Friday, November 6, 2020

Lutheran Satire Lampooned Quran Kissing Evolutionist "Popes"

The Two Faces of Rome
LutheranSatire | 10.VII.2011

in which John Bosco answers "onemarktwoyou" very well. But he is wrong on other grounds.

John Bosco
Okay first off, the Earth is round and revolves around the sun. Was the Catholic Church contradicting scripture when it acknowledged that? No. So why is that the Church is contradicting scripture when it acknowledges evolution? I mean clearly we discovered that the Bible is not a scientific document after the 18th century.

Second off, you bringing that picture up is a clear example of Phariseeism in Protestantism. I won't deny that there are pharisee's in the Catholic Church, but Protestantism is built on it. "He kissed a Quran! He is not a worthy disciple of Jesus!" How about you consider this, the Pope goes to Iraq to preach and convert Muslims in the area. The people there give him a Quran, which is A VERY HIGH HONOR for a fundamentalist Muslim to do for an infidel. Does he stomp on it? Reject it? Or how about kiss it, and show that there are better ways to interact with a different faith other then labeling them as infidels and plotting to conquer them. He was teaching the Muslims a lesson. If you think that his action was foolish, how about you get on a plane and preach to the people of the middle east in a different manner.

And third off, the Lutheran Church is not connected to anyone who had any association with Christ in any way and paved the way for all of the comical Protestant Churches we see today, such as the Anglicans, Westboro Baptists, and Presbyterians.

I enjoy your satire and find it hilarious, but if you bash the Catholic Church I won't hesitate to remind you that the Lutheran faith is about as credible as Mormanism, Patrick.

Oh and also the Church has never preached that everyone will be saved.

@John Bosco Not even Pope Francis has said something like that.

@John Bosco
franky did say atheists can be saved. They die an atheist and can be saved sounds the opposite of the rcc teachings. In fact rome taught for centuries only cathlics can be saved. Later they said only people who claims the pope is their leader of faith can be saved. Now since V2 muslims who denies Jesus divinity and the trinity can be saved. In fact rome switched gods in V2 explaining that one.

Then the stupidity that rome dates to the apostles as if that kept them from going into heresies and apostasies. Yet rome went into the territory of antichrist. Antioch by rome's pathetic excuses would be the seat of Peter. Peter was not in rome. Peter's bones was found by the RCC in Jerusalem in a first century christian cemetery. Now the bone box is hid from view.

rome is built on lies. Their father is the sun god. Their Jesus is Tammuz. Your Mary is semiramis the queen of heaven. All you have is biblical names slapped on to pagan deities. All the rcc's tradition, gods, holidays, and rituals are pagan.

John Bosco
@onemarktwoyou I don't worship the sun, I worship God. No other response necessary. You can't accidentally worship something because you thought it was something else.

I don't worship Mary and she isn't a god. No other response necessary. You can't accidentally believe something is a god while believing that it isn't.

And no, the Church has always taught the same thing: We are judged by our actions and character, not on our religion. Name one reputed Catholic theologian that has claimed God would turn a virtuous man away from his Kingdom because he was pagan.

This video claimed Pope Francis said everyone will be saved. He didn't. He said everyone COULD be saved. Important distinction.

@John Bosco Ya those arguments may work on catholics who are brainwashed. When they bring out your 'monstrance' what do you think it is an image of? It is the SUN!!! The sun wheel is all over the vatican. The halo behind your idols are the symbol of the sun, the rcc knows it. Look next time when they have their communion plate. Often it has the pagan moon crescent and sun image stamped in it. Most bishops staffs have serpent images around the curved portion. They know they aren't Christians.

John Bosco
@onemarktwoyou Where's the sun in this monstrance?

The monstrance is just a case. Some of them are made of gold or decorated to give glory to what's inside of them, which is the body of Christ.

The halo that artists draw around saints and holy figures represents God's grace. It reminds us that everything these people are is because God helped them and guided them. They aren't glorious because of their own abilities, but because the light of guide is shining in them.

You spend way too much time on the internet, watching nutcases rant about Vatican conspiracies on youtube and reading their blogs. I encourage you to do real research of the Catholic Church.

@onemarktwoyou Honestly if you think EVERY artist that has ever painted a picture of a saint or of Jesus with a halo in it is some kind of secret pagan mole agent brainwashing Christians into worshiping the sun (not that that is even possible), you need a history lesson and perhaps a lot of fresh air.

@John Bosco
LOL!!! Where is the sun in that antichrist symbol??? How long did it take for you to find an image misnamed????

Here is a page of images of them. Where isn't the sun there???

The 'son' is practiced with the 'sun'. It sure sounds a lot like the pagan rituals that popery absorbed.

