RenewAmerica Warns the Pope

Rev Michael Bresciani is becoming a favorite around here. His rants regularly appear at the RenewAmerica website. The last time we wrote about one was Darwin, Science, & the Antichrist. The rev’s latest is The Pope presumes — the theory of evolution boosted by Pontiff.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The rev is enraged about Pope Francis’ recent remarks to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about evolution and the Big Bang. There have been literally hundreds of news stories about this — as if the Pope’s announcement were anything new — but the creationists are all in a dither. The last time we wrote about it was The Pope’s Views on Science — So What?

The rev’s post is very long. It’s also rambling, disjointed, and essentially incoherent. Rather than trying to follow his narrative, which is a hopeless task, we’ll just excerpt some of the most amusing parts for your enjoyment. Bold font is added by us for emphasis, and we omit his scripture quotes and references. Okay, let’s get started:

Unwilling to go full-fledged “everything from nothing’ the Pope has scratched out an explanation from the playbook of ‘theistic-evolution’ which is a way of saying God created all things, but he used evolution to do it.

How many blunders are in that one sentence? First, the rev is equating evolution with the Big Bang. Second, only creationists describe the Big Bang as “everything from nothing.” Third, evolution — like all of science — isn’t inherently atheistic, although it does discredit the literal truth of a number of ancient folk tales that are found in scripture. What else does the rev say? How about this:

The Pope’s first and most serious mistake has to do with theology not science. Among those who hold scripture as final and authoritative is the belief that when man raises himself above scripture he has already begun an apostasy and a fall into full blown error. Whether pastor, pope, evangelist, teacher or religious philosopher, the person who presumes that God fibbed, failed or skimped on the truth revealed in scripture, where God proclaims himself as Creator of all things, including the stars and heavenly bodies over 300 times – that man or women is in the first stages of apostasy and the last stages of full blown presumption.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There is nothing to be learned from science — nothing! To think otherwise is apostasy! Let’s read on:

[T]he arch deceiver (Satan) who is also called the “father of lies” always knows he is lying, but he only chooses those who do not know it’s a lie to spread his message. Does this remove culpability for the deceived? Not a chance.

The Pope is in the service of Satan! The rev continues:

If you are down on the road with the millions who believe that man came from time and chance; remember the one who identified the road you are on, also said he was present at the creation. Not only was the earth and heavens made by him, but they were made for him.

The rev is talking about you, dear reader, and the wrong road you’re on. Here’s more:

Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father which means he was there at the creation. It is understood that he knew when, where and how the creation took place and exactly how long it took. Since Christ affirms the Genesis account of creation, we can come to only one reasonable conclusion. If you are an evolutionist you believe the lie of the greatest liar of all time and eternity. … Be it Pope or pauper, scientist of scoffer it makes little difference how you got there, today is the day to reconsider your path. The bottom line is this; as to how the worlds were created the Pope wasn’t there, the Saviour was – the choice is yours about who you are going to believe.

Pay attention, dear reader. It’s not about evidence. It’s all about who you believe. The rev knows what he’s talking about. Moving along:

[God’s power] is the reason we have only a handful of so called missing links to hominids, instead of the millions that should exist if evolution was anything more than a concoction. It is also the reason men writhe and wrangle to find another answer to streamline their rebellion from a God who will hold them accountable after they cross that great inevitable game leveler called death. Finally, it is the power of God that will stun and shock an unbelieving world when Christ breaks through the clouds after the last trumpet is blown and not one person on earth will be left who believes in evolution.

You, dear reader, and all the others who believe the lie of evolution, will be swept away! Another excerpt:

Since there are decades of ‘creation science’ now behind us that strongly refutes the presumption of the evolutionary model, it can only be pure willful apostasy that has gripped the Pope and the Roman church. It is a sad day for humble Catholics who love the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet this too has been well prophesied.

After some dire warnings about Judgment Day, the rev concludes with this:

Before that fateful day arrives we hope the Pontiff might read his bible a little more and pause to hear the voice of God rather than the faint echo of the big bang. Isn’t that what Catholics expect him to do?

A powerful essay indeed. But will it fall on deaf ears?

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “RenewAmerica Warns the Pope

  1. Of course, everything depends on whether one believes God dictated every word in the Bible in the original and intervened to make sure translators didn’t screw it up later. Bible Code nutjobs, I mean enthusiasts, notwithstanding, that’s a statement of faith, not fact.

    And if God did dictate the Bible, just who are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis? Last I looked, Christians were supposed to believe in only One, and Jews in none.

  2. Our Curmudgeon declares

    A powerful essay indeed. But will it fall on deaf ears?

    What? … Could you speak up, please?

