Pope Benny what are you thinking?

When I saw this headline, “Pope prays alongside Islamic cleric during visit to historic Istanbul mosque”, I promised told myself I wasn’t going to post about it.

So much for that.

Uncle Benny, I know that you are an educated man. You have forgotten more than I will ever know regarding a myriad of things. Yet the sheer stupidity of going into a mosque and praying (though according to the piece he was “meditating” uh-huh) is astounding. For you Catholics out there I know you believe he’s beyond reproach (except of course when the Muslims are insulted or he’s doctrinally correct) but Benny doesn’t have a clue. Worse yet, he does have a clue but to appease the world (instead of Christ) he walks into a place of worship of a false religion and prays (prays!).

I cannot imagine, the ‘first pope’ Peter, going into the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus and doing something similar. Someone also tells me that Paul wouldn’t pull this stunt. I know Benny isn’t the first Pope to prostrate himself in such a manner, that dishonor goes to his apostate predecessor, Johnny P.

Yes, Benny I know, I know, the followers of Muhammad are our brothers because we believe in the same God. HORSE-HOCKEY!!! Benny how can that be? I know your catechism makes this claim but it’s baloney. Christ claimed to be God Incarnate yet the Muslims don’t accept this. How can we believe in the same God? Benny, what Festus told Paul (“your great learning is driving you mad”) didn’t apply in Paul’s case but it certainly applies in yours.

One of my favorite quotes from Benny regarding this visit was this:

“This visit will help us find together the way of peace for the good of all humanity…”

Benny, a way of peace? What of the Prince of Peace? The one the Muslims don’t regard as the One He claimed to be? Let me guess He’s not the ‘way of peace’ right? Yeah the same One who died for the good of humanity, who died to save humanity from themselves, what of that? How can you forget that Benny? I’m sure it was covered somewhere in one of the many classes you have taken.

Your great learning maybe didn’t drive you mad but it certainly has made your discernment a bit shaky.


23 Responses to Pope Benny what are you thinking?

  1. Pingback: The Weekly Roundup - December 1st, 2006 « A Spot of Blogger

  2. diana says:

    I told myself I wasn’t even going to read beyond a headline about this (headlines are enough to tell you you don’t wanna read it or know details) but so much for that. lol. I read your post (1st and hopefully last on this topic) and I share your frustration.

    God bless you,

  3. nyoped says:

    “Phony religion”? As if there’s a religion that is not phony. But yiu should know you all believe in the same god: Aten. Aten is the first “one god” the Egyptian ruler created to rule more efficiently. Do you think it is a coincidence that all one god religions started in the same part of the earth?

    I like when religious people go skeptical for their interest but then go back to blindless when it is about their own faith.

    Good luck

  4. Lazaro says:

    Nyo, since there is no such thing as a ‘coincidence’ I agree with you, all ‘religions’ started in Mesopotamia. Adam and Eve (the first humans) resided in the Garden of Eden, located in Mesopotamia.

    Since Mesopotomia is where humans originated from (because God created the first ones there) then it stands to reason that this would be where religions came from. Religions, man-made systems of belief (secularism is an example), may or may not have anything to do with the Creator of the universe.

    Religions that deal with the true God are Judaism (pre Messiah) and Christianity. All other religions (though they may have some truths,for example Islam correctly says that there is one god, they just believe in a false one) are falsehoods (at best) or outright lies (at worst).

    Thanks for the comment.

  5. erik says:

    “For you Catholics out there I know you believe he’s beyond reproach (except of course when the Muslims are insulted or he’s doctrinally correct) but Benny doesn’t have a clue.”

    that is great.

  6. jasonk says:

    Didn’t Paul set up shop next to a temple erected to the unknown god, and use it to point people to Christ?

  7. nyoped says:

    Secularism is not a belief. It is the idea that assumes there will be always be different beliefs and we should keep them to ourselves while making decisions affecting others. In other words just because you feel it in you so strong it does not make it real so keep it to yourself.

    Some might believe the earth is 6,000 years old but we cannot stop a discipline of science just because it conflicts with some’s beliefs.

    There are so many kinds of spiritual ideas going on in the world that we could not keep up with them anyway. Why is Islam phony but not yours?

  8. Lazaro says:

    Nyo, secularism (as you so aptly defined it) is most certainly a belief. You just proved it in your definition: “we should keep them (beliefs) to ourselves.”

    The word ‘should’ betrays an ideal which secularists hold to (in this case, that we should shut our traps regarding our beliefs when it comes to others). A secularist believes that that’s the way it SHOULD be, right? This proves that it’s a belief system as I stated before (“should” is a dangerous word if you want to sound objective).

