Our good friend, Pope Benedict XVI claimed today that the world’s cruelty comes from atheists (Hat tip to John Walkenbach). You can read the actual excepts here.
You know, I have always been led to believe that Christianity is a ‘loving’ religion (the woman I love is of a Christian faith, even when I am not). However, the Pope has indeed proved me wrong, once again.
Qualifying and Exlusion Statements, as well as Definitions
First, let me address a few other issues regarding wars and religion. There are some people who argue that wars are not caused by religions, but by want of resources, power and influence, and that religion is merely a tool or an implement for them to go to war. However, as bitbutter asked, ‘why stop there?’. Why not just keep extrapolating the ‘ultimate cause’ of war all the way back to the Big Bang (or if you’re a religious person, God)? The answer is simple - you just can keep on going on and on infinitely (or as the Buddhists call it, beginningless time). You have to stop at some point and pinpoint it as the ‘ultimate’ cause of an action, or event.
As bitbutter put it so well, theists think that wars are not caused by religion because they think religion is inherent to human nature - something inseperable from human nature and is immutable; where as power, influence, and resources are seen as outside the human nature. But for atheists, they see religions as yet another construct of the human mind - it is outside human nature, so the chain of reasoning stops there. And then you have the Buddhists, who are weird in their own way, because they don’t think that whatever is outside the human mind is the ultimate cause of suffering, but what’s inside the human mind that causes suffering.
I lump all those who believe that wars are caused by religions and atheists under Atheists and those who don’t, as well as theists under Theists for easier articulation.
There is also another form of argument, usually put up by the Theist, which is inherently logically fallacious - that is, they use a varied form of the No True Scotsman argument. This argument is mostly in modern times by a lot of Muslims. They will claim that the Muslim terrorists that committed all the terrorist acts as not true Muslims. This is an fallacious argument because the discounting of what is a ‘true’ follower of a religion can recursively happen for an infinite number of times. Also, this sort of argument would cause even more arguments - specifically, the ‘what is a true follower’ argument. So, for the sake of this article, I will invalidate arguments like these.
The Pope’s Statement - A Critique
I must criticize the Pope’s statement. Firstly, on a literal level - define cruelty. If left to me, I’d define cruelty as actions that causes suffering to a being. And it would be very hypocritical for the Pope to cast Atheists aside and pin them as the sole cause of cruelty. One just needs to traverse history to notice the number of atrocities caused by religions.
While historians remain divided, the fact still remains that religions caused many wars in history. I am not discounting the fact that there were many wars that were caused by non-religious reasons (The French Revolution, the Civil War in America, the two major World Wars, er, what else?), instead, I am stating that there are equally many wars and many lives lost due to the fanatical idealism of religion. And remember: War is cruelty.
And as John Walkenbach had observed in his blog, the Pope implies that religious belief is the default in the human psyche, and anything else is a deviation from what is ‘right’. The Pope also discusses the concept of Justice, albeit in a very absolute, black-and-white manner. This black-and-white manner, I would argue is the basis of all wars that were ever caused by religion.
Because of absolutism, it’s always ‘you’re either with me, or against me’, or in the case of middle-eastern religion (you know, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their not-so-recognized spawn like Baha’i, Mormonism), it’s always ‘I’m right, and I’m going to Heaven. You’re wrong, and you’re going to Hell”. There is no middle ground in the philosophies of these religions. You may argue your way that there is a middle ground in their philosophies, but at the end of the day, it’s back to square one - heaven or hell. (It’s also very absolutist of me to say this, but I’m sticking with my point)
Imposing Ideologies
As a result of that, they will always impose their ideologies on others - causing war. One simple observation can be observed through literature. In the times when the world was a larger place, and there were plenty of unknown and unfamiliar territory, and when the majority of the western world was still very predominantly Christian, writers like H. Rider Haggard would refer to the Muslims as Mohamedean. The writers themselves are imposing a very Western/Christian belief (like naming a religion after its founder) on other people. This was all caused by the ego caused by a belief that emphasizes on binary justice (you’re either right, or wrong, never in between).
