 |
|
|
|
|
May 22nd, 2014
07:04 PM ET
Pope Francis in the Holy Land: 5 things to knowBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - So, a rabbi, a sheikh and a pope travel to the Holy Land… It might sound like the start of a trite joke, but it’s actually the entourage for one of the most highly anticipated papal trips in recent history. As Pope Francis heads to Jordan, Bethlehem and Jerusalem this weekend, he’s bringing along two old friends from Argentina: Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who co-wrote a book with the Pope, and Sheikh Omar Abboud, who leads Argentina’s Muslim community. The Vatican says it’s the first time that a pope’s official entourage has included interfaith leaders. In a region roiled by competing religious and political visions, Francis’ chosen companions communicate an unmistakable message, church officials said. “It’s highly symbolic, of course,” said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office. “But it also sends a pragmatic message to Muslims, Christians and Jews that it’s possible to work together - not as a system of checks and balances but as friends.” The visit to the Holy Land is the first for Francis as leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and just the fourth for any pontiff in the modern era. With so much at stake - the stalled negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the plight of Christian refugees - the Pope’s every word, gesture and photo-op will be microscopically examined. Already, some conservative Israelis are advocating against the Pope’s visit, scrawling anti-Christian graffiti on Catholic buildings in Jerusalem and planning protests outside papal events in Jerusalem. While the protesters form a fringe minority, they underscore the tensions that simmer around the Pope’s short but substantial trip. With those challenges in mind, here are five key things to pay particular attention to. 1. The Pope’s schedule makes Rick Steves look lazy. It’s a good thing the 77-year-old pontiff rested up this week. Francis will be traveling to three cities, shaking hands with dozens of religious and political leaders, celebrating several Catholic Masses and delivering at least 13 speeches and homilies – all in less than 36 hours. In Jordan, the Pope will meet with King Abdullah II, greet refugees from Iraq and Syria, celebrate Mass and visit the Jordan River, where many Christians believe Jesus was baptized. Crowds welcome Pope Francis to Jordan at start of Holy Land trip In Jerusalem, the Pope will meet the city’s grand mufti and chief rabbis, visit the Western Wall and Yad Vashem (a memorial to the Holocaust), lay a wreath on the grave of the founder of modern Zionism, and sign a joint declaration with the head of Eastern Orthodox Christians. He’ll also confer with Israel’s Prime Minister and President, chat with Catholic seminarians and celebrate Mass at the site of the Last Supper. Got all that? “I’m amazed at what they are trying to do in such a short amount of time,” Rosica said. 2. The Pope says the trip is religious, not political. Francis has called the reasons behind his Holy Land excursion “strictly religious.” Earlier, he had described it as a “pilgrimage for prayer.” Perhaps the popular pontiff was trying to tamp down expectations that his visit could solve the region’s seemingly intractable political problems. But the trip does have religious roots, church officials say. At the Pope’s installation in 2013, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of some 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, invited Francis to Jerusalem to mark the 50th anniversary of a historic meeting between their predecessors. “It’s hard to understand now what a breakthrough that meeting was,” said the Rev. Alexander Karloutsos, an Eastern Orthodox priest who is helping organize part of the Pope's trip. At the time, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the world’s two largest Christian communities, weren’t even on speaking terms, said Karloutsos. Marriages celebrated in one church would not be recognized by the other. On Sunday, Francis and Bartholomew will sign a joint declaration outlining common principles and a potential path forward to greater unity. “These people don’t sign things lightly,” Karloutsos said. “This is a very substantial document.” Francis and Bartholomew also will celebrate a joint religious service at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Sunday, the first time the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic leaders have held such a service in 50 years, according to Karloutsos. 3. The ‘people’s Pope’ will strike again He has celebrated Masses for migrants who drowned while trying to sail to Europe, visited Brazil’s most dangerous neighborhoods and welcomed homeless men in Rome to his birthday party. In the Holy Land, Pope Francis is again expected to draw the world’s attention to the poor and downtrodden; he has refused to travel, as most leaders do in the Middle East, in an armored car. In Jordan, where some 600,000 Syrians have fled since the start of the civil war in 2011, the Pope will meet refugees and disabled young people before delivering a speech at a church in Bethany. On the West Bank, he will greet children from several Palestinian refugee camps. Palestinian Archbishop Atallah Hanna, who is Eastern Orthodox (as are most Christians in the Middle East) said he hopes Pope Francis will “see the suffering of the Palestinian people.” “We are misrepresented and are unfortunately seen by some to be criminals and terrorists,” Hanna said. “I hope they can see that we are a civilized, peaceful and well-educated people seeking freedom and a better future.” John Esposito, an expert on international relations at Georgetown University, said the Pope’s meeting with Christians in Bethlehem could open some eyes about the Israel-Palestinian standoff. “It will underscore the fact that it’s not just a Muslim-Jewish conflict,” he said. 4. Conservative Israelis are nervous. In the weeks before the Pope’s arrival, graffiti calling Jesus “garbage” and calling for “death to Arabs and Christians” has been scrawled on Christian buildings in Jerusalem. Ultra-Orthodox Jews have planned to protest outside the site of the Last Supper - known as the Cenacle - because it is also said to house King David’s tomb. They believe Christians should not hold religious services, as Pope Francis plans to do on Sunday, so close to a Jewish holy site, and they worry that Israel will turn the Cenacle over to the Vatican during the Pope’s visit, according to reports. Jerusalem's five most contested sites On Wednesday, Israeli police issued restraining orders on several right-wing Jewish activists, according to The New York Times, ordering them to stay away from the Pope during his visit. Rabbi David Rosen, international director for interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Congress, told CNN that the troublemakers are fringe figures who “don’t deserve anything like the attention they’ve gotten.” “The vast majority of Israelis are looking forward to the Pope’s visit, if they’re even aware of it yet,” said Rosen, who is in Jerusalem to participate in papal events. The rabbi said he is slightly chagrined, though, that Francis will not hold an interfaith service with Muslim and Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, as Pope Benedict XVI did in 2009. “I am personally disappointed that this opportunity to demonstrate in actions and not simply in words the possibility of bringing together Christians, Muslims and Jews is not on his schedule.” The Vatican says that, because the Pope is traveling with Rabbi Skorka and Sheikh Abboud, the whole trip is essentially an interfaith gathering. 5. Muslims view Francis as a welcome change. Pope Benedict XVI didn’t have the best relationship with Muslims, said Georgetown's Esposito, who is traveling to Jordan to meet with Francis on Saturday. The former Pope quoted anti-Islamic remarks made by a 14th-century Christian emperor in a speech in 2006, leading to Muslim riots. Benedict apologized, but later baptized a prominent Muslim-born journalist, which some Islamic leaders called an unnecessary provocation. In contrast, one of Francis’ first interfaith steps as Pope was to wash the feet of two Muslims during a Holy Thursday ceremony in 2013, a move noted throughout the Islamic world, Esposito said. “What popes do is as symbolically important as what they say,” Esposito said, “and Muslims have been very impressed with Francis.” The Pope also called on Western nations to find a peaceful solution to Syria’s civil war, rather than use military force. On this trip to the Holy Land, Francis is expected to call for a Palestinian state, which has long been Vatican policy, but will surely upset some Israelis. That can't-please-both dilemma shows how hard it can be to navigate the Holy Land for any world leader, even one with the charisma and political acumen of Francis. Bringing a sheikh and rabbi along may help buffer the Pope from some criticism, but ultimately, all eyes will be on the man in white. (CNN's Roba Alhenawi contributed to this report.)
