# "Jesus loves Osama"



## .   1

G'day Cultur@s,
Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:

*"Jesus loves Osama"*

What is your opinion of the situation?

.,,


----------



## icalienes

I think Jesus loves everyone, even criminals.


----------



## .   1

In connection with my other question about Osama I would like to know what you would do in the following situation.
Osama bin Laden makes a death bed conversion to Christianity and makes his confession to a Priest and takes the Holy Eucharist then receives the Last Rites and dies.

What would you do when you meet Osama in heaven?

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

Since we are talking about dogmatic beliefs, I believe that if _when_ we get to Heaven there'll be very little to do except bask in the light of God. If the Man Himself let him in, then who am I to bitch about it?

But, yeah, speaking like a long-time agnostic, it seems a bit unfair, don't it?


----------



## icalienes

If he made it to heaven that means he was worthy of heaven. If God decided he was worthy then I wouldn't oppose, and 
I would treat him like any other heaven resident.


----------



## danielfranco

If Osama had been crucified next to Jesus, He would have loved him and told him, "Verily! You shall be in my Father's House tonight". 

Some vengance-thirsty hardcases like me would have been thrilled just to see him crucified.


----------



## faranji

I think one thing is to turn the left cheek when you've been struck on the right, as befits the Christian ethos, and quite another to actually go and plant a kiss smack on the striker's lips.

A bit overdone, in my opinion.

On the other hand, since Jesus is one of the most revered prophets in Islam, Osama's followers might fully endorse Freier's stance.


----------



## Nunty

I wasn't going to get into this thread, but... sigh. 

I find the concept hard to wrap my mind around, but if Osama made what we call "a good sacramental confession", he would have not only _said_ he was sorry, but would truly have regretted everything he did and have an earnest and real desire to repent. Under those circumstances the priest's absolution would be valid, just like for the rest of us, and if he died without any committing any other sins would get the direct ticket to the Beatific Vision, just like I would if I died directly after making a "good confession" with true contrition for my sins and a real desire to repent.

This is terribly hard for me to understand, but luckily I am not God.

So if we are there, Osama and me, side by side, basking in the beatific vision, we would be exactly the same. And I don't think either of us would be interested in anything else, but being with the One who welcomed us there.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I think this is a correct assumption. Jesus taught people to "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you", "only love can conquer hate". If only all the so-called right-wing "Christians" took his advice.

But remember he didn't say we had to _like_ our enemies


----------



## panjabigator

> So if we are there, Osama and me, side by side, basking in the beatific vision, we would be exactly the same. And I don't think either of us would be interested in anything else, but being with the One who welcomed us there.



I personally do not have a concept of heaven at all, but I somehow agree 100% with Nun Translator here.


----------



## Nunty

. said:


> [...] What would you do when you meet Osama in heaven?
> .,,


I wanted to relate to this bit, too. It's making a major assumption: that my sins are somehow less likely to keep me out of heaven than Osama's are, him. That probably fits into someone's theology somewhere, but not into mine or that of my Church. Don't want to go too far afield here, but did just want to put that out.


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:
> 
> *"Jesus loves Osama"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?
> 
> .,,



I have never met any of the three parties involved, so I will offer some hypothetical opinions:

1)Dr. Philip Freier has his head in a lovely, loving, politically kerrect place where the sun's light doesn't reach;

2)Whatever living humanoids may wish to speculate, the simple fact is that they don't know whether or not Jesus loves Osama.  

3) Osama seems to take proud pleasure in the murder of innocents.


How is church attendance faring since the appearance of the billboards?


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:
> 
> *"Jesus loves Osama"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?



Firstly, a definition of terms…
What makes it a 'situation'? Has there been a change in some aspect of this Church's teachings?

I thought Jesus loved everyone - have I been misled?





Nun-Translator said:


> So if we are there, Osama and me, side by side, basking in the beatific vision, we would be exactly the same. And I don't think either of us would be interested in anything else, but being with the One who welcomed us there.



Indeed, wouldn't Jesus be working to the principles of (a) "hate the sin but love the sinner" and (b) "we are all equal in the sight of God" ?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Obviously, from a Christian perspective (and in this case a Christian Anglican perspective) "Jesus loves Osama" does not mean that he loves Osama for who he is and what he does but rather to show that no matter who you may be and what your background may be, Jesus is still willing to accept you, he won't reject you. In other words, his love is so abudant that it encompasses the worst of criminals. I think, the Anglican Archbishop intended it as an invitation for Osama or anyone like him to knock on the always open door of Jesus.

In Islam, likewise, the Doors of God's Mercy, Grace and Compassion are always open for any to repent. There are three conditions, though, for a valid repentance (1) to desist from the crime immediately (2) to resolve never to go back to it, and (3) to feel genuine remorse for the acts perpetrated. A fourth condition is required in the case of someone who has taken something unlawfully from someone-else, to return it to its rightful owner. All of this can happen without an intermediary.

Thus, for Osama to right a wrong (or wrongs), from an Islamic perspective, that is, he does not have to convert to another religion like Christianity in oder to go to Heaven and there witness the Countenance of God Almighty, but he can do that through and in his own religion which is Islam providing he fulfills the conditions of a valid and sincere repentance. Very important, though, is what are your last and final moments like, and it is these final moments trhat will make all of the difference. Since it is not allowed in this forum to quote religious texts in support of one's answers I'll therefore leave it that.

I, therefore, understand the Anglican Archbishop's position, and why he would defend it. I also understand, that the questions posed here are primarily addressed to Christians for whom Jesus is the Lord and Saviour unto the whole of Humanity. 

Importantly though, in my view, the Archbishop's statement makes sense only whilst Osama is still alive, for then Salvation (from a Christian perspective) is still open for him if my understanding is correct. I mean would the same apply to Hitler now that he is dead. All of this suggests to me that what the Archbishop meant by "Jesus loves Osama" is that Osama still has a chance of Salvation, but if he dies in his current state, then it does not seem to make sense to say that, rather it would be then almost as if Jesus condones it, which is obviously not the case. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Macunaíma

Desculpem eu postar em Português, mas eu estou farto do meu inglês horrível.

Eu sou agnóstico, ou Cartesiano, como diria meu avô, mas tenho uma profunda admiração pelas pessoas que trazem uma fé genuína dentro de si. Uma dessas pessoas foi uma professora de religião ( sim, as escolas brasileiras têm aulas de religião ) que, ao responder uma pergunta de se seria justo o princípio cristão de que alguém como Hitler pudesse receber o perdão ao se arrepender uma hora antes da morte ir para o Céu como alguém que devotou a vida a fazer o bem, ela respondeu: "O cristianismo ensina que as pessoas são más por ignorância; uma vez em vista da verdade, mesmo a pessoa mais má deste mundo se arrependerá, e a culpa, o remorso e a vergonha será o que na minha visão é a pior descrição do inferno. É aí que entra a misericórdia de Deus". Eu nunca me esqueci daquelas palavras, ainda mais por terem vindo de uma mulher que tinha uma fé tão genuína, tão recatada, tão sincera; uma mulher que, por motivos que não cabem relatar aqui, realmente praticou o perdão, a generosidade e a compaixão na vida. 

É realmente difícil para nós entendermos a justiça do perdão, mas depois de conhecer o exemplo da minha professora ( Dona Mércia, que deixou imensa saudade em quem a conheceu ) eu passei a entender muito melhor as palavras de Cristo quando as lia e ouvia, muitas vezes na boca dos hipócritas.

Sim, talvez Jesus ame Osama. E nós, quem amamos?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Firstly, a definition of terms…
> What makes it a 'situation'?


*situation *_n_ *2a *state of affairs; combination of circumstances.



maxiogee said:


> Has there been a change in some aspect of this Church's teachings?


I don't know.  This is the first thing that this church has taught me and the attitude displayed by the bishop astounded me.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> *situation *_n_ *2a *state of affairs; combination of circumstances.


The 'situation' is unchanged - what part of it is "a state" or a "combination"? There is one affair/circumstance - the Christian Churches state that God loves all people.





. said:


> I don't know.  This is the first thing that this church has taught me and the attitude displayed by the bishop astounded me.


Wherein lies the astonishment - that the Church should resort to advertising on billboards, or that the message which it seeks to spread is potentially disturbing to some people?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> The 'situation' is unchanged - what part of it is "a state" or a "combination"? There is one affair/circumstance - the Christian Churches state that God loves all people.


The circumstance is that a christian church is preaching the love of Osama.  I have never seen this before but the situation in Ireland may be different.

My experience of christian churches is that not all christian churches preach that all christians should love Osama.



maxiogee said:


> Wherein lies the astonishment - that the Church should resort to advertising on billboards, or that the message which it seeks to spread is potentially disturbing to some people?


Quite to the contrary.
I am not in the slightest bit astonished at the negative controversy.  The lowest common denominators can not stoop much lower from their normally bent position.
I am astounded at the attempt at inclusivity in what is traditionally viewed as being incredibly exclusive establishment in some areas.

.,,


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

. said:


> The circumstance is that a christian church is preaching the love of Osama.  I have never seen this before but the situation in Ireland may be different.



From my very limited perspective, having not seen the billboards, I would say you're misrepresenting the Archbishop. He's putting forth the position Christ always preached, namely love your enemies and pray for those who hate you.

I think the parable of the lost sheep also applies here. 



			
				Matthew 18.12 said:
			
		

> What do you think? If a man has one hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine, go to the mountains, and seek that which has gone astray? If he finds it, most certainly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.



It seems to me this is the type of love the Archbishop was referring to.


----------



## .   1

Pedro y La Torre said:


> From my very limited perspective, having not seen the billboards, I would say you're misrepresenting the Archbishop. He's putting forth the position Christ always preached, namely love your enemies and pray for those who hate you.


What have I done to misrepresent the Archbishop?
The Archbishop approved the billboards.
The Archbishop defended the billboards.
What else have I said to misrepresent the Archbishop?

.,,


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

. said:


> What have I done to misrepresent the Archbishop?
> The Archbishop approved the billboards.
> The Archbishop defended the billboards.
> What else have I said to misrepresent the Archbishop?
> 
> .,,



Perhaps I have misrepresented you!  But anyway:



			
				. said:
			
		

> The circumstance is that a christian church is preaching the love of Osama. I have never seen this before but the situation in Ireland may be different



The billboards are not preaching love of Osama in the sense we typically use it. What they are referring to is the Christian idea of universal love for everyone even those who commit heinous sins, which has been preached since the coming of Christ.

If this is the sign you are referring to, I think it only reinforces my point:

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5376494,00.jpg

And according to this article the Anglican archbishop has actually criticized them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/01/wosama101.xml


----------



## Benjy

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:
> 
> *"Jesus loves Osama"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?
> 
> .,,



That it is a cheap publicity stunt of the worst kind. As has been succinctly stated elsewhere in this thread the veracity of the statement in question cannot be verified, so just about any declaration either way would be but a sterile statement of belief (not to detract from anyone's testimony and the spirit in which is it offered )

What is the point of the statement? It is surely not to teach. How can anyone be expected to focus on the principle if it is introduced in such an emotive fashion? It's always disappointing to see people resort to shock tactics simply for the sake of a few headlines when they purport to teach and expound on things which at the end of the day should be of great importance.

