Were Adam and Eve Chinese? If Only.

Tweet

Well, I thought it was funny.

Of course, it's a cartoon. Adam and Eve were Semitic. How do I know this? Well, because the real Adam and Eve didn't eat the snake...

Looked at objectively, Adam and Eve did the worst thing that anyone in human history has ever done and could ever do. But they are now in Heaven. There's a lesson in that.

And no, it's not some vacuous Pope Francis lesson.

Indeed, it's almost certain Francis doesn't believe Adam and Eve ever really existed. Media bishop Robert Barron doesn't believe they existed. Indeed, most Catholics have been told it's all just a metaphor or some such.

Which of course would make the Doctrine of Original Sin incoherent.

But rejection of a literal Adam and Eve is a heresy. Or at least it is a subset of one. It's called polygenism, and it was rejected in, among other places, Humani Generis,* promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1950. 

You can't be a good Catholic and believe it. Sorry, Catholic wannabe polygenists.

Can you believe Adam and Eve were Chinese? Sure. But then why didn't they eat the snake?



*37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty [to believe it]. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Blogging Will Resume Sunday

Tweet

The original Mahound blog title picture

I generally do not like self-referential posts. You probably don't either. But bear with me for this exception.

I will be incommunicado for a few days, due to traveling. I will post again on Sunday.

Since Charlie Hebdo, I've posted once a day on average. I intend to hit 365 by the anniversary of the attacks.

Bearing witness, partly to those who were murdered is important. And contra Bishop Barron, bearing witness means more than just smiling idiotically over your turkey plate.

I hope I have done them justice.

As readers know, Mahound's Paradise is a mix of Islamophobic, Traditionalist Catholic and Jewish/Israeli topics.

Within that, I split roughly half and half between original material and links to news items of interest. It all depends on how inspired/lazy I am.

I'm pondering or have half-written these posts:

• Analysis of the recent French elections
• Post titled, "In Praise of Jack Chick" (yeah, I know that will really help me win friends and influence people)
• Post on the recent FrancisChurch "don't evangelize Jews" thing
• Should we lie to our kids about Santa?
• My general thoughts on immigration (I'm pro, sort of)

I was going to polish and upload the French election piece, but I'm too tired and the plane leaves too early. Plus, I have to do laundry.

Ah, the romantic life of a blog writer.

Thanks for reading! Have a blessed third week of Advent!

And don't let the haters get you down!

Bishop Barron's Imbecilic Thoughts on Terrorism and Evangelization

Tweet

We should make "quiet witness" but he can't shut up

This topic was well-covered by Maureen Mullarkey in a recent post on OnePeterFive. But I want to offer my own thoughts on it, if only because I feel so strongly about it.

Bishop Robert Barron's short EWTN interview was ostensibly about the proper Christian response to terrorism. I think it's fair to say that his answer boiled down to pacifism--though he mentioned just war theory briefly if, in effect, dismissively. It's worth quoting part of the interview in full:

Bishop Barron, as the conference is going on, the world is shocked and in mourning over Friday's terror attack. Can you offer some guidance as to how should Catholics respond? How should Catholics be reacting? 

It was especially poignant to me because I studied in Paris for three years. As I watched the pictures I recognized those streets and some of those shops on the corner. So it was very moving to me and poignant to me. 

You know, what's the response? We worship a crucified Lord. And so in a certain way, violence and the response to violence is at the very heart of Christian faith. Our Lord, who took on the violence of the world, took on sin and dysfunction and swallowed it up in the ever greater divine mercy. That's the Christian approach to violence. Not to fight it so much on its own terms--though I think at times that's the only thing we can do, hence our just war theory--but the basic approach, I think, is to respond to violence with love, with non-violence, with mercy. And thereby, don't fight fire with fire but fight fire with its opposite. Fight hatred with love. Um, so that means prayer. That means a witness. That means the non-violent stance. Open your personal life in a public way. Those are all ways that we respond.

But half-way through, the Bishop mentioned in an offhand way that for every 1 person who joins the Catholic faith, 6.5 leave it. And the rest of the interview was largely devoted to how to address that. He reasonably claimed that Catholics should "make our faith attractive" but then explained that this should be done not by "proselytizing" but by bearing "quiet witness". If one is talking to a fallen-away or non-Catholic, then at the appropriate point in a conversation, but only after having made quiet witness, it might be permitted to "ask a question" as long as it is done "non-threateningly." And of course there should be no "finger-wagging" or "blaming."

