August 29th, 2014
04:47 PM ET
Italian paper: ISIS targeting Pope Francis
Italian newspaper Il Tempo reports that Pope Francis is a target ISIS has "in the crosshairs." CNN's John Allen reports.
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.
All this time and I thought this article was out of the blue. It isn't.
It turns out that the axis of evil ISIS has called for the takeover of Rome next for what's called the 'Caliphate.'
Salero: "[blah blah blah blah]... idolatry ... [blah blah blah] .. idolatry... [blah blah blah]"
All religion involves idolatry. For some, the idols are in the form of books with ancient psycho-babble. For others, it gets a bit more material, but it's really variations on a theme.
I prefer golden idols. Something with heft. When the believers turn on you, you can take it out of the country with you. Melt it down. Buy a nice island near Greece.
Doris, if you don't stop that, why I think I may just .... well, you know .. "panic". Wink wink.
"Justin Bieber charged with assault after ATV crash in Canada"
My goodness. I don't think that child can be fixed by the Trinity (Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew and Judge Judy)
Baby, baby, baby.
Slow news week on the Belief Blog it appears.
I'm a belieber. Really I am.
OMG, what in the world is this? Mountains of Evidence after Evidence of the Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE of atheism and Idolatry. And that little man the Pope, the head honcho of the Politico-religious organization erroneously called a church. Who could ever though that you could find them both so close together. Outstanding job CNN!!
Ever been to Syria? It's lovely out in the countryside. Take some time off. Head out there. Why don' t you?
Yes is a good idea. Since it appears that you've been then right after you. I've got your back cover.
Well, Sally, if there are mountains of it, you should be able to present an ounce of it. Yet you never seem to be able to actually say what your imaginary mountains are made of. Smoke and mirrors ?
Hey, sally. It must break your mother's heart that you aren't even good at trolling. If you're going to sit on your ass in her basement 24/7, the least you could do is make the effort to be a halfway decent troll.
Jesus is obviously the most famous, but are there other famous people that were also conceived via ra. pe?
This is conjecture, but I think the difference between what these people do in the name of God and what a Christian or Jewish American might do in the name of God is determined by a simple gut feeling, arising only from culture and having nothing to do with the shared God – which is imaginary and has no will of its own.
That's probably true. Morris Albert only touched on one aspect of it.
I really, really dislike that song.
It seems their doing what most fringe groups do. Their leader or leaders take some small portions of their writings out of context and base their whole belief system on it. Then they teach this radical belief system to others.
I think this is true; Westboro was mentioned down thread. This is a great example of the fringe you're talking about, Robert.
There seem to be a lot of people in this fringe group. I would like to have truthful conversation with someone at the top of ISIS. Are they true-believers themselves or do they just collect and use believers? Both?
There were many claiming back in 300 ad that the scriptures chosen by the council of nicea were being "taken out of context" by not including many other claimed inspired gospel writings. Could not any religion based on the 66 books that remain be considered taking "some small portions of their writings out of context and base their whole belief system on it."?
Man oh man, that was so stupid! You must be way beyond the limits or you're enjoying that stuff in Colorado.
Trollero: Maybe you should try some of that stuff and put down the bottle for a change....the former won't harm you but the latter will mess your brain up like it did to your boyfriend Austin.
Conservative christians have come a long way, there was a time when Sean O'Connor's ripping picture of Pope made more controversy than death threat by ISIS, people say time can fix things.
Yeah, ole Sinead outraged the masses with that one stunt....
And now for something completely different. There are some links for kris ford and stephanie ford with discovery.com domain names. But they all seem to just bring you to the discovery.com main page. How perfectly embarrassing for them. And for Red Jacket Firearms whose main page, if you let it sit a while, shows an interesting mix of pictures with young women and various guns including what looks like a machine gun. RJF claims they have severed all legal ties to Will Hayden. Well, that's what they say anyway.
His 12 year old daughter?
That's what it's looking like. However, evidently, her account seems to be key, and she was saying something completely different recently on FB.
Do you have a link, Doris? All I could find is that Stephanie deleted her post defending Will.
Here's what's on the Will Hayden wiki page now: "On August 11, 2014 it was reported that Hayden had been arrested and booked on charges of molestation of a juvenile and aggravated crimes against nature. Hayden claims that the charges are false and were made in retaliation by a vengeful ex-girlfriend. He has since bonded out on a $150,000 bond. Hayden was arrested again on August 26, 2014 on charges of ra.ping a child. These charges led to the cancellation of Sons of Guns."
Oh – I may have started from the cnn article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/showbiz/sons-of-guns-will-hayden-arrest/
I couldn't find anything on what this daughter initially said on FB. Also, I'm not sure if there is just one daughter or more than one.
I don't know if the previous charges are related to the current ones with the 12year old daughter, but it appears that he has at least 2: the 12 year old and Stephanie Hayden Ford.
You lost me Dorris
Who are these people and why should we care?
Lol – good question. I know – I'm in a weird mood today. Anyway, this guy who's been the star of his own reality thing on Discovery Channel has been accused by his daughter – who is also on the show, of molesting her daily for years. The show is called Sons of Guns, and the company featured in the show has been his, up till now, and is called Red Jacket Firearms.
Doris, I don't think it's the daughter on the show that is accusing him; this girl is only 12 years old now.
*From what I understand; I've never seen the show, so I don't know if a child was ever on the show. I think not, lol.
OK – thanks – a couple of the articles I read on that were really sparse.
I wonder if the older one is one of these models who are showing off the guns on the RJF website.
Stephanie starred in the show, so...perhaps.
Again I'll ask,
How is this any different from how the jews in the old testament took the 'holy land' and spread their faith?
You christians sure are hypocrites.
Christians can at least point to Jews and say "they did it".
and then there was the crusades ...