Next entry »Atheists in the Bible Belt: A survival guide
« Previous entryU.S. to Sudan: release Christian woman
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
"As Pope Francis heads to Jordan, Bethlehem and Jerusalem this weekend, he’s bringing along two old friends from Argentina: Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who co-wrote a book with the Pope, and Sheikh Omar Abboud, who leads Argentina’s Muslim community."
Unquote.
The pope should be aware of his state. He is not a secular politician who has to ensure the peaceful cooperation of people of different belief within a state, but the pope presumes to be a Christian leader (actually he is no Christian leader, but a servant of Satan). A Christian leader's task it is not to ensure that people of different belief live peaceful together, but the pope had to defend the Christian truth, if he would be a true Christian leader: Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose for poor sinners in order to set them free, and in order to make possible divine forgiveness for them (of course, that message includes that true Christians would never harm people of different belief, but love them without denying the truth in Jesus).
As the pope lumps together all religions, as if all religions could give the soul's health, he commits a spiritual crime. Neither Jewry nor Islam have the power to save anybody. On the contrary, Islam, Jewry, Catholicism and all other man-made religions worsen man instead of improving us (all man-made religions provide any justifications for sin, and therefore they are anti-Christian; God doesn't want to justify our sin, but he wants to release us from sin).
The great "mystery" of Christianity is that Jesus Christ has solved the problem of the incorrigible, bad old nature of man. All man-made religions stuck in the bad old nature of man. Jesus has borne the human flesh or bad human nature when he died for us on the cross. When we believe in Jesus, and get sacramentally baptized, we can be sure that our "old man of sin" has died together with Jesus, or we have died together with Jesus. Jesus set an end to our life as sinners, and he himself became our new life. If we daily remember these two facts (dead for the sin, and in Christ), we will certainly improve, and overcome the lust of our sinful body, our old nature which is still there but declared dead, and besides Jesus dwells within us through the Holy Spirit.
No other religion has such overwhelming great promises like Christianity. All religions save Christianity require their believers to keep certain ridiculous rites, but don't give them the releasing power to love God and their neighbour in daily life, in reality.
We will only come through at Judgement Day, if we have really loved God and our fellow human beings day by day. The man-made religions don't give power to love, but rather cause hatred and bigotry.
That great message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the pope withholds from us. This man es extremly guilty, because he could know it better through the Bible, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and the decisions of the ecu-menical councils.
May God give us a new Christian ruler who promotes the true Christian Church, and puts in their place all sects, cults and false churches. A true Christian ruler would certainly sharply criticise the popery.
When today politicians take a stand for the peaceful cooperation of people of different belief in their state, then this is a quite good thing. They just shouldn't commit the pope's sin to lump together all religions. However, if they do that they don't sin as heavy as the pope because a politician is no specialist for spiritual matters. A politican aspires after the peacful community of all citizens of his country. A politican has to take care of people of every kind according to God's will. A Christian bishop is responsible only for believers in Jesus. A Christian bishop is not allowed to tolerate stubborn sinners within the Church, but they have to be excluded. Don't confuse state and church – these are two very different realms.
The forerunners of the Antichrist: Muhammad, the caliphs and the popes.
Get the real thing!
Didn't you already post this?
You boring chappy have got no authority at all on this blog.
And if I would post something thousand times again, it would not concern you.
Try to write reasonable comments refering to the article above.
Lack of intelligence for that?
I asked a simple question, you sad, self-important buffoon.
fvck off, you german bigoted cvnt
suck a 12 gauge and go see jesus
Sam still stoned!
stoned or not, i still make a lot more sense than you do
take another hit of jeebus, d-bag
better yet, walk in front of a speeding train and go meet him
You manage to insult Jesus with every bigoted post.
You are an authority of nothing except religious-based hatred and discrimination.
Your lack of self awareness is stunning.
Hey, Rainer, take a deep breath and chill,dude! Seriously,whatever case you're trying to make for your incoherent, discombobulated brand of "Christianity", you're coming off as some kind of wackjob-what's wrong with you??
Rainer, notice how their lack of intelligence invariably leads to profanity.
careful brother Rainer, there's a pack of vicious dogs around your ankles gnashing their teeth.
Rainer: "The RCC has become a pi-sspot of heresies"
Yep – sounds like gnashing of teeth alright...
Reposted bigotry is still bigotry.
Brother Rainer, try not to listen to the gnashing of the teeth, they know their time is short and they will go to be with their father the evil one forever.
But concerning the pope it is written:
For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.- Matthew 24:24, NKJV
awanderingscot,
It's not at all surprising that you are supporting the man who is possibly the biggest BIGOT on this blog.
Do you support his IGNORANT BIGOTRY and believe that gays should be "forced to the edge of society"?
Of course no one knows who authored Matthew. They have to keep repeating the refutation of false this and that. It really is quite the bore. But my favorite Christian apologetic refutation of "falseness" is the one where they employed "diabolic mimicry" – they claimed that Satan performed plagiarism in reverse time order. lol.
awanderingTOT: If I were you and truly believed in the fairy tales you believe in, I'd be worried that not following the Golden Rule and not following 'judge not lest ye be judged' would be getting me a free trip to those gnashing teeth you like to threaten with.
Grow up and attempt to be mature....fairy tales are for children.
Which denomination do you belong to?
Rainer – "All religions save Christianity require their believers to keep certain ridiculous rites,"
I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it is, so what? Why would that make Christianity any more valid? Christianity has its own ridiculous aspects along with its admirable ones, just like any other religion.
"God does not debate His existence, God declares His existence"
Paster John Hagee
Just look around.
Romans 1:20
"20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (NASB)
There is hope for everyone.
"God does not debate His existence, God declares His existence"
lol. Oh my, Vic – what words of wisdom. Did you apply that directly to your forehead for it to make some kind of sense at all?
(And then we have Romans – more chatty cathy Paul drivel. It's too bad most NT scholars don't think that Peter authored Peter 2, otherwise there would be a much better case for Paul's words to be "divine scripture".)
"if i could eat 1,000 donuts, i could not possibly be more of a pig" – pastor john hageeeeee
"and this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." – John 3:19-20, NKJV
Sam Stoned – has your "Christian" family every read this verse to you? have they ever warned you of the judgment you face for rejecting Jesus? repent now Sam, get down on your knees and humbly ask the Lord for forgiveness. He is the one who offers salvation, only Him. Praise God Sam, He loves you even though you hate Him right now.
"His invisible attributes, ... have been clearly seen..."
Always thought this was a joke... well at least hilarious, any way.
"most NT scholars don't think that Peter authored Peter 2" she keeps repeating the same unsubstantiated drivel. it's yet another ad hominem attack on the bible from someone who has never opened one ... "most NT scholars" .. no son of God believes your stupid lies do-russ.
wandering: "most NT scholars don't think that Peter authored Peter 2" she keeps repeating the same unsubstantiated drivel. it's yet another ad hominem attack on the bible from someone who has never opened one ... "most NT scholars" .. no son of God believes your stupid lies do-russ."
lol. it's a pretty obvious fact. I didn't say you had to agree with them; but give all the other disagreement over the NT sources and what it all means, you are just your own worst enemy here by claiming to be right above NT scholars. What's ad hominem about it? I'm just stating what is now commonly understood.
Awwww....isn't that nice, scottie still posting like a mouthy little b1tch
awww Sam Stoned, still "attacking" Christians with your profanity. you know what found out about people like you who use a lot of profanity? they are cowards when confronted in person by someone they hate, but when they are typing on a keyboard they are all big and tough. grow up little boy.
awanderingscot,
By hiding from answering my question, you actually have answered it.
Thanks. Well done.
