Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Anti-Christ’ Category

Update: Pope Francis’s apology over Amazon statues theft

from The American Spectator:

Tourists in Rome are long familiar with the image of Romulus and Remus suckling the teats of a wolf. But this week visitors to the Pan-Amazon Synod encountered a new image: an Amazonian mother suckling a dog. That picture hangs in a church next to the Vatican: Santa Maria in Traspontina. I wandered into it the other day and was struck by the jarring contrast between its stunning Baroque interior and the bonkers propaganda plastered on and near its walls. Much of the church had been turned into a shrine to the plight and nature-worship of Amazonians. Beneath the picture of the woman nursing a dog (while carrying a baby), a poster declares fatuously, “Everything is Connected.”

The poster captures the sheer obnoxiousness of the pope’s “ecological” kick. What a dismal devolution Rome has suffered under him. What will he do next? Turn the Pantheon back into a pagan temple? Why not? If Amazonian pantheism is a “religious experience” worthy of Catholic respect, why not revive ancient paganism, too? Perhaps the pope’s next synod can rehabilitate Nero.

Stripped of all of its pious cant, the pope’s Pan-Amazon Synod is nothing more than a bald violation of the First Commandment. Pope Francis is placing strange idols before the Triune God — in this case, Amazonian ones. Last week, he had a contingent of Indian activists — some of whom I have heard were flown over to Rome first-class by the German bishops — perform pagan rituals in the Vatican gardens. In that moment, every prediction of his anti-modernist predecessors came true: they all said that if the Church adopted the subjectivism of the “Enlightenment,” it would end up blessing false religions.

But more is at work here than simply the pope’s usual religious relativism. Why did he select the Amazon as his pretext to undermine doctrine and discipline? He could have chosen other remote regions. Why that one? I am told by a seasoned Vatican observer that the answer lies with the German bishops, who are largely financing this farce and its accompanying propaganda.

“This is about bringing the Vatican and the United Nations closer together,” he says. “The German bishops don’t care about Amazonian Indians, and they certainly don’t care about people not receiving the sacraments. Just look at Germany and how few people even frequent the sacraments there. What the German bishops care about is that the Church is more and more incorporated into the work of the United Nations.” The subject of suffering Amazonians is just an excuse, he says, for the “United Nations to treat the Church as one of its instruments,” with the complete backing of the Vatican.

Before the synod started, the pope had been babbling on about the binding quality of UN pronouncements. It is no coincidence that his silly gathering is crawling with UN observers, such as Jeffrey Sachs, whose consulting racket includes trying to convince dioceses and religious orders to “divest from oil companies” and the like. I have seen a number of these UN creeps self-importantly jump out of gas-guzzling SUVs near the Vatican. They don’t appear too worried about their own carbon footprint. Indeed, they always seem to be accompanied by a raft of superfluous security guards and flaks.

The Vatican is looking awful these days — graffiti, ugly cattle barricades, and a paramilitary presence, as if it is waiting any moment for an outbreak of the kind of Islamic terrorism the pope assures us doesn’t exist. At times, I feel like I am in the middle of an Italian farce. The other day I was eating next to an African priest and nun who appeared to be on a date. Sure enough, her hand slid over to his hand.

Architecturally and artistically, Rome remains a treat. But religiously, it is depressing as hell. Just stand by one of the Vatican gates and watch priests whip off their collars the moment they step outside, as if the priesthood is nothing more than a 9-to-5 job. Or sit in a café and listen to their pathetically worldly banter.

The street Borgo Pio, not far from one of the Vatican’s gates, is where many of the ecclesiastical heavies hang out. Last Sunday I saw Cardinal Seán O’Malley, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, and Bishop Robert McElroy eating dinner at one of the restaurants on the street. Here was my chance to ask them about the synod and related matters. As they ambled back to the Vatican, I caught up with them and tried to conduct a brief interview. They disdainfully begged off, with Tobin, who no doubt remembered my article about the soap actor living in his rectory, saying laughingly, “Oh, George, oh, George.” O’Malley called my questions “hostile.” McElroy, the most darkly ideological of the three, just broodingly and quietly walked away. For all their talk about “dialogue,” the last thing they wanted to do on the eve of the synod was to speak with a journalist critical of it. The synod is in effect a raised middle finger to orthodox Catholics — a declaration that everything they hold dear no longer exists at the highest levels of the Church.