A minor indiscretion, an aberration, God's love is seen in all the rest of Christian history. Except for that bit about witches. But they were witches.
And those heathens who had to be punished For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.
Ah yes, Pope Urban II building fame and fortune for himself and the church through r@pe, pillage, plunder and slaughter, got to love those old timey Christian morals.
Well, no true Christian would do such things.
"Ah yes, Pope Urban II building fame and fortune"
And all this time I thought he made a fortune building frame.
"Well, no true Christian would do such things." Tom...nice try. The question isn't whether a Christian would do such a thing (all Christians are sinners). The question is whether the evil done in Christ's name is consistent with Christ's message–I'm not going to argue whether such individuals were Christian or not, but I can argue, correctly, that they are not acting in conformity with Christ's charge that (1) we love god; (2) we love each other; (3) we turn the other cheek; (4) we not judge lest we be judge; (5) that we forgive if we expect to receive forgiveness, etc.
And yet this is the standard apologetics that are uttered every day here.
Not a nice try...Tom has it spot on.
confirmed, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.................the Bible is proven correct by your comments.
"confirmed" by a subjective partisan party with a predecided agenda, so what? If you could actually "confirm" the existence of an objective morality we could then say "Ah, yes, we fell short of that objective ideal".
fred, let me trot this out on how the Bible may be "proven" correct sometimes: There is a large pond. In view there are a number of completely convincing duck decoys. There is an island with a grove of trees. It conceals a few actual live ducks. You drive by and see the decoys and believe they are real. You have justified belief that there are ducks on the pond. It is, furthermore, true belief because there are in fact ducks there (you can't see them but they are there). By classical epistemology you actually know there are ducks there. Thus you can prove there are if asked.
LaBella–your reply was less then helpful. What is it that you think Tom has spot on? And what of my post–what exactly is wrong with the argument?
Well, Akira recognizes irony. Do you?
Tom, Tom, the Other One
It is time you got your ducks in a row.
The decoys only look like ducks and yes you can objectively see them and measure them because they are designed to fool the desire within. The hunter puts the decoys out intent to bring about your death when that irresistible desire to be with what looks like family and looks real outweighs what 1,000 generations have told you.
What does a person need to do to get your attention??????walk on water or something!
So if evil done in Christ's name is consistent with his message is OK ? LOL
Just like the Church Fathers wrote books about how deception is ok if it's for a good purpose, eh ?
That Jebus. He's just so cagey.
The message of Christ was clear as to the way that is right. The message he gave the church fathers was also clear
""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.""
You'll notice in history that Christians became more Christ like as they were able to read and study the word of God for themselves.
In what way? What is "Christ-like"? More comfortably well-off in a material sense and so more likely to entertain a few liberal ideas?
I was thinking more along the lines of loving your neighbor, instead of cutting his head off.
Scratch the surface and what will you find? Hey, there were times when I wanted someone's head. How about you, Robert?
Yes, definitely. Every time I see that picture of the masked man holding the knife.
Prove it. You have a study, or it that just more pious drivel ?
Christians "loving thy neighbor" ??????
Here in the south, where Christians abound, try being an atheist neighbor and see how much hate you feel. Try being a gay neighbor and see how much hate you feel. Try being an abortion doctor and see how much hate you feel.
"and then there was the crusades ..."
I'm assuming you're talking about the southern ones. Then there were those notorious ones in the north:
I so miss Gary Larson.
Just one more bit of reality the christians are going to ignore, I guess.
You realize that basically every country on Earth was formed through some sort of conquest, right? The U.S. killed the majority of the native inhabitants and took their land, the Saudis got a bunch of tribes together and killed all the opposition until they built their country up. Just about every country in Europe has been warring for land since the dawn of time. This is not a "Christian" thing, or a "Jewish" thing, or even a "religion" thing at all. This is a "people in power" thing. People want power, and the will do whatever is necessary to seize power and keep it. That's what you saw in early Judaism. That's what you saw in the crusades, and that what you see in every country's history.
I feel like you guys just blame everything on religion because religion has been around since the dawn of mankind. In reality, it is mankind that is the cause of the problem, not religion.
Religion is equally a product of mankind and is used to 'justify' the quest for power.
Yes, Mankind made religion and mankind made wars. Mankind also made wars that he claimed had religious motives. He also made wars for territory, resources, prestige, and power. He also made soup and car-seats for babies.
You look out at animals. They tend to be pretty violent. However, they don't seem to be acting based on any sort of religion. It looks to me like blaming religion for all the violence taking place right now is like ascribing all of your sins onto a goat and then sending that goat out into the wilderness.
You don't get it. Wars and bad behavior would not go away if there was no religion. But religion adds unnecessary baggage to those issues, and without religion it makes it pretty hard to justify....you no longer can claim 'my god told me to'.
Isn't that like saying tuberculosis is the cause of the problem, not tubercle bacillus?
A tree makes oxygen. A tree makes paper. Oxygen does not cause paper.
A cat makes a "meow" sound. A cat makes a lot of fur that I have to sweep up. A meow sound is not the cause of fur on the ground.
Man made religion. Man made wars. Religion is not the cause of wars though.
See, when two things share the same cause or source. That is sometimes all that they share.
I admit that wars have been fought for "religious" reasons, but I would argue that those "religious" reasons were more based on the whole, power, prestige, and position, than on getting closer to God.
Perhaps your religion is feeble in comparison to the ones that inspire suicide attacks.
If strength means inspiring people to kill themselves, then I am more than satisfied being a part of that feeble religion.
@guidedans: Somebody with some damn sense. Money, Power and Pu$$y. That's what all these wars are about.
What do you think about ISIS? Are they motivated by those things, or their religion?