He then brought the two points together:

So I think by our own reaction to violence in a Christian way, we evangelize. Having said that I think we can point to how dysfunctional it is to respond to violence in a sort of hyper hate-filled or violent way. We can point out the fact that it tends not to work. That might be a way to reach out to those who don't have the faith.

This of course resembles nothing if not parody, though I suppose you either see it or you don't. Here Barron plays the part of the sort of dim mid-twentieth century Anglican vicar--I'm sure the character exists in one or more British comic novels--who wants so much to be relevant and thus taken seriously, but in fact is taken seriously by none, though he is patronized by all.

Now, anyone familiar with Catholic history or Biblical exegesis would realize that Barron's description of the traditional Christian response to violence and war--while superficially plausible to those with, say, a Cliff Notes exposure to the Bible--is false. The tradition is not pacifist or even "non-violent" when it comes to resisting aggression. In a sense Barron is sketching out a new interpretation of Christian tradition (after 2,000 years)--some sort of out of context melding of the thoughts of the quasi-Baptist Martin Luther King and the quasi-Hindu Mahatma Gandhi (as Mullarkey earlier suggested). In addition casually interchanging the concepts of sin, violence and "dysfunction" (whatever that is) is dangerously misleading, even (dare I say it) heretical.

But let's leave those precise considerations aside and instead ask these questions: are Bishop Barron's views on Christianity and violence attractive? Are they persuasive? Do they make, say, a non-Catholic want to become a Catholic? After all, presumably we want to reverse that 6.5:1 statistic. Don't we?

Bishop Barron wants to be liked by the secular world. Indeed, I would say that is the driving force behind his own apparent intellectual dysfunctions. And if you put it to him politely, I think he might even sort of agree. "But that's how you evangelize," you can imagine him saying. "Talk to them on their own terms, without finger wagging."

Of course, many non-Catholics will applaud. Finally (so goes the response of the applauders), here's a Catholic who admits it's all a bit too much to fight for the Catholic faith (or even to non-physically defend it). See, in doing so, he's admitting what we have said all along, that much of what the Catholic Church has stood for and done over the last 2,000 years has been wrong.

They will applaud. But they won't become converts. They will patronize Bishop Barron as they would the dim Anglican vicar. But in the end they won't take him seriously.

If this is evangelism, it's for those who have an IQ below 80.

Christ took on violence and swallowed it up with his mercy.

If that's the best argument for Christianity, then Christianity is obviously false. There's at least as much violence in the world now as there was 2,000 years ago. Christ didn't vanquish it. Unless the Bishop means, metaphorically or whatever or, you know, in some deeper sense. If that's the case, then applause. Finally (according to the applauders) Catholicism has been denuded into just another silly and harmless religious affectation.

(Correct answer: Christ vanquished sin, or at least the eternal consequences of sin for those who honestly repent and ask Him to forgive them.)

Respond to violence with non-violence. Violence tends not to work.

Now, again, this is calculated to get applause. But it is also imbecilic. And as much as some will say they believe it, almost no one actually does. Tell it, by the way, to the Holocaust survivors who were liberated by troops and tanks, not Buddhist floral arrangements.  I suppose it might get some of the New Age crowd. Then again, why should the New Age crowd become Catholic when they're already getting their oatmeal somewhere else?

When terrorists slit the throat of your girlfriend (because she wasn't fast enough in making the exit, and then begged for mercy), open your personal life in a public way.

What is he even talking about?

Admittedly, inside all of this is a point, buried due to the Bishop's own blathering so as to be almost undiscoverable, not least to a non-Christian. What is it?

Well it's not that Christianity has a bias against violence or that it considers violence to be only a last resort or anything like that. Among other things, this is the position of every religious or moral code worth considering, including those held by atheists. Or at least Bishop Barron and those like him claim this to be the case. Islam is a "religion of peace" after all. So this doesn't really separate Christianity from the pack. And if you find yourself in the unusual position of trying to evangelize Vikings or Zulus, the bias against violence thing might not work in your favor anyway.

Rather, I would identify the point thus:

Our faith tells us that Christians should try to love everyone, by which is meant wanting the best for everyone, if only ultimately (but that's what's most important). This does distinguish Christianity and Catholicism from many other belief systems, including most religious traditions. And I do think it is an attractive feature, though some would disagree. When was the last time you heard a Muslim pray for his enemies or, with apologies to my Jewish elder brothers, a believing Jew do the same?