This lack of tolerance for a middle ground, I believe, is the fundamental cause of wars that have been triggered by religious differences. This lack of tolerance, caused by an inherent flaw within the belief system of the Monotheistic Religions, leaves no allowance for other differences. All differences are seen to be ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ and needs to be wiped out or converted.
Not So Cruel?
I personally believe that the Pope does not acknowledge the fact that other belief systems exist (due to the aforementioned reasons). This in itself is a cruel act. How many people have been tried, tortured and killed for the difference of belief in the Dark Ages? Need I mention the auto de fe?
It is very easy for the Pope to induce a mass genocide on non-believers of the Christian faith - he has the influence to do so. There is nothing from stopping the Pope from ordering Catholics to turn against non-Catholics, save - if you are religious - Jehovah himself/herself/itself. The steps the Pope is taking is indeed very worrying.
The world is a place with many colors, not just black and white, and the Pope should recognize and acknowlege that. He has the right to belief in Heaven and Hell, so do other people have the right to believe in whatever versions of afterlife (or non-afterlife) they want. Pinning the act of cruelty on Atheists is in itself cruel.
It leads non-Catholics to act with aversion and apprehension towards non-believers. Extrapolate that situation and throw in some petrol, and you have a huge fire burning. If the situation is not well controlled, it could lead on to a massive act of cruelty - killing of many hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps, like the Muslim terrorists, that won’t be seen as an act of cruelty, but an act to be praised upon, for they are doing the Work (of God).
Indeed, there is no difference between the Pope, Osama bin Laden, and Richard Dawkins. The only difference is that they believe in different ideologies, and they are no different in the sense that they are equally extreme in their views, and almost equally influential. They are guides to different beliefs of different humans, and hence extremely influential.
In Concusion
Given these random nonsense, I’d be more inclined to believe those crappy conspiracy theories, like how Pope Benedict will be the last pope and stuff.
Just kidding. I stand where most Buddhists stand. You have your right to believe whatever you want. I will not say you are wrong. I will even say and agree and find points of commonality between you and I. And I will continue questioning.
Technorati Tags:Pope, Benedict, Atheist, atheism, Catholic, Vatican, Spe Salvi
Cool?
DiggDel.icio.usTechnoratiFeedsterFurl
RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI for this post
Dude, you’re so right and you should totally watch this!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z1Prm3nAvFs
A blog based on a blog. Thankfully you did recognise that it is random nonsense.
“You may argue your way that there is a middle ground in their philosophies, but at the end of the day, it’s back to square one - heaven or hell. (It’s also very absolutist of me to say this, but I’m sticking with my point).”
An absolutist arguing a point in a bad light because it is supposedly absolute. Yeah, ahuh, ok…
Papito: Whoa.. that thing is 1 hour long. And makes me feel really bad. I feel like deleting this entry now. I’ve actually met that guy you know.
Liss: This is where discounting statements can drag an argument down. Sigh. But oh well, it’s a good practice of recursive speaking.
You know what would be great? Some quantifiable evidence to back up that claim. Hehe …
Working on it mate. Lemme finish my vodcast first.
This is the first of a series of stuff I am planning to post
I was never much of a religious person. Can’t put my faith in religions that profess peace and understanding yet kill each other over the some small? differences. Like the Shiite and Shia Muslims.
Hypocracy.
Religions were Invented by Human for Human. Without Human there is no religion. These silly human especially those with ‘Black and White’(heaven and hell)view impose their views on others because they believe what is good for them is good for all. So strong is their beliefs that they terrorise and kill others in the name of their religions. George w Butch who said “either you are with me or with the terrorists’ is the terrorist himself, the human who blame others as ‘cruel’ is himself cruel to others. So ironical. Sadly that they happen to be very influential Human. sigh.
You guys are full of shit. The people who get to the point where they kill others for the ’sake of their religion’ are extremists, and not followers of the true religion.