Those things. They want the Middle East, then eventually the rest of the world. All in the name of themselves. You notice that the older members of the gang never kill themselves right? They just brainwash the youngins.
Is Islam a peaceful religion?
I would argue that the ISIS folks, while claiming to be zealots, are really after the power associated with their terror campaign. Were they true warriors of the faith, they would be working to spread the faith, not kill people you could convert. See, they may claim that they are doing this for Allah, and they may even believe that they are doing this for Allah, but were they really doing this for Allah, they would do whatever it took to spread the faith. That includes educating yourself to the point where you understand that people are not motivated to love through fear and terror.
This is how I see it. Islam has a Hell concept that is pretty bad
All infidels go to Hell if they die before converting to Islam
If you are killing a non-Muslim, you are then sending them straight to Hell.
If you had any compassion for your fellow human being, and you truly believed in the whole, "They are going to Hell" thing, then you would never ever ever kill a non-Muslim because they could potentially convert to Islam and save themselves from the worst fate imaginable.
Fact is, ISIS is not spreading Islam. They are poisoning it from within. Were they motivated by religion and not by the Power, position, and prestige, they would be doing more for the religion and less for themselves.
"they may even believe that they are doing this for Allah"
That is what I was wondering, do the Isis fighters really believe they are doing the will of their God?
Or, as you say, they just want to rule the world? Both?
I think they just want to rule the world. They're not gonna though. Lol.
Ok, I guess you guys are correct. This from Majiid Nawan a former radical, "The movement that attracted him was “a political revolution with religious connotations rather than a religious one with political ones.” The point for many young jihadists, driven by testosterone and the hunger for a certain kind of fame, is not so much to worship Allah, but, yeah, to f–k all y’all.
Another assassination in the name of Allah !!! The stupidity of it all. it is time to eradicate said stupidity !!! Maybe we need to start a fund for such action with said fund buying the necessary missiles, rockets and bombs thereby bypassing any complaints about spending tax payers money for such action?
"Sometimes there just aren't enough rocks."
OMG, I'm trying to decide if what you said is more like a Re-publican War Hawk or a Re-publican chickenhawk.
OK........What have yall done with Topher?
Inst!tutionalized, perhaps. Born agains often backslide into their behaviour that caused them to see the god damn delusion in the first instance. Simply amazing that austin is still out on the street and not safely behind bars.
I'm hoping he finally saw the truth and threw his bibles away, but I'm an optimist.
I'm guessing the new addition to his household makes for very little free time.
I'd forgotten – how old now? Girl or boy?
Boy, named Noah no less, about a year old by now.
I'd guess about 7-8 months by now; a little boy, named Noah. His new WP name is noah'sdadtopher.
Cool. Hope he has some unsavory non-theistic aunts and uncles to influence him.
Dang, ausphor, you're quick.
I just hope Topher doesn't hand out Chick tracts for Halloween.
I doubt that our Topher would hand out ads for the local t!tty bar since that fateful day when he was born again, before that who really knows but Topher himself.
Perish the thought. He'd burst into flames.
Last I herd topher's ark got stuck when he inquired about a fossil pit in Wyoming ...
Oops heard RB.
He's been raptured.
Isis killed the second journalist.
God bless his soul Steven Sotloff.
The news is mentioned below.
This is an act of evil, terror and war, they are trying to drag the U.S. into Syria along with Iraq. Syria is a death trap!
Is god happy now that he has Steven Sotloff's soul? Maybe Steven Sotloff was an atheist?
Are leprechauns happy? Rather hard to claim emotional states for imaginary beings...
Leprechauns are jolly.
Just checked the news, they say Steven Soltoff was Jewish American.
ISIS is already asking for $6.6 million ransom for a female American journalist.
Another unspeakable tragedy befalling an innocent person. Of course your god freak simply thrives on this sort of sh1t, if you believe god existed and did nothing to stop it. Yes, you crazy fools believe the victim went to a better place what sheer ignorant nonsense.
What exactly does "God bless his soul" mean ? Does god have a soul zapper that does something to a soul ?
Isis didn't; ISIS did.
And it is reprehensible.
Leviticus 19:19 “Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.”
Some things seem rather harmless, like having a mixed garden.
So when I drive by a farmers field, and I see a filed of lima beans, but there is the occasional corn stalk growing up, I shouldn't think the guy is growing succotash?
Don't even look!
The only thing you need to think about is finding the nearest quarry so that you can stone the farmer to death.
"I shouldn't think the guy is growing succotash?"
He may be, but according to Gullible's Travels, it's an impure field, and therefore suffering succotash.
Not being a Book of Silly scholar, I am only guessing that I may have seen a passage "suffer not the succotash".
ISIS is the true face of Islam. Their objective is to establish a caliphate. Now, no Muslim will object to that. As far as targeting the Pope, they are clear as to their end goal and that includes establishing the "caliphate" and sharia law across all continents.
What can rest of humanity do?
— Educate Muslims that this ideology while it works for Muslims does not work for the rest of the humanity.
Islam has no "true face", Russ. There is diversity in Islam as there is in every religion that has two or more adherents. Now ISIS is drawing followers in much the same way as the great revival movements drew people to certain strains of Christianity, and for reasons that are much the same. It's unfortunate that ISIS is militant in its extremism. If only they were content to pray and preach as the Christians were.
Excuse me, Ryan, not Russ.
Establishing the "caliphate" and sharia law is an ideology that is unique to Islam.
What "revival" are you blathering about?
'What "revival" are you blathering about?' She's probably referring to the Buddhist revival meeting she attends!
Yikes, the last time we read, ISIS is getting rid of Yazidis and other religious minorities while Buddhists/Hindus are busy killing the Muslims.
Google "Great Awakening" since your knowledge of history has failed you Ryan.