Note though, that this is different from pacifism. It doesn't say you shouldn't fight your enemies. It does say you should love them. And contra Bishop Barron, this isn't because loving them "works" as some rope-a-dope Gandhi-esque strategy to get them off your back or whatever. It's because, following his own example, Christ commanded it of us.

Thus, Maria Goretti famously wanted her attempted rapist and murderer to repent and join her in Heaven. But that didn't stop her from fighting him off (she succeeded at least in preventing the rape), and perhaps saving his soul in the bargain.

Joan D'Arc didn't merely ask her foes a question. And neither did Saint Bernard de Clairvaux (the most prominent theological backer of the Crusades). But they did fervently pray for them.

Bishop Barron is on record, by the way, as calling that Saint a sinner, which is a bit uppity for someone who is against "blaming".

And Jesus made a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. That was His witness. And it wasn't quiet.

But you know what? Let's stop talking and test it. Bishop Barron is welcome anytime to fly to Turkey, accompanied of course by a Word on Fire camera team, and then take a land rover into ISIS occupied Raqqa. There he can undertake a non-violent sit-in at the local kabob joint. Oh, sure, even he might admit that might earn him a beheading. Then again, perhaps it might set a good example.

He isn't willing to do that?

Then what right does he have to in effect ask others to?

What if Christians Behaved Like Muslims? Report from Opposite World (Repost)

Tweet

The Kaaba stone in 2000, shortly before it was destroyed by Christianist terrorists

This is a piece from February 6 that I am reposting for obvious reasons. That the world is suffering from an excess of Islam, not extremism per se, is a claim held equally by figures as diverse as Franklin Graham and Richard Dawkins. For those who are fully informed, it can be denied only by the obstinately blind, the obstinately politically correct, or those who actually get their jollies from human suffering.

"Every religion has its extremists. That's the problem, not the beliefs or practices of any particular religion."

Oh really? The purpose of the original post was to explore the implications of that. Or, rather, to accept it and double down on the implications:


ROME—Pope Francis today signed a death warrant for comedian Bill Maher, citing Maher’s “repeated insults against the Christian Religion”. The action was announced during the Pope’s weekly address from his residence overlooking St. Peter’s Square and was met with enthusiastic cheering by thousands of Swiss Guards and others thronging the open-air area. Francis, who deposed his predecessor Benedict in a military coup one-and-a-half years ago, made a parallel between insulting Christianity and insulting someone’s grandmother, asserting that both deserved death. Maher could not be reached for comment and was reportedly in hiding in an undisclosed location. His television show, while still running on some stations, has now been pulled by the majority of them, citing “security concerns” following the assassination of a station manager in Japan by Christianist terrorists a few days ago. The Christian holy city of Rome has been off-limits to non-Christians since the era of Constantine.

ST. LOUIS, MO—Fighters for the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) reached the outskirts of this Midwestern city yesterday, promoting panic among residents and an outflux of refugees southwards. The WBC, little more than an extended family a few years ago, now controls a five-state territory stretching from southern Nebraska to Northern Mississippi. Its slogan, “God Hates Everyone”, has proved appealing to inhabitants of the war-torn region, raked by sectarian Baptist-Pentecostal warfare ever since the authoritarian regime of David Duke was deposed by a Saudi-Arabian-led military coalition thirteen years ago. The WBC recently announced that the entire female population of Arkansas had been sold into slavery.

NAIROBI, KENYA—President Barrack St. Michael Obama condemned the WBC today in a prayer breakfast for a diverse group of invited Kenyan religious leaders. “Though I am a Muslim”, Obama stated, “I denounce those who hijack and besmirch the beautiful faith of Christianity. The future does not belong to Christian haters. Long Live Christ the King!” Predictably, this fueled conspiracy theories among Islamic right-wingers that Obama was secretly a Christian.

MOSUL, IRAQ—Hundreds of protesters from the extremist Muslim group ISIS, known for its fundamentalist and literalist interpretation of the Koran, held a silent vigil outside of the city’s main art museum yesterday in response to a religious-themed exhibit that they claimed was offensive. Demonstrators held signs saying, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand” and “Allah Loves You”.