Is Christian morality psychopathic? (Sam Harris)
If obeying orders of the Christian god is the only criteria for determining right and wrong, it's hard to argue otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVXEmJRGns
Excellent video, thanks.
Perfect logic. Thanks.
This was a great debate. I felt Sam Harris' view was completely dismantled by William Lane Craig.
Sam Harris tried to affirm objective morality by defining the term "good" as he sees it.
Did he use the word "objective"?
I don't think so.
(why would someone who probably doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality try to "affirm" it?...)
Did any of you all actually watch the debate. Here are two quotes from the opening remarks of William Lame Craig:
"Now to begin with an important point of agreement: Dr. Harris and I agree that there are objective moral values and duties."
"One of the great merits of Dr. Harris’ recent book The Moral Landscape is his bold affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and duties. He inveighs against what he calls “the over-educated atheistic moral nihilist[s]” and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls."
You all may need to either re-watch the debate or watch it for the first time.
Sorry for the typo. It's William Lane Craig.
That's silly, tf. That Dr. Craig asserts Harris' alleged affirmation of objective morality only means he is using the same lame ploy you attempted here.
tf, do you find that in your world view (which I assume to be the same as Dr Craig's on this issue), objective morality is anything different from divine morality? (Do you believe there is any objective morality that does not come from your God?)
(I just want to make sure before we start looking at quotes from the debate participants exactly what you definition of objective morality is.)
(your definition)
"(I just want to make sure before we start looking at quotes from the debate participants exactly what you definition of objective morality is.)"
As taken from the debate.
"Now to begin with an important point of agreement: Dr. Harris and I agree that there are objective moral values and duties. To say that moral values and duties are objective is to say that they are valid and binding independent of human opinion. For example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively evil is to say that it was evil, even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody thought the Holocaust was good."
Again you are simply showing that Dr Craig tries to speak for others in the same way that you seem to like to do.
You didn't finish answering my questions. Do you find any objective morality that does not have, as its source, your God? I think if you answer that honestly, then it should be easy to understand why Mr Harris does not think of morality in the way you would like him to think.
Please show, FROM MR HARRIS, where he states that there are moral values that are independent of "human opinion".
Doris,
"Please show, FROM MR HARRIS, where he states that there are moral values that are independent of “human opinion”
After this quote it now certainly seems to me that you haven't watched the whole debate. See how Dr. Harris defines the word "good" and you will get your answer. I do highly suggest you watch the debate though.
[Sam Harris, from the full debate:]
"right and wrong relate to human well-being"
"..you should not trust Dr Craig's reading of me – half the quotes he provided from me is though as though I wrote them – were quotes from people I was quoting in my book and often to different effect, so you'll have to read the book"
"and where to our notions of right and wrong come from? well, clearly they have been drummed into us by evolution . ..the product of these apish urges and social emotions, and then they get modulated by culture."
What you may be confused about, tf, is that Sam says that he shares Dr Craig's concern for the morality of our society. That does not address his view as an atheist of the SOURCE of morality. I think you'll agree the last quote above from the debate shows that he does not believe in divine, objective morality. Common moral views are something that I think we would all like to agree upon, but stating the existence of such as something independent of the human mind is NOT something I think you'll find any atheist subscribing to.
(Now maybe that I've highlight the word SOURCE, you might understand why the question that you have thus far avoided answering is pertinent.)
"I think you’ll agree the last quote above from the debate shows that he does not believe in divine, objective morality."
Of course he doesn't believe in a divine source. He's an atheist. Instead of grounding morality in the unchanging nature of God, he uses semantically trickery to try and affirm objective morality.
"Common moral views are something that I think we would all like to agree upon,"
Sam Harris does try to affirm objective morality by defining the term "good".
I personally affirm objective morality by grounding morality in the unchanging nature of God.
I wrote: "I think you’ll agree the last quote above from the debate shows that he does not believe in divine, objective morality."
tf wrote: "Of course he doesn't believe in a divine source. He's an atheist. Instead of grounding morality in the unchanging nature of God, he uses semantically trickery to try and affirm objective morality."
==> 'semantically trickery'? lol – hmm – if I understand you correctly – then I can see where anything that you disagree with, you might call "trickery". But you are still claiming that he is affirming the existence of objective morality and he is not. The desire to agree among people on moral values is not the same as saying morality exists independent of our minds and our collective mental interaction.
I wrote: "Common moral views are something that I think we would all like to agree upon,"
tf: "Sam Harris does try to affirm objective morality by defining the term "good". "
==> Can you quote his definition? I don't believe in doing so he was affirming objective morality in the way you believe.
tf: "I personally affirm objective morality by grounding morality in the unchanging nature of God."
==> Oh, that's interesting. So you don't believe that all objective morality necessarily comes directly from your God, as if 'God-breathed', but that instead you associate what you find objectively moral with what you believe the nature of your God to be?
Doris,
As taken from the debate per WLC:
"So how does Sam Harris propose to solve the Value Problem? The trick he proposes is simply to re-define what he means by “good” and “evil”, in non-moral terms. He says, “We should “define ‘good’ as that which supports [the] well-being” of conscious creatures.[9] So, he says, “questions about values … are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures.”[10] And therefore, he concludes, “it makes no sense … to ask whether maximizing well-being is ‘good’.”[11] Why not? Because he’s redefined the word “good” to mean the well-being of conscious creatures. So to ask, “Why is maximizing creatures’ well-being good?” is on his definition the same as asking, “Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It’s just a tautology. It’s just talking in circles! So, Dr. Harris has quote-unquote “solved” the Value Problem just by re-defining his terms. It’s nothing but wordplay."
I have already given the description of objective morality as it was laid out in the debate. For further info, please look up the definition for the word "objective".
"==> Oh, that’s interesting. So you don’t believe that all objective morality necessarily comes directly from your God,"
How on earth did you arrive at this?
"as if ‘God-breathed’, but that instead you associate what you find objectively moral with what you believe the nature of your God to be?"
I apologize but Im not sure I fully understand the point you are trying to make.
"I seem to recall this same tactic of misrepresenting what Bart Ehrman said in another debate…"
Please give an example.
"My point is that misrepresenting SH by attributing Craig’s quotes to him is disingenuous and is a form of lying."
Please give an example.
tf: "[Craig:] "So how does Sam Harris propose to solve the Value Problem? The trick he proposes is simply to re-define what he means by “good” and “evil”, in non-moral terms. "
"In non-moral terms". LOL. Here Craig obvious wants to claim ownership of the definition of morality IN HIS OWN TERMS – which is bullcra.p. He may as well have said "We're talking about morality and it's my way or the highway". Or "It's my way or I'm taking my marbles home". What laughable self-validation.
In case you missed it, I'll post it again:
"[HARRIS:] and where to our notions of right and wrong come from? well, clearly they have been drummed into us by evolution . ..the product of these apish urges and social emotions, and then they get modulated by culture."
This is not an affirmation of objective morality. I don't know why you're having such a difficult time understanding Harris' view.
As for the rest, perhaps if you had answered the question I posed earlier directly, your own description as to the source of morality wouldn't still be a point of confusion. Never mind.
LOL – of course viewers will have to locate the opposing view which is not shown here; and I welcome them to do that. I'm not so sure they will come to the same conclusions as you, tf. Regarding the debate itself, of course.
You've got to be kidding. Do you agree with Sam Harris' view that objective morality exists? Unless something has recently changed, I know you don't hold to objective morality.
As Doris said, there was not one word from Mr. Harris about "objective morality". Perhaps you should watch the clip this time, instead of making up stuff. That way, you don't look like such a fool.
tf: "Do you agree with Sam Harris' view that objective morality exists?"