Again I'll ask,
how is this any different from how the jews in the old testament took the 'holy land' and spread their faith?
DIfferent god, same insanity.
why don't we simply get rid of ALL man made religions, since they all are points of friction. This doesn't just happen with Islam, this happens with all religions.
Christianity is not a religion of love as it claims, it's history proves that.
ISIS is A face of islam, much as the Westboro group is A face of christianity. Condemning all for the works of a few is immoral.
I agree, but I get the feeling that the ratio of militant Islamists to non-militant is much greater than WBC to non-WBC(or similar like Harlem's Atlah). Also, it seems if we look at the most dangerous countries in the world currently, there is a very high percentage Sunni if I've estimated that correctly.
We have no one but ourselves to blame for the current radicalization of the middle east. Once "god" told George W Bush to illegally invade Iraq, we might as well have put a bullseye on our collective back.
My original point is that it's dangerous to vilify people whole cloth.
Does this troll have a brain?
westboro on the same wavelength as ISIS? What kind of comparison is it trying to make with that statement?
Ryan: "Does this troll have a brain? westboro on the same wavelength as ISIS? What kind of comparison is it trying to make with that statement?"
It seems your the one lacking for thought here, Ryan. I think it's pretty obvious that tal's comment was speaking to the ridiculousness of looking at ISIS as representative of all of Islam and using WB as being representative of all Christianity to exemplify that ridiculousness. Now if you do think ISIS well represents all of Islam, be my guest in providing evidence of that. My reply to tal shows my concern in that regard, but please, before you call someone stupid, start by not misrepresenting the person you are replying to.
It is very simple.
ISIS ≠ Islam.
Westboro Baptist ≠ Christianity.
But again, if you believe that your wisdom is shaped by worshipping an elephant head, your motivation to make these absurd comparisons is not that hard to understand.
Only as absurd as saying ISIS is the true face of Islam.
Ryan: "if you believe that your wisdom is shaped by worshipping an elephant head"
Look this up, Ryan: cognitive discernment
It's soooo not you.
Looking at the so called "muslim" countries and peoples, their history their present situations and what appears to be a very dim future. I don't believe Islam is working for them at all. Is has not, is not and it not going to do them any good. The same goes for the roman-catholics though these have some better examples but the Idolatry of both is evil.
Which reminds me about the so called "Arab spring" less than 4 years ago, that supposedly started in Tunisia. Whatever happened to that? That "Arab spring" didn't even produce weeds.
0ur fashion is one huge blasphemous abomination to God.
Leviticus 10:6 “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.”
Translation: Torn clothes are a no-no (and put your damn scarves on your heads!)
Tearing one's clothes was a way of showing profound grief or distress. There are a lot of examples in the Bible. Robes were actually designed with special tear-away patches for this purpose that could be easily re-sewn.
Christians get to pick and chose which bits of Leviticus they want to pay attention to.
That why some of them get tattooed with Leviticus 20:13 and disregard 19:28.
Leviticus 19 is where God lays down the law for the Israelites.
Leviticus 20 is where God describes the punishments that will befall the Israelites who violate said laws.
So if you invoke Lev 20 as an argument about why God hates gays and you've got a big ol' crucifix tattoo, expect punishment.
@ Doc: so you didn't read the article...
I read it.
I've heard the rationalizations before.
The coming of Christ invalidated the sacrificial/worship codes of Leviticus, hence Christians aren't required to wear yarmulkes and can eat cheeseburgers.
The divine mandates against ho/mose/xuality exist in the Old Testament, not the New.
The Corinthians list of vices uses the words "malakoi" and "ars/enkotai" in the original Greek, which connotes male prosti/tutes, not all gay men.
The passage in Romans in which God seems to condemn folk for being gay is more about apostasy – they were self-professed Christians who abandoned God and joined in a pagan or/gy.
Would God have been OK if they joined a hetero or/gy instead?
As for Matthew – any Christian who fights to deny gays the right to marry but doesn't fight to deny divorcees the right to re-marry is being hypocritical.
Many Christians – not all mind you, nor am I pointing fingers at you specifically – but there are many out there who refer to Lev. 20 as a major part of their rationalization for insti/tutionalized ho/mophobia.
Just like racists used to cite 1Tim. 6:1, Eph. 6:5, Ti.tus 2:9, 1Pet. 2:18, and the assorted passages from Deut. and Exodus as support for the divine sanction of slavery.
Scriptural interpretation and adherence generally changes along with teh cultural zeitgeist.
Hence the old kind of open racism espoused by certain Christian groups (a la Southern Baptists) is now considered abhorrent by the same sects who quoted scripture to justify it.
The prevailing condemnation of ho/mo/se/xuality will soon be viewed with the same sense of shame that the memory of segregation elicits.
"I've heard the rationalizations before."
- Indeed. Jesus disagrees with the article.
Matthew 5:18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Apparently Russ thinks all thing HAVE been accomplished, asnd nothing further remains for his god to do.
@ Doc & Bucky:
i wrote a rather lengthy response which is "awaiting moderation." in my experience, that rarely actually gets posted. but we'll see. i'll give it another shot...
1) no, not invalidate. fulfill (Mt.5:17). those are the words of Jesus in the Bible. and that's a substantially different view of how one reads the bible (invalidating the OT vs. fulfilling it).
the article is referencing 2000 years of scholarship on this issue (from scholars of OPPOSING viewpoints yet who agree here). you wave away an entire field of scholarship because it doesn't match your preconceived notions.
2) you shallowly represent your opponents' positions
a) "malakoi" & "ar.senkotai" clearly DO NOT reference temple prosti.tution. here's Robert Gagnon's paper on the topic (which BOTH sides often cite as definitive), clearly debunking your position with 15 reasons it is a bad argument to make.
b) at least statistically speaking (purely by the numbers), it is clear from Scripture that God is MORE upset about rampant het.er.o adultery & divorce – though BOTH are condemned in the harshest of terms. in other words, the "well, that's bad, too" argument doesn't excuse EITHER.
c) you point to people who have misused the Bible to support slavery without noting the many who were motivated BY THE BIBLE (and their faith) to fight against it. MLK & Wilberforce come to mind.
but just to stay biblical, look at Antioch in Acts. that's where they first got the name "Christians." know why? it was a multicultural city – many different ethnicities. but the city was divided by huge walls into various subsections, completely segr.egating people by their race. up until this point, one's religion was merely a matter of noting one's race – but because Christianity was transcending race, drawing all races, they couldn't merely call them "Je.w or Per.sian or Gre.ek" etc. instead, they called them Christians – because their faith transcended their race.
SUM: the NAME 'Christian' ITSELF has expli.cit overtones of racial reconciliation. and even some of the very letters you site directly debunk your position (Eph.2:12f, Gal.3:28, etc.). note well: the bible speaks univocally about ho.mo.se.xuality.
d) per your reference to "sanctioning slavery"...
e) cultural zeitgeist? do you realize that the Bible calls out EVERY culture it is in (on DIFFERENT points within those varying cultures), INCLUDING the culture in which it was written?
your desire to deconstruct based on cultural zeitgeist both...
i) deconstructs EVERY position (just a product of the culture within which it arose)
ii) fails to see that the Bible contradicts every culture it encounters.
OVERALL: it seems you want to renarrate history so you can dismiss Christianity offhand. if i may so press, the real issue is Jesus. if he came and is who he said he is, then your objections are so much sophistry & simple denial of reality. if he didn't, Christians are fo.ols.
but let's not dodge the main point by ignoring the scholarship & waving it away with a shrug of your shoulders. if you are going to toss aside Christianity, at least let it be for the larger & more objectional yet legitimate reasons of positions what we actually believe.
Goodness Russ, what's next:
"GENERALIZED INTERGALACTIC ASSESSMENT"
@ Doris: the SUM was of c). the overall was – as you'd think – the overall summation.
as i said, the response was lengthy – but when the objection is "let me bring up as many red herrings as possible in two paragraphs," then yes, it takes a lengthy response if the rabbit trails are going to be addressed.
Fulfill / invalidate – tomato tomahto.
When one strips away the supernatural aspects of the story, eliminating the elaborate ceremonial requirements was a necessity for Christ to bring YHVH to the gentiles.
Jesus' tirades against the officious bureaucracy of the Jewish clergy are what roused their ire and led to his capture and crucifixtion.
Filling in gaps in His background in order to make Him fulfill the messianic prophecies is also necessary since only divine authority can render prior divine commandments unnecessary.
That this was done is evident in several parts of the story – but perhaps most blatantly in the tale of His birth.
Not only do the dates of the Roman census not match up with known historical facts, but the methods of taxation and census taking are innaccurate. There is no way that the Empire would have commanded all the itinerant Jews to trek to the lands of their forefathers – going back 1,000 years in the case of Joseph – when they employed roving assessors for such duties.
The virgin birth is there to fulfill the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy – though it wasn't really necessary since the Hebrew term used is "Almah" – which means "young woman" – "virgin" is a mistranslation.
2) Regardless of what a particular scholar writes, those two terms have been translated in many ways depending on the Bible version.
a) AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals". After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodo.mites" in subsequent editions.
MALAKOI – Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "ef.feminate" (KJV), "hom.ose.xuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "per.verts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prosti.tutes" (NCV), and "male prost.itutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators."
b) The Bible certainly makes clear that hetero adultery/divorce is a grievous sin. Christians themselves in America do not. I'm not attacking Christianity here – I am pointing out the hyprocisy of the majority of US Christians when they cite Bible verses to deny gays the right to marry but make to efforts to block divorcees from remarrying.
c) Once again, when it comes to slavery I'm not attacking Christianity as a religion – I am pointing out how Christians have used scripture to justify either side of just about any argument. The best part of citing God as your authority is that He is never around to correct your misconceptions.
And I understand that Christianity is a religion that transcends race, culture, political affiliations etc.
It is a world rejecting spirituality that seeks to trascend whatever sociopolitical environment its adherents find themselves in by asserting universal ideals over cultural traditions. It's appeal stems partly from shared focus on overcoming man's shared character flaws in order to attain posthumous paradise through strict adherence to dogmatic ethical codices. This can give comfort, identi/ty and a sense of exclusivity over the wider,unenlightened populace.
The problem with such a religion is that it is necessarily divisise and sectarian.
d) Sanctioning slavery? At the very least, both the Old and New Testament's give tacit approval to the practice. In our current culture, thousands of years removed from the time in which the Bible was written, we have largely rejected the concept of human beings as property. The OT has rules for the indentured servitude of fellow Hebrews that are comparatively gentle for the time – but foreigners were chattel to be handed down as property.
e) Once again, it comes down to Christianity being a world rejecting religion.
Those types of religions are generally predicated on the acceptance of ethical and behavioural doctrines as laid down by a founder authority. Instead of being ethno-centric, they will welcome anyone who is willing to supplicate themselves to the authority of the founder's representatives and/or the dogma laid out by the frequently suprahuman founder.
In advancing their own identi/ties as the sole arbiters of Universal Truth, they tend to be divisive in nationalistic environments.
You are assuming that I am anti-Christian and that I have dismissed the whole Christly Kit and Kaboodle with "the wave of a hand and the shrug of my shoulders".
There is much good to be found in Christianity. At it's core, Jesus'message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
But for the first time in history, humanity is beginning to knit together a globally cooperative identi/ty.