MECCA—At the site of the 9/11 attacks, where Christianist suicide terrorists destroyed the sacred Kaaba stone and many of the surrounding buildings fourteen years before, the city council struck down an injunction against the construction of a Christian evangelical megachurch, one-hundred yards from “ground-zero”. Christian pastor Joel Osteen, one of the main backers of the project, hailed the decision as a victory for tolerance and against Christianophobic hatred and racism. At least 10% of the Saudi Arabian population is now Christian. While some anti-Muslim politicians have pointed out that inmates of the country’s prisons are now 70% Christian, Christian groups have countered that young Christian men in Saudi Arabia are the victims of many societal obstacles.

SOUTHERN GERMANY—The government of Bavaria condemned rocket attacks into its territory, allegedly launched from Austro-Hungarian refugee camps along the German/Czech border. The camps formed after the territorial adjustments of World War One and added to after additional adjustments after World War Two are now home to three million refugees. The current leader of the Austro-Hungarian Liberation Organization (AHLO) claimed that all was open to negotiation except the “right of return”. The United Nations Committee on Displaced Peoples concurred (with Saudi Arabia declining to vote).

PORTLAND, OREGON—Riots broke out today following the Pope's remarks, with Christian demonstrators burning tires and attacking police. Twenty deaths were reported.

LONDON—Parliament refused to reverse the blasphemy conviction of philosopher Richard Dawkins. The Current Archbishop of Canterbury hailed the ruling as being consistent with long-standing Anglican jurisprudence. “Dawkins was given every chance to repent. But he didn’t. What a wanker”, declared the prelate, to cheering crowds in Trafalgar Square.

CHICAGO—The January attack by Christianist terrorists that killed most of the editorial staff of The Onion was again referenced by Kenyan President Obama who condemned the extremists responsible for misusing Christian theology in the cause of their “nihilistic ends”. “History shows that nihilists never win”, said Obama, quoting a line from the Big Lebowski. “Long Live Christ the King!” The President’s wife, currently campaigning for the enforcement of Lenten Fasting in all primary schools, concurred, exclaiming “Amen, Christian Sisters.”

JUNEAU—Supreme Leader of the Christian State of Alaska, Sarah Palin, announced that Jewish inhabitants would be protected by the authorities, following a string of mob-lead attacks on Jewish-owned businesses and homes in Juneau, Anchorage and other cities. “As long as they accept the supremacy of Christianity, wear their prescribed clothing and pay the Dhimmi tax they should be perfectly safe”, said Palin. “Christianity is, after all, a religion of peace and tolerance.” Kenyan President Obama praised her statement as an example of Christian moderation…


*Harry Turtledove had nothing to do with this. But he is now in hiding...

Cardinal: Muslims Believe They Will Conquer Europe Through Faith and Babies

Tweet

At ground zero in the clash of civilizations 

Cardinal Bechara Boutros al-Rahi is the Patriarch of Antioch. So he is an Eastern Rite Catholic, not a Roman Catholic. But that still makes him a "full" Cardinal of the Catholic Church in all the relevant ways.

Indeed, Bechara Boutros al-Rahi is one of the only 119 Cardinals under the age of 80 who could vote for the next pope if the election were held today. For context, there are a total of 218 Cardinals, and as many Eastern Rite Cardinals (8) as, say, Central American Cardinals.

This bishop understands what's at stake, and presumably some of this is due to the fact that he is almost at ground zero in the great 21st-century purge of Christians from the middle-east.

Note, however, what he does not say. He doesn't say that Muslims will conquer Europe through violence per se. Nor does he claim that even Muslims might think that. Rather, the core of his fear is based on the current relative strength of the two belief systems, at least as it is manifested in the dedication of their contemporary adherents. He also makes a number of other unassailable but recently neglected points.

If history teaches us anything, it is that circumstances change and even impregnable seeming systems and ideologies can collapse overnight (see communism). Can the reverse also occur?

Regardless, who can say that he is now wrong?

From the Italian Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana, translated and summarized by Breitbart (in turn referenced by Credo):

In a stunning interview, the Maronite patriarch of Antioch, Cardinal Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, has contended that Islam has a clear, two-pronged strategy to take over Europe: religion and procreation. 

(By Thomas D. Williams, 6 November) The cardinal said that Muslims look on Christians as weak and believe that since they have no children and barely practice their faith, Islam will easily conquer them. Sadly, he said, Muslims take their faith more seriously than most Christians, and they are gaining ground because of it. 

“I have often heard from Muslims that their goal is to conquer Europe with two weapons: their faith and their birthrate,” al-Rahi said in a recent interview with Famiglia Cristiana, an Italian Catholic weekly magazine. 