Oh well.


----------



## tvdxer

Nun-Translator said:


> I wasn't going to get into this thread, but... sigh.
> 
> I find the concept hard to wrap my mind around, but if Osama made what we call "a good sacramental confession", he would have not only _said_ he was sorry, but would truly have regretted everything he did and have an earnest and real desire to repent. Under those circumstances the priest's absolution would be valid, just like for the rest of us, and if he died without any committing any other sins would get the direct ticket to the Beatific Vision, just like I would if I died directly after making a "good confession" with true contrition for my sins and a real desire to repent.
> 
> This is terribly hard for me to understand, but luckily I am not God.
> 
> So if we are there, Osama and me, side by side, basking in the beatific vision, we would be exactly the same. And I don't think either of us would be interested in anything else, but being with the One who welcomed us there.



I agree with Nun-Translator.  However, I don't know what the point of such a billboard would be.


----------



## .   1

Benjy said:


> That it is a cheap publicity stunt of the worst kind. As has been succinctly stated elsewhere in this thread the veracity of the statement in question cannot be verified, so just about any declaration either way would be but a sterile statement of belief (not to detract from anyone's testimony and the spirit in which is it offered )
> 
> What is the point of the statement? It is surely not to teach. How can anyone be expected to focus on the principle if it is introduced in such an emotive fashion? It's always disappointing to see people resort to shock tactics simply for the sake of a few headlines when they purport to teach and expound on things which at the end of the day should be of great importance.
> 
> Oh well.


Stop with the euphamism already.  Enough namby pamby dancing around the issue.  Take off the your kid gloves and tell me what you really think.

.,,
Is it possible that the existance of the headline generated by the billboard or the discussion of the subject between people who may otherwise be discussing the subject from the opposite viewpoint may be enough to justify the existance of the billboard.
I asked this same question on a different forum and I was not surprised to find that there are people at that forum who agree with people at this fourm that they would forgo eternal happiness if Osama got there first.  I am not surprised because I vowed to myself last time that people surprised me with apparently illogical emotions that I would not be surprised again by such "I'll bight off my own nose to spite my face" attitudes but I am stunned that people who can construct relatively elegent sentences use such skills to construct such self harmful sentiments.


----------



## loladamore

In one of the links that Pedro posted, the archbishop is quoted as describing the poster as "confusing". There is nothing confusing about the *Jesus loves* part of the message, and given the ubiquity of *Jesus loves you/me* stickers (in some countries), even the most theologically unversed among us should have no reason to think that there are any exceptions to that "rule". It's easy enough to love someone you agree with or approve of, but Christianity demands blanket love application, peace and love, and all that. 

My opinion is that the Australian Baptist church has produced some thought-provoking propaganda, designed to shake some people out of their hypocritical complacency, and question their own beliefs.  Sounds good to me.


----------



## .   1

loladamore said:


> My opinion is that the Australian Baptist church has produced some thought-provoking propaganda, designed to shake some people out of their hypocritical complacency, and question their own beliefs. Sounds good to me.


This was the first thing that I thought of as well.
Thanks for letting me know that I am not totally alone.

.,,


----------



## muselinazi

. said:


> This was the first thing that I thought of as well.
> Thanks for letting me know that I am not totally alone.
> 
> .,,



You're not alone at all. My initial response was the same. I'm not surprised that the billboard has proven controversial but I'm still kind of bemused by it all.
K


----------



## samarje

It sounds like the Archbishop was looking for a short phrase that would catch people's attention, gambling on the fact that mentioning Osama would rile up some people. By getting them to make remarks to others, even if they were offended, more people took notice of it, rather than just seeing and ignoring the standard "Jesus loves you" that is commonly displayed on church boards. It's sort of funny in a sick way because the people who the billboard is targeting are presumably not those who are already members of the church, but new people that the church wants to recruit. But who wants to be associated with Osama? The gut reaction the sign provokes might not be the comforting idea that Jesus' love is all encompassing, but that scary feeling that extremism has penetrated the ideology of the church. It's almost a self-defeating attempt to rally support. It's only reassuring if you analyze it more deeply, and maybe few people driving by take the time to do so (unless they are already very religious).


----------



## TRG

. said:


> In connection with my other question about Osama I would like to know what you would do in the following situation.
> Osama bin Laden makes a death bed conversion to Christianity and makes his confession to a Priest and takes the Holy Eucharist then receives the Last Rites and dies.
> 
> What would you do when you meet Osama in heaven?
> 
> .,,


 
Since my expectation of meeting Osama or anyone else when I'm dead is zero, I can't answer the last question. Nevertheless, I would be very much interested in watching events unfold following the conversion of Osama to Christianity. This would be a very confusing event for many people of faith(s), methinks.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Since my expectation of meeting Osama or anyone else when I'm dead is zero, I can't answer the last question. Nevertheless, I would be very much interested in watching events unfold following the conversion of Osama to Christianity. This would be a very confusing event for many people of faith(s), methinks.


Thank you for your eloquently worded non response.  It is amazing how much intelligence and skill is required to cram so many words into a contentless paragraph.
I think that many people of many faiths are experts at confusion.

.,,


----------



## Abu Bishr

As far as I'm concerned the whole discussion is just so politically charged. Osama in the West represents the epitome of evil which is how the media has made him out to be. In fact, he has become in Western political rhetoric synonomous with evil such that it is almost taboo to think of him as capable of being reformed let alone going to Heaven. It is important in Western politics that we never see good or potential good in a man like Osama for this is how the whole campaign can be kept alive. What we have with Archbishop's statement is religion being mixed up with politics. Whilst it is important and imperative to perpetuate the image of Osama as evil incarnate in Western media it now becomes a huge problem what happens to this image of Osama if he converts to Christianity.

While I appreciate the thought-provoking nature of the question for Christians, I also think that the whole discussion smacks of religious arrogance such that it gives the impression that only in a Christian heaven can he have salvation. It just shows how little people know about the religion that he himself comes from. Since Westeners are not a down-trodden and persecuted people by foreign superpowers creating a huge mess in their countries, they don't see particular figures except as embodiments of evil. As usual Muslims feel excluded from discussions like these as they always have to make special efforts to be understood, as they come from a culture that does not have its origins in the West, such that it becomes difficult for people to related. If you have to honestly ask yourself what is Heaven like for Muslims, then what would be the first thing that comes to your mind if anything. At this juncture people would do well to read Edward Said's "Orientalism". I'm not here trying to play up religions against each other, or to speak from the position that we are the victims, rather I'm speaking from the position of the missing and unrepresented voice in the whole discourse.

The Islamic perspective is that Osama is a Muslim, and as a Muslim if he has commited crimes he has to either be punished for them or his victims' families can save him from the death penalty in exchange for compensation. At the end of the day, if his final moments are ones of sincere repentance and remorse and so on, then God out of His ifinite Grace and Mercy can decide to forgive him and make his abode the Garden of Paradise. This is where I think religion is superior to secular ideologies as the latter cannot cope with and does not have the capacity to deal with people guilty of heinous crimes and then they turn over a new leaf.


----------



## Nunty

OH, I know I said would keep my nose out of this, but how can I? Such passionate and well-expressed opinions. I'd like to relate to two of them.



Abu Bishr said:


> [...]
> Importantly though, in my view, the Archbishop's statement makes sense only whilst Osama is still alive, for then Salvation (from a Christian perspective) is still open for him if my understanding is correct. I mean would the same apply to Hitler now that he is dead. [...]


Just to clarify this point. As you may know, Abu Bishr, there are three principal "flavors" of Christianity: Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic. I am a Catholic, and my Church teaches the existence of Purgatory, which means that Hitler and Osama and Nun-Translator all get a last chance _after death_ to be truly sorry for their sins (repent) and desire to accept the grace of forgiveness. This is a time-limited offer, however. (We teach that Purgatory exists in the temporal order.) To the best of my understanding, most Protestant or Reformed denominations do not teach this, and the Orthodox teaching is not quite the same as the Catholic, but is similar.



tvdxer said:


> I agree with Nun-Translator.  However, I don't know what the point of such a billboard would be.


Tvdxer, I guess, like so many others have said, it's an intentionally provocative publicity campaign intended to cause people to think about God and what we call "the final things". Not such a bad idea, in my opinion.


----------



## maxiogee

There are people here who seem to think that Osama will only get to Heaven if he repents of his actions to date.

There are those, and he is probably one of them, who would say that Osama has nothing to repent. He is living his life according to a different 'good book' than many here.
Is it not to be presumed that Jesus will love and welcome those who have truly believed - without concerning himself with the source of that belief?

One gets confused by the apparently contradictory messages Jesus gave us. There are the pieces in John 14:
2 In my Father's house are many mansions. 
and
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me.


----------



## Nunty

In terms of RC theology, you are spot on, Maxiogee. The nuance is that sometimes we do things that we *think* are in tune with God's will, but we are grievously mistaken. Let's take the Crusades as a Catholic example. I live in a country that the Crusaders devastated and whose population they massacred. Those of them who were inspired, not by adventure and gold, but by their idea of God's will, were probably rather surprised when they got their turn at the Seat of Judgement-- not only by Jesus' opinion of the whole thing, but also by who "got in" to Heaven before them!

But even such religiously inspired mass murderers as the Crusaders have the chance to allow themselves to be changed in Purgatory and to accept the very exigent grace of forgiveness. So I guess some of them may be with our hypothetical Osama and (I hope) me, basking in the Beatific Vision some day.

I am terribly worried that I may be thought to proselytize. Please be sure, everyone, that is not my intention. I am explaining what I believe and what my Church teaches. Your mileage, as has often been said, may differ.


----------



## Deloris

For decades the USA and the USSR were sworn enemies, but I have never known anyone in the States who hated the Russian people. The West's heritage is rooted in Christianity, and to hate should never become a trait of our disposition.

Nevertheless, I do not classify Osama as an enemy.  The word _"enemy"_ as Jesus used it is far too noble a distinction.  Nor do I wish harm to anybody.  What I feel is nausea from and a fear toward a mindless fetid disease and pathological derangement fed by money, selfishness and elitism.  Even Jesus reached that point where it was time to roll up one's sleeves and physically throw parasites from the temple.  

It sickens me also that a self-proclaimed man of God, a Christian in this case, has time and resources for a psychopath called Osama while the voices of innocents go unheard.*Jesus weeps for the victims*​


----------



## loladamore

Abu Bishr said:


> While I appreciate the thought-provoking nature of the question for Christians, I also think that the whole discussion smacks of religious arrogance such that it gives the impression that only in a Christian heaven can he have salvation. It just shows how little people know about the religion that he himself comes from. Since *Westeners are not a down-trodden and persecuted people by foreign superpowers creating a huge mess in their countries*, they don't see particular figures except as embodiments of evil. As usual Muslims feel excluded from discussions like these as they always have to make special efforts to be understood, as they come from a culture that does not have its origins in the West, such that it becomes difficult for people to related. If you have to honestly ask yourself what is Heaven like for Muslims, then what would be the first thing that comes to your mind if anything. At this juncture people would do well to read Edward Said's "Orientalism". I'm not here trying to play up religions against each other, or to speak from the position that we are the victims, rather I'm speaking from the position of the missing and unrepresented voice in the whole discourse.


 
I find it interesting that you seem to be suggesting that there are only two possible juxtaposed worldviews: that of "Westerners" and that of "Muslims". Edward Said would be turning in his grave if that's what you meant to imply, after bringing up his book which, in his own words, is "explicitly anti-essentialist" and "radically skeptical about all categorical designations such as Orient and Occident".

I'm not sure who these "Westerners" are supposed to be as, like Said, I find that a term such as "the West" corresponds to no stable reality. Is Israel in "the West", as opposed to its neighbours who are not? Where does Latin America fit in to all this? Do I live in a "Western" country? Mexico shares a border with the US, has a predominantly Christian population, but is part of a region that has quite a long history of being *a down-trodden and persecuted people by foreign superpowers creating a huge mess in their countries*.

Another thing: are we to obliterate at a stroke the other half of the world's population that is neither Christian nor Muslim?

Am I still on-topic???


----------



## samarje

let's not leave out the atheists...


----------



## loladamore

samarje said:


> let's not leave out the atheists...


 
They were included in the "other half".


----------



## Nunty

samarje said:


> let's not leave out the atheists...


...and the Jews, and the Buddhists...

I cannot speak for the thread-opener, but I believe that the question was phrased in Christian terms because it relates to a specifically Christian act that took place in the context of Christian theology. I am sure there was no hidden intent.


----------



## RocketGirl

Abu Bishr said:


> There are three conditions, though, for a valid repentance (1) to desist from the crime immediately (2) to resolve never to go back to it, and (3) to feel genuine remorse for the acts perpetrated. *A fourth condition is required in the case of someone who has taken something unlawfully from someone-else, to return it to its rightful owner*.



What if you break the 6th commandment and take someone's life?  How can you return a life to its owner?  You can't.

I was under the impression that although Jesus won't cease to love a sinner, murder is unforgivable and will get you a one way ticket to hell.

Mind you, the Billboard doesn't say "Osama stands a chance at getting into heaven", does it?


----------



## Abu Bishr

RocketGirl said:


> What if you break the 6th commandment and take someone's life? How can you return a life to its owner? You can't.


 
Well that is if the thing taken is returnable. Thus, if I steal something from someone, and I afterwards regret having done the deed, it is not enough for me to repent, I have to return the object to its rightful owner. As for unlawfully taking someone's life (like murder), the victim's family is given the authority to either request that a punishment equal to the crime (i.e. death penalty) be meted out or that his life be spared in return for compensation. As for the criminal himself, it is not as if he is doomed forever. If he serves his term or punishment is meted out to him, or he is pardoned by the victim's family and providing he makes a sincere and valid repentance, he stands a good chance of earning salvation. In this way all parties are somehow "appeased". It's not a case of once a criminal always a criminal, or once a murderer always a murderer, or once a tyrant always a tyrant. Yes, through punishment justice is exacted, but that does not mean that his is now a lost case, never to have a single hope of dwelling in Heaven. As I've said, I feel it is here that secular philosophies break down, due to the absence of concepts such as "Repentance", "Forgiveness", "Hope", "Turning over a new leaf", "Afterlife", "Savation", etc. from their discourse.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> But even such religiously inspired mass murderers as the Crusaders have the chance to allow themselves to be changed in Purgatory and to accept the very exigent grace of forgiveness. So I guess some of them may be with our hypothetical Osama and (I hope) me, basking in the Beatific Vision some day.


 
I thought that when one died there were only three variants.
One was in
… a state of grace - in which case one goes to Heaven
… a state of mortal sin - in which case one goes to Hell
… a state of venial sin - in which case one endures a temporal sojourn in Purgatory prior to going to Heaven.

I didn't think that people have "the chance to allow themselves to be changed", I thought that any ' change' was effected either by the punishments endured there, or the prayers of the faithful on one's behalf.


----------



## Nunty

Tony, that is a teaching that has been nuanced since Vatican II. If you want, we can discuss this by PM, but I'm afraid we're going too far afield to continue it in this thread.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> Tony, that is a teaching that has been nuanced since Vatican II. If you want, we can discuss this by PM, but I'm afraid we're going too far afield to continue it in this thread.


 
I wouldn't have thought so. We are discussing one who is - largely - presumed to be a great sinner.
To gain admission to heaven he would bneed to either die in a state of grace, or to die with some degree of contrition for his more grievious sins - enough to be 'granted' admission to Purgatory. Purgatory won't "change" his level of penitance, it will remit the seriousness of his sins.

Anyway, it's all both theoretical and unknowable.


----------



## Nunty

Well, "faith is the knowledge of things unseen", after all. 

OK, in a nutshell here it is: The Catholic (or Latin) Church teaches that Heaven, Purgatory and Hell exist. Heaven and Hell are eternal; Purgatory is temporal. Catholics who want to be in conformity with the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) should believe in the existence of these three "places", *but* *we are absolutely free to believe that Hell is empty.*

If some degree of regret or questioning or unsureness exists at the moment of death, that would enough for admission to Purgatory. Purgatory, we teach, is not a fun place because there we are paying the price of all the sins we did not regret or "pay for" during life. This is painful principally because we are made to see ourselves and our behavior as we and it really was, not as we fondly believed it to be. However, it is a joyful place, because all the souls there know that they will eventually be very closely united with God in the Beatific Vision.

CS Lewis, not a Catholic, expresses this very beautifully and amusingly in his short novel _The Great Divorce_, which is about life and death, not marriage. I highly recommend it.

To bring us back to the thread, the initial post(*) offered the hypothetical situation of Osama converting to Christianity and making a deathbed confession. This would surely meet the conditions outlined above. However, nothing in current Catholic theology requires that someone be a Catholic or even a Christian to "get into Heaven". Hope I'm not shocking you.


(*) EDIT: Sorry. It was the initial post of the thread that was merged with another. It is Post #3 of this thread to which I am referring.


----------



## badgrammar

I don't find it very shocking.  I'm not religious myself, but obviously one of the tenets of christianity (and Islam and probably most other religions) is that God loves everyone, regardless.  He is the Father, the Creator of everyone, so he loves his children, even the "black sheep" and the "prodigal sons". 

Back in Texas  you see billboards for churches everywhere.  Many are humorous, and I would not be shocked or surprised to see something like like that, even there.  It's not a pro-Ousama message, it's a pro-salvation message.

Unfortunately, I am most dreadfully unlikely to be saved, and so I will see many of you in The Basement (I'm counting on DanielFranco to bring the margaritas, chips and salsa).


----------



## .   1

Abu Bishr said:


> While I appreciate the thought-provoking nature of the question for Christians, I also think that the whole discussion smacks of religious arrogance such that it gives the impression that only in a Christian heaven can he have salvation. It just shows how little people know about the religion that he himself comes from.


Maybe you should look at the parameters of the question in the first post.
There is no religious exclusivity here.
I did not say that a Christian heaven granted salvation.  That was granted on Earth before death.
Heaven knows how complicated the question would have been had I requested an opinion from the followers of Islam.
The point is that I am interested in the opinions of Christians and if Muslims feel displeased by this turn of events it is open to such people to open their own thread.
The staggering ability of some people to find fault and seek offence where none is intended is stultifying.  If I find a thread that irritates me so much I generally leave it alone.
I think that people who hurl the arrogant word with gay abandon should do well to have a hard look in the mirror as they read the definition of arrogance.
Here I am trying to ask an inclusive question and I now stand accused of arrogance.
Every single post I have ever made relating to religion has been of the same type. I have stated repeatedly that in my opinion there is not a struck match between any of the world's major religions.
A comma here and a crossed t there is the only difference.
Of course the Islamic Jesus loves Osama.  He may not like what Osama did but gods and especially their earthly representatives are fickle and quick to anger and their ways are passing strange to us mere mortals.
What would be the point of asking the question of Islam.  
I am trying to examine a very difficult topic and discuss this in an adult manner.

.,,


----------



## muselinazi

RocketGirl said:


> I was under the impression that although Jesus won't cease to love a sinner, murder is unforgivable and will get you a one way ticket to hell.



I know it's probably off topic but _I _thought Jesus' forgiveness was without limits or qualifications. According to _my_ understanding murderers and other marginalized individuals were/are exactly the kind of people Jesus' message was intended for. I thought that any repentant sinner could find a path to heaven...the ten commandments aren't ranked in the Bible.
But that's just from my own reading of the Bible. I'm no Biblical scholar and I don't belong to any particular denomination.

K


----------



## .   1

muselinazi said:


> I know it's probably off topic but _I _thought Jesus' forgiveness was without limits or qualifications.


_I_ think that this is at the heart of the initial post.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Abu Bishr said:


> While I appreciate the thought-provoking nature of the question for Christians, I also think that the whole discussion smacks of religious arrogance such that it gives the impression that only in a Christian heaven can he have salvation.


 
_Tosh!_
The concern here is for how those in a particular religion view the prospects of that religion's offer of salvation being made available to followers of another religion - especially when there might be, shall we say, a controversy surrounding one of them.

To a Jew, the concept of a Christian Heaven is of no concern at all, but I know that my late father would have been very concerned (if he got to Heaven) if certain clients and friends of his were not there.

Most religions and religious believers have no problem with 'their' paradise being available to penitent sinners of the faith - it becomes more difficult to deal with when they are asked to accept that non-believers - and even apostates - might also be roistering up there!


----------



## Brioche

Another possibility in all this, is that the Calvinist doctrine of pre-determination may be correct.

Calvinism teaches [roughly speaking] that God has chosen some people [_the Elect_] for bliss after death - and God has also chosen some people [_the Reprobates_] for eternal torment.

Going up or down is thus God's choice, and has nothing to do with our actions while we live.

So Osama may be one of God's Elect, and bound for glory.


----------



## Benjy

. said:


> Stop with the euphamism already.  Enough namby pamby dancing around the issue.  Take off the kid gloves and tell me what you really think.
> 
> .,,
> Is it possible that the existance of the headline generated by the billboard or the discussion of the subject between people who may otherwise be discussing the subject from the opposite viewpoint may be enough to justify the existance of the billboard.



Touché. I guess I find it more disappointing that we need such billboards to get talking about stuff like this. 



> I asked this same question on a different forum and I was not surprised to find that there are people at that forum who agree with people at this fourm that they would forgo eternal happiness if Osama got there first.  I am not surprised because I vowed to myself last time that people surprised me with apparently illogical emotions that I would not be surprised again by such "I'll bight off my own nose to spite my face" attitudes but I am stunned that people who can construct relatively elegent sentences use such skills to construct such self harmful sentiments.


Taking this phenomenon and running with it a bit might lead us somewhere interesting. Human stubborness/pride has a huge part to play in just about every theological and philosophical construct. We are constantly being told by *everyone* (just about) that we need to be stripped of it. Why? Because it is the barrier to progression (in any domain, be it sport, work, family, whatever). 

Looking at Osama (and making some massive assumptions), who says that even if Jesus does love him that he will be capable of sufficiently stripping himself of his pride and convictions if at the last day it turns out that he has been wrong, such that he will be able to accept Christ's love and invitation to repent? 

That Jesus loves Ossama in my mind seems totally logical (internally consistant logic in any case) but I don't see why this should guaranty his passage to Heaven/The Beatific Vision etc. 

I heard it argued many times that Christ's love is unconditional, and extrapolated from that that forgiveness should automatically follow. I don't see why it should. And even if someone is forgiven, should this grant them the right to the same inheritance?

I think the parable of the prodigal son is interesting in this respect. Sure the son came back and was welcomed joyously into his fathers household, but he still spent all his inheritance and essentially had nothing but the roof over his head and no expectation of anything from his fathers estate. What was left went to the older brother. Of course the othe fun thing about the parable is that it was given to criticise (in my opinion: He was talking to the scribes when He gave it) the older brother (who typifies the "I can't believe you let him!" in crowd) who  starts whinging about the party being thrown upon his brothers return.

Maxiogee mentioned the "many mansions" scipture. Why not? It seems like a far more equitable resolution of the problem than the standard Heaven or Hell options. 1 Cor 15 seems to support the idea in any case. 

Voilà.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

maxiogee said:


> There are those, and he is probably one of them, who would say that Osama has nothing to repent. He is living his life according to a different 'good book' than many here.



There are many Muslims who argue that Osama is not living his life according to the Koran at all, but rather living according to Wahabi doctrine.


----------



## Abu Bishr

The following is just some food for thought:

- What if we replace "Osama" with "Satan". Would the Archbishop defend a statement like "Jesus loves Satan". I don't think so, as Satan is tantamount to Evil, and it would'nt make sense to say: Jesus loves Evil (God forbid). Now, if we assume that Jesus does not love Satan, would he then hate him, in which case his love would not be all-encompassing. A famous female Muslim mystic from the 8th Century (Rabia of Basra) said once: "My heart is filled with the love of God such there is no place in my heart for hating anyone not even Satan". This, however, does not mean that she loves Satan, there is just no place in her heart for other than the love of God.

Jesus, in Islam, is a revered prophet, and as a prophet he loves his people lest harm or punishment should come to them. So, it is possible to love a criminal fearing eternal damnation for him. Thus, another interpretation of the Archbishop's statement could be that Jesus loves Osama, and would like him to change his ways as he fears eternal damnation for him.


----------



## Nunty

With the greatest of respect, Abu Bishr, why do we need to complicate an already delicate and complex discussion by expanding the parameters? It is hard enough to answer the question on its own terms, i.e. within the Christian tradition! I am sure that if you were to open a wider-ranging thread that dealt with similar issues there would be great response from forer@s of many different religions.

(By the way, in Christianity, at least the branch of it I belong to, the Catholic Church, Satan is angel who chose to separate himself from God because of his sinful pride. He is not the "incarnation of" or "tantamount to" evil.)


----------



## Abu Bishr

Okay then, I'll leave it at that. I just thought the discussion could develop into a much needed interreligious dialogue on the question of whether God's or Jesus' love is unbounded or not, and whether it extends to the worst of criminals or not. Since the question was formulated within a specific Christian context as it has been brought to my attention more than once now, I'll withdraw further participation in this thread. Thanks anyhow.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:
> "Jesus loves Osama"
> What is your opinion of the situation?



I'm not Australian, so I'll have to depend on those who are, or who have some insight into the people of that country, to point out any wrong assumptions about how those who see the billboards are apt to react.

1) Billboards are advertising.  They give publicity to a product, with the intention of increasing consumption of that product, or support for it, in the case of a political candidate, a position in a referendum, or membership in an organization. I assume this is the purpose of billboard messages in Australia.

2) I assume the billboards in question were erected by the organization to which Dr. Freier belongs, and his "defense" of them included some explanation of why they were erected, what they intended to provoke in terms of thoughts or actions.

3) I don't know the marketing tactics involved in this particular case, and have seen nothing in this thread about that topic except a few bits of speculation.
a- who is the target market?  Was it or is it supposed to be anyone driving or walking by, or some particular market segment?
b-what are the billboards supposed to produce, in terms of thoughts or behavior, and on the part of that target market, and on the part of other viewers?

Let's posit the following market segments, whose members will have seen the billboards:

1. Regular attendees/members of Dr. Freier's organization.
2. Regular attendees/members of competing organizations.
3. Nominal members of #1 who do not participate in the organization's activities with any frequency.
4. People who are not members of any organization broadly similar to Dr. Freier's group.  This includes--
4a. Those who are indifferent to such organizations and their "systems".
and
4b. Those who are opposed to such organizations and their "systems".

Now let's consider some possible or probable effects of the billboards on each group.

Group 1— Apt to think about the message, and nod their heads knowingly (at whatever they think it means) or
forcefully disagree with whatever they think it means, and engage other members and the leadership of the organization in debate about that.  Marketing tactic rating= "A" on a scale in which A is high, and D is low.

Group 2—Billboard message will either resonate as described above for Group 1, or will confirm the belief of
members of Group 2 that they are well-off not being members of Group 1.  Marketing tactic rating: C

Group 3—Billboard message may be assessed based on the likelihood that it will change members from nominal to active status.  Marketing tactic rating: C-

Group 4a—May provoke short-term thought by a subset of this group; not likely to change long-term views or behavior.  Marketing tactic rating: D+

Group 4b—May possibly provoke introspection, but more likely to confirm the view that such organizations are flawed.  Marketing tactic rating: D

If you assume that the billboard message is meant to be thought provoking, and was aimed at some particular audience, then you might conclude that the campaign is effective in the active member segment, and
ineffective or counterproductive in other segments.  

Clients for ad campaigns are apt to defend their choices of message and media.  That's human and normal.  To admit that a promotional message is confusing, or prone to misinterpretation, is akin to a public confession, "Ooooops!...well *I* knew what it meant to say, but I guess not everybody sees it that way."


----------



## .   1

Thanks Cuchu,
I think that a tiny little church in a tiny little country has spent about 5 cents of their budget and generated more positive religious dialogue than I can remember.
The billboards are standard fare outside many Christian churches in Australia and most of the time contain only the most eggregious puns and tragic word plays and they have faded into the background as they were more intensively ignored.
Methinks they will not be ignored for a while now.
Perhaps a few people have been given the opportunity to move a few walls and clear a little floorspace in some neglected portions of their minds.

.,,


----------



## loladamore

. said:


> *"Jesus loves Osama"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?


 
Someone made a statement that was totally coherent and consistent with their church's philosphy, and yet even followers of the same mode of thinking found it to be controversial. Thought was provoked at a local level. It was found to be so controversial that the news spread further and further afield.
The discussion in this thread was provoked by some posters put up outside a few churches 1000s of miles away from where most of us live. That's the power of advertising. 

So, here we are discussing love and death, which are pretty universal themes, don't you think? Such questions are at the heart of all religions as well as other philosophies. 

The juxtaposition of two elusive figures has led to the discussion of the intangible, essential existential human concerns, from what we can see here, in various far-flung corners of the world. It is unfortunate that the message of the original billboard ("God/Jesus is love, and loves everyone no matter what") has been interpreted by some as pitting Christianity and Islam against each other. That would have been "fair" had it said "Jesus loves Muhammad". It is perhaps a shame that Osama was chosen to epitomize the "sinner", rather than any number of belligerent men from whatever religious persuasion who trade in death - take your pick, they're all over the place (no need to name names). 

I suppose that it was inevitable that some discussion of Chistianity vs Islam should take place, and I am very grateful to Abu Bishr for his input. I 
have learned more about Islam in the last 24 hours than in the last year...

Back to the point, my opinion is that discussion is good. I'm glad we're all thinking and talking. That's what it's all about.

Cheers.


----------



## muselinazi

Benjy said:


> I heard it argued many times that Christ's love is unconditional, and extrapolated from that that forgiveness should automatically follow. I don't see why it should. And even if someone is forgiven, should this grant them the right to the same inheritance?
> 
> 
> Voilà.



Again, according to my limited knowledge there is no heirachical ranking of sins in the Bible- nothing to say that murdering is 'worse' or somehow less forgivable than stealing or committing adultury or not honoring your mother and father (God forbid! ). 

If the acculmulation of sin is presumably what bars one from heaven, I'd imagine that repenting and having those sins forgiven has to change the ultimate outcome. Why would nuns and priests counsel inmates on death row if they had no consolation to offer them with regards to what awaits them in the afterlife?

If murder is unforgivable and effectively just a ticket straight to hell, what then of the armed servicemen in Iraq (or indeed any armed conflict) who also commit murder in the name of all sorts of ideologies and doctrines of their own? Will all of those men and women be burning in hell with Osama too?

K


----------



## maxiogee

muselinazi said:


> Again, according to my limited knowledge there is no heirachical ranking of sins in the Bible- nothing to say that murdering is 'worse' or somehow less forgivable than stealing or committing adultury or not honoring your mother and father (God forbid! ).
> 
> If the acculmulation of sin is presumably what bars one from heaven, I'd imagine that repenting and having those sins forgiven has to change the ultimate outcome. Why would nuns and priests counsel inmates on death row if they had no consolation to offer them with regards to what awaits them in the afterlife?



While I'm no expert, I believe that you are right in saying that the Bible doesn't 'rank' sin, the Catholic Church (at least) does. 
Sins can be *venial* or *mortal* — and some were(are?) '_reserved_', meaning only a bishop (or a priest with certain authorisation) could forgive it in the Sacrament of Confession — and the state of mind of the person committing the sin was heavily involved in the notion of degree of sinfulness - as was the penitence of the person and their resolve to 'be good' henceforth.


----------



## Fleurs263

It seems to me the church needs to rethink its postion ... it doesn't give any one much incentive to be good, does it ...just to hope there's a priest nearby and you can wing it .. i.e. make it seem like you are really sorry, because ultimately you knew what you were doing in the first place and had free will and choice (not taking into consideration complusion, of course) ... I think Jesus would be very angry (and that's putting it politley) indeed, to see his teachings so badly used ...


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> It seems to me the church needs to rethink its postion ... it doesn't give any one much incentive to be good, does it ...just to hope there's a priest nearby and you can wing it .. i.e. make it seem like you are really sorry, because ultimately you knew what you were doing in the first place and had free will and choice (not taking into consideration complusion, of course) ... I think Jesus would be very angry (and that's putting it politley) indeed, to see his teachings so badly used ...



Do you really think that the 2,000 year old Church hasn't come up with an answer to those who would "wing it", as you put it?

For a confession to be valid, and absolution to be granted, there must be a serious and honest approach to the sacrament - and one doesn't get a dodgy cert to 'prove' your qualification. The notion being that the all-knowing God will take one look at the 'wingers' and break out laughing at the notion that they could put one over on Him!


----------



## Fleurs263

But it isn't God who gives the absolution is it? Isn't that what the priest does, as the person is close to death  ..?  Surely there are occasions when absolution is given in a state of extreme urgency ...? I was not refering to God's judgment but the practise of the Church. To be honest I feel a little uneasy using 'God' so frequently in this writing, because it may give an impression of belief and I don't share the traditional religious beliefs of others, which always seem to culminate in God, G-d, Jehovah etc ... but I would hope that God would be able to spot lies and insincerity, if He indeed exists (as portrayed by popular religions).  but a priest in a rush ... isn't it his/her duty to give absolution ...?


----------



## Benjy

muselinazi said:


> Again, according to my limited knowledge there is no heirachical ranking of sins in the Bible- nothing to say that murdering is 'worse' or somehow less forgivable than stealing or committing adultury or not honoring your mother and father (God forbid! ).
> 
> If the acculmulation of sin is presumably what bars one from heaven, I'd imagine that repenting and having those sins forgiven has to change the ultimate outcome. Why would nuns and priests counsel inmates on death row if they had no consolation to offer them with regards to what awaits them in the afterlife?
> 
> If murder is unforgivable and effectively just a ticket straight to hell, what then of the armed servicemen in Iraq (or indeed any armed conflict) who also commit murder in the name of all sorts of ideologies and doctrines of their own? Will all of those men and women be burning in hell with Osama too?
> 
> K



Mark 3:29

Clearly there is some difference. 

I don't want to get into a huge theological debate, they never go anywhere. I shouldn't have posted. I should have stuck to the billboards which are far more fun to debate


----------



## muselinazi

Benjy said:


> Mark 3:29
> 
> Clearly there is some difference.
> 
> I don't want to get into a huge theological debate, they never go anywhere. I shouldn't have posted. I should have stuck to the billboards which are far more fun to debate



What exactly is blaspheming the Holy Spirit anyway? 
But you're right. If it was possible to really know the 'true' meaning of the Bible with all its intricacies and contradictions, the whole christian world would be probably be in consensus by now.


----------



## .   1

Fleurs263 said:


> But it isn't God who gives the absolution is it? Isn't that what the priest does, as the person is close to death ..? Surely there are occasions when absolution is given in a state of extreme urgency ...? I was not refering to God's judgment but the practise of the Church. To be honest I feel a little uneasy using 'God' so frequently in this writing, because it may give an impression of belief and I don't share the traditional religious beliefs of others, which always seem to culminate in God, G-d, Jehovah etc ... but I would hope that God would be able to spot lies and insincerity, if He indeed exists (as portrayed by popular religions). but a priest in a rush ... isn't it his/her duty to give absolution ...?


My understanding of absolution is that it is not something that can just be given by a priest, not even by The Pope.

The premise of the question is that Osama saw the error of his ways and genuinely recanted all his sins and was granted absolution (on the condition that he had recanted and the he did genuinely regret what he had done and that he acknowledged the hurt and suffering he had caused) by the priest.
My understanding is that Absolution is more of a recommendation than a final act.  This would be too weird.  Like the priest would out rank God and that God would be stuck with the mistake of a poor tired, harried, fallable, human priest who made a slip of the wrist and blessed a con artist.  I don't think that religion works that way.  My memory is that there's a bloke called Peter who has a bit of a vote on who gets to pass the Pearly Gates and I'm pretty sure that he'd be able to spot a fake ticket purchased on E-bay from the ridgy didge article.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> But it isn't God who gives the absolution is it?



It is, actually.
The Church teaches that the priest is empowered by his ordination to absolve penitent sinners, on God's behalf. This means that an incomplete or improper Confession is invalid and the 'absolution' the priest dispenses is not valid. The priest acts at all times in the belief that the person is making a valid Confession. If this is not the case then the person knows it. One cannot make an invalid confession unwillingly.


----------



## Qcumber

There is a big difference between the claim of a given religion, whatever it is, that a person shall go to heaven if the proper rites have been performed and the recipient was sincere when they were performed with what judgment God - if he exists - would pass on that very person.


----------



## winklepicker

This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

According to St Paul.


----------



## .   1

winklepicker said:


> This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
> 
> According to St Paul.


Yup.  There's a fair bit of dinkum advice in that book.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> In connection with my other question about Osama I would like to know what you would do in the following situation.
> Osama bin Laden makes a death bed conversion to Christianity and makes his confession to a Priest and takes the Holy Eucharist then receives the Last Rites and dies.
> 
> What would you do when you meet Osama in heaven?
> 
> .,,


Talk to him at great length! There would be a heap of stuff I would like to know. For starters, I would ask if he actually had anything to do with 9/11, which I seriously doubt! Yes, he has been involved with terrorism, but his involvement in 9/11 has yet to be proved. 

It was very  convenient for some, that it be believed that he is the perpetrator, of course. 

The same quesrion could be asked about heaps of people - Mussolini, Ceaucescu and oh, Pinochet... 

Vicky


----------



## Victoria32

muselinazi said:


> Again, according to my limited knowledge there is no heirachical ranking of sins in the Bible- nothing to say that murdering is 'worse' or somehow less forgiveable than stealing or committing adultery or not honouring your mother and father (God forbid! ).
> 
> If the accumulation of sin is presumably what bars one from heaven, I'd imagine that repenting and having those sins forgiven has to change the ultimate outcome. Why would nuns and priests counsel inmates on death row if they had no consolation to offer them with regards to what awaits them in the afterlife?
> 
> If murder is unforgivable and effectively just a ticket straight to hell, what then of the armed servicemen in Iraq (or indeed any armed conflict) who also commit murder in the name of all sorts of ideologies and doctrines of their own? Will all of those men and women be burning in hell with Osama too?
> 
> K


You are correct, K., any sin that can be repented of can be forgiven, as I understand it, and murder is one of the easier ones! (By which I mean a murderer is usually more aware of his/her need for forgiveness...


----------



## maxiogee

Qcumber said:


> There is a big difference between the claim of a given religion, whatever it is, that a person shall go to heaven if the proper rites have been performed and the recipient was sincere when they were performed with what judgment God - if he exists - would pass on that very person.



Indeed.
But one must answer the questions here as they are posed. There are times when certain 'given' propositions must be assumed to be true, or else the discussion goes all over the place and doesn't produce any light - just steam.
In discussinf the tenets of a religion, and in discussing the God which it envisages, we must assume that both are valid and 'real' and that the statements either one is said to have made were actually made, and are the true opinions of that religion or that God.


----------



## Qcumber

maxiogee said:


> Indeed. But one must answer the questions here as they are posed. There are times when certain 'given' propositions must be assumed to be true, or else the discussion goes all over the place and doesn't produce any light - just steam. [...]


Even so, it's not because a crime has been remitted that it was not committed, and there is no promise that the criminal won't be punished by the god of the religion considered. 

I mean, once the criminal's punishment is over, she / he'll be allowed to enter Paradise because her / his crime has been fiorgiven. If her / his crime is not forgiven, she / he would probably be left somewhere / nowhere worse than hell.

Besides I suppose the victims have their say in the matter. Perhaps the logical punishment would be that the criminal relive the sufferings of all her / his victims.


----------



## .   1

Is it possible that in the above scenario an all loving God, who is capable of loving and accepting offal like Osama back into His Heavenly Realm, has already eased the hurt of the victims who are all up there waiting to say g'day?

.,,


----------



## elbeto

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:
> 
> *"Jesus loves Osama"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?
> 
> .,,


 
"Jesus loves Osama" but not his doings. 

Jesus loves every human. Jesus does not love sin. Jesus died for the sinner to forgive and save us. But it doesn't mean he gives it unconditionally; the condition is: to be aware of our sinful state, to repent and to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. 

Now back to Osama, included in the character of God there is love and justice, so being Jesus God, and being God love, then there is no option to him but loving (even) Osama, and you and me, no matter what. But since he is just, then we'll receive, alongside with his love, what we deserve. That is why Jesus came and took human form to pay for what we deserve, that is called redemption.

In one thing I agree with agnostics: we'll never be able to undersand God, who is absolute and supernatural to us, we're created creatures, we're too small. But it doesn't matter, He doesn't need my opinion nor my belief or yours to exist and to love me and love all of us, even if someone does not want His love.

So, does Jesus love Osama? Yes, He does (and also loves you), but not his doings. That is what I think, believe and am convinced of.


----------



## emma42

I agree with Albeto.  This is why Jesus is such an  immensely attractive character.  He is a giver of second chances, third chances etc etc (through God/the Christian god).  Forgiveness is a central tenet of Christianity (I believe it may be so in Islam, but I am open to correction).  But contrition has to  be real.   

"Ask and it shall be given".

The priest is a vessel, a facilitator.


----------



## John-Paul

The suggested love between Jesus and Osama is, what is it is, between Jesus and Osama. We as believers or non-believers don't have anything to do with that. Some of us seem to take issue with the fact that Jesus loves Osama, and Hitler (I presume) and you and me as well. From Jesus' perspective we are all equal. That must be hard to swallow, especially if you lost someone by the hand of Osama bin Laden or Hitler (for me a friend on 9/11 and an uncle in WWII). I think the idea of Jesus' love for the individual is a very powerful idea that appeals to me tremendously. But I don't think there is any Christian in the world who doesn't think that some of them, to paraphrase Orwell, are more equal than others. If people would have agreed with this idea from the get-go we would have had a different world.


----------



## emma42

I agree with you last sentence, particularly.  However, I remember the case of  a vicar who had lost a relative (it might have been his daughter) through murder and he truly forgave the murderer.  Anything is possible with humankind.  I do agree, however, that most people would find forgiveness impossible in these circumstances.


----------



## elbeto

John-Paul said:


> The suggested love between Jesus and Osama is, what is it is, between Jesus and Osama. We as believers or non-believers don't have anything to do with that. Some of us seem to take issue with the fact that Jesus loves Osama, and Hitler (I presume) and you and me as well. From Jesus' perspective we are all equal. That must be hard to swallow, especially if you lost someone by the hand of Osama bin Laden or Hitler (for me a friend on 9/11 and an uncle in WWII). I think the idea of Jesus' love for the individual is a very powerful idea that appeals to me tremendously. But I don't think there is any Christian in the world who doesn't think that some of them, to paraphrase Orwell, are more equal than others. If people would have agreed with this idea from the get-go we would have had a different world.


I agree with you, we have made the world what it is now. Jesus love has to do with His nature, not ours. And I also agree on the thinking that there is no Christian having the "ability" not to think of _some being more equal than others_, but we should aspire to reach the correct thinking on that (might be impossible, I concede).


----------



## Qcumber

emma42 said:


> I remember the case of a vicar who had lost a relative (it might have been his daughter) through murder and he truly forgave the murderer.


The vicar forgave the murderer who killed his daughter.
Let me be the devil's advocate.
1) The vicar is not the victim. He doesn't know if his daughter would have agreed with that.
2) As he is a Christian cleric he has no other choice than forgiving the murderer.
3) His forgiving the murderer doesn't change the latter's destiny.
4) By forgiving he unwittingly condones murder.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Qcumber said:


> 1) The vicar is not the victim. He doesn't know if his daughter would have agreed with that.



It dosen't matter if his daughter would have agreed or not. He's doing the forgiving for himself.



Qcumber said:


> 3) His forgiving the murderer doesn't change the latter's destiny.



If he wanted to change his destiny, he'd pray for him. Forgiving is a another matter entirely.



Qcumber said:


> 4) By forgiving he unwittingly condones murder.



That's just flat-out rubbish. He's not absolving him of guilt, he's making a statement that he dosen't harbour ill-will toward him.


----------



## elbeto

Qcumber said:


> The vicar forgave the murderer who killed his daughter.
> Let me be the devil's advocate.
> 1) The vicar is not the victim. He doesn't know if his daughter would have agreed with that.
> There is a part he had to forgive, the one affecting him (I cannot imagine what he went through), independently of his daughter's thinking (If she could have been there to speak up).
> 2) As he is a Christian cleric he has no other choice than forgiving the murderer.
> If forgiveness was given in obedience and for real (meaning he meant it), then he did what he was expected to do. What God was expecting from him.
> 3) His forgiving the murderer doesn't change the latter's destiny.
> Human forgiveness doesn't change the other person eternal destiny. God's forgiveness does.
> 4) By forgiving he unwittingly condones murder.
> To forgive is not to condone. Consecuences are, sometimes inevitable. Eternal consecuences are inevitable and only God can change them. God forgives us (given we do what I've commented about conditions). Only God, according to what the Bible states, has the power to forgive all sins and condone eternal death.
> Don't get confused. For instance, if you forgive your children for crushing your car, you're not condoning the crushing of all cars by teenagers around the world. You still grounded your children for a week, didn't you? But you wont live your whole life blaming them and being recented to them for that, will you?


----------



## muselinazi

Qcumber said:


> The vicar forgave the murderer who killed his daughter.
> Let me be the devil's advocate.
> 1) The vicar is not the victim. He doesn't know if his daughter would have agreed with that.
> 2) As he is a Christian cleric he has no other choice than forgiving the murderer.
> 3) His forgiving the murderer doesn't change the latter's destiny.
> 4) By forgiving he unwittingly condones murder.



I agree whole-heartedly with elbeto.
With regards to your points Qcumber...

1) I would disagree. The vicar did not lose his life but I believe he is still a victim. Presumably he was adversely effected by the murderer's actions. I'm not a parent myself but I know that for many parents there is no greater tragedy than losing a child. Secondly, I don't think that you can forgive on the behalf of someone else. The vicar is forgiving the murderer on behalf of himself for killing his daughter as opposed to taking his life.

2) Again I agree with elbeto. Although your religious beliefs may influence you, forgiveness doesn't just happen because you feel that your religious dogma leaves you with no other choice. 

3) See elbeto.

4) See elbeto. Do you really think that's a reasonable conclusion to make?

K


----------



## muselinazi

John-Paul said:


> The suggested love between Jesus and Osama is, what is it is, between Jesus and Osama. We as believers or non-believers don't have anything to do with that. Some of us seem to take issue with the fact that Jesus loves Osama, and Hitler (I presume) and you and me as well. From Jesus' perspective we are all equal. That must be hard to swallow, especially if you lost someone by the hand of Osama bin Laden or Hitler (for me a friend on 9/11 and an uncle in WWII). I think the idea of Jesus' love for the individual is a very powerful idea that appeals to me tremendously. But I don't think there is any Christian in the world who doesn't think that some of them, to paraphrase Orwell, are more equal than others. If people would have agreed with this idea from the get-go we would have had a different world.



I agree. I think Jesus' love is presented to us as something to aspire to. Jesus (according to Christianity) is the son of God. For me, this means that he possesses a kind of moral perfection or moral superiority. To emulate Jesus' love is bound to be difficult for imperfect human beings, but it's certainly worth a shot.


----------



## .   1

Qcumber said:


> The vicar forgave the murderer who killed his daughter.
> Let me be the devil's advocate.


When responding to an advocate I always have the queazy feeling that I am actually responding directly.



Qcumber said:


> 1) The vicar is not the victim. He doesn't know if his daughter would have agreed with that.


The vicar and his wife and any remaining siblings and family and friends are the victims.  The girl is dead so she is either sitting at God's right hand or is experiencing nothing depending on your religious bent but the vicar's suffering continues.  I could not imagine the grief I would experience if my tin lid died in any way.  We are not born to witness the deaths of our children.



Qcumber said:


> 2) As he is a Christian cleric he has no other choice than forgiving the murderer.


Nonsense.  He is not an automoton.  He could choose to hate or not.  He chose not.  I am aware of more than one Christian cleric who appear to have an enormous capacity to hate and judge and condemn and villify.



Qcumber said:


> 3) His forgiving the murderer doesn't change the latter's destiny.


Perhaps yes perhaps no but it definitely changes the destiny of the priest and his family and friends.



Qcumber said:


> 4) By forgiving he unwittingly condones murder.


If this was not so tragic it would be funny.  Actually it is.  In the concept of a thing being funny if a bloke trips over being funny but if he breaks his nose it is hillarious.  This is hillarious.  Does this mean that every time that a priest grants absolution they are condoning the sinful act?  Every time that a humane person turns the other cheek rather than respond is not condoning anything it is just deciding to not engage.

Not all Christians forgive as has been evidenced by a few of the responses to this thread.

.,,


----------



## RocketGirl

muselinazi said:


> Again, according to my limited knowledge there is no heirachical ranking of sins in the Bible- nothing to say that murdering is 'worse' or somehow less forgivable than stealing or committing adultury or not honoring your mother and father (God forbid!)


 
I'm not God (thankfully), and I'm not much for religion, but I just don't see how that can be.

So everytime I disobeyed my parents as a kid by sneaking out or whatever I was just as big a sinner as a murderer?

In my opinion that is that major problem with religion. I once had a roomate who was a born again Christian who told me that as long as she accepted Jesus into her heart before she died she would go to heaven. This seemed to justify all the wrong choices she made. 

Where's the accounability? I just don't see how murder can be equally as forgiveable as ...oh...say vandalism or petty theft or whatever, in this life or in the eternal perspective.


----------



## Mate

Deloris said:


> Even Jesus reached that point where it was time to roll up one's sleeves and physically throw parasites from the temple.
> 
> 
> 
> I had the same tought while reading this thread but if my memory doesn't fail those that Jesus threw out from the Temple were merchants, not parasites. No big difference after all. Neither of both belonged in such a revered and sacred place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sickens me also that a self-proclaimed man of God, a Christian in this case, has time and resources for a psychopath called Osama while the voices of innocents go unheard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.
Click to expand...

 
Mateamargo


----------



## elbeto

RocketGirl said:


> In my opinion that is that major problem with religion.


That is why one should look for a relation with God, instead of a religion with a God (not that I believe religion lacks of purpose). And that is acomplished by accepting Jesus love, as I have said before in this thread.



> I once had a roomate who was a born again Christian who told me that as long as she accepted Jesus into her heart before she died she would go to heaven. This seemed to justify all the wrong choices she made.


Accepting Jesus into one's heart is not a matter of convinience but conviction (strong belief). And one can do it only by knowing what it means and what it takes, independently of the time or situation. It is not that difficult, even if it sounds like it is.

To be forgiven and saved by Jesus doesn't mean your sins (wrong choices) are justified, that is a misconception. As Jesus loves the sinner, he also forgives and justifies the sinner before God, but does not justify sin. That would be against His nature since He is pure and perfect, as the Father is.


----------



## gaer

Nun-Translator said:


> CS Lewis, not a Catholic, expresses this very beautifully and amusingly in his short novel _The Great Divorce_, which is about life and death, not marriage. I highly recommend it.


Yes! I hope this is not off-topic, but what an absolutely fascinating little book!

I'm not a theologist. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting the book, but Lewis presented a "view" of Hell that shows a "place" that is as much or more a state of mind. Those "living in Hell" do so out of choice.

My impression was that Lewis presented the idea that God/Christ never "locked" anyone out of Heaven, rather that people (or their souls) stubbornly refused to see anything other than Hell, thus locking themselves out, a theme that Lewis also explored elsewhere.

I don't think this idea is at all off-topic, because if we look at things from this perspective, it is Bin Laden (or any of us) who would deny God, not God who would deny us.

If this discussion is about Christianity, surely the idea that God's/Christ's love has no limits is central to everything.

Or am I missing the point of this thread?

Gaer


----------



## winklepicker

Deloris said:


> It sickens me also that a self-proclaimed man of God, a Christian in this case, has time and resources for a psychopath called Osama while the voices of innocents go unheard.




No man is a villain in his own eyes, so they say. However much we may censure the conduct, the person is a child of God - as are we all.


----------



## emma42

But, Deloris, it's a Christian's duty to try to forgive.  Also, how do you know the voices of the innocents go unheard?  I am not saying whether this chap is right or wrong (whatever those terms mean), but this is part of Christianity, as I understand it.


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> But, Deloris, it's a Christian's duty to try to forgive.  Also, how do you know the voices of the innocents go unheard?  I am not saying whether this chap is right or wrong (whatever those terms mean), but this is part of Christianity, as I understand it.


And as I understand it as well, Emma42. Excellent points! 

Vicky


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> Or am I missing the point of this thread?


You are balancing beautifully right on the extreme end of the tip.

.,,


----------



## Nunty

gaer said:


> Yes! I hope this is not off-topic, but what an absolutely fascinating little book!
> 
> I'm not a theologist. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting the book, but Lewis presented a "view" of Hell that shows a "place" that is as much or more a state of mind. Those "living in Hell" do so out of choice.
> 
> My impression was that Lewis presented the idea that God/Christ never "locked" anyone out of Heaven, rather that people (or their souls) stubbornly refused to see anything other than Hell, thus locking themselves out, a theme that Lewis also explored elsewhere.
> 
> I don't think this idea is at all off-topic, because if we look at things from this perspective, it is Bin Laden (or any of us) who would deny God, not God who deny us.
> 
> If this discussion is about Christianity, surely the idea that God's/Christ's love has no limits is central to everything.
> 
> Or am I missing the point of this thread?
> 
> Gaer


Gaer, I think you have a perfect command of both _The Great Divorce_ and _Jesus Loves Osama_. 

The question was posed in a Christian context and in Christian terms, so I agree with you that we can't really leave Christ out of it.

I think you are spot on: If Osama or Nun-Translator don't get into Heaven (do not partake of the Beatific Vision), it's our own choice not to see the door that keeps us out.


----------



## Mate

emma42 said:


> But, Deloris, it's a Christian's duty to try to forgive. Also, how do you know the voices of the innocents go unheard? I am not saying whether this chap is right or wrong (whatever those terms mean), but this is part of Christianity, as I understand it.


 
Athough a non-religious Jew I was born into a Jewish middle class family and raised within a mix of Jewish tradition and left-wing materialism. 

As I get older I often find myself trying to get a deeper interpretation on the symbolism and the mystery comprised in the Bible. 

I`ve learned a few things so far, things like this: if there was just one thing that Jews have to keep always in mind is that the Only One capable to forgive is no other than G'd Himself.

It is a sin to even try to interpret what He has in mind for us mortals. And G'd acts in misterious ways because we humans are not to understand Him nor look through His eyes.

Mateamargo


----------



## .   1

Mateamargo said:


> It is a sin to even try to interpret what He has in mind for us mortals. And G'd acts in misterious ways because we humans are not to understand Him nor look through His eyes.


If that is the case quite a few people had better hope that God can't read this forum.

.,,


----------



## elbeto

gaer said:


> I don't think this idea is at all off-topic, because if we look at things from this perspective, it is Bin Laden (or any of us) who would deny God, not God who deny us.


 


Nun-Translator said:


> I think you are spot on: If Osama or Nun-Translator don't get into Heaven (do not partake of the Beatific Vision), it's our own choice not to see the door that keeps us out.


Free will, that is. A beautiful and fearful gift God gave us. 

I agree with both, gaer and Nun-Translator.

The door, as Nun-Translator has picture it, is Christ and no one else. The choice I (or Osama or anybody else) have to make is to walk through that door (out of Hell, if you wish). This is acomplished by believing in Christ's love for me and accepting him as my only Lord and Savior.


----------



## elbeto

Mateamargo said:


> It is a sin to even try to interpret what He has in mind for us mortals. And G'd acts in misterious ways because we humans are not to understand Him nor look through His eyes.


That is not a sin, it is an impossible. I agree with you about we humans not being able to see through God's eyes. 

Now, the Bible has a purpose; to let us know God's will for humans. He wants to have a relationship with us, that is what redemption is about. There are thousands of things we will never understand about God, but there are other things that were revealed to us by Jesus. He once said:


> Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
> John 15:15


What a wonderful thing is to know that God not only loves us, but also have plans for our lives, here on earth and on heaven, for eternity.


----------



## emma42

Mateamargo said:


> Athough a non-religious Jew I was born into a Jewish middle class family and raised within a mix of Jewish tradition and left-wing materialism.
> 
> As I get older I often find myself trying to get a deeper interpretation on the symbolism and the mystery comprised in the Bible.
> 
> I`ve learned a few things so far, things like this: if there was just one thing that Jews have to keep always in mind is that the Only One capable to forgive is no other than G'd Himself.
> 
> It is a sin to even try to interpret what He has in mind for us mortals. And G'd acts in misterious ways because we humans are not to understand Him nor look through His eyes.
> 
> Mateamargo



Please understand that I am not arguing either for or against the Christian point of view, I am addressing the topic of Jesus and forgiveness.  It has to be discussed in the context of Christianity because we are talking about Jesus.  

The point of the thread is not for everyone to speak out for their own religion.  You can just imagine where that will lead us!


----------



## cuchuflete

> G'day Cultur@s,
> Melbourne's Chief of the QXKYTHESY Organization, Dr Henry Henry,  has defended billboards outside Australian offices that state:
> 
> *"X W Y"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?



One hundred and one posts later, a tiny minority of respondents have given an opinion of "the situation".

Most have addressed the message, "XWY"  with strong viewpoints about each of X, X's philosophy, X's relationship to others, the meaning of "W" and whether or not it is appropriate, possible related verbs and their applications, and finally, there were some statements about "Y".

"The situation" has barely been touched.  

Has anyone asked why Dr Henry Henry (not his real name, which is Dr Gertrude Gertrude or something else)
"defended" anything?  Has anyone asked who was attacking, or whether the defense was a paranoiac response?
It seems to me that "the situation" is more than just trying to interpret the XWY message, and includes the responses it is eliciting, such that Dr Whatshisname feels a need to defend the billboards.


----------



## Gatitalad

. said:


> The circumstance is that a christian church is preaching the love of Osama. I have never seen this before but the situation in Ireland may be different.
> 
> My experience of christian churches is that not all christian churches preach that all christians should love Osama.
> 
> I´m not sure that the church is teaching you to embrace Osama, but to think about what it means when Jesus told us that his loves is so great that if you confess and repent, he will invite you in. The Bible says that God doesn't measure sin, whichmeans that sin is sin in his book and he can't look at it. This makes it so that we as humans can't point to another and say that his sin is worse than ours. I think the pastor is trying to get his congregation to think more profoundly about what Jesus teaches us.
> Alas we humans are not able to comprehend the love that he has for his creation, but aren't you glad of that? it just means that no matter what you do, he will always forgive you if you just ask....hmmm


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> One hundred and one posts later, a tiny minority of respondents have given an opinion of "the situation".
> 
> "The situation" has barely been touched.


You just don't get it do you.  I was troubled about this but now I find it amusing that the creations of a God Who Moves In Mysterious Ways also by definition treat us monkey decendents with the same I Am Superior To You because I Move In Mysterious Ways derision.

Do God botherers bother only the bretherin or do God botherers bother God?

.,,


----------



## elbeto

. said:


> What would you do when you meet Osama in heaven?


I'm going to be there to praise God for eternity. For sure, I'm not going to be looking for people to judge, hate or suffer, knowing they made it to heaven. Those feelings will not be in my repertoire any more.


> And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
> Revelation 21:4


----------



## .   1

elbeto said:


> I'm going to be there to praise God for eternity. For sure, I'm not going to be looking for people to judge, hate or suffer, knowing they made it to heaven. Those feelings will not be in my repertoire any more.


Thank Christ for a logical religious response.
I wish you only the best as you seem to be the sort of person who both deserves eternal paradise and you also appear to possess the correct personality to be able to enjoy the anticipation as well as the event and at times the anticipation is as important as the reality
.,,


----------



## elbeto

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr. Philip Freier, has defended billboards outside Australian churches that state:
> 
> *"Jesus loves Osama"*
> 
> What is your opinion of the situation?
> 
> .,,


 


cuchuflete said:


> "The situation" has barely been touched.


 
To my understanding, situation was not established completely on the original post. Below the "Jesus loves Osama" there's supposed to be a fragment of a Bible text: "Love your enemies... and pray for them which despitefully use you" that comes from Mathew 5:44. According to a news article, the billboards have been called "confusing and offending," even by the Australian Anglican elite, in spite of the explanation of the Christian message that was intended to promote: "that Jesus loves everyone."

Now, I think it is confusing and offending for non-Christian and Christian people that has not yet understood the magnitude of Jesus' love. I do believe that these kind of sentences/declarations should be used for sermons or writings, for instance, when one has the chance to explain thoroughly not only the meaning of the saying but the Christian truth that supports it. The message, in my point of view, was aimed (or pretended to be aimed) at the Christian community, the Anglican community may I say, but was posted outside, to everyone's sight. One has to be careful not to raise controversy where there should be consensus.

A message stating that "Jesus loves *everyone*" would mean the same than the original sentence, but then, would it be news? would this thread exist?


----------



## Qcumber

Does anybody know the Greek original in the gospel and the precise meaning of "love your enemies like yourselves"?


----------



## loladamore

There are a few Greek versions *here* as well as lots of different translations.

As for the precise meaning... er...

EDIT: You can click on *original Greek here*.


----------



## elbeto

Qcumber said:


> Does anybody know the Greek original in the gospel and the precise meaning of "love your enemies like yourselves"?


I don't recall a passage on the Bible that says exactly that. I remember a passage that says "love you neighbour as yourself" (Mathew 22:39) and "love your enemies" (Mathew 5:44). You can look for both passages at the link loladamore posted.


----------



## Qcumber

loladamore said:


> There are a few Greek versions *here* as well as lots of different translations.
> 
> As for the precise meaning... er...
> 
> EDIT: You can click on *original Greek here*.


Thanks a lot, Lola d'Amore.


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> You just don't get it do you.  I was troubled about this but now I find it amusing that the creations of a God Who Moves In Mysterious Ways also by definition treat us monkey descendents with the same I Am Superior To You because I Move In Mysterious Ways derision.
> 
> Do God botherers bother only the bretherin or do God botherers bother God?
> 
> .,,


By definition we bother God! (Probably quite a bit if the truth be known). God does move in mysterious ways, but as elbeto has said, has revealed by the Bible, God's plan for us. That being said, the church is the body of Christ (not any particular denomination, of course, but all believers...) 

DC Talk have two relevant songs here : in one they sing "If we are the body/Why aren't his hands holding" etc and "What if I stumble, what if I fall/ What if I stumble/and makes fools of us all?"

If Jesus loves Osama (and Hitler and Pinochet and all) then so must we! (that includes the nasty bus driver, the old biddy in the supermarket, the 4WD driver who runs a red light and even W., Bush!) 
DC Talk http://www.dctalkunite.com/
Vicky


----------



## Mate

emma42 said:


> The point of the thread is not for everyone to speak out for their own religion. You can just imagine where that will lead us!
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by *Mateamargo:*

Although a *non-religious* Jew I was born into a Jewish middle class family and raised within a mix of Jewish tradition and left-wing materialism. 




> Please understand that I am not arguing either for or against the Christian point of view, I am addressing the topic of Jesus and forgiveness. It has to be discussed in the context of because we are talking about Jesus.


 
Emma please, I really don't mind about what you may be arguing for or against. 
I wrote that post by 3:32 AM. That's too late at night or too early in the morning depending on one's habits. In my case I was almost asleep and now understand my post could be somehow misterious and/or misleading. 
All I mind regarding your comment is that it clearly points out what the context is (Christianity), whom are we talking about (Jesus) and that "the thread is not for everyone to speak out..." 

* I firmly believe that I am entitled to speak just as you are.  *

Cheers! - Mate


----------



## maxiogee

So, have we reached a consensus yet?
Does Jesus love Osama? Is he right to do so?

In other words, can a diety of one religion love someone whose actions go directly against much of the teaching of that religion, even if the person is not a member of that religion?


----------



## winklepicker

It all depends on your view of forgiveness. In my view, a perfect being not only _*can* _but _*must*_ forgive all. To the extent that the Christian example is any help in the way most people live their lives, if we could emulate this, it would help us, I think.


----------



## Mate

maxiogee said:


> So, have we reached a consensus yet?
> Does Jesus love Osama? Is he right to do so?
> 
> In other words, can a diety of one religion love someone whose actions go directly against much of the teaching of that religion, even if the person is not a member of that religion?


Well put Irishman! 

My conclusion: every human-like deity belongs in fiction and/or symbolic realms. Hence, I am not able to answer neither if Jesus loves Osama nor the question that follows.

Regarding your last question and taking in account the inexistence of fantastic inventions such as deities I consider the whole topic as irrelevant. 

I regret that I have been participating in this thread. 


Mateamargo


----------



## winklepicker

Mateamargo said:


> the inexistence of fantastic inventions such as deities I consider the whole topic as irrelevant.


 
Dear Mateamargo, this is unlike you - maybe we caught you at a bad time? This thread is - at least in part - about tolerance, which is normally a feature of your posts. I am not offended by your trenchant views on the non-existence of God, but I think it possible that some foreros might be.

In any case, in the absence of evidence* either way, surely fundamentalist adherence to belief in the existence and belief in the non-existence of God are equally unfounded?