    What stopping the discipline of science has to do with the age of the earth I can’t say. What I can say is that we can’t know for sure how old the earth is. Personally I believe it to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6000 years old because I take the Creation account in Genesis seriously and thus literally.

    Others believe it’s far older than that (I did, once upon a time) and they have good reason to BELIEVE that. Yeah the old earth folk believe it they don’t know for sure it’s really old. Why? 1)No one witnessed the beginning of time
    2)The childish, emotional outbursts (I’ve seen them) with which any evidence presented against an old earth is greeted with, belie a deep zealotry for the belief system that the earth is billions of years old

    Not to mention how any evidence that doesn’t support an old earth is scoffed at and automatically dismissed, why? Because it doesn’t fit the conclusion their worldview (mostly naturalism) has reached for them.

    I’ve found out that one can be pretty functional within a research laboratory without subscribing to an old earth, thus my point that the age of the earth has little to do with real scientific work.

    Islam is phony for a variety of reasons. The Quran (its basis) is based on the testimony of one man, Muhammad. Are we to believe any one person that claims God spoke to him just because he said so? Joseph Smith’s religion is in the same boat, one man claiming that some angel gave him some revelation and thus a new belief system springs up.
    I can’t say whether Muhammad propagated a falsehood or a lie, I cannot read the man’s intentions for he is dead.

    Why isn’t Christianity phony? Well I’m not a theologian but I can say for the simple reason that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote that without this happening, Christianity is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.

    Over 500 people saw the Resurrected Christ. No one saw Gabriel appearing to Muhammed or Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith. Let’s not forget that Mithras and other mythological “dead-risers”, you know the whole lot who Jesus allegedly belongs to, lived who knows when and where. Jesus was crucified by a real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.

    Muhammed and every other founder of every other religion is buried somewhere, Jesus’ tomb remains empty to this day.

    Haven’t even scratched the surface of it and I’m sure you might have objections, and I would be glad to hear them.

  9. Lazaro says:

    Jason, Paul might have set up shop in Mars Hill but he didn’t offer sacrifices to a pagan god (turn towards Mecca)…

    Paul was distressed at the number of idols in Athens, I wonder if Uncle Benny was equally distressed by the mosque?

  10. nyoped says:

    Secularism is not a belief. You can believe that the world is 6000 years old but as long as you let the science keep working on its calculation you are secular. Of course, the result of the calculations might conflict with your beliefs -that’s where the ‘should’ element come into play. What if the calculation is wrong? Science will eventually correct it (assumuning the human race will last long enough and science will have the liberty to challange all ideas). Once again secularism does not impose anything like the earth is 1 billion years old -it is not a belief. And because it is not a belief secularism has no conflict with the world being 1 billion or 6000 years old.

    Secularism require you to keep your beliefs to yourself. It does not have statements like “the world is x years” old and “the society consists of x levels” as a belief would. Human mind has solved many questions and it is capable of much more -especially when it is free of beliefs, which is what secularism promises.

    I agree that it is not smart for billions of people to follow a legend which is based of a testimonial given by the person who got the most benefit out of it. But I think you should be able to see the ‘blanks’ in other beliefs including your own. If I can find 500 people claiming that they have witnessed my miracles would you believe in me?

  11. Lazaro says:

    Nyo, either I’m not making myself clear,which of course wouldn’t be the first time :), or you’re not understanding what I’m saying. You said:

    “[The]Human mind has solved many questions and it is capable of much more -especially when it is free of beliefs, which is what secularism promises.”

    This is a statement of faith, of belief if you will. what ‘secularism promises?’ A promise is something which is BELIEVED will come true. As God promised Abraham that all people would be blessed because of him, and Abraham believed God. Guess what? Because he believed God, that means he had faith in God and therefore believes what God told him.

    Same situation, ‘secularism promises’ something. Therefore, secularists believe that that something will happen sometime in the future.

    How is that not a belief system?

    Again, what science has to do with the age of the earth I do not know and neither do you. Our planet’s age cannot be verified one way or another by science. There were no humans around when it all began, therefore no observation of the time elapsed can be done.

    Science is based on observation and the dating methods are all based on inference, another matter altogether. Same goes with the ‘almighty’ genetic clocks found in the genomes of living organisms.

    “Blanks” in Christianity? sure there are, how can there not be? We possess finite minds trying to grasp things which lie outside of Nature. It’s inconceivable to me how the God of the Universe cares about us and shows it by sending His son to die for wretches like us.