Should we also ignore all the sun god symbolism in the vatican as well, because you don't like the truth???

By the way the "halo" was the PAGAN SUN symbol used in roman art to show divinity of their PAGAN GODS!!!! So you ignorantly reaffirmed the sun symbolism of your unholy idol that transforms matter to divine Jesus flesh, but that didn't start until 1215 A.D..

Maybe you should use the internet more, instead of trusting a sadistic murderous cult that never let the truth get in the way. Did you know the nickname the true catholic churches had for rome??? "rome, home of the forgeries"!!!!! You can't make this stuff up!!!!!

P.S. you cultists even admit what you practice is PAGAN; at least you guys use to brag about it!!! Read it and wake up!

"The [Catholic] Church took the pagan philosophy and made it the buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon, temple of all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. She took the pagan Easter and made it the feast we celebrate during this season . . . The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom . . . The sun has worshipers at this hour in Persia and other lands . . . Hence the Church would seem to say, 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus"--William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in The Catholic World, 58, March, 1894, p. 809 [A Roman Catholic weekly].

I refer you to another Lutheran Satire:

Daniel Jackson
N Colaiano The Catholic church has repeatedly declared that evolution is compatible with scripture and doctrine. The church does insist that Adam and Eve must have been the first two humans with rational souls who are the parents of humankind.

Andrew Clover
Six words for ya: The Cult of the Holy Foreskin

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" the Earth is round"

Yes. So?

"and revolves around the sun."


"Was the Catholic Church contradicting scripture when it acknowledged that?"

The Catholic Church (as opposed to Antipope Wojtyla 1992) never acknowledged that.

Whoever "acknowledged" it was contradicting Joshua 10:12. Or pretending other miracle workers including Jesus Christ, could be wrong about what they told to miraculously change behaviour, or that they (same inclusion) could be "accomodating" to people who were wrong. Was Our Lord "accomodating" when telling what textually seems to be a legion of demons dialoguing through the mouth of a possessed man "yeah, you can get into the swine"? Did He miraculously change the behaviour of swine so as to "accomodate" to a cultural illusion about demon possession?

No, Our Lord really drove out a legion of demons from a man into swine and Joshua really told Sun and Moon, not Earth, to change behaviour for a day!

"How about you consider this, the Pope goes to Iraq to preach and convert Muslims in the area. The people there give him a Quran, which is A VERY HIGH HONOR for a fundamentalist Muslim to do for an infidel. Does he stomp on it? Reject it?"

Reject it sounds reasonable.

And if a supposed Pope then used the occasion to preach to Muslims and convert them, I seem to have missed that detail.

Perhaps the "Pope" also missed it after kissing the Quran?

"I won't hesitate to remind you that the Lutheran faith is about as credible as Mormanism, Patrick."

True. Mohammed, Joseph Smith AND Martin Luther all de facto contradicted Matthew 28:20 (all days).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Daniel Jackson "The Catholic church has repeatedly declared that evolution is compatible with scripture and doctrine."

Since when? Perhaps (if you pretend what was said then was such a declaration) since the time of very early cases of priests abusing boys?

"The church does insist that Adam and Eve must have been the first two humans with rational souls who are the parents of humankind."

Nice. Good for you. If you believe Evolution is compatible with that ... do you place Adam in 4 - 5.5 k BC? Or more in 40 to 90 to 130 k BP?

Because the first, on Evolutionary timeline, will give you a problem with how Americas and Australia were peopled by descendants of them. The latter will give you a problem about historic reliability of Genesis 3. Not to mention it makes Genesis 5 to 11 more like vast holes with some cheese here and there than a "Swiss cheese genealogy". That is, it makes them historically incredible and therefore makes Genesis 3 even less credible as a historic memory.

Daniel Jackson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl “Since when?” 1950, with the release of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis, which states:

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. . . When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

I don’t have an opinion as to when Adam and Eve lived, nor does the precise historical character of the rest of Genesis concern me much.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Daniel Jackson You have missed the nuance between what you are allowed to defend in a learned discussion and what you are allowed to actually believe.

And, in an article in LaCroix, concerning the complicity by non-denunication for which Barbarin was in court, it said that first known cases of priests abusing boys are from 1940's.

"I don’t have an opinion as to when Adam and Eve lived,"

The last bit should intrigue you then.

"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

Whether you pose Adam after carbon dated 10 000 BC or before carbon dated 40 000 BP, this paragraph becomes very problematic to you.

You accept carbon dates as correct? Fine, this means carbon dated 10 000 BC was after Lascaux, Altamira and a lot of other good art.

And it means carbon dated 10 000 BC is after earliest peopling of pre-Columbian and pre-Cook populations of Americas, Australia, New Zealand.