The Vatican is under enemy occupation and will remain so for many years to come. There is much chatter among Vaticanistas about a “Francis II,” now that the composition of the next conclave is largely liberal. By the time his pontificate ends, Francis will likely have selected two-thirds of the cardinals. The current secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, is thought to be the leading Francis clone. I have been told that Pope Francis is waiting for Benedict to die so that he can “then pass the pontificate to Parolin.”

Parolin is just a circumspect version of Francis. He holds the same batty views but presents them more diplomatically. Here and there one hears grumbles about the pope’s bumptiousness, but for the most part the Catholic Left is thrilled with him. The mask of modernism has been ripped off, only to reveal, in the words of Francis, an “Amazonian face,” beneath which is a UN body.

Read Full Post »

from Real Clear Politics:

At Thursday’s “LGBTQ Equality” town hall on CNN, presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke called for religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage to lose tax-exempt status.

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone … that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” he said.

CNN, DON LEMON: Congressman, I want to ask you a question. This is from your LGBTQ plan, and here’s what you write. This is a quote. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right but it should not be used to discriminate. Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?

BETO O’ROURKE: Yes.

(APPLAUSE)

There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.

Read Full Post »

from Christian Headlines:

The president of a seminary founded in 1836 on the “infallible” Word of God says in a new interview she doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, the power of prayer, a literal heaven, or miracles.

Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary in New York, made the comments in an interview with Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times for an article published Easter weekend. Although the author’s intent may have been to inspire readers, it also served to spotlight the leftward drift of many seminaries.

Union Theological Seminary’s founding constitution stated the seminary’s goal was to “promote” the “Kingdom of Christ.” Professors were required to affirm they believed “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God” and the “only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

But as Jones made clear, the seminary is a very different school today.

She rejects a literal bodily resurrection of Christ.

“When you look in the Gospels, the stories are all over the place. There’s no resurrection story in Mark, just an empty tomb. Those who claim to know whether or not it happened are kidding themselves,” Jones said. “… Crucifixion is not something that God is orchestrating from upstairs. The pervasive idea of an abusive God-father who sends his own kid to the cross so God could forgive people is nuts. For me, the cross is an enactment of our human hatred. But what happens on Easter is the triumph of love in the midst of suffering. Isn’t that reason for hope?”

She rejects the idea that God miraculously heals through prayer.

“I don’t believe in a God who, because of prayer, would decide to cure your mother’s cancer but not cure the mother of your nonpraying neighbor,” she said. “We can’t manipulate God like that.”

She rejects the virgin birth.

“I find the virgin birth a bizarre claim,” she said. “It has nothing to do with Jesus’ message. The virgin birth only becomes important if you have a theology in which sexuality is considered sinful. It also promotes this notion that the pure, untouched female body is the best body, and that idea has led to centuries of oppressing women.”

Asked what happens when people die, Jones responded, “I don’t know! There may be something, there may be nothing. My faith is not tied to some divine promise about the afterlife.”

Asked how we can reconcile an “omnipotent, omniscient God” with evil and suffering, Jones responded, “At the heart of faith is mystery. God is beyond our knowing, not a being or an essence or an object. But I don’t worship an all-powerful, all-controlling omnipotent, omniscient being. That is a fabrication of Roman juridical theory and Greek mythology.”

When Kristof asked her if he can be considered a Christian after not believing in a virgin birth or resurrection, Jones answered, “Well, you sound an awful lot like me, and I’m a Christian. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said Jones rejected the “entire edifice of orthodox, biblical Christianity.”