    How Eternal Spirit and man can come together in a 1st Century Jew from Palestine boggles all explanation, there might be others who can comprehend it I just haven’t met anyone who has. The Mystery of the Incarnation is what it’s called I think…

    Nyo, I can probably take you to Mexico and hook you up with more than 500 people who have witnessed a miracle (real or not). What I or you for that matter, can’t do is find 500 people who saw a man be executed only to rise from the dead 3 days later. All the Jewish or Roman authorities had to do was producethe body and poof goes Christianity, but how could they when the body wasn’t in the tomb?

  12. nyoped says:

    You make yourself really clear but I guess I could not explain myself. Let me try one more time. Secularism provide a blank page every time we start an essay. If it were a belief the page would not be blank, it would be (half) full. Promising a blank page is not even near to imposing starting points or reference points which every belief system has.

    Science might not pinpoint the exact age of the earth but it can prove that it is not 6000 years old.

    By the way, even though here we discuss them together science and secularism are not the same thing.

    I know I cannot find 500 people who saw a man be executed only to rise from the dead 3 days later but I can find 500 people who can claim they did so. And of course I would have removed the body from the thomb. (I really do not want to simplify things which are very important for many people but when these stories are brought to the discussion by the believer I find it appropriate to tell my opinio -hopefully nobody gets offended here)


  13. Lazaro says:

    A blank page isn’t a starting point? Come now my good man. There cannot be a blank page for we all have our biases do we not? Are you trying to push the belief that the secularist is objective?

    There’s that word again, “promising”… Why does secularism ‘promise’ a blank page? Because this secularists believe that this is the best course of action, no? Believe, hmmm….

    Yeah I know that science and secularism aren’t the same thing. Some of the best scientists have not been secularists (Newton and Pasteur for example)

    So you believe (there’s that word again) that Jesus’ body was removed from the tomb? If so, removed by whom? His apostles?

    Well you’re not going to find the 500 people because this solitary event occurred 2000 years ago…

    Exactly how can ‘science’ (well actually it’s men not science)disprove a 6000 year old earth? Since real science is based on observation backed up by repetition how is the earth’s age proved by science since we cannot go back to the beginning?

  14. nyoped says:

    Of course secularism is all about being objective. It is really difficult for everyone to put one’s beliefs aside. It takes effort. For a secular mind it does not matter if the age of the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old. As long as the method used for the calculation is scientific, for a secular, the result is really does not matter. Would a secularist manipulate the calculation so that the result ends up what he wants? No, because he has no preferences. Would a religious objective? Not unless the answer is what he wants. And the answer he wants is what his religion imposes him. It might seem impossible to you to start with a blank page. But I can assure you that if your religion hadn’t claimed it to be 6000 years old, you could have been pretty objective (blank page). Why would you care? Do you care whether the moon is 300,000km or 3 million km away? Probably not, because it does not challange your belief. Yes you can be objective in most areas. And yes secularism provides the best infrastructure.

    We already know what big beliefs say about most cases. But we could also use what science finds out as well.

    The was science is pretty straight forward. You can calculate how far the moon is away from it. If you used scientific method, then we you send a rocket to the moon, you can calculate the estimated arrical time.

    Science has been fine tuning the calculation of the earth’s age. It ranges around billions of years. It is pretty far away from 6000 years old.
    Explanation of the calculations might confuse you but I am sure the explanation about radio waves would confuse you as well. Scienctific facts are reviewed by peers. It is a sin for almost all religions to challange established beliefs.

    Newton might have been a religious one. But he did not let it interfere with what he was working on (or the religion had no conflict with it at all). If there had been a conflict and Newton had been so religious -would religios people prefer Newton not discover all that knowledge for the sake of his beliefs?

    Well of course I won’t be able to find 500 people from 2000 years ago. But I might arrange 500 people today and start a new religion.

    Take care

  15. Lazaro says:

    LOL, if secularism is all about ‘being objective’ it’s already faulty due to our inability to be objective. Think man no one is objective. You seriously believe that scientists don’t let their presuppositions get in the way of their conclusions? I work in the field and what I’ve seen convinces me otherwise.

    You have much faith in secularists (“Would a secularist manipulate the calculation so that the result ends up what he wants? No, because he has no preferences.”)

    You’re wrong, flat out wrong. Everyone has preferences. The secularist has preferences, mainly that everyone see things like he does. After all isn’t that the only way the human race will move towards that radiant future Marx told us about?

