Pope Speaks Truth -- Muslims Ready to Fight

Parent Cafe
121

<p>Having mini “clarify” a point on religion is like having the Inquisition run you next barbeque. Mini, you should have kept your religious “source” to yourself, because now the cats out of the bag:</p>

<p>Mini’s “Nobeliefs.com” for your entertainment–in all its bigoted, hateful glory:</p>

<p>Nobeliefs.com:</p>

<p>Here, we have their rendition of "Christian Cannibals:”
<a href=“http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm[/url]”>http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here, we are offered Christianities preeminent modern enthusiast going about the practice of the Gospels:

</p>

<p>Here, the Bible as homicidal pornography; the ancient equivalent of a “snuff-film”:

</p>

<p>Here we find Jesus never existed (it’s a hoax):

</p>

<p>Here, Martin Luther as father to Hitler:

</p>

<p>Here, addressing their audience’s “real” concern: the truth of Star Trek (warp speed ahead!):

</p>

<p>Nobeliefs Quote for the day:

</p>

<p>Other fascinating topics:

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This one comes as a real surprise:

</p>

<p>Next, we have Nobeliefs.com’s Cartoons: each and every one reminiscent of the Nazi style of portraying the **“evil Jew”<a href=“on%20this%20occasion:%20%5Bb%5D“evil%20Christian”%5B/b%5D”>/b</a>:</p>

<p>The best for last (not to be missed):
“Christian Cannibals:”
<a href=“http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm[/url]”>http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“Jesus fooled them all:”
<a href=“http://www.nobeliefs.com/praying.htm[/url]”>http://www.nobeliefs.com/praying.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“The true spirit of Christianity:”
<a href=“http://www.nobeliefs.com/spirit.htm[/url]”>http://www.nobeliefs.com/spirit.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“How Christians heed the teachings of Jesus:”
<a href=“http://www.nobeliefs.com/heed.htm[/url]”>http://www.nobeliefs.com/heed.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“Errant teachings:”
<a href=“http://www.nobeliefs.com/errant.htm[/url]”>http://www.nobeliefs.com/errant.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So much for Mini’s “credible source” on theology…simply more in the disgusting and never-ending tradition of hate-mongering.</p>

122

<p>Unbelievable…and sad.</p>

123

<p>the bible is all interpretation</p>

<p>the article sited above is an extreme example of that interpretation, eating the flesh of Christ, something I do, can sound strange to some</p>

<p>as can the idea of many other parts of the bible</p>

<p>who is to say what is literal and what is symoblic and as a Catholic, what is “real”</p>

<p>I am in no way defending the article, but think of it this way, when looking at religion and the bible, anything goes and has gone, no one has a right to say, well, this is MY interpretation and I am right</p>

<p>Some really believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but a careful reading CAN show they were not, some think the Red Sea literally parted, some now say it was possible the Reed Sea, some say its okay to hit their children because the bible says so, others find that abhorent, some say that Jesus walked on water, some say, no, some say the fish and loaves multiplied, a miracle, others say it was symbolic, yet we get all huffy when some think the eating of Jesus’s body and blood should be looked at one way</p>

<p>This book has created turmoil all through history…of those that follow the bible, how many of you don’t eat pork, the bible tells you not to, how many think the male is your boss, cause that’s how many see it, how many of you see that as the"male/female" balances of mind and heart?</p>

<p>To get angry because someone else doesn’t see the bible and its teachings and other interpretation exactly as you want, well, is a closemindedness in its own way…sure, be angry, but don’t be suprised, people can find anything they want in that book and turn it into whatever they want</p>

<p>What about the way people use the bible to talk about homosexuals…is that the “right” way to look at it? I find it scary that a book has that much power and can be used to basically justify anything</p>

124

<p>Well, some liberals do get it.</p>

<p><a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

125

<p>Did anyone read the blatherings of the author of the ‘Christian Cannibal’ article. I laughed out loud. For the author to make his case that the Eucharist caused him to become a ‘cannibal’, he would have had to be a BELIEVER in transubstantiation. But how in the world can he claim to be a ‘cannibal’ if in fact he is a person with ‘nobeliefs’ or an atheist? His satire fails miserably on this broken logic alone.</p>

<p>Also, clearly this author, a former Catholic, must not have been paying attention in Catechism…because believers in transubstantiation do not believe they are actually eating the blood and body of Christ when they take the wine and wafer into their mouths at Communion. They believe in a miracle.</p>

<p>What a disgusting website. How can someone use this site as support for their argument and not be embarrassed?</p>

<hr>

<p>From mini’s link…
The author states:
"When I discovered the shocking realization that I had eaten human flesh, and drank human blood I felt like vomiting. Where in the world did this morbid practice begin, I wondered. I reread the Bible for clues. Could that explain the mystery of the empty tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:3)? Did the disciples eat him?</p>