I think you are misunderstanding Sam Harris, tf. Where does he speak of objective morality?
Did any of you all actually watch the debate. Here are two quotes from the opening remarks of William Lame Craig:
"Now to begin with an important point of agreement: Dr. Harris and I agree that there are objective moral values and duties."
"One of the great merits of Dr. Harris’ recent book The Moral Landscape is his bold affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and duties. He inveighs against what he calls “the over-educated atheistic moral nihilist[s]” and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls."
You all may need to either re-watch the debate or watch it for the first time.
Sorry for the typo. It's William Lane Craig.
(See my replies above.)
(in the previous sub-thread)
Again, "truth", Mr. Harris never mentioned "objective morality". Those were words put into his mouth by his opponent. Not a terribly truthful thing for him to do, and not a terribly honest thing for you to attempt.
Tal,
It seems to me that either haven't watched the debate or didn't understand it.
As taken from the debate:
"The question before us this evening, then, is, “what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions objectively good or evil, right or wrong?”"
Mea culpa. I did not watch the entire debate. I'm up and doing things between posts, so I didn't have time to watch the whole thing.
However, there is no difference whatsoever between Sam Harris defining the term "good" as he sees it, and you defining the term "good" by your decision, and William Lane Craig's decision to believe in the christian god. It's all a matter of personal choice.
Perhaps though, determining "good" by it's affects humanity and the world rather than by words in a very old human-written book is more realistic and moral.
Nonsense, tf. tal is on the mark. (See sub-thread above.)
We as Christians ground morality in God's unchanging nature. On this way, we can affirm objective morality.
Apart from God, morality is just a matter of personal opinion or taste and if two people disagree, neither one's view carries any more authority than the other.
Followers choose to believe. They choose their own morality.
"“The question before us this evening, then, is, “what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions objectively good or evil, right or wrong?””
CRAIG>/I> said this, not Harris.
What is your point?
I don't know if you were questioning me, follower, but I am interested in why you think that the morality you chose when you decided to be a christian is better than the morality decided upon by those who chose to look at the world without the filter of your god.
"I don’t know if you were questioning me, follower, but I am interested in why you think that the morality you chose when you decided to be a christian is better than the morality decided upon by those who chose to look at the world without the filter of your god."
Sorry. I was questioning Akira. Concerning morality, I didn't choose the Christian morality when I decided I be a Christian. I believe God has written morality on the hearts of humans, including yours and mine. I believe there really are things that are objectively morally evil (the Holocaust) and that it's not just a matter of personal taste.
I seem to recall this same tactic of misrepresenting what Bart Ehrman said in another debate...
My point is that misrepresenting SH by attributing Craig's quotes to him is disingenuous and is a form of lying.
My point is that misrepresenting SH by attributing Craig's quotes to him is disingenuous.
"Our notions of right and...have clearly been drummed into us by evolution..."-Do you REALLY believe that, Doris? That an abstract, non-sentient concept like evolution, which is obviously just an undirected, meaningless process(according to science), can simply"drum up notions of right and wrong"? I mean seriously Doris, how are you not howling with laughter at the pathetic absurdity of such an asinine, unproveable idea?
.
cyprian2: "[Doris:] Our notions of right and...have clearly been drummed into us by evolution..."-Do you REALLY believe that, Doris? That an abstract, non-sentient concept like evolution, which is obviously just an undirected, meaningless process(according to science), can simply"drum up notions of right and wrong"? I mean seriously Doris, how are you not howling with laughter at the pathetic absurdity of such an asinine, unproveable idea?"
Well first off, you should have included the rest of that from SH, which is: "and then they get modulated by culture".
But yes, I do. You are arguing and making assumptions like a third-grader. If you can understand this, it should help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUmOyHrRgv8
You chose your gods morality when you chose to believe in your god.
You say you "believe God has written morality on the hearts of humans, including yours and mine." It comes down to belief again, and belief is a matter of personal choice. So why do you think there is any difference between you defining "good" as you see it, and Sam Harris doing the same?
Tallulah,
"Morally good" is not dependent on my personal opinion. Morality is grounded in God's nature so Christians can affirm objective morality. On atheism, morality IS a matter of personal opinion or taste. One person thinks child molestation is morally evil while another may think it morally good. Each view carries equal authority on atheism. This is scary indeed! Fortunately, this is not the world we live in. We live in a world created by God, who has written morality on the hearts of men and women He created.
Akira,
“I seem to recall this same tactic of misrepresenting what Bart Ehrman said in another debate…”
Please give an example.
“My point is that misrepresenting SH by attributing Craig’s quotes to him is disingenuous and is a form of lying.”
Please give an example.
truthfollower1: [to tallulah131]:
[' "Morally good" is not dependent on my personal opinion. Morality is grounded in God's nature so Christians can affirm objective morality. On atheism, morality IS a matter of personal opinion or taste. One person thinks child molestation is morally evil while another may think it morally good. Each view carries equal authority on atheism. This is scary indeed! Fortunately, this is not the world we live in. We live in a world created by God, who has written morality on the hearts of men and women He created. ']
Here you go again putting the wagon before the horses. Prove your God first ("We live in a world created by God"), then we can talk about your notions of the source of morality.
Prove that you do not just have a similar opinion that you have derived in the same subjective manner as atheists, only under the guise of something that represents a claimed unsubstantiated source. Without your proof, we can only assume that you, and groups with which you have affinity in addressing moral issues, whether those groups be churches, people with the same interpretation of the Bible, etc., also develop, obtain and adopt moral views subjectively in the same manner from within the human collective.
No, follower. You believe that your morality comes from the god you have chosen to believe in . Unless someone held a gun to your head and commanded that you choose to believe in your god, your morality comes from your choice. It is no more valid than any other chosen morality.
Apparently, the full debate is available at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-god-debate.
I haven't finished as yet.
I highly encourage you to watch this.
Yes, watch it and watch while Sam dismantles William Lane Craig...it's always good to watch Sam debate the crazy men and see them proven wrong.
@truthfollower01,
Thanks for the "encouragement", I said I hadn't finished it as yet, as an indication that I was in the middle of watching.
However, my first thought is that WLC fails to justify how an alleged God can equate to an objective moral standard. Would that mean that any supernatural all powerful creator being would be the objective moral standard? Or is it just the case that his idea of God is that standard?
... still watching though...
Ken,
WLC believes that objective morality is grounded in the nature of the Christian God.
Truth,
Have you honestly watched the entire debate? You give a gross misrepresentation of it. Sam's reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It gets crushed in all honesty. Of I had to recommend one debate to watch on morality to Christians and/or atheists, this is the one.
@truthfollower01,
Well, obviously.
But even if an alleged Christian God exists, how does it then follow that His (i.e. God's) moral code is morally right? My point is that WLC makes the claim that God is the objective moral standard for good, but fails to show why His code is "good" versus any other?
Truth,
I'm interested to know where you believe Sam proves WLC wrong.
tf: Yes, this is not the first time I've seen it. Sam Harris happens to be someone I give a lot of credit to-well educated with solid evidence on his side, William Lane Craig is a biased uneducated bigot who has nothing on his side.
Truth,
"with solid evidence on his side"
Again, I’m interested to know where you believe Sam proves WLC wrong. You failed to answer this the first time through.
"William Lane Craig is a biased uneducated"
Uneducated? You need to do your homework.
tf: Where doesn't Sam prove Craig-a religious nutjob who denies evolution and thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans, wrong? Craig is an idiot con-man and you are a gullible fool if you listen to anything he spews and take it seriously.