    Yeah, distance to the moon is something that can be observed and measured and most importantly repeated and verified. This is what science is, the age of the earth cannot be verified like the distance to the moon can, I’m sorry you can’t see the difference.

    Well can you enlighten me with these ‘complex scientific explanations’ please? Radiometric dating? Strata? Stars that are millions of light years away? Please… The old earth belief came before these things, you don’t think the people that invented these ‘clocks’ didn’t have their presuppositions? LOL…

  16. freevolition says:

    Lazaro, if I may throw another hypothesis into the mix regarding the ‘old earth’, have you heard of the gap theory? How much time actually elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? No one knows for certain, but the Scriptures do tell us in verse 1 that Elohim created (‘bara’ in the Hebrew)the heavens and the earth. The verb ‘bara’ is always used to indicate the creation of something from nothing. Theologians call it “creatio ex nihilo”. Incidentally, this verb is also used to describe Elohim’s creation of the human soul, but I digress. Now verse 2, in the Hebrew, actually begins with the disjunctive clause ‘but’ (not ‘and’ as is written in most English translations) followed by the verb ‘hayah’ (became). So, verse 2 should actually begin, “But the earth became formless and void…”. So between verse 1, where Elohim created the perfect heavens and earth, and verse 2 some event occurred that laid waste to the planet, leaving it in darkness and covered in water, which was most likely in the form of ice due to the lack of light and hence heat.
    It is also interesting to note that on the first day of restoration Elohim commanded light to be, but it is not until the fourth day that He created the lightbearers (sun, moon, stars).

  17. nyoped says:

    Of course a secularist has no preferences when it comes to the age of the earth. Of course a secularist might be biased in one area while another one is another area. But there is no one single bias that secularists share. But belief systems impose bias to to the believers. I would not care if the world were 4 million years old but you would have a problem with that. You would have a problem with everything your belief imposes to you. Don’t you think it is dangerous not to have a seculars around? Religious people reject even what science has found and confirmed. You do.

    When a scientist reach to a wrong conlcusion it is likely that another scientist will correct him.

    Well the age of the earth might not be confirmed excatly but its being 6000 years old can be proved to be wrong and have been. It is really risky for religious to assert facts that can easily be proved wrong. Well I should not explain the calculation of the earth. You can go online and find a lot of credible sources (from socialist China to capitalist USA many scientist have been working on this subject and the results range around billions of years far away from 6000.

    is there a verification of this hypothesis that does not use reference to the holy books. If not, it is pretty risky to take it as a fact. There are many beliefs -should we take all their hypothesis as facts?

  18. Lazaro says:

    I was not referring to the secularist’s prefs when it comes to the age of the earth. His belief system demands that he accept an old earth, as mine demands that I accept a young earth (Hugh Ross, Frances Collins and others non-withstanding.) I refer to the FACT that no human being (even secularists) are free of bias. While objectivity is a standard which we should all strive for it is an unattainable one.

    Let me re-iterate, the secularist BELIEVES that all should think as he does, no? Is that not dogmatic? The secularist BELIEVES that his view of things is the best one, no? I’m not talking about the age of the earth, I’m talking in general.

    No I don’t think it’s dangerous not to have seculars around. It really makes no difference. They won’t be around after the Second Coming (well they will be but in a place where they will join those who are not seculars but rejected Christ nonetheless) and as far as I can tell, everything will be OK.

    Nyo, like I said earlier I work with scientists and have found that they can be as dogmatic and hard-headed as the staunchest religious fundamentalist.

    Again you fail to pinpoint how we know for certain that earth isn’t 6000 years old. Let me explain to you what science is (for the nth time): Science is about observation. The beginning of the universe was not observed by any human being, therefore whatever guess we have on its age falls outside the purview of science. Whether billions or thousands of years it has to believed by faith not accurately deduced by real science.

    The secularists BELIEVE it’s billions. The old earth belief came before all the methods used to ‘prove’ it. Kind of like self-fulfilling prophecy. Their minds were made up that the earth is old so methods to back this up were believed to be accurate. This kind of backwards process goes on in the field of human evolution. When a ‘hominid’ fossil is found in the wrong strata and thus its age is corrected to fit the presupposed age of what a fossil that looks that way is supposed to be. This is not science, it’s a sham.

    Free V,
    As far as the gap theory. I just became aware of it a few months ago. When I first read about it, it sounded pretty credible, unfortunately the text doesn’t really support it.