There are non-believers, believers, and extremists (those who take it to a level it wasn’t meant to be taken to).
Right. So that puts Pope Innocent III (right up to Pope Innocent VII) under the extremist category? Those pontiffs screwed up the majority of Europe in the dark ages you know, inciting Christians to kill non-Christians, for fear of paganism.
Benedict is dangerously verging on their stance too.
I’d argue that with them in power, they do not have the right to take up extremist views, if for the betterment of mankind. Oh wait, they don’t care about mankind, they care only of G-d
Man, if you think that Pope Benedict XVI is extremist, then you just don’t understand. Of course there are people within the Catholic religion that have been extremist… just the same as there has been for every other religion, no doubt.
Besides, I doubt that there is the ‘right to take up extremist views’; rather, if one ends up an extremist, it’s through their lack of knowledge of the religion, and probably an imbalance in the mind (regarding things like tolerance).
For Christianity, through the love of God, one will be taken care of.
You don’t agree with that, I know… there’s a little thing called ‘tolerance’ and this is where it’d be awesome if you agreed to disagree, mainly because there will never be no ‘one religion of the world’. Everyone will always hold different ideas of what is ideal (re: spirituality).
Sure, I know there are extremists everywhere. And I doubt if the Pontiff has a lack of knowledge. I believe it’s just a focus on different things that caused this lack of tolerance, and this habit of forcing their views on others.
I never criticized Christianity. In fact, it does extol values of compassion and loving kindness, but I do believe that its main focus is misplaced.
And yes, there is no ‘one religion of the world’. Which is why the Pope shouldn’t be preaching religion and blaming immorality on atheists. This is not where we disagree, in fact, this is where we agree. This is our common point. If every Catholic (this includes the Pope) were like you, and exercised tolerance, the Dark Ages needn’t happen.
Edit: After posting this, only did I remember that you’re Catholic. I’m sorry if I offended you… I was criticising the Pope’s hypocratic statements, not Christianity or Catholicism as a whole
You only have to read up to the 3rd and 4th sentences of this to feel that it comes across as you criticising Christianity/Catholicism.
ok first of all i have to say i am a roman catholic.
and secondly i have to say that no, it is not because that i am a catholic that i will support blindly what my pope said.
the telegraph, UK is exaggerating on its headlines to boost its sales. and john walkenbench was merely picking up from the telegraph to post. notice after each quote from the telegraph, he had “the pope was implying..”.that was just john’s own opinion what he think the pope was implying. implying, see, not said.
it’s better you guys read the whole document of the pope to get a better understanding, though i know the doucment is very long and might put off people from reading. well perhaps then you can start reading from no. 20 onwared which is more on atheism and freedom.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
also, please go to this site to get the idea of what the pope is trying to say regarding atheism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/world/europe/01pope.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
to quote the first para:
==Atheism may be “understandable” when mankind is confronted with evil and suffering, Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his second encyclical, issued on Friday. But the attempt to banish God, he wrote, “has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice,” whether through Marxist revolution or the science that produced the atomic bomb.==
to me, i don’t look to it as the pope saying the world’s cruelty comes from atheists. to me, he was implying (yes i used the word implying too, like john, as these are all our own opinions), that when one choose not to believe in god, one will tend to get disillusioned and lost hope, and that will made the person more prone to cruelty and injustice.
no, to me, in this long encyclical letter of the pope, he did not as you, chewxy put it, ‘pin the sole cause of cruelty on atheists’.
please do read the whole letter (which he talk about hope actually) to get a better picture. just like we always said, you shouldn’t take out a line from a bible to make conclusion, the same thing applies to the pope’s encyclical letter (which is always long btw… centred on one topic).
btw chewxy, i am not too happy that you mentioned there is no difference between the pope and osama bin laden.
OT note: i don’t know is it my browser or your blog. at the comments section here, some words seems to be missing at the right side.