“This is not Christianity,” Mohler wrote. “This is a new religion, a new god, formed in an image intended not to offend modern secular sensibilities. She has constructed a god from post-modern theology that in no way resembles the God of the Bible – the one true God.”

Mohler observed that Jones denied “the reality of the resurrection, the necessity of the virgin birth, the attributes of God, the power of prayer, and the existence of heaven and hell.”

“According to Jones,” Mohler wrote. “there is no cross on which Jesus died for sin, there is no Father who sent the Son to pay our ransom, there is no bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead as a sign and seal of God’s promises – indeed, she has denied everything that makes the gospel good news. She even denies that God is a ‘being.’”

Jones claims to be a Christian minister while simultaneously rejecting “every tenet of the historic Christian faith,” Mohler said.

“Why would anyone identify as a Christian minister and then deny the entire superstructure of Christian theology?” Mohler asked. “What we see here is a hope to replace biblical Christianity with a new religion without anyone noticing.”

 

Read Full Post »

from Vox:

A new priest named Mindar is holding forth at Kodaiji, a 400-year-old Buddhist temple in Kyoto, Japan. Like other clergy members, this priest can deliver sermons and move around to interface with worshippers. But Mindar comes with some … unusual traits. A body made of aluminum and silicone, for starters.

Mindar is a robot.

Designed to look like Kannon, the Buddhist deity of mercy, the $1 million machine is an attempt to reignite people’s passion for their faith in a country where religious affiliation is on the decline.

For now, Mindar is not AI-powered. It just recites the same preprogrammed sermon about the Heart Sutra over and over. But the robot’s creators say they plan to give it machine-learning capabilities that’ll enable it to tailor feedback to worshippers’ specific spiritual and ethical problems.

“This robot will never die; it will just keep updating itself and evolving,” said Tensho Goto, the temple’s chief steward. “With AI, we hope it will grow in wisdom to help people overcome even the most difficult troubles. It’s changing Buddhism.”

Robots are changing other religions, too. In 2017, Indians rolled out a robot that performs the Hindu aarti ritual, which involves moving a light round and round in front of a deity. That same year, in honor of the Protestant Reformation’s 500th anniversary, Germany’s Protestant Church created a robot called BlessU-2. It gave preprogrammed blessings to over 10,000 people.

Then there’s SanTO — short for Sanctified Theomorphic Operator — a 17-inch-tall robot reminiscent of figurines of Catholic saints. If you tell it you’re worried, it’ll respond by saying something like, “From the Gospel according to Matthew, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Roboticist Gabriele Trovato designed SanTO to offer spiritual succor to elderly people whose mobility and social contact may be limited. Next, he wants to develop devices for Muslims, though it remains to be seen what form those might take.

As more religious communities begin to incorporate robotics — in some cases, AI-powered and in others, not — it stands to change how people experience faith. It may also alter how we engage in ethical reasoning and decision-making, which is a big part of religion.

For the devout, there’s plenty of positive potential here: Robots can get disinterested people curious about religion or allow for a ritual to be performed when a human priest is inaccessible. But robots also pose risks for religion — for example, by making it feel too mechanized or homogenized or by challenging core tenets of theology. On the whole, will the emergence of AI religion make us better or worse off? The answer depends on how we design and deploy it — and on whom you ask.

Some cultures are more open to religious robots than others

New technologies often make us uncomfortable. Which ones we ultimately accept — and which ones we reject — is determined by an array of factors, ranging from our degree of exposure to the emerging technology to our moral presuppositions.

Japanese worshippers who visit Mindar are reportedly not too bothered by questions about the risks of siliconizing spirituality. That makes sense given that robots are already so commonplace in the country, including in the religious domain.

For years now, people who can’t afford to pay a human priest to perform a funeral have had the option to pay a robot named Pepper to do it at a much cheaper rate. And in China, at Beijing’s Longquan Monastery, an android monk named Xian’er recites Buddhist mantras and offers guidance on matters of faith.