For the Muslims, the Cardinal said, “the practice of the faith is essential and fundamental. In Saudi Arabia they go to Friday prayers even if they need a walking stick. They know the Koran by heart, and when they talk they often cite it. The same is not true for Christians who do not refer either to the Bible or the teachings of the Church.” 

The Muslims “believe that God’s will is to procreate and that marriage is aimed at this,” he said. “They think that numbers will give them the upper hand.” 

Christians, however, “hardly get married anymore, and have few children,” he said. 

The Cardinal also said that Muslims “identify anything that comes from the West as Christian per se. All Western politics is Christian politics, it is a new crusade. They say that Christians are the remains of the Crusades and of Western imperialism,” he said. 

At the same time, al-Rahi sharply criticized the EU’s ineffective solutions to Europe’s migration crisis, arguing that the only way to end the chaos is by stopping the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. 

The 75-year-old cardinal is the Maronite Patriarch of the ancient city of Antioch, where Christianity has deep and millennial roots. He said that the ongoing conflict provoked by the Islamic State is forcing both Christians and moderate Muslims to emigrate from the Holy Land, so before all else, attention must be given to putting an end to the siege. 

It is useless for Europe to quarrel over the reception of refugees without addressing the root cause of emigration from the Middle East, which is armed conflict, he said. 

“The first thing to do to protect Christians in the Middle East is to end the war in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine,” the Cardinal said. “European states quarrel with each other about the number of refugees to be admitted but do nothing to end the conflict.” 

“The Middle East is emptying and leaving the field open to fundamentalist and terrorist organizations,” al-Rahi said. For some reason, he said, “States do not talk about it, the only one making appeals is Pope Francis.” 

“Europe is talking about the reception of refugees, those who would like ten thousand and another who will take three thousand people, but this does not help us,” he said. “Europe should focus on the cause of migration, namely the war. You have to turn off the tap and ensure that Muslims and Christians will return to their lands.” 

“A Middle East without Christians,” the Cardinal continued, “has no identity.” 

“This is the place of all divine revelation. It is where Jesus took flesh, died and rose again. It is where the Church was born and began to proclaim the Gospel to the world,” he said. 

Al-Rahi also noted that Christians resent being called a “minority” in the Middle East. We have been here for two thousand years, he said, “six hundred years before the arrival of Islam.” 

“Just as Europe discusses how to preserve its identity, it is urgent that we do the same,” he said.

People Who Exhibit False Christian Charity Should be Boiled in Oil

Tweet

We've all seen it. You're having an argument with a Christian, probably on the internet, and they play the "I'm going to pray for you" card. Here's a reconstruction:

I'm going to pray for you, Oakes. May you, through God's grace gain the humility and sense of peace that you so obviously need. Yours in Christ and God bless you.

So, let's deconstruct this, as they say. What is really being said in the above?

1. You're a jerky-jerk face, Oakes.
2. I'm going to pray for you.
3. I'm publicly implying that you're a jerky-jerk face AND publicly announcing that I'm going to pray for you.
4. That makes me a really great Christian (since I'm praying for you even though you're a jerky-jerk face and I'm meeting your jerky-jerk faced behavior not with tit-for-tat jerky-jerk facedness but with a big fluffy ball of Christianness).
5. This is how real Christians (like me) behave, you jerky-jerk face.

Now, as might be obvious, I find this annoying, mainly because to me it seems so false. I am aware that there's always a tension in Christianity between doing things in secret (as Jesus once recommended that we pray the Our Father) and doing things publicly to set a good example. But still. Among other things, if they really are going to pray for you (which in and of itself is fine--we could all use as much of that as possible) why are they announcing that to your 1,259 other Facebook friends? Why don't they just do it?

Is what I'm saying uncharitable? Probably.

Am I bitter? I wouldn't put it that way. More just irritated.

Do I have a chip on my shoulder? No. But if you think so and want to knock it off, go ahead and try.

I'll pray for you.

When God Looked on God–in His Mother's Eye

Tweet

Once, God walked among us as a man. But he didn't arrive here in a heavenly chariot or suddenly appear in a blast of smoke. Rather, He chose to be born as all of us are. And so God the creator of the universe had a human mother, and for a period of time was a growing infant in her womb and then a helpless child, nurtured by her.

Though, of course we know this. I'm not sure many of us have really thought about it as much as it deserves to be thought about. I certainly haven't. We contemplate His death and resurrection as of course we should. But too often perhaps we think of His birth as a kind of eternal snapshot with Mary, Joseph, the shepherds and the wise men gathered around an angelic looking creature wearing a halo.