We are starting to recogize that supernaturalism in any form is not a reliable means to build a universal consensus.Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.
Doesn't the book of ACTS save us from all that stuff?
@ Alias: ceremonial (cleansing, sacrifices, etc.) & judicial (theocratic nation of Israel) laws are fulfilled and no longer apply.
the moral laws continue (think 10 commandments).
So are mixing fabrics and eating lobster in or out?
@ Alias: those are ceremonial laws. they are fulfilled in Christ (i.e., no longer necessary for us to be made clean b/c his sacrifice has made us clean already).
Completely made up nonsense. Jesus said not a jot ... etc, until Heaven and Earth are passed away. I seem to still see Earth. Anything to cook up a rationalization, I see, Russ.
as i said above to Doc, dismissing entire fields of scholarship as "made up nonsense" is self-discrediting. i'm not making this stuff up – i'm simply informing of long-standing answers to the questions at hand.
scholars of a variety of views all agree that there are various types of laws & the NT addresses them differently. by your reading, Jesus is saying "the cross doesn't cleanse you; you need to keep doing sacrifices" – when the NT explicitly teaches otherwise.
again, i'm fine with being mocked for what Christians ACTUALLY believe, but your portrayal is unrecognizable – and you seem unaware of that. if you're going to mock us, at least do so accurately.
I'm aware of the arguments Russ – but I believe Paul changed the religion of Jesus into what you are saying – a religion about Jesus.
@ G to the T: if Paul "changed" the religion of Jesus, why are all of Paul's major theological points found on Jesus' lips in the Gospels?
"dismissing entire fields of scholarship as "made up nonsense" is self-discrediting. i'm not making this stuff up – i'm simply informing of long-standing answers to the questions at hand."
I am well aware you are not making that crap up. It's still complete crap. YOU WISH it were "self-discrediting". I've heard it all, and various versions of it all. YOU have posted no polls of scholars, so you cannot claim what they "all agree" about. If you have that proof, PROVE it. The question is not that there are various kinds of laws. The first Christians were JEWS, and remained so for centuries. John Chrysostom in 400 CE Christmas sermon told HIS congregation they were to stop going to synagogue. If all you know are Fundie Babble College teachers, you know nothing about that culture. In fact they DID at some point just make it all up. If there was a Jesus, he was an apocalyptic. He thought the end was coming in HIS OWN DAY. He was wrong, as were all his followers. The NT doesn't "teach" anything. It's all a hodge-podge of all sorts of opinions on all sorts of subjects. I do dismiss it all. I know more about your cults than you do. So spare me your sermon, reverend. Your full of it, just like all your co-religionists who can cook up any rationalizations they need to to keep the cognitive dissonances away. Jesus said what he said. If you think you know better than he, well I guess it kust proves you can rationalize anything. Agreeing with your ilk is not the only way to criticize your nonsense. As the Jewish scholar/philosopher Martin Buber, pointed out in Part II of his "Good and Evil", the entire salvation paradigm is built on a fallacy that is absent in the OT. Paul invented your religion, (Paulianity) from scratch.
1) you are demonstrating my point. i'm not speaking in a vacuum – nor am i referencing merely fundamentalists. the American Academy of Religion (AAR) is respected by scholars of all variety of stripes. you don't have to "poll the audience" when the things i'm saying here (forms of OT law) are generally accepted facts by ALL sides. it's scholarship 101. pick up a commentary. check a dictionary of the bible.
again, dismissing entire fields of scholarship (which *includes* liberal & conservatives & in b/t) is self-discrediting.
2) the first Christians were Jews – yes. but very rapidly that changed. by 66 AD, they were being systematically kicked out of the synagogues. as a result of this change of approach by the broader Jewish leaders (Christians regarded it as persecution), Christians began to reach out to the Gentiles increasingly. If you read Acts, there is a definitive shift from the first 8 chapters or so through the rest of the book. And increasingly, you hear the speakers referencing it – the Jewish leadership's rejection presses them out to actually fulfill the Great Commission by going to the Gentiles. Christianity then explodes & becomes primarily Gentiles.
began as Jewish? yes. rooted in the OT? yes. centuries of being Christians mainly Jewish? no. are there messianic Jews for centuries who still attempt to reach into the synagogues? of course – the Jews for Jesus are still doing that today... but they are a stark minority.
after 66 AD, Christianity finds its primary consti.tuency among the Gentiles.
3) fundie bible colleges? i attended liberal universities and have a postgraduate degree in this field. your arguments don't even represent the most faithful critical scholars' respect for Scripture. it's almost as if you took a freshman "intro to religion" class & had a professor who 'shocked' you, but you didn't stick around to see the major problems with his arguments in the upper level classes.
a) you said "the NT doesn't 'teach' anything."
just for sheer arrogance & impracticality, this statement is astounding. considering its the most read & arguably the most influential text in history, what sort of "teaching" would you consider efficacious in comparison?
b) you then said "it's all a hodge-podge of all sorts of opinions..." but then you said "Paul invented your religion."
i) so which is it? by your estimation, did Paul construct a viable religion (again, for the sake of your argument, the sheer numbers would seem to say "yes")? then wouldn't that have to be more than just a hodge-podge? or do you – like so many on this blog – attempt to anachronistically blame Constantine, even though Christianity was already dominating the Roman Empire statistically by his day?
regardless, you can't have it both ways. Christianity is arguably he most effective, widespread human movement in history. a "hodge podge" of opinions does not get you there.
ii) on the opposite hand, if – as you say – Paul invented it, then certainly we would see a divide between Pauline writings & the teachings of Christ found in non-Pauline NT works. but when you compare the basic theological content of Paul to the words of Jesus in the Gospels... uh oh... guess where Paul got his theology? on EVERY major point, Jesus is his source.
iii) ironically for you, your best remaining argument is somehow that Paul influenced all the other apostles and twisted their teaching, etc. but recognize now the main problem you encounter: you are left with an argument that must on one side embrace the NT (asserting Paul's teachings are legitimately Paul) while discrediting the rest ("that's not what they *really* meant"). moreover, you want to do such re-interpreting TWO THOUSAND years after the fact, ignoring the historical context & immediate affirmations surrounding those events by those in a much more proximate place to corroborate the claims.