^I wish I could give you karma right now… but you can’t on here. So here’s a picture of some m&m cookies. (^_^)
http://www.zuzzys.com/images/cookies.jpg
Lulai:
What a nice thing to see you here. I concur with you and John Walkenbach. I know it’s John’s own opinion, but I agree with him, that the Pope is implying thus.
And when I posted the news, Vatican’s site was down, though I did find some excerpts. And through the excerpts (and even through the Vatican’s site), I still read it as the Pope trying to pin the blame on atheism. Which is hypocritical.
Atheists do not believe in God, (or in the Pope’s more negatively connotative term, “banish” God) for a reason - logic, which the Pope is implied to argue against.
You know, I can name a lot of people who got disillusioned by believing in God. Remember the kid who refused blood transfusion to save his life because he believed in God not permitting it?
I agree, perhaps my statement of using the word ’sole cause’ as being a bit exaggerating, but the whole encyclical reads thus.
Nope. Biblical texts shouldn’t be read out of context. But context changes with times. The context was placing more importance on witch hunts in the dark ages, rather than placing importance on concepts like compassion.
And seriously, there is no difference between the Pope and Osama, or Richard Dawkins (or anyone with influence, really). Or rather, the difference between them is negligible. Tell me, if the Pope tells all Catholics to start a mass genocide of non-Christians, would you do it?
Liss:
You don’t know how ironic that statement is. LOL.
now i’m offended that you mentioned again there is no difference between the pope and osama. i am appalled you would even asked that question. the answer is of course a big NO. NO NO NO!! NO. hmm…doubly offended now with this question. i am speaking for myself here but i will say i’ll be very correct to say that all of my catholic friends will also say NO.
i respect the pope as our church leader and look up to him but i am not a fanatic (like osama’s followers) who will do anything he said, especially what i know that is wrong.
the problem with non catholics is that they think we catholics worship the pope and would kiss his feet and will do all he said, agree with all his teachings and so on. let me tell you the pope is not god… he is human, he is not infallible. there are some of his teachings where catholics disagree upon… like me, i disagree with his stance on gays and masturbation.
sometimes, people, esp. those who don’t like the pope, like to extract some part of his speech, to made a hoolabaloo over it. remember his infamous speech where he was said to critcise the prophet mohammad as being evil or love war, which caused a huge backlash - riots and all that. again a part was extracted and they failed to look at his whole speech, which was a good one about peace and reconciliation. anyway i do admit maybe he shouldn’t have include that part in.
regarding the pope’s take on atheist, if that’s your view (that you agree with john), i suppose i can’t do anything as you are entitled to your own opinion, but i do stand by my view of the pope’s take as i put forward in my earlier comment.
chewxy, i don’t mind if you (or others) disagree with me on the pope’s opinion/speech but i am very offended at you putting the pope together with osama… well though yes it is your opinion, you can still stand by it but i have to voice my displeasure/offence.
You’re the one talking about context, and then you go and screw the context for the word ‘karma’?
Don’t be a tool.
Lulai:
Again, you’re off tangent. Or maybe I failed to express myself properly in my previous response.
Thank you for reassuring me that my beliefs are fallacious - and that Catholics won’t go mad and suddenly start killing people like they once did in the 13th century. Really, I start to wonder what’s up with them in the 13th Century.
And of course you do have your disagreements. I have disagreements with everything (partly because I tend to deconstruct everything in my mind)
And regarding his speech about Muhammad, I have read many reports on it, and I have read his speech too. I agree with you that many media outlets merely extracted his speech, but in my view, it’s not entirely taken out of context.
The Pope, IMHO, viewed ‘peace’ as achieved when everyone becomes Catholic. Which is plainly forcing his belief unto everyone.
Though I think the reconciliation part does make up a bit for the lack of tact in the earlier part of his speech.
Regardless, do you think the Pope still is against atheism? In my opinion, I think he is. Which can be dangerous (again, history has its marks).
And I lump Osama bin Laden, Pope Benedict, Richard Dawkins and anyone with influence (G.W.Bush, Kevin Rudd, or anyone from any cult) together, because at any given moment, they can just turn around and start ordering around genocides. Whether they do it in an abrubt manner (like Hitler and his Final Solution), or do it in a slow, charming subtle manner, guiding their people to do things (like Osama bin Laden, Sadam Hussein, Pope Innocent III)… it’s no different. It still poses a danger to the general public.
Liss:
What context? I just commented that it’s ironic and strange that you posted the above comment. No context implied (except if you thought that I implied something)
For Christ’s sake and sanity sake, people, of course there’s a world of difference between the pope and osama.
In the black and white disposed theology of monotheism it’s almost inevitable for the pope to think non believers worships or follows wrongly, i.e., something demonic. For him to condemn gays or abortion is part of the Catholic doctrinal thing.
Since I do not see his call for killing and destruction of anyone or living thing, it is simply willful madness to equate him with osama and jihad.
Being on either side of the divide, that of monotheist and non monotheist need not mean that we have to be wildly polemical although the temptation and disposition is inherently there.
me off tangent? not at all. i do understand what you are trying to say.
yes, for sure the pope is against atheism. come on, he is catholic, the holy father, the leader of all catholics, a religious leader who believe in god, how can he said he support atheism? reason is like wits0 pointed out. i don’t think any other religious leaders would say they support atheism too!
quote: “Thank you for reassuring me that my beliefs are fallacious - and that Catholics won’t go mad and suddenly start killing people like they once did in the 13th century. Really, I start to wonder what’s up with them in the 13th Century.”
13th century? that long?? it’s not fair to compare what happened so long ago with the present. if you want to compare and dig out skeletons as they said, there are lots of skeletons from the catholic church (like the spanish inquisition, dark ages). likewise, skeletons from the other religion too.
if you compare thus, you might be like a person who hates all japanese living now because long ago during the war, the japanese killed all his family. this person will feel that the japanese killed his family long time ago… they were cruel inhuman people, so now he looked to all japanese as cruel inhuman too. likewise, you feel that during the 13th century catholics started killing people, so now, they too might started killing people. not a fair view.
OTOH you might feel me comparing your view with the ‘japanese’ view is not fair. haha. and this will round and round, so let’s just agree to disagree.
one last say i had to say though is echo what wits0 had said - there is a world of difference between the pope and osama.
“if the Pope tells all Catholics to start a mass genocide of non-Christians, would you do it?”
Then he would’ve committed Institutional and Spiritual Seppuku in this world today.
Lucia:
Consider the video that Papito posted. The monk said it’s okay to be an atheist! Wot? How can a buddhist religious leader codone atheism? ZOMG! That’s dividing by zero!
Point is, he doesn’t have to be against atheism. He should be neutral towards atheism. I’ve read through his speeches, and it’s not very well written. It seems to propagate mixed messages (yes the entire speech, you know me better than to quote things out of context) of compassion, and inciting hatred. He has to bear the responsibility, as a public figure, as an influential figure, to maintain peace (without trying to convert everyone to Catholicism).
And yes, the 13th century way up to the Salem Witch Hunts in the 17th century was called the Dark Ages. Which was quite immediately followed by the Inquisition until the 18th century. And it is not a fair view.
History has never been kind or fair to people who are wildly evil (except those who write the history books). History will remember Hitler as supremely evil. History will remember the Rape of Nanking, even though the Japanese may whitewash their history. History will remember that George Washington wrote a senseless retirement speech (I fell asleep reading it). History will never forget what the Popes did in the past. History will never forget why Protestants fought against the Catholics. History will never forget why Anne Boleyn was beheaded.
History however, might not really remember that Jesus was actually a kind teacher, given the atrocities Christians have committed as an aggregate so far.
No, no, don’t get me wrong. I am not comparing or judging what Christians did in the past and what they might do in the future. I am merely comparing what Christians (and what other monotheistic religions) believe - that their doctrine is perfect, and infallible.