But He wasn't an angel and there was no halo.

He was fully God, but He was also a fully human baby with a fully human mother, Mary.

G.K. Chesterton wrote often on this. He felt that it, as much as anything else, gave Christianity its character.

In his wonderful poem "A Little Litany", he imagines the baby Jesus climbing up from His mother's lap and seeing His reflexion in one of her eyes. I say "imagined", but surely it must have happened.

And I mean really happened. Slightly more than 2,000 years ago, a few thousand miles away from where I am now writing, in a place now called "Israel", God looked on God–in His mother's eye.

A Little Litany (1926)

When God turned back eternity and was young,
Ancient of Days, grown little for your mirth
(As under the low arch the land is bright)
Peered through you, gate of heaven—and saw the earth.

Or shutting out his shining skies awhile
Built you about him for a house of gold
To see in pictured walls his storied world
Return upon him as a tale is told.

Or found his mirror there; the only glass
That would not break with that unbearable light
Till in a corner of the high dark house
God looked on God, as ghosts meet in the night.

Star of his morning; that unfallen star
In that strange starry overturn of space
When earth and sky changed places for an hour
And heaven looked upwards in a human face.

Or young on your strong knees and lifted up
Wisdom cried out, whose voice is in the street,
And more than twilight of twiformed cherubim
Made of his throne indeed a mercy-seat.

Or risen from play at your pale raiment's hem
God, grown adventurous from all time's repose,
Or your tall body climbed the ivory tower
And kissed upon your mouth the mystic rose.

Video Tuesday: Who Would Dare to Love ISIS? The Most Amazing Video of the Year

Tweet

This may be the most moving and powerful video you will see this year, or for that matter, any year.

Who Would Dare to Love Isis? (A Letter From the People of the Cross) is a project of Michael Chang, a 26-year-old Los Angeles filmmaker. The beautiful text was cowritten by Jeanette Fu. The website of Chang's company, Mighty, is not up yet but it has a Facebook page that is now gaining "likes" at an exponentially increasing rate.

I first saw the video yesterday on Steve Skojec's One Peter Five. Apparently, it was one of his most popular posts and was quickly picked up by Fox News. But at the time Steve knew almost nothing of its origins. The filmmaker contacted Steve shortly after and One Peter Five had a fascinating interview with him today. Among other things we learn that Chang is a non-denominational Christian who left his day job two months ago to focus on his craft. In the meantime, the video has gone viral, appearing on more and more Christian blogs and sites.

From the interview:

People dying for their beliefs is noble. A lot of people do that. But people dying for their enemies…that’s almost unheard of. This kind of love is what drew Christians to adore Christ in the first place. A kingdom is conquered in one of two ways. Either by force or by winning over the hearts of the people. Jesus won our hearts over. And it’s the opposite of ISIS is doing now – conquering by force. I don’t like the term conversion, but yes, the blood of our martyrs speaks louder than teachings, and I believe God will save many ISIS members through them.

Actually, Chang is not a pacifist. Read the interview to see precisely what he says on this.

I should add, in just a bit of perusing I've seen it on Traditionalist Catholic sites (including One Peter Five), Orthodox sites and Protestant sites--including "liberal" ones with a focus on "social justice", etc.

But this is not because the message is dumbed down or "averaged" to appeal to everyone. Rather it's sharp, radical (in the best sense of the word) and, well, extreme.

Just as Christ's message was.

If this isn't the New Evangelization, the term has no meaning.

Steve confessed to "choking up" each time he saw it. I'll double down on that and say I got teary just thinking about it on my way home from work.

If you don't, that says nothing about your religious sensibilities or beliefs. Rather, it will prove you're a Vulcan.

The people of the cross gather at your gates with a message
Love is coming after you...

Though your sins are like scarlet
They can be washed white as snow
Though you call yourselves servants
He will make you into Sons...

You die for your god but our God died for us...

Christ has been crucified once. And for ALL.
To make sinners like you and me into brothers
Even you.
Even now.

There is a full transcription here.

Stoning in Islam (and Judaism and Christianity), Part 1

Tweet

From The Stoning of Soraya M

Many people feel that the quintessential horrific punishment of Islamic law is death by stoning. Generally, it is reserved for sexual offenses--fornication, adultery and homosexual acts. Apologists for Islam would say it is a sort of exception or aberration, not sanctioned by the Koran, or else it is a holdover from Mosaic law that Jews and Christians are at least partly responsible for, if not merely a few hundred years away from.