Occam's razor begins to get louder & louder. the string of contingencies you must claim in the face of the classically understood historical context (including Christianity's self-understanding) make your position increasingly feeble.
and note well: none of what i've argued here requires one to be a Christian. modern scholarship has gone on 3 rounds of quests for the "historical Jesus" in the last 200 years... only to repeatedly find that one cannot get at a Jesus other than the one found on the pages of the NT.
4) as for Buber's remark, the opposite question must be pressed.
a) what does he do with the entire Exodus narrative? it is the definitive Jewish self-understanding: the people rescued by God and claimed as his own. it's their deliverance (read: salvation) that makes them who they are. and Matthew especially highlights those connections.
b) the NT abounds with OT connections. that in and of itself doesn't prove anything – except that the authors believed there was one... and note well: they were all Jewish. and Christianity (at least for the first half-century) was primarily (if not entirely) Jewish. it's inception was Jewish.
so now Buber has a bigger problem: how did it get off the ground if it wasn't Jewish?
c) moreover, as several scholars have pointed out: while the West readily conceived of gods/powers coming down in human form, and the East thought of gods/divinity in pantheistic terms, the Jews had a completely different sense of the transcendence of God. what would happen that would make Jews (who ardently & probably uniquely believed God could NOT come in human form) convert in large numbers for a very brief period of time (say 30 years or so)? obviously, historically, they did – or (again) Christianity would not have gotten off the ground. could it be... something they saw with their own eyes? (Lk.1:1-4; 1 Jn.1:1-3; 1 Cor.15:3-8; etc.) the NT says it over & over again. it's a theme... but oh yeah, you just see a hodge-podge of opinions...
SUM: you appear to be self-projecting (holding a hodge-podge of opinions about Christianity which in & of themselves are self-contradictory). the mere fact that Christianity exists & is so numerous does not legitimate all our claims, but it certainly does significant damage to such a shallow view as you hold.
Leviticus 11:4 “Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”
Rabbits don't chew a cud. Nice effort god.
How are you AB? Ant directing gigs lately? Hope the girls are doing well with their careers. Oh I forgot about the topic, ISIS/ISIL sucks.
I haven't done a show lately. Producing is expensive and I have to re-negotiate a place to perform unfortunately. Everything else is fine. How are you?
Fine thanks, same old, same old. Wasn't sure it was you until the rabbit comment, much like cam-el toe is the signature of the HS character. Hope you hang around I admire your wit.
Wrong,not a rabbit but a hare and you need to do more research, they do.
You are incorrect. They do not chew a cud.
I have done the research for you; see(Natural History of Mammals, 1964, pg41) (Mammals of the world by E.P. Walker, 1964, vol.II pg 647) (Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, vol.110,seriesA pp.159-163) or you can find this information in many other publications. I can't do it all for you.
Rabbits not rock badgers chew their cud. That is not how their digestion systems work, though rabbits will often eat their own feces.
There are a lot of believers that will try to make some lame argument, but it does not change the fact that the bible is clearly wrong once again.
That is one of the many things so amusing and pathetic about the bible. It is inspired by some god's word and it is STILL wrong.
I do not understand that statement at all. I have to go for now but will look back later, peace.j
All that research and amazingly, you are still wrong.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
@ Dyslexic: many would say it is absurd to believe there is no God.
with the frequency with which you post this quote, you seem to think Voltaire's quote only applies to theists.
if I was a "loving god", I would have saved Steven Sotloff from ISIS. I am pleased to say that is the difference between me and your god.
If you don't love your creator, then you cannot claim to love those around you.
a) hard to "love" someone whose most fundamental ident.ity is primarily "image bearer" (of God) while denying that such an ident.ity exists.
b) the greatest commandment comes to mind – upon which Jesus notably says the 2nd greatest (the so-called Golden Rule) is contingent. you can't love others if you deny Love proper (the One who defines Love itself).
I don't identify you as being in the image of God, Russ. I see you as a human being and love you as I think people should love one another – because we are members of a society and such love is what is beneficial to all of us in that society.
@ TTTOO: therein lies the rub.
if you are right, and i am not made in the image of God, the most loving thing you can do is dispel me of my false delusions according to your best estimations of what objective reality is... or something along those lines, right?
however, if there is a God (especially if he is Jesus)... (and that is the primary debate in question...) then the above described course of action would be the LEAST loving thing a person could do.
the real discussion here is the basis for defining love – which inherently drives us back to our metaphysical underpinnings. but if we're going to operate with integrity and disagree civilly, it shouldn't stop us from honestly pointing out that what the other calls "love" is NOT that by the opposite position.
SUM: so i think we both can agree that we do not agree what love is. and that poses a substantial impasse to our attempts to "love" one another by the other's definition.
Russ, I'm not sure if it is the right thing to do, if I could do it, to dispel your notions of God or of the metaphysical nature of things. I do want to examine them, I might consider the possibility that you're right in some or even all of them. I have that amount of respect for you. But you are correct, we don't mean the same thing by "love". Still, I hope you can rely on the emotion I do feel in most of the ways you rely on the emotion you understand in people who seem to believe as you do. At least I mean you no harm.