<h2>Several Christians tried to console me by explaining that Communion only represents the symbolic eating of flesh, not the real thing (I later discovered that many Protestant Christians don’t believe in the literal eating of Jesus, although some do). I felt relieved for awhile until other Christians told me otherwise (virtually all Catholics and Episcopalians believe in the literal interpretation). I began to do a bit of research for myself from the Catholic Church’s own position. My stomach began to churn again as I discovered what communion and the Eucharist really means."</h2>

126

<p>Hate is hate, no matter who’s doing the talking. I would never post a link that was so ugly and disgusting, and the fact that mini posted it affects my view of him. Not much more I can say.</p>

127

<p>Wasn’t Martin Luther himself a huge anti-semite?? I can’t believe a whole church is based around his teachings…</p>

128

<p>mini lost me when he/she posted a site with a picture of a Martin Luther rose pin circa the 1930’s which implied this pin was a Nazi symbol. </p>

<p>That particular pin commemorated the 450th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birthday which just so happens to coincide with the year Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. That Luther Rose pin would have been issued no matter WHO was in charge. Hitler also hosted the Olympics in Berlin in 1936…I wonder if anyone would like to claim the Olympic symbols, medals etc of the Berlin games were also Nazi propaganda?</p>

129

<p>Wow…see the damage that is done. </p>

<p>Martin Luther first embraced German Jews hoping to convert them. When they persistently denied Christ, he wrote many articles condemning them for this. Nowhere in his writings on Jewish rejection of Christ is there the underlying eugenic belief system that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party endorsed. </p>

<p>Luther’s writings condemning Jews were ignored for two centuries until Hitler dusted them off to serve his purpose. Since those writings, all branches of the Lutheran Church have consistently condemned these early writings of Martin Luther. So it would be a huge mistake to judge the Lutheran faith on something they have rejected for hundreds of years.</p>

<p>I remember studying Martin Luther as young adult in my confirmation classes and how strongly our Pastor focused on this sad chapter of ML’s life. It was the example to us all that ML was not a perfect man…that we should not revere him as a ‘saint’ or as God-like. He was wrong about some things and right about others. Aren’t we all?</p>

130

<p>Sure no one is perfect but not everybody calls for the complete elimination or exile of a certain race or relegion. Also, I am not sure what mini posted but I have read many of Martin Luthers writings myself so please don’t blame mini for my feelings. They come from my own research. Also I don’t believe it matters why he wanted the jews to suffer and die (eugenics/not converting). It matters that he wanted the same final result. It is good to hear that the Lutheran church condemns those writings. Admittedly I know more about the man then the current day religion.</p>

131

<p>So are some parts of the bible symbolic, and some literal, and who decides which is right or wrong? </p>

<p>To blaim only Hitler for “brushing” off the old bad stuff is forgetting America’s very ugly history of using the bible to justify slavery, women’s lack of rights, oppression, etc</p>

<p>Hitler wasn’t the first to twist and turn biblical teachings, nor will he be the last</p>

<p>When you have kids at bible camp hearing</p>

<p>“there are two types of people- Us Christians and everyone else” what in the world do you think that means?</p>

<p>Are we suddenly a better people when it comes to the Bible and religion then humanity was 500 years ago? 50 years ago? </p>

<p>People act all uppity if people “misinterpret” the bible, but that has been going on since man picked and choice what went into it, since it was translated…and to this day, biblical verses are used to hurt people, justify beating, not provide medical care, blame people for getting sick</p>

<p>Anyone remember when gays were told that Aids and HIV where Gods punishment for “laying down with men”</p>

<p>To think that all the teachings from the bible that were "turned around’ to hurt people are behind us is not seeing what is happening NOW…</p>

<p>So someone wrote an article that the eating of Christ flesh and drinking his blood was cannibilistic, well, my kids were told, as was I that it is the literal taking in of Christs body and blood, not symbolic…it is the blood and body of Christ, not a representation, not that it changes, but IS…</p>

<p>the article goes to the extreme, but is that so different than the people that read the bible and say the earth is 10,000 years old? or that say, the bible tells me its okay to hit my kids? or this:</p>

<p>“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
“There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.” Rev. Alexander Campbell
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
“The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.” A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
“The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.” United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3</p>

132

<p>sweetny - you state that you ‘can’t believe a whole church is based around his teachings’ and that you have done your own research, but you seem to be unaware that the Lutheran Church had condemned persecution of Jews for centuries. I have to wonder if your research has been thorough if all you can cite is one negative aspect of Martin Luther’s life and by virtue of that one negative aspect, you choose to denigrate an entire faith. You should look at mini’s links…if they didn’t damage your opinion, certainly you will have to agree they will unjustly damage someone else’s.</p>

<p>CGM - You pick and choose amongst the worst of the worst examples of Christianity gone wrong. How different is that from someone who picks and chooses from the Scripture to justify their actions?</p>

133

<p>LD, I can tell this is very personal for you and thus it is hard for you to see it objectively. However, I made my comment after you talked about celebrating him specifically. If it is not part of your religion then why do you celebrate him. Also I said specifically that I researched him and not the current day religion. Did he denounce his stance later in life and redeem himself? How did I denigrate an entire faith?? I thought it was reassuring that the church had denounced those teachings. When I said I can’t believe that a whole church is based around his teachings, I meant exactly what I said. I can’t believe it. You reassured me by telling me that they did not follow those teachings of his. On the other hand I do not know how it could possibly be acceptable to you to just ignore what he stood for. Sounds rather convienent…</p>

134

<p>Of course it is personal. I’m Lutheran. But I don’t deny or disrespect your pov. I’d like you make you understand that Lutherans don’t ignore what Luther said about Jews. His changing position on the Jewish faith from warm embrace and concern to bitter hatred over the rejection of Christ is studied very carefully in our Church. We express sorrow, condemnation and remorse that Martin Luther found himself so misguided on this issue. We teach our children that Jews are God’s Chosen People, we have Passover dinners to honor the Jewish faith from which our faith sprang and we reinforce to each other that we share common Scripture with those of the Jewish faith. This to me, is the epitome of objectivity. </p>

<p>But it is important to note that prominent Reformation historians of all faiths, and no faiths, have concluded that the source of Luther’s anger against Jews was confined to their rejection of Christ and not racially or ethnically motivated against them as a people. "Far from hating the Jewish people, and despite the ferocity of his attacks, Luther “never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians.” (Richard Marius, Cambridge) This is direct opposition to the ideals of the Nazi party.</p>

<p>There exists a religion that follows the teaching of Martin Luther because although he was fallible and made mistakes, Luther gave to the world much that comforts…the three solas, the Bible in common language and the idea that the common man was saved in the same way as kings and princes…by Faith. And since he is not here to apologize for himself, we do it for him.</p>

135

<p>And on a LIGHTER note. Has anyone ever seen Eddie Izzard’s bit on religion in his HBO special “Dressed to Kill”?? Sidesplittingly funny! He skewers everyone from the Druids to Church of England to the Mormons. I highly recommend it.</p>

136

<p>Idmom:
You are certainly entitled to your faith, but are you aware of these writings by the founder of your Church:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He didn’t suggest mass extermination by gas, but it is easy to see how Hitler didn’t understand the limits.</p>

137

<p>Thank you LD for discussing your beliefs with me. Just a side note I believe the way I do because of what he wrote in his own words. The nazis and hitler are their own seperate brand of evil. I understand that.</p>

138

<p>gla…please go back and read my posts. It IS very unfortunate that Luther’s misguided tirades provided fodder for Hitler. It would be wonderful to know if Luther could see 400 years into the future to the tragedy of the Holocaust, would his views have been changed or softened. Based on his early writings, I would like to think so. </p>

<p>And seems to me if Hitler had read the following, he might have figured out the limits. </p>

<p>From a Jewish encyclopedia…</p>

<h2>"In Luther’s attitude toward the Jews two periods have to be distinguished. During the earlier, which lasted until 1537 or shortly before, he is full of compassion for their misery and enthusiastic for their conversion to Christianity; in the later, toward the end of his life, he denounces them in unmeasured terms… The first of Luther’s works dealing with the Jews is a pamphlet entitled “Dass Jesus ein Geborner Jude Sei,” which appeared in 1543 and was republished seven times in the same year. [Luther says in this pamphlet] “I would advise and beg everybody to deal kindly with the Jews and to instruct them in the Scripture; in such a case we could expect them to come over to us. If, however, we use brute force and slander them [“gehen mit Luegentheiding umb”], saying that they need the blood of Christians to get rid of their stench, and other nonsense of that kind, and treat them like dogs, what good can we expect of them? Finally, how can we expect them to improve if we prohibit them to work among us and to have social intercourse with us, and so force them into usury? If we wish to make them better we must deal with them not according to the law of the pope, but according to the law of Christian charity. We must receive them kindly and allow them to compete with us in earning a livelihood, so that they may have an opportunity to witness Christian life and doctrine…”</h2>

<p>sweetny - And I understand it is possible to despise Luther’s harsh treatment of Jews and not hold the same contempt for modern Lutherans. I realize you hold these two things separately as well. :-)</p>

139

<p>Absolutely!</p>

140

<p><a href=“'A man with little sympathy for other faiths' | Catholicism | The Guardian”>'A man with little sympathy for other faiths' | Catholicism | The Guardian;