To prove my point - as I said, the general Christian understanding of the Bible have evolved over the years, and is radically different from the days in the 13th Century. In the 13th Century, I’d be dragged off on a stake, and labelled a heretic. Thank goodness society progressed on to be more tolerant. Same scripture, different understandings, different emphasis.
When I bring up the Dark Ages, I am saying Pope Benedict may be trying to revert the social understanding and emphasis way back to the Dark Ages - a crackdown on atheists, and what the Church labels as ‘heretics’. And believe you me, the Pope is so influential, he is able to revert the whole understanding of the scripture back to how Pope Innocent III understood the scripture in the 13th Century.
Impossible, you say? Because of our societal understandings so far? Not really. Hitler managed to gas 1 million Jews. Saddam Hussein managed to kill thousands of Kurds. And all the genocides you see in the newspaper. Osama bin Laden managed to sway so many young minds into his cause. The minds of the general populace is more closed than you think.
Wit0:
Yes, I know that I don’t have to make it so polemical, but don’t you think the Pope has some social responsibility to not make it so too?
There is no difference between the Pope and Osama. There is no difference between you and Osama.
Only difference in the mind. MRMMM?
You see… I used Osama as an example, followed by using you being no different from Osama. It invokes feelings, because you feel yourself different. You feel the Pope different. Difference is only in the mind.
That said, I’m no different from Osama, or the Pope, the Dalai Lama, George Bush, Kevin Rudd, or Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Except perhaps I do not have that much influence over people. Yet.
But still, we’re all humans. So, no different.
Wit0:
Regarding the seppukku statement, I LOL’d at that too.
i am very different from osama.
i am very different from osama.
i am very different from osama.
Let’s deconstruct it philosophically.
The only difference between you and Osama, that is tangible, is your sex. You are female, he is male. Your molecular and microbiological build is otherwise the same.
The rest of the difference is intangible. Thoughts, actions (which has tangible outcomes though), understandings of the world, beliefs. He’s Muslim, and you’re Christian. He’s extreme in all sorts of actions, you are less (but still not centrist). Lots of difference I see, but nothing really tangible that makes a world difference.
Heck, even both you and Osama even believe in the same God - don’t tell me it’s a different one. Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh are all the same entity. Haven’t you heard that God has 99 names? (I know the 100th name too - it’s somewhere between ‘oi’ and ‘buddy, you still owe me 13k Teas from the last chess game. Paying back 7k Teas doesn’t constitute paying back in full.’). It’s the way you believe in the same God that is different.
Yes, the difference between goodness and evil originates from the mind. If you have cultivated, say, the Buddha nature, there’s no way you’ll turn bad but if you have been indoctrinated with Osama’s jihad philosophy, you have lost it all. There is no perfect security in life. Our past Karma predisposes ourselves in relatively better or worse circumstances by birth.
No cause to feel disturb or paranoid about this. Things aren’t going to change regarding the nature of good or evil even if you’re disturbed over this - they both come from the mind through the influence of the attendant ideology imbibed.
All the difference is source from the mind and how it perceives Reality. This is not a small difference ; it is all the difference. It’s all in the mind first and from there the effects are made manifest individually and en masse.
Osama thinks he is fighting for his “God” but what real God would need frail men to fight for him? Therein is the oxymoronic nonsense incorporated which he’ll never understand because his Creed permanently dooms his rationality and replaces it with prideful fanaticism.
When some religion became heavily tainted with politics and power as in the earlier days of Christianity, evil happened. The Reformation was the watershed and Humanism became a guiding force for society.
Railing at the Church will not bring you much satifaction. The actions that men do will rebound back on them in time. No sane Catholics would support the past historical excesses of their Church today but a lot of passive muslims may think that somehow Osama is not wrong. Karma isn’t exactly something inexorable but repentance and changes along the same line do ameliorate the bad consequences.
No point snivelling at the Church because of the past Popes etc. To do so reflects a lack of grace and tolerance on our own part. It is, afterall, not a party today calling for world domination but has within its fold a lot of good people not unlike those outside its fold.
Chewyx, you are wrong on this technicality of “same God”. Catholics have their God and their Concept came long before Osama’s. No way that can be the same God just because Osama’s Creed claims so. The anthropomorphic qualities(which always come with the God Concept) are entirely different.
Which, as you may know (From Lilian’s blog when she struck out my comments), I am supremely against indoctrination. I don’t care what philosophy, or ideology - Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Hindu… it’s still all indoctrination.
I may have to take back my words - a small difference in the mind may be all the difference in the world, just like how a small degree off tangent a rocket’s launch vector would mean a very far distance away.
No, there’s no need to feel disturbed. But I always believe we can all do a part to make the world a better place (ooh, how uneconomist of me! I don’t think at margins! oops. I just divided by zero and went into nullinity)
Actually, you know what brings me satisfaction? If people would actually change (meself included). Change for the betterment of humanity.
And yea, I’ve been quite extreme in.. as you say, snivelling at the Church for its past. But sometimes, you need to look at history to avoid pitfalls in the future.
Differentiation based on semantics isn’t much of a differentiation, isn’t it?
I mean, Christians believe in the Trinity, but Muslims believe elsewise, though it still boils down to this one same proud entity of a god.
The anthromorphic identity isn’t necessarily tied to the god concept. I mean, the Jews and the Christians share the Pentateuch. The Muslims think that the Injil (i.e. the Bible) and the Talmud are also words of God. So it’s just building on precedents
Lilian herself, I noticed, is quite pedantic, unstudied and ignorant. She’ll strike down any comments that contradicts her fundamental beliefs. And she keeps repeating the nonsense about “same God”.
Jesus teachings are largely Spiritual, no where did he expound conquest or revolution as was hope for by the Jewish zealots who expected him to lead a revolt against Roman rule. He was a great Spiritual Master. What happened to the Church was not his fault.
There is no justification for drawing a moral equivalence between Osama and the Pope. I may not subscribe to the Pope’s doctrine but I accept that he is of good intent, not so Os-ly one.
Chewyx, every Belief System has its own set of doctrine which must be separated from Dogmas which is the culprit. A Faith is best functioning as a Persuasion, not an obligation. And as such any Faith today that disallows its adherents to leave when their hearts are no longer with it is suspect.
I think the Christian Trinity thing is related to an ancient esoteric Symbolism predating Christianity but recasted into Christian terms by way of definition. But let’s not go into that.
The ancient God of Moses was depicted clearly as a wrafthful war god siding with them against other tribes and their gods. That of Jesus was that of a Loving Father who cares even for a swallow. As men changed in becoming more civilized so did/must their idealized and improved Concept of God. If they stick to an unchanging war god sort of worship, they’ll only end up as Osama and certain doom and destruction for themselves in due time, no matter how vehement they kept to their ideology. Their Kar-ma will run over their Dog-ma.
Nope. Never said there was something wrong with JC. In fact, I had always stressed that he was a compassionate and kind teacher. But the Church spoilt everything he taught.
You may have no doubt the Pope has a good intent, but I doubt so. Call me a skeptic
As for your last 2 comments… after moderating one interfaith discussions too many, I’d say, it’s very unwise to spout those statements.
So, no reply to those (although I can reply for the sake of replying)
First and formost let me state that the pope is not christian, he is catholic. Big difference. I in my personal opinion do not agree with anything the pope says because he is a deceiver and an anti christ. Jesus christ is my only God and i worship him as one with God. To worship is defined as to bow down or to kiss the hand which is what catholics do to the pope. There is no one person who is closer to God then any other child of God so why does the pope have special privleges. Also one must go through the pope to talk to God which is another misunderstanding. In the Christian belief Jesus died on the cross so we could have a chance for heaven through Jesus and him alone, NOT a modern man such as the pope. The pope isnt Holy and is not God so dont blame Christianity for the mistakes of a antichrist.