@ TTTOO: i also respect you. and it is for that very reason, compelled as i am by what Christ has done, that i say the things i do. i have no doubt, that by your own best self-understanding, you want to do 'good' & 'loving' things – things that, if put to paper, probably far outpace me in accomplishments worthy of human accolades.
however, as Flannery O'Connor wrote about one of her characters: "there was a deep, black, wordless conviction in him, that the way to avoid Jesus was to avoid sinning." in other words, if we do 'good' to push God away, can we call such things 'good'?
for that very reason, i say (with Paul), i am the worst of sinners. the very things i do that would be 'good' are actually attempts for me to be my own savior – attempts to be my own God. it is ultimate cosmic treason. i would tear him off the throne & kill the King. as one theologian said: "the cross is proof that – given the chance, humanity would kill God."
and yet the "Good News" is that the very place where we do that is the place of our salvation. or as another theologian put it: "the essence of sin is man taking God's place; but the essence of salvation is God taking man's place [on the cross]."
"God made him who knew no sin to be sin so that we might become the goodness of God." (2 Cor.5:21) if murderers like Moses, David, & Paul can be so transformed... there's hope for one even such as me.
That deserves a lot of deliberation, Russ. I promise I'll spend some time on it.
You forgot a few little words Snotty. "In my opinion, I don't see how". You don't make up reality for others, so thanks for telling us more about your own needs, than about others.
If someone were to walk up to you on the street and slap you in the face would that make it any more real for you? A person who really loves God would not do that to you.
No, they won't slap you, they will just cut off your head.
Thousands of migrant children, including newborn babies, are being locked up in squalid and cramped detention facilities each year in Thailand, enduring serious physical and emotional harm,
Where is your god now?
Why aren't you and others doing something to stop it? Why are you not using the abilities God gave you to help stop it?
What abilities did a non-existent god give me to stop it? Please tell me and I will stop it right now. Why is your god so feeble?
Why are you so feeble?
I do ok, but I would expect a little more from the creator of the universe.
Evidently you do not do ok. There is alot of heartache in this world. You want God out of your life but then when he is "out of your life" you want to blame Him for all the ills of the world including yours. How is that fair? Are you also one who cannot accept personal responsibility?
I don't blame god for anything AND I accept personal responsibility for my own actions.
"You want God out of your life but then when he is "out of your life" you want to blame Him for all the ills of the world including yours. How is that fair? "
lol. I'm sorry, it's hard not to just laugh at nearly every comment this moron makes. I know he's a boring troll but sometimes he does give me some joy as I read his insane thought process and laugh.
The ISIS terror group released a video titled "A second message to America," showing the beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff.
Where is your god now?
Beheading is certainly one way to be called home to Jesus.
Yes, and I am reminded of spraying WD-40 on top of my bird feeder to keep the squirrels off.
@TTTOO: it's a horrible reality, but it's not as if Christianity has never heard of such a thing happening. John the Baptist is exhibit A... and if tradition is correct, James of Zebedee followed closely on his heels.
just a few years ago, it was all over the news that 3 Nigerian pastors were beheaded.
as one theologian said then: "Jesus can even put heads back on."
either the resurrection happened or we Christians are idiots.
What is your rationale for blaming God for something evil men have done? Do you also blame God for the evil you do?
No, I do not blame god for anything.
your god had the power to stop it but just sat back and watched it happen.
should He just kill you immediately next time you sin?
Can you arrange that? A good use of prayer? Do make it public beforehand so we can all see your demonstration of the futility of prayer.
It seems to depend on the sin.
Failing to impregnate your sister in law is a smiteable offense – just ask Onan.
Looking over your shoulder when fleeing a scene of destruction got Lot's wife turned into a condiment.
Poor Uzzah was trying to keep the Ark from crashing down to the ground, but God killed him.
Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead for being fiscally conservative.
Nadab and Abihu got a good dose of Godly flames to pay them back for offering God the wrong kind of fire.
Mocking a priest can get you and your buddies mauled by bears.
Slandering God again DOC? Your heart and mind does not permit you to consider that God can and does interpret the heart and mind? Fortunately He allows you to continue living instead of immediately executing divine judgment for your sins. The good news is that He is allowing you a lifetime to make a decision. The choice is yours according to the free will He gave you.
not slander scot...try libel.
Sinice the one that had libeli=ous statements made must come forward to prosecute, and the fact that god has not filed suit, we'll just have believe "god" is OK with it anyway.
Are you denying that God struck those people down for the reasons I stated (albeit flippantly) ?
IGAFTR – Justice delayed is not justice denied.l
Uzzah's punishment seems especially excessive.
Read 2 Samuel 6 and explain what his Sin was.
"Poor Uzzah was trying to keep the Ark from crashing down to the ground, but God killed him."
– i will just take this one real quick as a example. Uzzah's tribe and family were the one's who accepted the ark after the Phillistines sent it away, and after it had been dishonored by the first Israelites many of them dying in the process. He should have known better since he was intimately familiar with how the ark had come to them, ON A CART.
– if you would only do your homework you would find in each and every one of these examples you provide a very grievous sin committed against the Lord. These examples are for you learning benefit. Ignore them at your own peril.
"Hey Uzzah! Don't touch My stuff! Even to save it from being damaged!"
So sayeth THE LORD
So basically, God indeed smites certain people for certain infractions, but not with any consistency.
"Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative back when He flamboyantly parted the seas."
When do you think you'll get your smiting for all the judgement you pass on others and your habit of disingenuous quote-mining (AKA bearing false witness) ?
The Ark was to be carried by attached poles and Uzzah deliberately ignored God's command. Like i said, God is being patient with you right now...
a slanderer = a pervert
I'd not heard about "Ananias and Sapphira". Wow. The christian god is a dick.
You mess with the bull, you get the horns.
How many matadors have you seen getting beheaded?