So the question 'Does Jesus love Osama?' may be theoretical for you, but it may not be without value in stimulating thinking and discussion. Or so it seems to me.

_* Others may have had personal experience of God, but Mateamargo it would seem has not._


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> So, have we reached a consensus yet?
> Does Jesus love Osama? Is he right to do so?
> 
> In other words, can a diety of one religion love someone whose actions go directly against much of the teaching of that religion, even if the person is not a member of that religion?


This is an unknowable answer to anyone who does not consider themselves to be a god.

The point of interest is how we have reacted to what the priest said on the billboard.
I can not imagine that it has done anything negative in promoting positive dialogue among disparate groups of people.
Our world has been and is being shaken daily with senseless slaughter and guns, germs and steel do not seem to be enhancing too many peoples' days.  I believe that the only way forward is through understanding.
The internet and particularly forums like this give us a chance to speak with people across many cultural divides and if this causes even one young person to not join some stupid cult to destroy the infidels/heathens that can not be a bad thing.
When I was a tin lid I knew nothing of the outside world.  There was no communication other than a little radio and two week old newspapers and politicians led people a merry dance.  I do not believe that it was a pure coincidence that the hated White Australia Policy died at about the time that mass comminication became available.
Barriers will not be broken by politicians who have a vested interest in keeping the electorate in a mild state of fear.  Barriers will be broken by the world saying g'day to each other.

G'day

Robert


----------



## .   1

Mateamargo said:


> I regret that I have been participating in this thread.


I agree with you.

.,,


----------



## faranji

winklepicker said:


> It all depends on your view of forgiveness. In my view, a perfect being not only _*can* _but _*must*_ forgive all. To the extent that the Christian example is any help in the way most people live their lives, if we could emulate this, it would help us, I think.


 
Yes, it would definitely help us. 

I just don't agree with your view on a perfect being. In my opinion, the fact that such a being needs to actually stoop to forgive the misdeeds of his creatures quite detracts from his alleged perfectness. A truly perfect creator would have created unblemished individuals in the first place who, incapable of sin or wrongdoing, should have no need of forgiveness or after-the-last-trumpet judgement whatsoever. The way I see it, any god that has to forgive the deeds of his own stray children is a lesser, far-from-perfect god.


----------



## maxiogee

winklepicker said:


> Dear Mateamargo, this is unlike you - maybe we caught you at a bad time? This thread is - at least in part - about tolerance, which is normally a feature of your posts. I am not offended by your trenchant views on the non-existence of God, but I think it possible that some foreros might be.


… or not, we mustn't presume to speak for others - even hypothetical ones.

Surely trenchant views on the non-existence of a God, any God, are a small price for religionists to pay for the contortions they expect non-believers to go through in an effort not to offend, ever, someone who believes in God?





> In any case, in the absence of evidence* either way, surely fundamentalist adherence to belief in the existence and belief in the non-existence of God are equally unfounded?


Pardon?
Person A says something exists, but he cannot prove it.
Person B doesn't believe person A. Is it up to Person B to prove the non-existence of person A's believed-in thing?

If I were to proclaim from the rooftops that there is an invisible funfair in orbit around the Sun just between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune I don't think too many people would waste too much time trying to disprove it



=====


> _* Others may have had personal experience of God, but Mateamargo it would seem has not._


How do those who claim such an experience know that they were neither hallucinating nor misinterpreting some more temporal phenomenon?


----------



## faranji

maxiogee said:


> If I were to proclaim from the rooftops that there is an invisible funfair in orbit around the Sun just between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune I don't think too many people would waste too much time trying to disprove it


 
Wow! Funfairs orbiting the sun... I like it even better than Russell's teapot!

I fully agree with your comments, maxiogee.


----------



## winklepicker

maxiogee said:


> If I were to proclaim from the rooftops that there is an invisible funfair in orbit around the Sun just between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune I don't think too many people would waste too much time trying to disprove it?


 
It would be fun to though - I urge you to try it!  



> How do those who claim such an experience know that they were neither hallucinating nor misinterpreting some more temporal phenomenon?


 
How do you know you weren't hallucinating the lack of it?  

I am not belittling your beliefs - or the lack of them: just advocating respect for matters that others hold dear. However daft they may seem to you.

Anyhow - Osama? Jesus? Have you anything to say on the topic?


----------



## emma42

Mateamargo said:


> Originally Posted by *Mateamargo:*
> 
> Although a *non-religious* Jew I was born into a Jewish middle class family and raised within a mix of Jewish tradition and left-wing materialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma please, I really don't mind about what you may be arguing for or against.
> I wrote that post by 3:32 AM. That's too late at night or too early in the morning depending on one's habits. In my case I was almost asleep and now understand my post could be somehow misterious and/or misleading.
> All I mind regarding your comment is that it clearly points out what the context is (Christianity), whom are we talking about (Jesus) and that "the thread is not for everyone to speak out..."
> 
> * I firmly believe that I am entitled to speak just as you are.  *
> 
> Cheers! - Mate



Dear Mate, your quoting half of my sentence is grossly misleading.  The complete sentence is "the thread is not for everyone to speak out for their own religion".

I also "firmly believe" that you are "entitled to speak out just as [I am]", but I will not support your entitlement to "quote" in such a dishonest way.


----------



## maxiogee

winklepicker said:


> Anyhow - Osama? Jesus? Have you anything to say on the topic?



Try reading what I have written. 
Post #13 was good, I feel.


----------



## John-Paul

This thread is dying like a candle in the wind. Too bad, because it's not only revealing to see how fellow frrr's  respond to this bill board (does it really exist?), but, if you think about it, it's also a question that addresses our inner judge. If you are to decide if Jesus loves Osama, what would your judgement be? Define Jesus, one says. Define 'love' a second one says. Define 'situation' someone else says. The only thing we seem to agree on who 'Osama' is (who hasn't been tried and found guilty). But we didn't get many answers, only bible quotes. I think you have to be honest and say that if your Jesus is a vengeful Jesus, he'd probably doesn't 'love' Osama. Or that He loves Osama, but he doesn't tolerate him. Or if you believe Jesus loves everybody, then say so. Or if you don't believe in Jesus, love or Osama...

It's funny how effective these bill boards are nowadays.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> So, have we reached a consensus yet?
> Does Jesus love Osama? Is he right to do so?
> 
> In other words, can a deity of one religion love someone whose actions go directly against much of the teaching of that religion, even if the person is not a member of that religion?


Yes, Jesus loves Osama, while not approving of Osama's actions or attitudes. (Whether he bears any responsibility for 9/11, he does for other things.) 


John-Paul said:


> This thread is dying like a candle in the wind. Too bad, because it's not only revealing to see how fellow frrr's  respond to this bill board (does it really exist?), but, if you think about it, it's also a question that addresses our inner judge. If you are to decide if Jesus loves Osama, what would your judgement be? Define Jesus, one says. Define 'love' a second one says. Define 'situation' someone else says. The only thing we seem to agree on who 'Osama' is (who hasn't been tried and found guilty). But we didn't get many answers, only bible quotes. I think you have to be honest and say that if your Jesus is a vengeful Jesus, he'd probably doesn't 'love' Osama. Or that He loves Osama, but he doesn't tolerate him. Or if you believe Jesus loves everybody, then say so. Or if you don't believe in Jesus, love or Osama...
> 
> It's funny how effective these bill boards are nowadays.


Definitely, Jesus loves Osama, but doesn't tolerate him... Jesus is not vengeful, because he is the aspect of God who enables forgiveness, instead of vengeance. 

Vicky


----------



## Mate

Mateamargo said:


> Well put Irishman!
> 
> My conclusion: every human-like deity belongs in fiction and/or symbolic realms. Hence, I am not able to answer neither if Jesus loves Osama nor the question that follows.
> 
> Regarding your last question and taking into account the inexistence of fantastic inventions such as deities I consider the whole topic as irrelevant.
> 
> I regret that I have been participating in this thread.
> 
> 
> Mateamargo


 
Since I'm not able to edit the post above because of the time elapsed, this is what -for the sake of good English- I should have written:

Well put Irishman! 

Let's get done with this.

My conclusion: every human-like deity belongs in fiction and/or symbolic realms. Hence, I am able to answer neither if Jesus loves Osama nor the question that follows.

Regarding your last question and taking into account the inexistence of fantastic inventions such as deities I consider the whole topic as irrelevant.

 
I regret that I have been participating in this thread.


----------



## .   1

Mateamargo said:


> Regarding your last question and taking in account the inexistence of fantastic inventions such as deities I consider the whole topic as irrelevant.


People who don't understand Art dismiss the Mona Lisa as a competant representation of a middle aged woman with a weird smile yet this does not diminish the content of the painting as much as revealing the lack of perception of the viewer.
I am sorry that you missed the point of this thread and I am beside myself to realise that my question has caused so much division.  This was not my intention.
My question has nothing to do with deities and the supernatural and everything to do with the response to a perceived threat.
Guns and bombs and bullets do not seem to be able to protect people from their own fear and the priests who put the posters up know this.
Terrorism is a real threat but it is miniscule and I would suspect that a review of the statistics would reveal that most people have a higher risk of being killed by an insect sting or a snake bight or walking in front of a bus.
I was trying to point out that there is only a struck match between any of the major religions.  How about Budda loves Hitler?  When you love your enemy you dissapate their hold over you.  I feel so sad for the poor huddled masses sucking their gums in righteous indignation rather than enjoying what they can while they still have it.
Jesus loves Osama has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong and everything to do with moving on.
Some people appear to be able to hate over the centuries and this is beyond my ken as all it does is give supernatural power to their enemies.  People who continue to hate beyond the grave are in effect making gods or demons out of their dead enemies.
Saddam is dead and Osama is probably dead but they have been deified in most of the Western World.
We have gone from a period when Elvis was the most recognised dead face on the planet to a period when Osama and Saddam vie for the honour.
Love them or ignore them but don't grant them the power of eternal hate.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> ....
> Guns and bombs and bullets do not seem to be able to protect people from their own fear and the priests who put the posters up know this.
> Terrorism is a real threat but it is minuscule and I would suspect that a review of the statistics would reveal that most people have a higher risk of being killed by an insect sting or a snake bight or walking in front of a bus.
> I was trying to point out that there is only a struck match between any of the major religions.  How about Buddha loves Hitler?  When you love your enemy you dissipate their hold over you.  I feel so sad for the poor huddled masses sucking their gums in righteous indignation rather than enjoying what they can while they still have it.
> Jesus loves Osama has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong and everything to do with moving on.
> Some people appear to be able to hate over the centuries and this is beyond my ken as all it does is give supernatural power to their enemies.  People who continue to hate beyond the grave are in effect making gods or demons out of their dead enemies.
> Saddam is dead and Osama is probably dead but they have been deified in most of the Western World.
> We have gone from a period when Elvis was the most recognised dead face on the planet to a period when Osama and Saddam vie for the honour.
> Love them or ignore them but don't grant them the power of eternal hate.
> 
> .,,


An excellent summary Robert! 
Three words - "white-tailed spiders"! (Or is that two?) 
Vicky


----------