What’s more, Buddhism’s non-dualistic metaphysical notion that everything has inherent “Buddha nature” — that all beings have the potential to become enlightened — may predispose its adherents to be receptive to spiritual guidance that comes from technology.

At the temple in Kyoto, Goto put it like this: “Buddhism isn’t a belief in a God; it’s pursuing Buddha’s path. It doesn’t matter whether it’s represented by a machine, a piece of scrap metal, or a tree.”

“Mindar’s metal skeleton is exposed, and I think that’s an interesting choice — its creator, Hiroshi Ishiguro, is not trying to make something that looks totally human,” said Natasha Heller, an associate professor of Chinese religions at the University of Virginia. She told me the deity Kannon, upon whom Mindar is based, is an ideal candidate for cyborgization because the Lotus Sutra explicitly says Kannon can manifest in different forms — whatever forms will best resonate with the humans of a given time and place.

Westerners seem more disturbed by Mindar, likening it to Frankenstein’s monster. In Western economies, we don’t yet have robots enmeshed in many aspects of our lives. What we do have is a pervasive cultural narrative, reinforced by Hollywood blockbusters, about our impending enslavement at the hands of “robot overlords.”

Plus, Abrahamic religions like Islam or Judaism tend to be more metaphysically dualistic — there’s the sacred and then there’s the profane. And they have more misgivings than Buddhism about visually depicting divinity, so they may take issue with Mindar-style iconography.

They also have different ideas about what makes a religious practice effective. For example, Judaism places a strong emphasis on intentionality, something machines don’t possess. When a worshipper prays, what matters is not just that their mouth forms the right words — it’s also very important that they have the right intention.

Meanwhile, some Buddhists use prayer wheels containing scrolls printed with sacred words and believe that spinning the wheel has its own spiritual efficacy, even if nobody recites the words aloud. In hospice settings, elderly Buddhists who don’t have people on hand to recite prayers on their behalf will use devices known as nianfo ji — small machines about the size of an iPhone, which recite the name of the Buddha endlessly.

Despite such theological differences, it’s ironic that many Westerners have a knee-jerk negative reaction to a robot like Mindar. The dream of creating artificial life goes all the way back to ancient Greece, where the ancients actually invented real animated machines as the Stanford classicist Adrienne Mayor has documented in her book Gods and Robots. And there is a long tradition of religious robots in the West.

In the Middle Ages, Christians designed automata to perform the mysteries of Easter and Christmas. One proto-roboticist in the 16th century designed a mechanical monk that is, amazingly, performing ritual gestures to this day. With his right arm, he strikes his chest in a mea culpa; with his left, he raises a rosary to his lips.

In other words, the real novelty is not the use of robots in the religious domain but the use of AI……..

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Actually he never was a follower of Christ! Most people are misunderstood how salvation works, in actual fact God chooses whose are his and brings those people to Christ, it is not a personal choice to follow Jesus, this is a hard thing to grasp it is not Hyper Calvinism which teaches “Once saved always saved” so do want you want! It is  a much deeper concept than that, and almost beyond our comprehension to grasp it!

From The Daily Mail:

An evangelical Christian author and dating guru who advocated against gay marriage has turned his back on his faith after splitting from his wife and apologized to the LGBTQ community.

Joshua Harris, 44, rose to fame as a pastor and Christian author who penned the bestseller I Kissed Dating Goodbye in 1997 – a book in which he argues against premarital sex.

But on Saturday, he took to Instagram to reveal that he no longer considers himself a believer and apologized for his once ‘bigoted’ LGBTQ views writing, ‘By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian.’

His candid post followed his Instagram announcement on July 17 that he and his wife Shannon Bonne were separating after 21 years of marriage.

‘The information that was left out of our announcement is that I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is “deconstruction,” the biblical phrase is “falling away.” By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian,’ he revealed.

‘To the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality. I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me,’ he said.

Despite the big shake-up in his life, Harris says he doesn’t view his breakaway from the faith negatively.

‘I feel very much alive, and awake, and surprisingly hopeful. I believe with my sister Julian that, “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well”,’ he said.