  19. Hussein says:

    Jesus NEVER Claimed to be God incarnate READ your own book! Other’s made that claim AFTER the death of the man. And, I challenge you to find one authentic text written in Aramaic the language of Jesus which he spoke lived and was heritage to which makes this claim. You cannot. You know why? Because the Church destroyed ALL known text written in Aramaic pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for fear of losing power. If you want citations from your own book I can give them to you, as well as the contradictory and added things which your theologians themselves acknowledge are so.

    To be blunt Paul was sent to destroy the Church. And, what better way to destroy it than from the inside out? Just like a virus. Though some like you would never believe that anything was added or taken away from your VERSION of the Biblical texts,or, that some one would have the cajones to tamper, meddle, or just plain fabricate for one’s own advantage even if it was plainly in your face.

    I leave you with a bit of my history. I am a Muslim and have an indepth and intimate knowledge of the Bible and Christianity as I have a parent from each faith group and was allowed to research and discover the truth for myself and I chose my own path. I could have chosen any faith I liked, but in my 38 years of existence I have yet to find more truth than what is in the Quran and I mean the Arabic not some loose translation of the MEANING of the Quran.

    So, for those of you who are English speaking and not familiar with the Arabic here is what can be translated as saying in Surat Al-Kafiroon (The Disbelievers) “Say: ‘Oh, Disbelievers’ ‘I worship not that which you worship (in either manner or custom of association with the one true God, or in the worship of pagan gods)’ ‘Nor will you worship that which I worship (the one TRUE GOD alone with no partners companions or intercessors, or of pagan gods)”And, I shall not worship that which you are worshiping (Pagan gods, or God plus partners)”Nor will you worship that which I worship (God alone,with no partners or intercessors)”To you be your religion and to me be mine.”

  20. Hussein says:

    By the way, Noah, Abraham, and Moses were spoken to by God. Both Books (Quran and Bible) and you can’t even be a Muslim without beliveing in the TRUTH of the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels. Though we disagree with that which was foisted upon the world through false translations. By the way over 500 people did not see a resurrected Jesus. From you own book again count the numbers claimed.

  21. Hussein says:

    Point being, there were no witnesses for the other prophets while they were being communicated with by God either. So,the validity test you use doesn’t hold up either. And, in fact, your test would discredit all of the major 3 Abrahamic faiths. Just a thought.

  22. Laz says:

    Thank you for taking the time for crafting your response, as incoherent and inaccurate as it may be.

    You said:
    “I am a Muslim and have an indepth and intimate knowledge of the Bible and Christianity as I have a parent from each faith group and was allowed to research and discover the truth for myself and I chose my own path.”

    This sentence alone betrays anything but an ‘indepth and intimate knowledge of the Bible and Christianity’. What having a parent from a faith group has to do with anything I don’t know.

    Truth is a person Hussein. That person is Jesus Christ, He made the claim “I am the Truth, the Way and the Life”. You cannot know truth unless you know Jesus Christ as Messiah and thus as God.

    Of course you’re going to believe the New Testament is full of lies. Why wouldn’t you? You’re a Moslem. You can’t be a good Moslem without outright refuting Jesus’ claims to Deity.

    These charges that He never made such a claim are tired and are the product of an unregenerate heart who has never encountered the Risen Christ. I pray that one day He reveals Himself to you and shows you the Way to God.

  23. Laz says:

    In my previous comment Hussein, I was referring to your first comment. You got in the other 2 while I was typing up my first one.

    I need some clarification from you. You said:
    “you can’t even be a Muslim without beliveing in the TRUTH of the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels.”

    So I suppose that when Torah points out that Isaac was going to be sacrificed you agree with this as historical fact? Or is this a corruption of the original text?

    More than 500 people did not see a resurrected Christ? Wow, you can talk to Paul about that one. He wrote about the list of people in his first letter to the Corinthians (15:3-8). Of course, this is irrelevant to you because setting Paul against His Lord is a common tactic employed by Muslims to undermine Christianity.

    Your assumptions and thus your unbelief, prevent you from accepting the New Testament as Special Revelation. This my friend, is a spiritual issue and frankly I cannot present to you any evidence to the contrary (for your heart is hardened and you will not comprehend things which are spiritually discerned). This work is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit who I can testify led me to faith in Christ.

    What is difficult to deny is the way which Jesus Christ is represented in the Old Testament. From the Fall of Man, the sacrifice of Isaac, to the Passover, to the sacrifical system, to his ancestor King David and his Psalms, to the prophecies of Isaiah (Isaiah 53 especially), Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah to name a few. These things all pointed to Jesus being God in the flesh coming to redeem those who are lost. Those who are blind and restore us to the way things were before Adam’s sin.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: