Pope tells atheist ‘Jesus was not a God at all’. Outrage ensues.

Pope tells atheist ‘Jesus was not a God at all’. Outrage ensues. October 10, 2019
Image via YouTube

EXASPERATED Catholic commentators are asking why Pope Francis keeps giving interviews to Eugenio Scalfari, the 95-year-old atheist founder of La Repubblica who, in an October 8 editorial, claimed the Pope denied Jesus’s divinity.

According to Church Militant, Scalfari wrote:

Francis told me, ‘They are the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once having become a man, was, though a man of exceptional virtues, not at all a God.’

And further in the article, Scalfari gives his interpretation of what Pope Francis meant, based on what he calls their greatest cultural intimacy:

Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate. Once incarnate, Jesus stops being a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross.

What that means I haven’t the foggiest idea.

Amidst a tsunami of outrage expressed in the Catholic media, the harshest condemnation comes from Steve Skojec, of OnePeterFive.com, who castigates both the Pope for not denying what he told Scalfari, and the Vatican  for issuing a statement that failed to refute Scalfari’s assertion that Francis denied Christ’s divinity in his presence.

This is how Matteo Bruni, Director of the Holy See’s press office reacted:

As already stated on other occasions, the words that Dr Eugenio Scalfari attributes in quotation marks to the Holy Father during talks with him cannot be considered a faithful account of what was actually said but represent a personal and free interpretation of what he heard, as appears completely evident from what is written today regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Skojec wrote:

Those familiar with the controversy over the pope’s various interviews with Scalfari, none of which have ever been corrected – and some of which have been published in official Vatican outlets – will recognize a well trod pattern here.

First, the pope says something outrageous to this uniquely unreliable source. Scalfari is known for his atheism, for his age (he’s 95), and for his penchant for reconstructing interviews from memory rather than from recordings or notes.

This lays down a basis of deniability, while nevertheless ensuring that these boundary-pushing ideas spread rapidly around the globe.

When Scalfari goes to print with these outrageous statements, a predictable period of controversy ensues. After a sufficient amount of time for the news to spread and spark debate, the Vatican steps in with an artfully constructed non-denial.

Just a few headlines in the Catholic press today

Skojec added:

As I’ve documented multiple times before  – perhaps in greatest detail regarding the several times Francis has allegedly told Scalfari that he does not believe in the existence of Hell – this is a shell game with the truth, and the Vatican knows it …

If Francis thought he had been gravely misrepresented, he would have said so.

So when he doesn’t say so, he mustn’t believe he was gravely misrepresented.

With that in mind, we return to the matter at hand.

There are only two options: either Francis denied the divinity of Our Lord in his conversations with Scalfari – which would amount to heresy and apostasy – or he was ‘gravely misrepresented.’

If he was misrepresented, he has a clear moral duty to correct the record. Scalfari is not just some random blogger making a claim. He has interviewed the pope on more than half a dozen occasions. The two see each other as friends. He has access. He has published the pope’s remarks on a number of occasions, and the pope has never – not even once – said his old friend had mistaken something he’s said.

In other words, Scalfari, despite his inherent credibility problem, is actually more credible than he might otherwise be considered to be when he reports on the words of the pope. His credibility is bolstered by the pope’s evident trust in him, by their repeated interactions, and by the fact that he has never suffered a rebuke or correction from Francis. Francis vouches for his accuracy by never calling it into question, and by going back to him again and again, even after prior controversies were never resolved.

So to repeat: Either Francis said it – with all that it entails – or he did not. There are no other options.

If he said it, that fact must be dealt with. How, I do not know.

If he did not say it, he must correct the record. The scandal of leaving this grave error, proclaimed in his name, is not something he can ignore without gravely harming the faithful. If he ‘won’t say a single word,’ there is no reasonable conclusion to reach except that it is true.

The diabolical genius of this entire episode is that as before, the pope likely will just ignore this. He’ll have effectively planted the seed of Arianism anew, will be guilty of grave scandal, but won’t be able to be pinned down on the obvious heresy and apostasy such a statement represents.

LifeSiteNews quotes Italian journalist, Christopher Altieri of the Catholic Herald  as saying:

Why on earth does Pope Francis still trust Eugenio Scalfari?

And he called upon Francis to:

Disown not only the precise verbiage Scalfari reported in his piece, but the ideas foisted upon him therein – at least the ones that are manifestly heretical. The longer he does not, the stronger the case becomes for believing he cannot.

In  an updated report, Church Militant points out:

Because of the many controversies engendered by each Scalfari interview, Catholics have wondered why the pope keeps granting them, forcing the Vatican press office to issue quick retractions and clarifications each time.

Scalfari was a founder of Italy’s far-left Radical Party, which supports abortion and euthanasia, and once associated with the Italian fascists, before leaving the movement to join the communists, with a brief stint supporting the Christian Democrats.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tawreos

    If christians would keep their theology straight then this would not be controversial at all. The whole point of Jesus was to have a sinless human sacrifice to pay for all sins. For that to work, Jesus had to be human, which is what Franky is supposed to have said. Whatever Jesus was before birth and whatever he was after death, between those times he was just a man. Christians have been taught to think of him as god and man so they get outraged when someone tells them the truth about the way the whole thing had to work. The people calling for Franky to retract what was said should stop with the knee jerk reactions and think things through.

  • Jim Jones

    Monophysitism, eutychianism, a hypostatic union, and now we have to add Pope Frankie weirdyism?

    SMH

  • Raging Bee

    I can almost clap along with that line! Maybe you could make a cheerful song out of it, in the tradition of “The Vatican Rag.”

  • Milo C

    Does it matter if the leprechaun has brown shoes or green ones?

  • Raging Bee

    What a silly catfight — all parties are a little bit right, and all parties are mostly dead wrong.

    FWIW, I think the Pope was merely trying to say that Jesus was MOSTLY HUMAN (give or take a few miracles) during his life in human flesh. Which is pretty obviously true, both because that’s what the Bible says, and because that was the whole point of Jesus being Jesus. But hey, what do I know, I’m just an apostate who never read up on the finer points of Catholic theology…

  • Raging Bee

    Only if he comes back to get his gold.

  • Tawreos

    Everyone knows that a leprechaun in brown shoes is a gnome and not to be trusted because gnomes have no gold. =)

  • Raymond Metcalfe

    It matters if you and millions of followers have stated that the leprechaun as brown shoes and condemned to death those who claim he as green shoes. My opinion is that the leprechaun as one green and one brown

  • Broga

    Why doesn’t God make clear what is true? For a divine being, and Lord of The Cosmos he is a poor communicator.

  • He’ll get around to it, one of these days.

  • Old Harry

    Is it a surprise that the Church has had all the Water of Life squeezed out of it by millennias of clericalism and is now just an unchanging fossil, unchanging except for disintegration?

    I would imagine this could be the only way Francis can get any original thought through the screen of red gowns in the College of Cardinals.

  • Old Harry

    What is so weird about the concepts attributed to Francis? They seem to be non-orthodox, but orthodox is merely the name given by History to the people with the largest book bonfires.

  • Old Harry

    It certainly removes any degree of sacrifice if it were a god, fully in on the story, who was ‘crucified’.

    That does not even meet the meanest level of ‘sacrifice’ if you also consider this is a god which was co-eternal with the other god(s) in the Trinity. How badly can you miss 3 days out of Eternity?

  • WallofSleep

    “… once associated with the Italian fascists, before leaving the movement to join the communists…”

    Well that’s quite the shift.

  • Tawreos

    I am not really sure that anyone needs to be shamed for going both ways. =)

  • WallofSleep

    It’s like going from Team Mongoose to Team Viper. So odd.

  • Jim Jones

    Makes me laugh. We all know it’s all BS but he seems to keep forgetting the rulez.

  • Jim Jones

    When Christians try to convert me, I ask about the nature of Jesus: Monophysitism, eutychianism, or a hypostatic union?

    People used to murder each other over this. Now? Not so much.

  • Jim Jones

    Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted “born-again” Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don’t have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost.

    Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.

    Misquoting Jesus — Bart Ehrman

  • Broga

    Something that I found curious as a teenager and excited at discovering atheism were the many contradictions, cruelties and absurdities that I was told was the “inerrant word of God” i.e. the King James version. Nor was there any startling revelation that could only have come from a divine being. This same God had an insatiable appetite for flattery, an apparently endless curiosity about the human sexual act and insisted that some versions were deserving of eternal damnation.

    It does seem harsh that any act, no matter how vile, committed in the brief flicker of human existence, could deserve eternal torture. When God’s powers of communication are so feeble as to confuse his own faithful into not knowing what he wants any punishment at all would condemn God and not the perpetrator.

  • Jim Jones

    Yahweh sounds like Trump.

  • Broga

    Trump says he is:

    “Donald Trump looked to the heavens and declared ‘I am the chosen one’ hours after likening his presidency to the second coming of God”.

    And some people still say he isn’t unhinged. He should be locked up for his own safety and that of the rest of us.

  • argyranthemum

    Nothing weird about the concepts. Weird that the head enforcer of orthodoxy for the most powerful Christian church in the world is expressing them.

  • Tawreos

    It isn’t my fault that the bible doesn’t bother to mention that god had a son until they needed him. Sorry, sorry I always get a bit confused and defensive when we start discussing the three gods that are present in christian monotheism.

  • Raging Bee

    He may have made that shift after seeing how evil and wrong fascism was…and then finding no alternative but Communism at the time. Remember, democratic regulated capitalism didn’t really come to Europe, as a viable alternative to both of those, until AFTER WW-II.

    That’s why the Cambridge Five worked for Stalin: there was no one else able to put up a real fight against the Axis.

  • WallofSleep

    Yeah, but that’s a heck of a flip. Fascists and communists are natural enemies.

  • Karen the rock whisperer

    I’ve been an ex-Catholic for about 4 decades, but it has often seemed to me that Pope Francis was trained in his growing years by nuns who had the same outlook as the ones who taught me in Catholic schools on the Eastern side of the San Francisco Bay Area. Liberal women who saw Christian duty as helping those in need, noting that Jesus declared that one should help those in need while he was an itinerant preacher who seldom knew where his next meal was coming from.

    As an atheist, my focus on helping has been directed over the years on the values I learned from my nuns. My parents were big on worrying about whether they were bestowing help on people who were “worthy”. My nuns were big on helping people who needed help. Except that we grew up on different continents, I sometimes imagine the current pope as the guy who sat in the row in front of me in high school and asked difficult questions.

  • If Jesus isn’t a god, why do they worship him?

  • Raging Bee

    Yes and no. A person can be attracted to fascism for the appeal to restoring national greatness (and Italy was 69shite after WW-I, like Germany); but then turn to socialism or communism for the same reason after seeing the fascists up close and finding they’re full of 69shit, and that communism was more progressive and more inclusive of all people, not just one ethnic group.

  • WallofSleep

    I dunno. The Russian communists back in the day seemed to have a hate-on for the same ethnic group that WWII’s Germany had a hate-on for.

  • Raging Bee

    Yes, there were a lot of similarities too. Many people in Eastern Europe had a hard time deciding which genocidal totalitarian dictator was worse — which was an important decision because they needed one to protect them from the other.

  • Raging Bee

    True, but the Russian Communists didn’t always hate the same people as the radical-left parties in other countries who may have been willing to work with the USSR.

  • Think about it – is this supposed god so feeble that it could not grant everyone their own, personal, Burning Bush (speaking in their own language) so as to make all things clear?

    Matt 10:29
    What is the price of two sparrows—one copper coin? But not a single
    sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it.

    So, sparrows, even dying sparrows, never miss their divine personal attention, but humans . . . ?

  • Don’t the Catholics go even further? Don’t they have their goddess Mary, and all those Saints? Why bother with god or Jesus when there’s all of these others?

    https://youtu.be/1s-c9iezQzs

  • ralphmeyer

    Well, the long dead Jesus wasn’t anything more, it appears, than another human end-of-the-world so-called ‘prophet’…that is, IF he existed at all, which some N.T. historians totally doubt.

  • Mary and the saints are supposed to be, like, messengers for God — you tell them what the problem is, they take it to God, and God is supposed to do his thing and fix whatever.

  • Atheists are not uninformed on these matters.

    They are aware that’s an issue where dogma differs from the -GASP!- illustrious Word-Of-God® factoids. Didn’t the church of Rome fight for centuries to keep this Instruction Manual out of the hands of the ordinary folk?

    You know, this is where “make it up as you go along” VS infallible Bible do not match up. Jesus (the supposed Son-Of-God™, no less) gives the low-down on How-To-Pray and he doesn’t mention any messengers, or others, but only taking it straight to god.

    Jesus says to address HIS FATHER directly, and only add the “In His (Jesus’) Name” bit on.

    Prayer Secret #13 – Pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus

    https://www.bible-knowledge.com/pray-to-god-the-father-in-the-name-of-jesus/

    (John 16:23-24) (John 14:13-14)
    This is covered in Four Points from this LINK so I need not enlarge on what this writer mentions – but, here it is, anyway:
    • Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)
    • “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

  • What on earth is your point? That Catholics are weird? Yeah — I know. I was raised Catholic.

  • Well – you must have understood my point.
    You had asked: “If Jesus isn’t a god, why do they worship him?
    I addressed the concept that the Catholics appear to ‘worship’ a whole virtual pantheon of gods and goddesses – just like the classical Greeks and Imperial Romans. Their version of the Ten Commandments even omits the prohibition about the worship of Idols and Graven Images.

    In the years 1967 – 1971, I was a Christadelphian . . . . just leaving the observation and practices before I turned 22. They teach that Christianity at large, and Catholicism in particular, are backsliders is a similar manner to Israel and Judah in the time of the Judges and the Kings. That just like the ancients were always returning to Baal and other gods, mainstream christianity returned to its pagan companionship practices of the early church period – i.e. the worship of numerous deities, rather than just the one.
    Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29

    Here’s a LINK to a PDF of their Mary, Mother of Jesus teaching position:
    http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_mary.php#14

    QUOTE
    The Bible does not teach, not once, that people go to heaven when
    they die. (A leaflet on the subject of resurrection is available free
    from the address on the back cover).

    Prayer to Mary

    If Mary is not in heaven, and the Bible says that she is not, it does
    not make sense to pray to Mary. She is sleeping in the dust, like all
    those who await resurrection, and cannot hear prayers.

    “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing” .(Ecclesiastes 9:5,10)

    “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor any who go down in silence”. (Psalm 115:17)

    Another reason not to pray to Mary is that anyone who does so is
    breaking one of God’s commandments. In the Bible God forbids anyone to
    consult the dead:

    “Should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” (Isaiah 8:19).

    The third reason not to pray to Mary is that Jesus taught that all prayer must be addressed only to “Our Father who art in Heaven”.

    (Luke 11:2) Jesus did not even teach us to pray to himself; when he
    prayed he prayed to God. There are no examples of prayer to anyone
    except God, our Father in the whole Bible. Not to Jesus. Certainly not
    to Mary. And Mary herself, as we have seen, sung to and prayed to God,
    and Him only.

    The same goes for the singing of Ave Maria, or saying Hail Mary.

    People who do this need to understand that (1) the Bible teaches that
    Mary cannot hear them, (2) they are disobeying God’s commandment on
    talking to the dead, and (3) they are disobeying Christ’s instructions
    on prayer.
    UN-QUOTE

    Christendom Astray From the Bible
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom_Astray_from_the_Bible

    BUT – but – but, the Christadelphians are just as Astray as any other Adventist faith. When the N.T. makes mention of a SECOND COMING of Jesus, it places it within the time frame of the lifetime of BOTH those who heard his oratory, and those who wounded his flesh.

    I make this SECOND COMING now to be LONG PAST its USE BY DATE by at least 1,960 years (give or take a couple of decades, or so). So Jesus missed his RETURN FLIGHT, and is unlikely to be coming anytime soon.

  • I was referring to Christians in general,, not specifically Catholics. They ALL worship Jesus as if he were God. None of them will acknowledge being polytheists. God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Satan, ALL GODS.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    OMG, a pope with a brain. How unusual. Of course Jesus was human and he was conceived just as everyone is conceived, two people had sexual intercourse and a child was born after nine months gestation. He was a good man who defied the laws of that time and was a dissident thus he was put to death by crucifixion as were all dissidents of that time.
    He did NOT rise from the dead, but the impact that he made on his followers’ minds went on after Jesus death. They thought that they “saw” him. My father in law wanted to move from the family home after my mother in law died, as he would “see” his late wife, as they had been married nearly 60 years. and his was upsetting to him.
    It was the same with Jesus followers, they thought that they “saw” him.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Damned good question. Well, just before Vietnam the ministry, Catholic, Jewish and Protestant and other splinter groups saw an influx of clergy, to assure that these cowards would not go to Vietnam.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Some fools donate big money to this “?saint?” I wonder who really get these fujnds? The workers at the St. Jude Hospitals, or the administrators of those hospitals?

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Good grief, P.T. Barnum was correct, there is a fool born every minute. I am astounded that educated people will follow and believe such hogwash.

  • BertB

    This is hilarious. The Pope is, in effect, saying that the Trinity…Father, Son and Holy Spirit (used to be Holy Ghost) is not true. Or is he? If he didn’t like what Scalfari said about the interviews, why doesn’t he stop giving him interviews and deny Scalfari’s account of what he said? The fact that he does neither suggests to me that Francis has a plan here. I’m not sure what he’s trying to do, but it’s always seemed absurd to me that according to Christian doctrine, Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for our sins. If he is a god, and allegedly came back to life, he didn’t sacrifice anything. The whole thing is incomprehensible, as incomprehensible as the whole idea of the Trinity. I have never understood how any thinking person could buy it. Maybe Francis is trying to straighten some of this out.

  • Maybe the Pope is considering joining the Clergy Project. If he did it could not hurt.

  • Noel

    Tawreos. I think you have a good point: how can a ‘god’ be crucified, and die on the cross?’ ” Only a man can do that. A god will not die on the cross!

  • BertB

    That seem obvious to us. Why isn’t it obvious to Christians?

  • World religions are followed by both the un-educated, and the educated.

    Then we have concepts such as Homeopathy, . . . and Hollow or Flat Earths.
    A good solid globular planet with a molten iron core appears to not suit everyone.

  • Noel

    It is not obvious to christians, because they put jesus in their “imagined reality”. On the other hand, jesus being crucified and dying on the cross as a human is “objective reality”. Christians confuse the two: imagined reality, to them, become objective reality, and vice-versa.

    In the former, “imagined reality”, religion occupies a prominence. In the latter, religions wither in the light of objectivity. In the former, one doesn’t need any objective proof – in fact, one can go into flights of fancy, and get away with it; not in the latter, where scientific tests, for instance, must reveal the light of day.

  • Mike Curnutt

    Does it really matter since we are talking about a fictitious character in the first place?

  • I didn’t say I believed it, cupcake.

  • Broga

    In the UK Trump meets the criteria for sectioning under the Mental Health Act. (Every day, really.) But then most “people of faith” do but they get exempted under the aegis of religion.

  • Steven Watson

    Kenosis. He “emptied” himself of his godhead, put it aside like taking off a coat, and put on a human body so as to be incognito to “demons” and be killed in ignorance. This execution/sacrifice facillitated man’s permanent salvation; after which he ascended back to heaven, divesting himself of the fleshly body and putting his godhead back on on the way, to sit enthroned in glory with God, his father… etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. This is more-or-less a Judeo-Hellenistic recapitulation of the Sumerian Innana mythos.

    I don’t know what this loon is crowing about: Francis, even on Scalfari’s interpretation, is just re-iterating boiler-plate Roman Catholic catechism. Nowhere either that I can see does this mention the Trinity let alone invalidate it.

    Paul tells Xtians this is nonsense to Greeks, a stumbling block to Jews. We are to believe BECAUSE it is daft. Catholicism substitutes “mystery” for “daft”. This is a distiction without a difference of course; but no-one, I think, takes kindly to having to admit that being “daft” is actually a core tenant of the faith.

    Francis may be surreptisiously encouraging the faithful to actually think on their faith but only to make clear without obfusication that Xtianity has always been “daft”. It is a feature; not a flaw. It effectively collapses the arguments of other faiths and atheists. Xtianity is not a reasonable faith and cannot be argued against on the grounds of reason: this has been Holy Writ from the gitgo.

  • BertB

    Francis may be surreptisiously encouraging the faithful to actually think on their faith but only to make clear without obfusication that Xtianity has always been “daft”. It is a feature; not a flaw. It effectively collapses the arguments of other faiths and atheists. Xtianity is not a reasonable faith and cannot be argued against on the grounds of reason: this has been Holy Writ from the gitgo.

    Yep, that is sorta what I wuz thinkin’. Francis is a different animal from past Popes. He’s a clever dude.

  • JSloan

    This is true. However, the pope leads the large and influential Catholic church. If his pronouncements sow the seeds of doubt and controversy among his followers, it just might hasten the eventual dissolution of the church.

  • WallofSleep

    Hardly.