Harris formerly led the Covenant Life megachurch in Gaithersburg, Maryland but stepped down in 2014 after a former church volunteer was convicted of child sex abuse, as per Christian Post.

He revealed that since his divorce and breakaway from the faith, he’s received messages of support and grace from Christians, non-believers, and LGBTQ-community members alike.

He shocked his Christian community earlier this month when he announced he and his wife of 21-years were separating.

In his famed 1997 book he argued that Christians should practice ‘courting’ instead of traditional dating practices because the latter leads to divorce.

‘We’re writing to share the news that we are separating and will continue our life together as friends,’ they wrote in their joint statement.

‘In recent years, some significant changes have taken place in both of us. It is with sincere love for one another and understanding of our unique story as a couple that we are moving forward with this decision.

‘We hope to create a generous and supportive future for each other and for our three amazing children in the years ahead. Thank you for your understanding and for respecting our privacy during a difficult time.’

The author and his wife did not reveal whether they have plans to officially divorce.

Evangelical Christians traditionally consider divorce to be a sin, an interpretation based on certain passages in the Bible that seem to prohibit the legal split of a man and wife who have been joined in a lifelong union in the eyes of God.

Over the past couple of years Harris revealed he re-evaluated and at times regretted his statements in his best-selling book, particularly after going through his own marriage.

‘I think it’s made us realize how there’s heartache and there’s pain no matter what pathway you choose in life,’ he said. ‘There’s no path you can choose that can protect you from that.’

Joshua was a 21-year-old virgin who had been homeschooled his entire life when he wrote ‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye,’ according to Slate.

The book shaped — and in some cases ruined — the lives of many conservative Christians who took his teachings as gospel.

Over the past couple of years Harris revealed he re-evaluated and at times regretted his statements in his best-selling book, particularly after going through his own marriage.

‘I think it’s made us realize how there’s heartache and there’s pain no matter what pathway you choose in life,’ he said. ‘There’s no path you can choose that can protect you from that.’

Joshua was a 21-year-old virgin who had been homeschooled his entire life when he wrote ‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye,’ according to Slate.

The book shaped — and in some cases ruined — the lives of many conservative Christians who took his teachings as gospel.

Not only did he promote saving yourself for marriage in the controversial publication, but he even went as far as shunning kissing and hand-holding.

Joshua also warned of ’emotional hookups,’ insisting you shouldn’t fall in love with someone who you won’t end up marrying.

The author married Shannon when he was 23 years old and went on to release more books about dating and marriage, including ‘Not Even a Hint: Guarding Your Heart Against Lust’ and ‘Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship.’

A few years ago, Joshua went on an apology tour of sorts, saying he was re-thinking the best-seller that launched him into Christian fame.

‘Part of the reason this has been so hard for me is that I have so much of my identity tied up in these books. It’s what I’m known for,’ he told Slate. ‘It’s like, well, crap, is the biggest thing I’ve done in my life this really huge mistake?’

The father of three also shared an apology on his website, writing: ‘While I stand by my book’s call to sincerely love others, my thinking has changed significantly in the past twenty years.

‘I no longer agree with its central idea that dating should be avoided. I now think dating can be a healthy part of a person developing relationally and learning the qualities that matter most in a partner.’

He added: ‘To those who read my book and were misdirected or unhelpfully influenced by it, I am sincerely sorry. I never intended to hurt you.

‘I know this apology doesn’t change anything for you and it’s coming too late, but I want you to hear that I regret any way that my ideas restricted you, hurt you, or gave you a less-than-biblical view of yourself, your sexuality, your relationships, and God.’

In the statement, the author shared that he asked his publisher to stop printing the book and two related titles.

Read Full Post »

from Campus Reform:

Swarthmore College offers a course on “Queering God,” most recently taught during the spring 2019 semester, that provides a feminist and queer perspective of the Bible, while also exploring God’s gender identity.