Ken,
Are you asking why the moral law of the God who created the universe and everything in it is right? Not trying to be rude if it comes across that way.
@truthfollower01,
Yes, pretty much.
Why is the alleged God's code considered "good"?
Truth,
Once again,
Please show where you believe Sam proves WLC wrong.
Ken,
God is the greatest good and morality is a reflection of His nature.
truthfollower01
"God is the greatest good and morality is a reflection of His nature."
His nature apparently is to support slavery, a few discriminations. beating children, and cutting off the hands of women trying to protect their husbands.
That "morality" is one of the reasons that there are atheists and agnostics.
An interesting debate, but not a great one.
I think Harris and Craig were talking past each other through most of it and that the disconnect was around the word "objective". While Craig used this as meaning an objective "source" of morality, i.e. an absolute good and evil, Harris used it to mean an objective "measure" of morality, i.e. a non-subjective reference against which to measure good and bad.
In the end though, I don't think either is completely correct.
Craig, like many believers, wants to claim that the alleged Christian God is the source of and measure of good in the universe, but that reduces morality to arbitrary rule. If something is inherently good then what need is there for god to say so, but if something is only good because god says it is then god can arbitrarily make anything "good", even that which might seem "evil".
Harris on the other hand does seem to side-step the desire for an "absolute" good and evil by claiming it to be obvious that a worst possible world is a bad thing.
I agree with Harris for the most part but I don't think his argument was all that great.
IMO
I can see your point, Ken. It would have been a bit better if he had tied certain moments of clarity such as:
"and where to our notions of right and wrong come from? well, clearly they have been drummed into us by evolution . ..the product of these apish urges and social emotions, and then they get modulated by culture."
more directly with his usage of "good" and "bad" where some may assume he is speaking about absolutes.
That's a good example, yes.
I kept hoping he would delve more into a rationale for accepting 'well-being of conscious beings' as a "worthy" moral code. I'd imagine something along the lines of "good" and "evil" have no meaning without consciousness therefore the well-being of those beings that give it meaning is inherently "good". ... but in a more solid and sophisticated manner.
Ken,
"If something is inherently good then what need is there for god to say so"
When you say something is inherently good are you referring to inherently morally good? If so, there is nothing that is inherently morally good without God's existence. Morality is illusory on atheism.
"but if something is only good because god says it is then god can arbitrarily make anything “good”, even that which might seem “evil”."
This is a misunderstanding for God cannot act against His own Nature. This is how Christians can affirm objective morality. It is grounded in the unchanging nature of God.
tf: "Morality is illusory on atheism."
Nonsense. An atheist is simply and naturally not likely to believe in divine objective morality – in something that exists outside of the mind or our collective consciousness. Again you are being va.gue with your terms. If you wrote what you mean, then you statement wouldn't make sense: 'divinely based morality is illusory on atheism'. (Which I suspect is why you're not writing it like that.)
"As Pope Francis heads to Jordan, Bethlehem and Jerusalem this weekend, he’s bringing along two old friends from Argentina: Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who co-wrote a book with the Pope, and Sheikh Omar Abboud, who leads Argentina’s Muslim community."
Unquote.
The pope should be aware of his state. He is not a secular politician who has to ensure the peaceful cooperation of people of different belief within a state, but the pope presumes to be a Christian leader (actually he is no Christian leader, but a servant of Satan). A Christian leader's task it is not to ensure that people of different belief live peaceful together, but the pope had to defend the Christian truth, if he would be a true Christian leader: Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose for poor sinners in order to set them free, and in order to make possible divine forgiveness for them (of course, that message includes that true Christians would never harm people of different belief, but love them without denying the truth in Jesus).
As the pope lumps together all religions, as if all religions could give the soul's health, he commits a spiritual crime. Neither Jewry nor Islam have the power to save anybody. On the contrary, Islam, Jewry, Catholicism and all other man-made religions worsen man instead of improving us (all man-made religions provide any justifications for sin, and therefore they are anti-Christian; God doesn't want to justify our sin, but he wants to release us from sin).
The great "mystery" of Christianity is that Jesus Christ has solved the problem of the incorrigible, bad old nature of man. All man-made religions stuck in the bad old nature of man. Jesus has borne the human flesh or bad human nature when he died for us on the cross. When we believe in Jesus, and get sacramentally baptized, we can be sure that our "old man of sin" has died together with Jesus, or we have died together with Jesus. Jesus set an end to our life as sinners, and he himself became our new life. If we daily remember these two facts (dead for the sin, and in Christ), we will certainly improve, and overcome the lust of our sinful body, our old nature which is still there but declared dead, and besides Jesus dwells within us through the Holy Spirit.
No other religion has such overwhelming great promises like Christianity. All religions save Christianity require their believers to keep certain ridiculous rites, but don't give them the releasing power to love God and their neighbour in daily life, in reality.
We will only come through at Judgement Day, if we have really loved God and our fellow human beings day by day. The man-made religions don't give power to love, but rather cause hatred and bigotry.
That great message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the pope withholds from us. This man es extremly guilty, because he could know it better through the Bible, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and the decisions of the ecu-menical councils.
May God give us a new Christian ruler who promotes the true Christian Church, and puts in their place all sects, cults and false churches. A true Christian ruler would certainly sharply criticise the popery.
When today politicians take a stand for the peaceful cooperation of people of different belief in their state, then this is a quite good thing. They just shouldn't commit the pope's sin to lump together all religions. However, if they do that they don't sin as heavy as the pope because a politician is no specialist for spiritual matters. A politican aspires after the peacful community of all citizens of his country. A politican has to take care of people of every kind according to God's will. A Christian bishop is responsible only for believers in Jesus. A Christian bishop is not allowed to tolerate stubborn sinners within the Church, but they have to be excluded. Don't confuse state and church – these are two very different realms.
The forerunners of the Antichrist: Muhammad, the caliphs and the popes.
Translation:
"I'm a bigot, in case you didn't get that message the first 4 times I posted this on the same page."
Once again: And the deluded in Lutheranism RB continues to ooze his bigotry from his brainwashed brain and yucky fingertips!!!
Ongoing boredom!
You've nailed the flavor of your constant reposted bigotry quite nicely. I am glad that you've finally had the epiphany that your posts are indeed ongoing boredom.
The dark soldiers defend each other.
How ridiculous!
Just simple minds.
the boredom is with your drivel, rainy.
perhaps it is time to, like your hero adolph, find a bunker and dispatch yourself
don't stick around on our account, punk
I guess that you are a junky whose brain is somewhat damaged through too much drug use.
Consult a doctor instead of lazing around on this blog, and spewing moronic nonsense.
You waste your time.
I call out bigots cloaked in false piety.
It's that simple.
suck a 12 gauge, rainy
Rainer: You're such a hypocritical ass! You come here spewing your biblical crap that has no pertinence outside of your belief system, you insult people and make dumb ass assumptions and somehow you expect to be taken seriously??? You're an idiot and not deserving of respect! You give the decent Christians a bad name and if hell exists (hahahaha), it is people like you who would be there not people like Sam....please feel free to take your leave any time-you're merely wasting valuable oxygen by not doing so.
You seem to be a junky having forgotten to take his drugs today – therefore delirious.
How damaged is your brain? Worst case there is still just empty space between your two ears.
So you making assumptions about people is okay but yet when you get called out for doing so, you get whine and toss around childish insults??? Can one really be that stupid?
Ignorance is truly bliss...isn't it?
Although your non-stop infantile rants show the bad side of Christianity and in turn you help bury it and push people further away-thank you for your service to Atheism :–)
The lousiness of many comments here I can only explain to myself, if I imply drug use and serious damage of the author's brain.
Why does one equate the calling our of bigotry to the need for medication?
What a curious thought.
Rainey is nothing more than just another Liar for Jesus. It's amazing how he thinks he'll be rewarded for a behavior condemned by one of the ten commandments.
Rainer: The same could be said about you given the long diatribes you post and how bigoted you come across. Skip the hypocrisy and try to follow the Golden Rule.
Am I the only one who thinks that this particular version of Rainey who is responding to posts sounds like a troll? Wasn't there one on the other day that could steal names, including the wordpress link? He sounds way too glib and his answers are much shorter than his usual efforts.
You use a lot of words, Rainy, when all you have to say is that you are a bigot who hates people who don't believe exactly what you do.
I am reborn out of Water and Spirit. Love, Jesus, dwells in me through the Holy Spirit since the rebirth. Therefore I cannot be bigoted.
Jesus himself is the real love. Someone who is led by Jesus, cannot be bigoted.
It is only that real love doesn't always go together with our distored notion of love. We must learn again what love is through and in Jesus.
That was nothing more than a really wordy excuse for being a hateful bigot, Rainy. You delude only yourself.
"Therefore I cannot be bigoted."
Said every bigot ever...
You clearly don't know what the word "bigot " means.
Nice try at justifying it, though, but using Jesus to do it is cowardly.
At first you need drug withdrawal, then we can keep on talking with each other.
I don't do drugs, Rainy. You are simply lying about people you don't know - something condemned by your alleged belief. So much for your morality. Not only are you a bigot, you are a liar.
Even if you don't use drugs, your brain is that one of a junky. Maybe it is a divine punishment, because you resist the truth for such a long time, and utter useless words against God and his Church.
What a curious rebuttal.
"I cannot defend my bigotry, so I'll tell lies about people being on drugs."
You are nothing more than a contemptible liar, Rainey. In your arrogance, you place yourself over the commandments of your god. You are just a wordy, self-important fool, pretending piety while at the same time sinning worse than those you condemn.
I saw one meteor from the Camelopardalid shower last night. That little bugger was fast. It was like someone turn on very thin neon light for a fraction of a second than something that had an easily discernible direction of movement. But it went from about 50 degrees up straight down to about 20 degrees up. That shower was a bust imho, but hey – I guess it was evidence of something. More than I can say for Gullible's Travels and all that hooey it purports.
"Gullible's Travels"
Oh, I'm terribly sorry – of course I mean the Holy Bible.
lol – one more time: meant
Another disappointing meteor shower. The Perseids and Leonids are the only ones that are reliable but as with all meteor showers, we are the mercy of clouds and light pollution.
Oops, "we are at the mercy".
Yes – I was viewing from south of the city. I might have had better luck if I were north of the city.
I checked the Live NASA sites to see if they were seeing any meteors. They did not during my time there 2 – 2:15 AM Just a few stars in a very dark background. And NASA predicted anywhere from 200-1000 meteors/hr. Obviously, they blew it!!!
In their defense, they did say it could either be spectacular or a dud.
"Benedict apologized, but later baptized a prominent Muslim-born journalist, which some Islamic leaders called an unnecessary provocation."
Unquote.
Though I am convinced that every pope is a forerunner of the Antichrist, the baptism of that Muslim-born journalist by the pope is valid (I know that that sounds crazy, even moronic). It is only that as soon as that baptized Muslim-born journalist starts to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, and believes in Jesus Christ, he should abandon the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC has become a pi-sspot of heresies, furthermore the pope has stolen Christ's office as invisible head of the Church, and they assume to sacrifice Jesus every Sunday again in form of the host which is blasphemous.
Why is that baptism valid though any pope is anti-Christian?
Reason: Any church just celebrates baptism. The invisible baptist is always God himself, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The validity of any baptism doesn't depend on the condition of the church. Before Luther became a reformer, he was a Catholic abbot. Luther had been baptized by a Catholic priest when he was an infant. However, although Luther was convinced that the Catholic belief was wrong, he got never baptized again. He was convinced that his infant baptism was valid. Luthers reform was just about the faith: Our relationship with God depends just on our faith in Jesus, but doesn't depend on (Catholic) good deeds. True faith in Jesus, of course, is connected with love of neighbour and God in daily life. A Christian shall really practice what he or she believes. We keep the faith through remaining in a state of love of neighbour and love of God – that is the heavenly state, the state of health.
May all Muslims repent, believe in Jesus, the Son of God, and get sacramentally baptized right now or today. Jesus, the Son of God, will once judge little Muhammad, and send him to the eternal lake of fire, because of the multi-tude of very bad sins he committed.
"In contrast, one of Francis’ first interfaith steps as Pope was to wash the feet of two Muslims during a Holy Thursday ceremony in 2013, a move noted throughout the Islamic world, Esposito said."
Unquote.
People not believing in Jesus are inclined to be bossy and proud. The meek and humble gesture of Jesus of washing the feet of the desciples (believers in Jesus) certainly should not be applied towards Muslims because the Islam promotes a very nasty pride and bossiness of Muslims against Christians. Thus a Christian should never wash the feet of a Muslim who is not ready to renounce Islam the religion of pride and bossiness. If a Christian washes the feet of a Muslim, he or she commits a sin because he or she confirms the false faith of the Muslim that he had a right to rule of the Christian.
Conclusion: Though the acting of Francis seemed to be very Christian, it was anti-Christian bottom line because he confirmed the false belief of the Muslims.
Muslims should not always judge us, the "infidels", but submit themselves to the divine judge having a right to judge, Jesus Christ, Lord, God and Saviour.
This guy takes a man who converts to Christianity and STILL makes it into some sort of perversion.
Bigots abound.
Beware of false prophets who go by the name Rainier Helmut Braendlein.
Stop double posting your bigoted screeds, Rainier.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein continues to spout his bigotry without any clue what Jesus said was "what the law and the prophets are all about".
Well, his hero is Frederic the Great, who loved Jesuits before he hated them, hated Jews, and discriminated against the Polish people in a regular basis.
But he was a great military tactitian...great at invasions and war.
Sound familiar? Must be something in the water.
Nice area of the world for the enemies of the pope, the Vatican inner power structure, to whack Frankie and blame it on some crazy Jihadist. Careful Frankie don't go wandering to far from your security detail.
Religion in the wrong hands was the greatest enemy to Jesus. He was operating behind enemy lines: battling the self-righteous and arrogant religious leaders of his world. Religion, like everything else, is a double edged sword. Be careful. Our great technological advances have just created grander ways to kill each other. The bloodiest time in human history continues on.
The bloodiest time in human history? Au contraire !!
The Twenty (or so) Worst Things GOD'S CREATURES Have Done to Each Other:
M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)
The Muslim Conquest of India
"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*
1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")
2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)
3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)
4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)
5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)
6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)
7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)
8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)
9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)
11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)
12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)
13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C
14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)
17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)
18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)
19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)
20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C
"He was operating behind enemy lines"
LOL...he was a Jew operating behind Jewish lines....wow, what a guy...
Why didn’t (doesn’t) god show itself in other cities on other continents? Why just that shithole in the desert 2000 years ago?
Seven people, including a suspected gunman, died in drive-by shootings Friday night in a small Southern California college town, a rampage that authorities believe to be "premeditated," Santa Barbara County sheriff's deputies said. Thanks god, you are always looking out for us.
Sadly, some or all of the 7 murdered kids’ families will turn to god for solace.
If it is Rainier's version of God, he'd say they deserved it.
I know. This is so sad. It happened 45 minutes away from where I live.
If there were a god, I am quite certain it would be hands off. Listen to me…hands, lol. Like gods need hands. Anyway, no gods are likely, at least not one that sits about tallying up peoples sins. That is simply crazy talk. Could there be a god by a completely definition? One that would cause me to forego atheism in favor of believing? Only if believing in gravity makes sense (props to Carl Sagan.) No I don’t think humans were ever intended to understand where it all came from or where it is going. We are here on this planet in this universe for a blink of an eye. Not enough time to peer far enough to see behind the curtain. At any rate, the point is atheism is logical and religion is dangerous (with exceptions). I am not concerned with the nice old lady who helps her friends and neighbors in the name of god. If it makes everybody happy who cares. But when it enters politics then we have to call it what it is…insane.
"Most atheists are closer than they think to believing in God"
I couldn't be closer, one appearance of God away. So easy for God to do, so close away for just about every atheist.
Exactly. I am one piece of evidence short of believing. Proof.
Well said!
"Benedict apologized, but later baptized a prominent Muslim-born journalist, which some Islamic leaders called an unnecessary provocation."
Unquote.
Though I am convinced that every pope is a forerunner of the Antichrist, the baptism of that Muslim-born journalist by the pope is valid (I know that that sounds crazy, even moronic). It is only that as soon as that baptized Muslim-born journalist starts to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, and believes in Jesus Christ, he should abandon the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC has become a pi-sspot of heresies, furthermore the pope has stolen Christ's office as invisible head of the Church, and they assume to sacrifice Jesus every Sunday again in form of the host which is blasphemous.
Why is that baptism valid though any pope is anti-Christian?
Reason: Any church just celebrates baptism. The invisible baptist is always God himself, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The validity of any baptism doesn't depend on the condition of the church. Before Luther became a reformer, he was a Catholic abbot. Luther had been baptized by a Catholic priest when he was an infant. However, although Luther was convinced that the Catholic belief was wrong, he got never baptized again. He was convinced that his infant baptism was valid. Luthers reform was just about the faith: Our relationship with God depends just on our faith in Jesus, but doesn't depend on (Catholic) good deeds. True faith in Jesus, of course, is connected with love of neighbour and God in daily life. A Christian shall really practice what he or she believes. We keep the faith through remaining in a state of love of neighbour and love of God – that is the heavenly state, the state of health.
May all Muslims repent, believe in Jesus, the Son of God, and get sacramentally baptized right now or today. Jesus, the Son of God, will once judge little Muhammad, and send him to the eternal lake of fire, because of the multi-tude of very bad sins he committed.
"In contrast, one of Francis’ first interfaith steps as Pope was to wash the feet of two Muslims during a Holy Thursday ceremony in 2013, a move noted throughout the Islamic world, Esposito said."
Unquote.
People not believing in Jesus are inclined to be bossy and proud. The meek and humble gesture of Jesus of washing the feet of the desciples (believers in Jesus) certainly should not be applied towards Muslims because the Islam promotes a very nasty pride and bossiness of Muslims against Christians. Thus a Christian should never wash the feet of a Muslim who is not ready to renounce Islam the religion of pride and bossiness. If a Christian washes the feet of a Muslim, he or she commits a sin because he or she confirms the false faith of the Muslim that he had a right to rule of the Christian.
Conclusion: Though the acting of Francis seemed to be very Christian, it was anti-Christian bottom line because he confirmed the false belief of the Muslims.
Rainer,
You are one of the most judgmental people on this board. You find a way to make a humble act of kindness by the pope be bad. Remember Matthew: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
You consistently do the opposite.
Matthew also had: "Judge not..."
Your behavior repels me, I do not find your words anything that I would follow. I don't worry about you because I doubt many would follow your thinking. Bottom line: You don't matter.
From the point of view of dedicated Muslims Christians are inferior people. Devout Muslims imagine they would be allowed, even required, to rule over Christians.
By his canine behaviour pope Francis confirmed the Muslim delusion.
May God release us from Islamic beast and the papal monster.
Why do you care what Muslims think? You are instructed by Jesus how YOU should behave. You don't do that.
You don't understand Jesus at all.
Of course, basically we should love our neighbour unbiasedly.
However, our love is limited as soon as our love would promote the evil (flesh) of our neighbour.
Assumed your neighbour would beat an innocent person. Would you really still say to your neighbour?: "You are such a loveable man, I ask you to coffee."
Correct behaviour: You had to prevent your neighbour from beating the innocent person by any means. That would be love in that case. That could mean some physical pain for your neighbour.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein
"You don't understand Jesus at all."
You are the one who is CLUELESS. Jesus said to TREAT others like you'd like to be treated. Read the Bible.
If I would beat an innocent person, I would not require anybody to treat me gingerly. I had to accept that I would be prevented from striking the innocent person even by the use of violence, and could feel some severe pain.
You, "observer" read the Bible like a dumb bigot. You are not able to apply it to real life. Better you would wash up dishes.
Rainier, you have taken Jesus and made Him into some sort of nasty nomadic warrior , all the whole preaching that Jesus is love.
You have no clue.
rainy, a 12 gauge will get you to jeebus in no time
You forgot your drugs today?
Delirious?
looks like bigotry is your drug, rainy.
i hope you choke on it
Do you assume Jesus had ever washed the feet of the Scribes and the Pharisees?
No, he called them snakes and vipers.
The real love is Jesus himself, a divine person. Real love is often distinguished from our distorted imaginaton of love.
We must learn again from Jesus, and in Jesus, what real love means.
Into Jesus we get through the rebirth. We need to be reborn out of Water and Spirit.
Helmut
Everything you post sounds crazy even moronic, just so you know.
You shall not comment comments but the article above.
If you lack intelligence for that, for ever hold your peace.
" You shall not comment comments but the article above."
Well of course you wish to discourage dialogue. That way, none of your idiocy would ever be challenged.
Your version of Jesus as a nomadic warrior who visits vengeance on people is absurd.
Your version of Jesus is not love.
You have got the typical dumb Catholic notion of love.
Repent, believe in Jesus, and refer to your infant baptism, and Jesus will give you real insight.
I do? And what's that? The non-bigoted kind?
You have the typical dumb Aryan condescending view of love; the kind that looks down on others who are not exactly like them, and who will use the words of Jesus to pervert your view of legalized discrimination and bigotry.
Jesus would shun you.
Forgot your medication?
Rainier,
Forget your empathy and humanity?
Jesus never did. Pity you never got that memo whilst perusing the Bible to justify your bigoted worldview.
I don't take any medication; I don't need any, other than an occasional Aleve and my daily thyroid medicine.
I find it amusing that you are bigoted against people who need daily medication to exist.
Your hatred has no boundaries, does it?
I did not mean medicine but the agents being used by junkies.
" I did not mean medicine but the agents being used by junkies."
Which only makes your ignorant statement even more ignorant. Well done, rainy.
Even junkies can convert, but it happens very seldomly.
You would be still welcome.
Know this, rainy – if you are an example of the sort of people you assert are "good Christians", I wouldn't be associated with you under any circ.umstance. ANY.
And the deluded in Lutheranism RB continues to ooze his bigotry from his brainwashed brain and yucky fingertips!!!
Boring!
"Benedict apologized, but later baptized a prominent Muslim-born journalist, which some Islamic leaders called an unnecessary provocation."
Though I am convinced that every pope is a forerunner of the Antichrist, the baptism of that Muslim-born journalist by the pope is valid (I know that that sounds crazy, even moronic). It is only that as soon as that baptized Muslim-born journalist starts to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, and believes in Jesus Christ, he should abandon the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC has become a pi-sspot of heresies, furthermore the pope has stolen Christ's office as invisible head of the Church, and they assume to sacrifice Jesus every Sunday again in form of the host which is blasphemous.
Why is that baptism valid though any pope is anti-Christian?
Reason: Any church just celebrates baptism. The invisible baptist is always God himself, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The validity of any baptism doesn't depend on the condition of the church. Before Luther became a reformer, he was a Catholic abbot. Luther had been baptized by a Catholic priest when he was an infant. However, although Luther was convinced that the Catholic belief was wrong, he got never baptized again. He was convinced that his infant baptism was valid. Luthers reform was just about the faith: Our relationship with God depends just on our faith in Jesus, but doesn't depend on (Catholic) good deeds. True faith in Jesus, of course, is connected with love of neighbour and God in daily life. A Christian shall really practice what he or she believes. We keep the faith through remaining in a state of love of neighbour and love of God – that is the heavenly state, the state of health.
May all Muslims repent, believe in Jesus, the Son of God, and get sacramentally baptized right now or today. Jesus, the Son of God, will once judge little Muhammad, and send him to the eternal lake of fire, because of the multi-tude of very bad sins he committed.
That sounds crazy, even moronic.
Who baptized you?
Bigot.
"As Pope Francis heads to Jordan, Bethlehem and Jerusalem this weekend, he’s bringing along two old friends from Argentina: Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who co-wrote a book with the Pope, and Sheikh Omar Abboud, who leads Argentina’s Muslim community."
Unquote.
The pope should be aware of his state. He is not a secular politician who has to ensure the peaceful cooperation of people of different belief within a state, but the pope presumes to be a Christian leader (actually he is no Christian leader, but a servant of Satan). A Christian leader's task it is not to ensure that people of different belief live peaceful together, but the pope had to defend the Christian truth, if he would be a true Christian leader: Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose for poor sinners in order to set them free, and in order to make possible divine forgiveness for them (of course, that message includes that true Christians would never harm people of different belief, but love them without denying the truth in Jesus).
As the pope lumps together all religions, as if all religions could give the soul's health, he commits a spiritual crime. Neither Jewry nor Islam have the power to save anybody. On the contrary, Islam, Jewry, Catholicism and all other man-made religions worsen man instead of improving us (all man-made religions provide any justifications for sin, and therefore they are anti-Christian; God doesn't want to justify our sin, but he wants to release us from sin).
The great "mystery" of Christianity is that Jesus Christ has solved the problem of the incorrigible, bad old nature of man. All man-made religions stuck in the bad old nature of man. Jesus has borne the human flesh or bad human nature when he died for us on the cross. When we believe in Jesus, and get sacramentally baptized, we can be sure that our "old man of sin" has died together with Jesus, or we have died together with Jesus. Jesus set an end to our life as sinners, and he himself became our new life. If we daily remember these two facts (dead for the sin, and in Christ), we will certainly improve, and overcome the lust of our sinful body, our old nature which is still there but declared dead, and besides Jesus dwells within us through the Holy Spirit.
No other religion has such overwhelming great promises like Christianity. All religions save Christianity require their believers to keep certain ridiculous rites, but don't give them the releasing power to love God and their neighbour in daily life, in reality.
We will only come through at Judgement Day, if we have really loved God and our fellow human beings day by day. The man-made religions don't give power to love, but rather cause hatred and bigotry.
That great message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the pope withholds from us. This man es extremly guilty, because he could know it better through the Bible, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and the decisions of the ecu-menical councils.
May God give us a new Christian ruler who promotes the true Christian Church, and puts in their place all sects, cults and false churches. A true Christian ruler would certainly sharply criticise the popery.
When today politicians take a stand for the peaceful cooperation of people of different belief in their state, then this is a quite good thing. They just shouldn't commit the pope's sin to lump together all religions. However, if they do that they don't sin as heavy as the pope because a politician is no specialist for spiritual matters. A politican aspires after the peacful community of all citizens of his country. A politican has to take care of people of every kind according to God's will. A Christian bishop is responsible only for believers in Jesus. A Christian bishop is not allowed to tolerate stubborn sinners within the Church, but they have to be excluded. Don't confuse state and church – these are two very different realms.
It was with great interest that I read your post....both posts.
"As Pope Francis heads to Jordan, Bethlehem and Jerusalem this weekend, he’s bringing along two old friends from Argentina: Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who co-wrote a book with the Pope, and Sheikh Omar Abboud, who leads Argentina’s Muslim community."
Unquote.
The pope should be aware of his state. He is not a secular politician who has to ensure the peacful cooperation of people of different belief within a state, but the pope presumes to be a Christian leader (actually he is no Christian leader, but a servant of Satan). A Christian leader's task it is not to ensure that people of different belief live peacful together, but the pope had to defend the Christian truth, if he would be a true Christian leader: Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose for poor sinners in order to set them free, and in order to make possible divine forgiveness for them (of course, that message includes that true Christian would never harm people of different belief, but love them without denying the truth in Jesus).
As the pope lumps together all religions, as if all religions could give the soul's health, he commits a spiritual crime. Neither Jewry nor Islam have the power to save anybody. On the contrary, Islam, Jewry, Catholicism and all other man-made religions worsen man instead of improving us (all man-made religions provide any justifications for sin, and therefore they are anti-Christian; God doesn't want to justify our sin, but he wants to release us from sin).
The great "mystery" of Christianity is that Jesus Christ has solved the problem of the incorrigible, bad old nature of man. All man-made religions stuck in the bad old nature of man. Jesus has borne the human flesh or bad human nature when he died for us on the cross. When we believe in Jesus, and get sacramentally baptized, we can be sure that our "old man of sin" has died together with Jesus, or we have died together with Jesus. Jesus set an end to our life as sinners, and he himself became our new life. If we daily remember these two facts (dead for the sin, and in Christ), we will certainly improve, and overcome the lust of our sinful body, our old nature which is still there but declared dead, and besides Jesus dwells within us through the Holy Spirit.
No other religion has such overwhelming great promises like Christianity. All religions save Christianity require their believers to keep certain ridiculous rites, but don't give them the releasing power to love God and their neighbour in daily life, in reality.
We will only come through at Judgement Day, if we have really loved God and our fellow human beings day by day. The man-made religions don't give power to love, but rather cause hatred and bigotry.
That great message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the pope withholds from us. This man es extremly guilty, because he could know it better through the Bible, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and the decisions of the ecu-menical councils.
May God give us a new Christian ruler who promotes the true Christian Church, and puts in their place all sects, cults and false churches. A true Christian ruler would certainly sharply criticise the popery.
When today politicians take a stand for the peacful cooperation of people of different belief in their state, then this is a quite good thing. They just shouldn't commit the pope's sin to lump together all religions. However, if they do that they don't sin like the pope because a politician is no specialist for spiritual matters. A politican aspires after the peacful community of all citizens of his country. A politican has to take care of people of every kind according to God's will. A Christian bishop is responsible only for believers in Jesus. A Christian bishop is not allowed to tolerate stubborn sinners within the Church, but they have to be excluded.
Deal with the religion providing the power of unbiased love of neighbour and God. Get delivered, get redeemed, get set free through the releasing power of Jesus.
You really love pontificating, don't you? You remind me of someone I used to know (and try to avoid). They had an amazing talent of making a short story long.
Smart money says that in real life, Dark Helmut is enamored of the sound of his own voice.
And I'd wager that he doesn't have a lot of friends.
"You really love pontificating, don't you?"
I saw what you did there, very nice.
Thank you!
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. "
Carl Sagan
Very good!