  • Space Doubt

    The Pope didn’t say this. It’s calumny. Steve Skojec is a schismatic, and LifeSiteNews is a muck-raking tabloid. Read the actual words of the Pope if you want to see what he really believes.

  • Raging Bee

    “Calumny?” Please. The Pope is not accused of saying anything really terrible.

  • Raging Bee

    He’s neither as clever nor as different as he pretends to be. He’s just a little cuter at times.

  • Raging Bee

    Oh, and please cite the “actual words of the Pope” you think are relevant here.

  • BertB

    He’s not much different in his goals, but he’s trying to portray himself as more moderate, more likeable, etc. He’s more of a politician than past Popes. I don’t trust him any farther than I can throw him.

  • BertB

    Who knows what the actual words of the Pope were? Only the Pope and Scalfari. Anybody else who claims to know is lying.
    If the Pope doesn’t like what Scalfari said, he can say so…through his army of spokesmen at the Vatican. He has not done so, and continues to grant Scalfari interviews. Why would he do that if he is being misrepresented?
    Another thought: I wonder what the nym “Space Doubt” signifies. Do we have a Flat Earther here? Or another nutcase who claims that the US space program is a hoax?

  • Raging Bee

    Oh, don’t worry, the Vatican establishment won’t let him get TOO progress– oops, I mean crazy.

  • Sophotroph

    The words of the pope?

    Sure. Just point to where he says “I was misquoted by Scalfari.”

    We’ll wait.

  • BertB

    As I said below…

  • Mike Panic

    Popy lost me at “proven proof”

  • Mike Panic

    They are all floating off in La La Land. Her is their theme song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fn36l_z3WY

  • Mike Panic

    I don’t think so. Watching the orange orangutan I know it is not joking.

  • Mike Panic

    Goddyboy exists only to reinforce the hateful self-righteousness kristers spew. Call me EX-catholic and proud.

  • Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate. Once incarnate, Jesus stops being a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross.

    What that means I haven’t the foggiest idea.

    I agree it doesn’t really make sense, but I’m a bit surprised you wouldn’t have the “foggiest.” It seems to play into this idea that God came down to earth to live as a man, giving up most of his godly powers to do so.

    I see a commentator who goes by @Tawreos:disqus has made a similar point. It’s all the contradictions in the story that make it all a mess, especially that Trinity nonsense, in my opinion. If it were just a story of a god coming to earth as mostly human, that could be understandable. I suppose one could view Jesus’s references to God as like an “Undercover Boss” thing where he’s hiding his true identity. But that’s not the story we’re given. Instead, we get this confusing and contradictory one where God is both a separate entity and the same entity. And then there’s that third spirit one that doesn’t seem to do much.

  • BertB

    It seems to me that the “mystery” of the Trinity is a deliberate ploy by the perpetrators of Christianity to confound the common sense of people, and to awe them. It’s “you can’t understand this, so listen to your priest, he will explain it to you.”

  • Franciscan

    Isn’t religion founded on deniability? “God works in mysterious ways” serves to blunt any criticism that God didn’t do what was expected of Her.

  • Raging Bee

    What, you prefer unproven proof? Or proven disproof?

  • Gary Fowler

    All successful businessmen are like that, and Trump has been a famous name for decades. He’s hardly the chosen one, he’s just a man, and he ought to know that. He just knew he had a good shot at the presidency.

  • Mike Panic

    LOL

  • crackerMF

    bert,

    he’s the first jesuit one.

    jesuits are very good with words and the deliberate twisting of them.

  • BertB

    Seems like I remember reading about their machinations a couple hundred years ago when there was great effort to spread Christianity to the New World. I don’t trust him. Ratzinger was upfront with his adherence to doctrine. Francis is trying to paint a “kinder, gentler” image of the Church, but his goals are the same.

  • crackerMF

    dear bert,

    a good example of jesuit weasel wording was franny’s statement along the lines of “who am i to judge the gays?”

    sounds so nice and inclusive huh?

    what that really means in jesuit triple speak is “who am i to judge the gays? i won’t judge the gays. god will judge the gays. and he will send those perverts straight to hell!”

    it was the founder of the jesuits who coined the term “Give me a child of seven, and I will show you the man” in reference to religious brainwashing.

    sincerely,
    – the jesuits led the counter-reformation, not exactly forward looking folks