I want to investigate this.

First, I want to make the discussion more real by citing an actual case. It occurred in Somalia in 2008. The text is taken from an article in The Independent:

'Don't kill me,' she screamed. Then they stoned her to death 

Outrage at execution of 13-year-old Somali rape victim for 'adultery' 

This was a death foretold. A Toyota pickup with a loudspeaker began an early-morning tour of the ruined neighbourhoods of Kismayo, a port in southern Somalia, announcing that there would be a killing. By 4pm a crowd of 1,000 people had gathered at the football stadium. A hole had been dug in the ground, and half an hour later a truck loaded with rocks arrived. 

A group of fighters from the Al-Shabab militia who control the city appeared, firing warning shots into the air to disperse a crush of people trying to reach the stones. 

A young girl was dragged into the stadium. She knew what was going to happen next, and witnesses saw her struggling and screaming. 

"What do you want from me?" she asked. Then she shouted "I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me." 

But four men forced her into the hole and buried her up to her neck. Fifty men then set about stoning her to death. After 10 minutes she was dug up and two nurses checked to see if she was alive. She was. So they put her back in the ground and the stoning recommenced. 

Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow's crime was to be raped and then report it. After being attacked by three men her family went to the Al-Shabab Islamist militia to report the crime. She was detained and accused of adultery. No effort was made to identify or arrest the rapists.

Despite reports that she was 23 years old, Aisha was actually 13. "She hadn't even reached the age to be married," her distraught father said. 

People in Kismayo say they live in constant fear of the Al-Shabab, but not everyone was content to watch a "clearly distressed" girl being stoned to death. Some people tried to intervene. The gunmen fired shots; one man was wounded and an eight-year-old boy was shot dead. The militia later apologised for his killing. 

After the execution a man called Sheik Hayakalah told a radio station: "The evidence came from her side and she officially confirmed her guilt," he said. "She told us that she was happy with the punishment under Islamic law." Aisha's father said his daughter had begged for her life. It is illegal under Sharia to convict a 13-year-old of adultery. 

There are so many things to note about this account: The crowd that was so eager to pick up stones they had to be dispersed by gunfire. The terrified, screaming young woman, pleading for her life. The presence and actions of those "nurses". The fact that the "adultery" was almost certainly a gang-rape. The resistance and heroism of some (that 8 year old boy?) The technical question of the age requirement-when would stoning be permitted--14? 16? 18?

In the next post I want to answer a number of questions:

1. To what extent is the punishment of stoning present in the law codes of contemporary Muslim countries?
2. To what extent is it practiced by extra-legal means in Muslim countries?
3. Is it sanctioned by the Koran?
4. If not, is it sanctioned by other original Islamic sources?
5. Was stoning decreed and/or practiced under ancient Jewish or Christian law?
6. If so, when and why did it disappear?

These questions are not difficult to answer and in fact have relatively non-controversial answers. Or at least they do for all those that desire to approach the question without bias or prejudice.

In the meantime, I know that all readers would regard the above case and similar cases as acts of grave evil.

Please pray for Aisha Duhulow and all the other victims.

Salon Christianity Secrets: God Is Three Persons

Tweet

Jacopo Tintoretto, The Trinity Adored by Saints and Angels 

Oakes Spalding, From the Front Lines

FFL  This article originally appeared in From the Front Lines, New Perspectives on Faith and Culture

"God is three distinct persons in one substance, essence or nature."

This is one claim that Christians will likely not hear in their homilies this Sunday. And yet the doctrine has deep roots in Christian tradition.

One version of the fourth century Nicene Creed reads, "the one Lord, Jesus Christ...is of one substance with the Father. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father...but is together with the Father and Son."

To modern Christian ears, there is something almost unseemly about this idea.

Contemporary Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and other congregations include these phrases in the profession of faith recited at Sunday services. The phrase, "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", usually proceeds every Catholic prayer, and the doctrine is at least nominally referenced in various other ways. But it is unlikely that most adherents give the so-called "doctrine of the Trinity" more than a passing thought, ironically perhaps due to the overuse of rote formulas.

But to the early Christians, the Trinity was no familiar triviality. Rather, they spent huge amounts of theological capital debating the finer points of the doctrine. Were the persons "co-substantial"? Did one person "proceed" from another? These debates often came to blows. Heresies and Heretics were created--the term had a better chance of sticking when applied by the winners--and Church Councils were convened in part to settle the related issues.

Medieval philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas wrestled with the theological implications. And of course the Eastern Orthodox Church has always had a rich tradition of philosophical analysis and a respect for the more complex and mystical elements of Christian tradition.

To contemporary believers, used to the comfortable commands and familiar certainties of organized American Christianity, the idea of central elements of the Faith being built on apparent paradox may seem jarring. And this is doubly ironic as Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is often favorably contrasted with the "hubristic" rationalism of science and the secular world. What would these churchgoers think when confronted with a real leap of faith?

As G.K. Chesterton once said, "There are no rules of architecture for a castle in the clouds."

Or to put it another way, maybe it isn't turtles all the way down.

Oakes Spalding is an award-winning blogger and religion columnist for Salon, The Huffington Post, the New York Times and others. He divides his free-time between spelunking, organized Shakespeare readings and raising one daughter and four cats.

"Christians Should Be Thrown Off Buildings," A Fair and Reasoned Analysis by Frank Bruni

Tweet

I married ISIS on the fifth day of May, but I could not hold on to him very long...

The final published title of Frank Bruni's notorious recent New York Times op-ed was "Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana." But a tipster told Mahound's Paradise that the title referenced by the post was Bruni's original choice. It was changed at the last minute when the Editor-in-Chief argued that it might cost the New York Times its sixty-two remaining Christian readers around the country, and the newspaper couldn't tolerate the resulting drop in advertising revenue.

Though I am a Christian, I am not going to argue here for the Christian position per se against Bruni, or the Indiana gay rights vs. freedom of religion controversy. If you want to know my position on providing pizza for Elton John's wedding or whatever, look it up in the Catholic Catechism. There are five whole chapters on it, right before the two chapters on what color combinations to wear in Spring and the one crucial chapter on how to annoy the hell out of Freemasons.

Rather, I am going to stick up for objective morality.

Oh, you don't believe in objective morality? Then go away, you silly commie.

"Sticking up for" means making claims, not arguments. It's up to you to fill in the arguments. What, do you think I'm going to do everything for you?

I'm not going to "play all my cards."

I'm not going to cite any quotations from Bruni's recent article. That's because I can't type while holding my nose. But the following propositions are a reaction to it. If you haven't seen it already, you can read it (see link, above). 

Here are twenty propositions:

1. Objective morality doesn't change.
2. People's opinions on it can and do change.
3. Sometimes people are wrong about it.
4. If one is open to the claim that people might have been wrong about it in the past, then one should be just as open to the claim that people might be wrong about it in the present.
5. That assertion has consequences.
6. The majority (in totality or within a particular favored place or group) is often wrong.
7. People's opinions on objective morality aren't always advancing closer to the truth. (This is sort of a corollary of 4.)
8. Science, as it's typically defined, doesn't necessarily help, especially if it is favorably contrasted with morality.
9. Historically speaking, proclaiming "modernity" as a kind of moral savior is usually a prescription for moral decadence or worse.
10. If one favorably cites the "biases" of "authors, cultures and eras," as a reason for preferring current moral claims to past moral claims, then one is a dunce. See 4 and 7.
11. Being in favor of gay marriage is (in some sense) reasonable. Sorry, Christians.
12. Being against gay marriage is (in some sense) reasonable. Sorry, gay marriage people.
13. Believing that one or the other is better because one or the other is preferred by the majority (in totality or within a particular favored place or group) now, or because "history" is on the side of it, or "modernity" is allied with it, or because "science" tells us so, is Stalinist. Sorry, Stalinists.
14. If you're going to trash the moral claims of "ancient texts" simply because they're ancient, then you're a dunce.
15. But if you have some other reason for trashing the moral claims of ancient texts (and I'm not saying there aren't necessarily good ones), then provide something in their place. And, no, the opinion of the majority or whatever, doesn't count.
16. The "throwing Christians off buildings" thing is obviously an allusion to ISIS--that cutting edge Muslim craze--throwing gays off buildings.
17. Every time you think of Christians refusing to make pizzas for gay weddings, also think of that.
18. Why would any self-respecting gay man want pizzas for his wedding?
19. If you're a straight man who wants pizzas for his wedding, you're sentenced to watching at least ten episodes of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
20. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Well, I'm done. Asserting claims about objective morality is tiring. I feel like Moses or something. It's a tough job but someone has to do it. The New York Times is a dying rag. But I'm open to being hired to provide a counterpart to Bruni. I can also do restaurant reviews...