Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts

Friday, August 23, 2019

Devilish ”Black Pope” Says Devil is Only Symbolic

(Rome) As he once said, the Jesuit General Arturo Sosa Abascal reiterated his claim that the devil exists only as a "symbolic reality".

Since October 2016, the Venezuelan Jesuit, Arturo Sosa Abascal, Superior General of the Jesuit Order and thus, is the 30th successor of St. Ignatius of Loyola. General Sosa distinguished himself in the 70s and 80s by trying to bring about a symbiosis of Christianity and Marxism. These aspirations were concretized by a jubilee address to the Communist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Since his election to the Jesuit General Sosa attracted little favor. His spiritual "bon mots" range from syncretistic excursions to the polemical denial of the authenticity of the Gospels. Notorious for this is his answer in connection with the controversial post-synodal letter of Pope Francis, Amoris laetitia, whether the Lord’s command on the indissolubility of marriage is still valid. The "Black Pope" in all seriousness meant that at that time nobody had a tape recorder, so there was no sure proof of the authenticity of the Lord’s words.

In 2017, General Sosa also said that the devil is not a person and that his existence is only as a "symbolic figure" to name evil.

There was no official reaction from the Order or the Holy See either in one instance or the other. Pope Francis, otherwise stingy with criticism of his own ranks, did not utter a word of disapproval or correction to his religious superiors.

Now Sosa has repeated his adventurous thesis about the devil. On August 21, the weekly Tempi published an interview with the Black Pope, as the Jesuit General is traditionally called. He said:

Tempi: Father Sosa, does the devil exist?
Arturo Sosa Abascal: In different ways. We need to understand the cultural elements to refer to this figure. In the language of Saint Ignatius, it is the evil spirit that makes one do things that are directed against the Spirit of God. He exists as personified evil in different structures, but not in humans because he is not a person. He is a way to realize the evil. It is not a person like a human. It is a way of evil to be present in human life. Good and evil are in constant conflict in the human conscience and we have different ways to name them. We recognize God as good, as completely good. Symbols are part of reality, and the devil exists as a symbolic reality, not as a personal reality. 

According to the logic of the Jesuit general, is God, logically, only a "symbolic reality" that serves to name the good?

Will the General Curia of the Jesuit Order and the Holy See also stay away this time? Will Pope Francis remain silent this time, even though the Superior General of the Church's largest and traditionally most powerful order challenges the foundations of the Church and of religion as a whole? Some could at least recognize agnostic approaches in his words.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Wikicommons
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Pope Names Member of Giordano Bruno Society to Pontifical Council

Wolf

Why couldn't he have just named Adolf Hitler?

An unbelievable scandal: Wolf Joachim Singer is the meber of an aggressive, atheist group, which considers believers to be pigs. Actually, in the Vatican he gets an appointment for that.

(kreuz.net, Vatikan) On Saturday Pope Benedict XVI appointed the German Wolf Joachim Singer (68) as an advisor to the Pontifical Council on Culture.

Singer is a Neuroscientist and director of the Max Planck Institute for Neuroscience in Frankfurt am Main.

Is he working on dementia patients in the Vatican?

The President of the Pontifical Council on Culture is Curial Cardinal Gianfranco Ravas (69) who suffers from dementia.

The scandal of the new appointment: Singer belongs to the advisory board of the atheist society 'Giordano Bruno Foundation'.

He is a determined opponent of the idea that man has free will. [Like a Calvinist]

It is the Archenemy of the Church and of Humanity

The 'Giordano Bruno Foundation' has presumptuously assigned itself the mission of "Evolutionary Humanism" as a goal.

This consists among other things in a ruthless defamation of the Church.

Because: According to the foundation, religion has "influenced the cultural evolution of humanity in an adverse manner." In 2009 they aired a bus campaign with the defamatory slogan: "There is (with almost certain probability) no God."

They promote the murder of children.


The leader of this band is the church-hating underwear prophet Micheal Schnidt-Salomon.

Even the heretical Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller of Regensburg described him in 2009 as a "spiritual assassin who has described the faithful as stuffed pigs and promotes the murder of children."

Schmidt-Salomon also agitated the hate-demonstrations against the September visit of Benedict XVI in Berlin.

The new advisor denies free will

Singer himself considers himself to be a "leading Neuroscientist".

In any case he denies the fre will of men and along with that his own culpability.

In 2004 Singer wrote an article in the 'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung' an article with the following title: 

"Interconnections bind us securely: we should cease from talking about freedom." In November 2008 he told the German weekly "Zeit" [Time]:

"We have imagined all of our religious systems." Roman observers are puzzled over the question just what the Pope or Cardinal Ravasi can learn from this odd duck.

  Link to original...

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Jesuit Superior General: The Secret Poison of Atheism is Raging Even Within the Church

The Spanish Jesuit Father General, Pedro Arrupe († 1991) is held as a destroyer of the Society of Jesus.  At 46 he suffered a moment of lucidity, in any case.
Father Pedro Arrupe

(kreuz.net)  On Monday,  27. September 1965, the General Superior of the Jesuits, Father Pedro Arrupe, spoke in Rome before the Council to the gathered Bishops.

The German weekly 'Zeit' reported this on the 1st of October 1965.

Father Arrupe was a survivor of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

According to the account by 'Zeit', he "shcoked" many of the Council bedazzled Bishops with his address.

He is supposed to have -- as  the 'Zeit' put it -- "claimed":

"A new society of the Godless controlling almost entirely the international organisations, the financial circles and the field of mass communications, like the press, film, radio and television."

AND:  "The secret poison of atheism is raging even within the Catholic Church, and its fruits are naturalism, doubt and rebellion."

The 'Zeit' insisted that FAther Arrupe did not mean simply the Communists.

Actually, many of the Bishops -- incredibly -- are supposed to have felt that the Jesuit General had gone "too far" with his remarks about a worldwide conspiracy of atheism -- wrote the 'Zeit' apologetically.

Some noticed that -- only a week before the address by Pope Paul VI. († 1978)before the 'United Nations' -- that he criticized "international organizations".


Father Arrupe sought no anathema against atheism, which he didn't understand primarily as a philosophical problem.


"Social reforms" were needed in the fight against it.


Link to kreuz.net... source...

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Jesuit: "I Am a Religious Atheist"

Austria. Christendom must become "atheistic and religionless".  This was said by the old Liberal Jesuit, Father Roger Charles Lenaers (85), at a lecture in Vienna according to a report of the Linz commerce website, 'kath.net'.   The old man is active in the parish of Vorderhornbach in the Diocese of Innsbruck.  Religion consists in a thin flow of experience for the Jesuit that the human intellect can't grasp entirely and is hidden behind an experiential "something":  "Because of this I am a deeply religious atheist."

Read further... original, kreuz.net...

Monday, March 29, 2010

Philosopher: Why we Should Ditch Religion

(CNN) -- For the world to tackle truly important problems, people have to stop looking to religion to guide their moral compasses, the philosopher Sam Harris told CNN.

"We should be talking about real problems, like nuclear proliferation and genocide and poverty and the crisis in education," Harris said in a recent interview at the TED Conference in Long Beach, California. TED is a nonprofit group dedicated to "ideas worth spreading."

"These are issues which tremendous swings in human well-being depend on. And it's not at the center of our moral concern."

Link to original...

Sunday, January 24, 2010

The Best Mind of the 18th Century

January 24, 2010

The Best Mind of the 18th Century
by Benjamin D. Wiker
1/23/10
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Christopher Hitchens, Twelve Books, 307 pages, $24.99

One is tempted to quip that Christopher Hitchens is certainly one of the best minds of the 18th century, but that would be to give Hitchens too much credit as an equal to Voltaire in wit. He is not, and his God Is Not Great presents little of substance beyond what one would hear murmured in Enlightenment salons. Even more irritating, the style rarely rises above naughty school-boy sniggering. (One imagines him as a young boy penciling in a mustache on the Madonna in the town crèche at Christmas, much to the delight of his fellow rogues hidden in the bushes.)