On the other hand, if you place Adam before carbon dated 40 000 BP (as I do too) and also accept the carbon date as accurate (which I do not), Genesis 3 becomes very evasive to history.

It is a chapter central to St. Paul's view on Adam's sin. It is also a chapter where we find in the Vulgate "ipsa conteret" and in any translation "ponam inimicitias" - meaning Our Lady is co-redemptrix and from the first an enemy of Satan.

Apostles also referred to historicity of Noah's Flood and so did Our Lord.

where my input comes into two technical threads after dialogue happened in a sequence out of the threads. This is why Sisoes1 didn't answer me.

Not necessarily. First, to reject evolution is to basically say that God is a deceiver. God is not. God created the natural laws, and knowledge of the natural laws praises God. Second, I contend that evolution does not threaten the doctrine of original sin. Third, I contend that Genesis was never written to be taken literally, nor was it universally interpreted literally throughout Church history (I would refer you to Augustine's treatment as one example).

15 Decades
Also, that is a patently absurd comment... "to reject evolution is to basically say that God is a deceiver"... Sorry, it's the other way around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Have you even read St. Augustine?

I have. You are wrong. There is exactly one concept which he preferred to not treat literally, not any single whole narrative even. That one concept is, a temporal succession between creation days as God created, even he acknowledged a temporal succession of creation days in angels' perception of how God created (evening and morning being in his view two phases of angelic perception, St Michael going and Satan not going from evening to morning perception).

I do not see the direct relevance. Sin entered through man's choice of disobedience over obedience, as Paul said. How does that have anything to do whether God created man directly out of mud or through the processes of evolution?

Diane Feack
It matters, because the Word of God tells us exactly how man and every living thing on Earth was formed!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you accept Evolution, you arguably accept evolutionary timeline as well.

This timeline makes either Genesis 3 extremely tenuous to not say totally made up as history, transmitted from back then, or claims Adam and Eve lived after Australia and Americas were peopled.

This exalts our human conception of temporality, which does not necessarily apply to spiritual realities. Case in point: Abraham was justified. However, justification only occurs because of Christ's death and resurrection, which occurred temporally after Abraham's death. Therefore, while physical realities must hold that a cause temporally antedates an effect, spiritual realities do not necessarily. God perceives all time as one single moment in Eternity, and His Wisdom can ordain anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Abraham's justification was in expectation of Christ's Cross.

Were the deaths of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon in expectation of Adam's sin?


Lutherans deny evolution? Did not know that. It's a well supported explanation of human origins, I would have thought they would be more enlightened.

we don't deny evolution. We just deny that it happened for as long as it did, and we deny that it created animal kinds and life itself

+Ryansarcade9 Officially, the LCMS is Literal 6-day Creationist but there is a wide diversity of opinion on the issue among the laypeople. The Creed says God created the Earth and doesn't go into detail and I've never heard an LCMS pastor preach beyond that.

Aaron Carlson
+Ryansarcade9 We hold to Creationism on paper for core theological reasons (Original Sin, First Adam and Second Adam, etc.) But many Lutheran Church bodies have no official stance on Creation vs. Evolution, and those that do (LCMS) don't force their parishioners to hold any specific view, or excommunicate them for their own private opinions (very much like conservative Roman Catholicism).

David Tucker
Evolution is a plausible explaination of what we see in the fossil record, and there isn't a better answer yet. That said, the theory as a whole is untestable, unobservable, and therefore has no actual evidence supporting it. You can't say that Evolution explains the fossil record and then say the fossil record explains Evolution. That's circular reasoning. Beyond that, there are numerous holes and issues with the theory, and no two biologists can agree on everything. It straight up breaks certain laws of physics. The whole thing is problematic, and if there was ANY other explaination that came close to explaining as much as Evolution does, it'd be and embarrassment to scientists and viewed with the same disdain as alchemy... That said, I simply think that the answer to all the problems with the theory is that we're missing one or likely several key components involved with the process. Saying that God forced the impossible to happen over and over for over millions of years seems inadequate as an explanation to me. I hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis for spiritual insight, but an evolutionary pov in reality, and I suppose that the truth is somewhere in between, and I accept that I'll never understand the specifics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Aaron Carlson I am, as ex-Lutheran gone Catholic, and as Young Earth Creationist, glad to see some non-apostatic Lutherans are left.


Mark Williams
The solution is conversion to the traditional Catholic Church, not the modern Novus Ordo sect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hear, hear!

You accept Pope Michael, right?


And yes, you're also right that some bad Lutherans have contributed much to higher criticism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As an ex-Lutheran gone Catholic ... wasn't it more like Calvinists gone a bit even more bad?

Schleiermacher sounds like a Calvinist to me ...

No comments: