining a bright light on this issue and encouraging us to take action? His example of going directly to those in need and humbling himself before them is an example we should all follow. I don't see how you can state "As for the Pope his fake position is causing a lot of grief suffering and ignorance". I believe you're the one suffering in self imposed ignorance. I'll keep you in my prayers.
KG tell us again how much money MT raised for your church, and how many world class hospital;s were built with the money in India? maybe some of those millions could be used to assist the refugees?
Ditto!
Here I was hoping the papacy was in a car accident.
They were! Did you bring your fork?