Perhaps I am not being fair, or more likely, I have best-seller-atheist-book fatigue after reviewing Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and finding in Hitchens nothing new and a lot more of it. Given the tedious similarity of Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation, Dawkins's The God Delusion, and Hitchens's God Is Not Great, I'm beginning to think the triumvirate hatched its literary blitz after a club meeting and all used the same outline.

Well, weary or not, here we go. The most significant problem with Hitchens's argument is precisely that it does belong in the 18th century, that is, in a time when it was still possible to declaim upon How Religion Poisons Everything (the subtitle of Hitchens's book). In those heady days of overt deism and covert atheism, enemies of religion could gather together, exchange stories of religious hypocrisy and savagery, and imagine that once the poisoned barbs of Christianity were removed from innocent human flesh, and priests and kings were suitably strung up by each other's entrails, the world would breathe a long and peaceful sigh of relief.

That was before the French Revolution, before Stalin, before Hitler, before Mao, before Pol Pot; in short, before any actual attempt to politically eliminate either Christianity in particular or all religion in general, and set up a regime based entirely on secular foundations. Before it was ever tried in earnest, the intellectual atheist could wade through many a hypothetical reverie of the innocent and Edenic future of practical atheism.

That is the whole problem with Hitchens's book: He still thinks he has that enviable luxury. His finale -- a mere seven pages long -- is titled "The Need for a New Enlightenment," as if it hadn't been tried already and found woefully wanting. The ending appeal -- to "undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex," the "proper study of mankind" being "man, and woman," the idyllic "study of literature and poetry," "unfettered scientific inquiry," and certainly most of all, the long-awaited "divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny" -- is so drippingly theatrical and naïve that the reader becomes embarrassed on Hitchens's behalf.

Of course, Hitchens realizes that his anti-religion must answer the obvious objection: "Is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are, in the scale of things, at least as bad if not worse?" His mode of defense consists in (1) avoiding the issue by continuing to talk about all the bad things done in the name of religion or by anyone with a religious name; (2) admitting that some bad things were done by allegedly atheist regimes, but that when, say, communists were slaughtering people by the millions they were actually acting out of an as-yet-not-exorcised spirit of religion; (3) hinting that this spirit might be stitched into our genes by evolution, so that our genes unhappily deflect atheism from achieving its glorious potentialities; (4) deflecting consideration of Hitler by finger-pointing at popes and cardinals who allegedly supported Hitler; and (5) sidestepping the wickedness of Stalin by examining the banalities of his attempts to parrot religious ceremonies. All that allows Hitchens to say -- with an entirely straight face, as far as I can tell -- that "totalitarian systems, whatever outward form they may take, are fundamentalist and, as we would now say, 'faith-based.'"

Really? What if I cleverly disowned all the wickedness done in the name of Christianity by saying that all the evil perpetrated by so-called religious people was actually done out of a spirit of rebellion against God, and therefore true Christians are entirely innocent of any crimes?

That would not only be disingenuous, but unmanly. If I am to be a Christian, I must swallow hard, and look with a clear and humble eye at the sins of Christians, my own first and foremost. If Hitchens really wants to be an atheist, he should have girded his loins before taking up his pen, and taken a good, long, hard, sobering, honest look at the blood and darkness of the 20th century, almost all of it done in the name of unbelief.

If he had, he would have to conclude that it is not religion that poisons everything, but human beings that poison everything, including religion and atheism. They also poison garden clubs, baseball teams, industrial corporations, moose lodges, academic departments, and charitable trusts. In short, wherever one finds humanity, one also finds inhumanity. But that is a point for Christianity -- indeed, a point of doctrine. The doctrine of original sin, noted Chesterton, "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

For both believers and unbelievers, it is a sobering thought that the same kind of hypocrisy, cruelty, sloth, cowardice, pride, short-sightedness, shallowness, injustice, and greed is found among believers and unbelievers. The error of Hitchens is to assume that because he finds all these vices among believers, it is belief that causes vice -- even among unbelievers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Wiker is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author of the new book, The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin (Regnery, 2009). This review originally appeared on September 20, 2007.

Link to original...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...