  3. While in medical school, I had to do a six week rotation in a locked psychiatric ward and I cared for a large number of delusional patients. However, I can not recall any who were as out of touch with reality as this preacher is.

    It seems that in our society as long as your incoherent rants appeal to the bible and religion you can say or write the most bizarre and irrational things and still not be considered insane.

  4. that when man raises himself above scripture he has already begun an apostasy and a fall into full blown error.

    First off, to get rid of a minor point, “apostasy” is something different from error. Apostasy is a defection from religion, leaving the community, which can be with or without making a mistake in belief, which is heresy.

    Aside from that, I point to the near universal acceptance nowadays of the heliocentric model of the Solar System. I insist that any one has come to these beliefs: that the Earth is rotating daily while the Sun is not moving around the Earth; that the Earth revolves around the Sun in a yearly orbit; that the Earth is not the unchanging center of the universe – that the incitement to such beliefs has come from the statements of modern science. Even if one subsequently finds a way of reconciling that with the plain sense of Scripture, one has placed mere human knowledge in the first place.

    In evidence of that, I point to the fact that for something like 2000 years, no one detected any reason to doubt that the Bible was describing a geocentric universe.

    And I deliberately used the word “belief”, for I think that for the great majority of people, they have come to accept the findings of modern science about heliocentrism, not by understanding the evidence, but simply by going along with common opinion.

    Another thing which is commonly accepted by most Bible-believers is that Moses did not write the last words of Deuteronomy. Including those who believe that the Bible says that Moses wrote the books Genesis through Deuteronomy. People doubt the Mosaic authorship of that ending because it describes the death and burial of Moses and his subsequent stature. As if God could not have revealed that to Moses. This is simply raising oneself above Scripture.

    And I cannot but bring up the subject of the Omphalos Hypothesis. Did God deliberately make the world of life have the appearance of having a history of common descent? I say “deliberately”, because the evidence amounts to a complex specified body of data, which the human mind has been driven to explain by reference to evolution occurring over many millions of years. That is surely describing the author of the world of life as a “demiurge” (to use the Pope’s word).

  5. I gues it would be a revelation (pun alert) to the demented REV that I, and I think most people who have actually read the bible, assume it was the miscellaneous collection of people who wrote the manuscripts who fibbed.

  6. @abeastwood
    I suggest that saying that the authors “fibbed” is an anachronism. It is applying modern standards of narrative to the Ancient Near East. At that, there are surely some parts of the Bible that cannot be taken as anything more than something like fiction. Many scholars would agree that the Books of Jonah, Job and Esther are examples. They were not meant to be recording of actual events. The account of Genesis 1 may be something like a way of telling of the Providence of God. Aesop was not fibbing. Even Heroditus was not fibbing (maybe).

  7. The Rev: “Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father which means he was there at the creation.”

    WHAT???!!!??? No Christmas??? No Mary, mother of Jesus? No Baby Jesus in the manger? No Christmas carols about “Silent Night” and “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear”?

    Why, this guy wants to destroy all that is holy!

  8. “A powerful essay indeed. But will it fall on deaf ears?”

    I fear it that it wont largely because of the anti-Catholic sentiment it expresses along with all the other BS.

  9. Among those who hold scripture as final and authoritative is the belief that when man raises himself above scripture he has already begun an apostasy and a fall into full blown error.

    Ummm … last time I looked, the Pope was Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church does not adhere to sola scriptura. That was one of the little differences the Catholics had with Martin Luther. Thus, the Pope (as Tom S points out above) is not an apostate to the Catholic Church. The Rev. might call the Pope a heretic but the Pope would just return the favor.

  10. One of the most laughable aspects of the evangelical movement is the constant claim that they interpret the bible literally.

    But in almost every instance the claim is followed by a statement that shamelessly embellishes upon what is actually contained in their favorite books pages.

    Bresciani claims that other deities must have been present at the moment of creation because of the holy trinity, of course forgetting to include the third member of the pantheon.

    Ol Hambo felt the need to place washing machines aboard his ark, but no slaves to do the dirty work.

    There is nothing contained in the pages of the their bible to support such claims. Arriving at such conclusions and claiming they are factual would be the complete opposite of a literal interpretation, and the complete opposite of being honest.

    Maybe the popularity of such a behavior is that it allows anyone to patch up their shoddy stories without needing to burden themselves with facts or ethics.

    You don’t read a lot of talking points concerning ethics from the evangelical camp. Ethics seem to conflict with their strong moral sense.

  11. Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father which means he was there at the creation. It is understood that he knew when, where and how the creation took place and exactly how long it took.

    The people who originally authored the creation stories were Jews, and they do not believe Jesus Christ was a god at all, much less “co-eternal.” It seems reasonable that the Jews should be the final authority on the stories they wrote, and there is no character named Jesus in any of them.

    The people who came up with the idea that Jesus was God, along with the Holy Spirit, were early representatives of the Catholic church, who tried to reconcile the multiple gods of Christianity into a monotheistic religion. Those folks that the reverend disagrees with came up with the Trinity. Not that anyone understands what the Trinity really means anymore – it’s too bad the inventors (probably a committee) did not keep careful notes.

    And since when is it “understood” that Jesus knew everything about the creation? Because the Rev thinks he was there? There is no objective evidence that either God or Jesus ever existed, although an argument could be made for Jesus’ existence as an itinerate preacher. What the character Jesus is alleged to have said about creation is what all Jews knew at the time, that is, what was written in the Torah. Why is this proof that it happened? If anything, it is merely proof that Jesus was aware of the stories.

    The reverend needs to exercise a bit of introspection before he goes off accusing other people of believing in lies.

  12. The fundie theology is interesting, if you’re interested in that kind of thing. They’re supposed to be “scriptura solus”, crediting only scripture, but the rev’s take hasn’t got a great deal to do with scripture, and reflecting on what the scripture actually says is instructive.

    Rev says, “Christ affirms the Genesis account of creation”. Utter bull[poop]. Jesus is not quoted anywhere as saying any such thing. What Jesus said about the Creation is found at Matthew 19, first nine verses. That’s it. That’s all he said. He did not say, “Adam and Eve were real historical people”. He asked “Have you not read that in the beginning the Creator made them male and female?”

    Well, of course they’d read that. But why was he asking them about it?

    He’d just been asked if a man might divorce his wife for any cause he pleased. Mosaic law said yes. Jesus said no. He prefaced his answer by saying that God had made them one flesh, and had therefore reunited them, and man was not to undo what God had done.

    The important teaching from this passage is not the passing reference to the Creation story, as an instructive writing. It’s the fact that Jesus disallowed divorce at will. He allowed it only in the case of the wife’s “pornaeia”, a koine word that probably means “sexual misconduct”, not “adultery”, since there was another specific koine word that meant “adultery”. (Setting aside the possibility that the Gospel writer didn’t translate Jesus’s Aramaic accurately.)

    So what Jesus was actually saying was nothing to do with confirming the Genesis account of creation. He was disallowing divorce, mostly.

    I always find it amusing that fundies get so furiously exercised about homosexuality including same-sex marriage, on the basis of a couple of brief verses from the old testament and an iffy reading of Paul, but completely ignore the plain and unequivocal words of the man they call God on divorce. You don’t find furious fundamentalists on the web demanding an end to no-fault divorce or divorce at the behest of the wife, on account of Jesus, nor do they tell people who divorce and remarry – even within their own congregations – that they’re committing adultery, as Jesus explicitly said they were.

    The bible, for these people, is something that is referred to when it reinforces their prejudices, and ignored when it becomes inconvenient. They’re not just wrong. They’re a bunch of screaming hypocrites.

  13. The Pope’s first and most serious mistake has to do with theology not science. Among those who hold scripture as final and authoritative is the belief that when man raises himself above scripture he has already begun an apostasy and a fall into full blown error.

    Fanfic vs fanfic: I understand there’s quite the controversy, too, between Batman aficionados whose theology allows him to have had sex with Catwoman and those apostates who deny such a thing could ever have happened.

  14. @Dave Luckett
    You know that their case is weak, when they have to rely on a passage like this. Jesus was fond of telling stories (“parables”) to make a point. What if he were recalling a story just to make a point, without thereby endorsing the literal historicity of the story? As anyone might refer to Pinocchio, in making a point about lying.
    But the argument is weaker than that, for Jesus does not say that at the beginning there were exactly two humans, Adam and Eve, that Adam was made out of the dust of the ground, that that happened on the sixth day of creation, and so on. Even the most atheistic of the evolutionists would agree that when humans first appeared they were male and female.
    And it gets much more embarrassing that that. Not much later in Matthew 19, there is the incident of the rich young man who wanted eternal life. What did Jesus say? Did he say, “First of all, you have to believe the story of Adam and Eve. The one that I made a slight allusion to a while ago”? Did he say, “Believe everything the the Scriptures as literally true, including the parts that haven’t been written yet”? Yes, he did make a reference to the Ten Commandments, but even at that, he didn’t cite them literally, for he skipped a couple of them and added one not in the standard lists. He seemed to be endorsing a non-literal reading of the Ten Commandments. (And no, I’m not going to give into the temptation and mention anything about people who don’t give away everything to the poor.)
    And on and on, Is this the best that they can bring up for saying that it is necessary and sufficient to take a literal reading of an inerrant Bible?