The course, taught by Professor Gwynn Kessler, questions whether God is a masculine or feminine figure through the examination of feminist and queer writings. Its course description says the class “stretch[es] the limits of gendering-and sexing-the divine.” Key themes of the class, also outlined in the course description, include gender, embodiment, masculinity, liberation, sexuality, and feminist and queer theory.

“Part of the student community definitely wants to have more representation and to have LGBTQ issues addressed in courses and elsewhere on campus,” a Swarthmore student, who asked to remain anonymous, told Campus Reform. “This means spreading awareness and getting people to action through taking courses like this.”

Natalie, another Swarthmore student who asked for her last name not to be published, noted that the school demonstrates “normalized progressivism, unfazed by even the most controversial topics.”

Queering the Bible is a similar course that the institution offers, which uses Biblical readings from a queer and transgender perspective to explore sex, identity, and gender. Campus Reform has previously reported on the rise of such courses in American academic institutions.

“I took [Queering the Bible] because I’ve always overheard of people claiming that being queer, specifically homosexual, was a sin, or that the Bible said so,” another Swarthmore student, who also asked to remain anonymous, said. “It pushed me to ask questions so absurd that it seems even unthinkable to ask.”

Kessler is an associate professor of religion at Swarthmore College. She received her Ph.D. in Rabbinics from the Jewish Theological Seminary and has taught at various universities in the U.S., including the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and the University of Florida. Kessler has taught many different courses, some of which are on Jewish History, Judaism and Gender, Judaism and Ecology, Feminist Theology, and Religion and Gender. In her university bio, it says that her work fits the categories of “postmodern, feminist, and queer theoretical approaches.”

Campus Reform reached out to Kessler for comments regarding her course but received no response in time for publication.

Read Full Post »

from CNS News:

The Department of Health and Human Services says it has granted a second 90-day extension to a contract it has with the University of California at San Francisco that requires UCSF to make “humanized mice.”

These creatures are made by implanting mice with human tissues taken from late-term aborted babies.

The HHS’s multi-million-dollar contract with UCSF that requires the construction of these “humanized mice” creates a demand–driven by federal tax dollars–for tissue taken from late-term aborted babies. According to an estimate it has published on its website, the National Institutes of Health (which is a division of HHS) will spend $95 million this fiscal year alone on research that–like UCSF’s “humanized mouse” contract–uses human fetal tissue.

Under the new 90-day extension, the contract—which the government calls “Humanized Mouse Models for HIV Therapeutics Development”–will run through June 5.

HHS also is still in the process of conducting the “comprehensive review” it announced last September “of all research involving fetal tissue.”

That review was initiated to ensure that all federally funded research using human fetal tissue is consistent “with statutes and regulations governing such research, and to ensure the adequacy of procedures and oversight of this research in light of the serious regulatory, moral, and ethical considerations involved.”

“The UCSF contract has been issued another extension,” HHS said on Friday in response to questions from CNSNews.com about the contract and the review.

“We will provide an update on the review once it has concluded and as appropriate,” HHS said.

As CNSNews.com first reported on Oct. 17, 2018, the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHS, originally signed its “humanized mouse” contract with UCSF on Dec. 6, 2013. The contract was for a one-year period and gave the government the option of renewing it for up to six additional one-year periods through Dec. 5, 2020.

According to contract information published on the Federal Procurement Data System, the new three-month extension will pay UCSF $521,082—bringing the total payments the federal government has made to UCSF for this contract to $10,596,960.

If the government continues renewing the contract through Dec. 5, 2020, HHS would end up paying UCSF a total of $13,799,501.

The contract specifically requires researchers at UCSF to make two different types of “humanized mice” both of which are “engrafted with human fetal liver and thymus.”

The “Statement of Work” in the original contract solicitation said that the contractor would be required to make one “cohort” of “up to 50” mice per month of the first type of humanized mouse and another cohort of “up to 40” mice per month of the second type. The statement said each of these two cohorts of “humanized mice” should be made “with tissue from a single donor”—meaning a single aborted baby…..

read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: