MJ's religious beliefs.

[elusive moonwalker]

He emulated Jesus as an example of love and ethics. Yes, he was "monotheist" and spoke and wrote about God, often. He was very, very careful not to proclaim allegiance to one, particular, religion. He understood and welcomed the diversity of his fan-base, and he wanted an end to wars. So OFTEN, religion is the excuse for strife (even as it crops up in THIS thread sometimes. There is a lesson in that, if we care to learn it?). Michael was all about L.O.V.E.

very true.

 

[*~Tink~*]

But not a Christian, I think. I believe he only referred to Jesus as a model for ethical behavior. Are you quite sure he used the word "Lord" before Jesus? I'd be very surprised. He always sounded more like Thomas Jefferson, who was deist, not Christian -- he took a Bible, cut out all references to Jesus' divinity, which he thought had been added in subsequent centuries, and had it printed and distributed to Congress as a guide to moral behavior. It's nicknamed the "Jefferson Bible." If anyone has evidence of MJ, post-JWs, referring to Jesus as God, or necessary for salvation, do give a link.

I don't think adding in "Lord" or speaking of salvation means too much. I know in all my years growing up Catholic, my family referred to Jesus as simply "Jesus." Only in church services did we hear the longer terms "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Christ." In our family Jesus was always "Jesus" and certainly not for lack of respect. It's just how it was in fact in all the Catholic families I knew.

It does appear they're being brought up as JWs, which I greatly doubt Michael would have wanted. There's no good evidence they were being raised as Catholics, despite the baptisms and godparents, so I doubt he wanted that either. It's true that's traditionally the job of godparents, but as Tink noted, it's become more just an honor for many, and Lester is probably overstating his case to gain access.

Oh, wait! I did not say this. I said Michael probably would have liked the ceremonies from Catholicism, because they can be so beautiful... but that is pure speculation, of course. And you and I agreed sometimes priests can bend rules. But I did not say anything about Godparents.

That said about rule bending, I do not think Michael was one to take things lightly. He asked a lot of questions and was one to listen. I honestly do not think he would baptize his kids purely based on physical aesthetics. I really think that is not giving Michael the nod to the depth he has as a person. If there is one thing Michael is ALL about, it is respect. And I don't think he would take lightly a commitment entered into by him on behalf of his kids. I think any commitment entered on behalf of his family especially would be made with a whole lot of reflection, prayer, and measured decisions. Honestly. 100% I think the decision would have been made very thoughtfully.

But he probably saw Katherine as the lesser of evils, the most loving home he could place them in. I'm sure he didn't bother giving her instructions to keep them out of JWs, knowing that would be hopeless. Katherine will force those children into her own religion, something I believe is very wrong. I believe children should be taught character and morality, and about the religions and philosophies of the world, but not be brainwashed into a specific religion. But it's better than any of the alternative guardians, I guess.

Bo, with total respect, I could not disagree more strongly. I do not believe Michael EVER would see Katherine as the "lesser of evils"... not in ten bazillion lifetimes. And I do not think Katherine is "forcing" anything on Michael's beautiful children. I think it is beautiful they go to her services with her if that is what she sees as best. With all the good things Michael has said about Katherine, she deserves all our faith, imho. To imply or say she is brainwashing them is wrong. It's wrong to even send that thought out into this universe. I feel Katherine deserves all our love, support, respect, and good thoughts. I really, really do.

I am very certain in my heart Katherine will honor Michael's wishes, an example being that the kids are allowed birthdays and Christmas.

 

[*~Tink~*]

Wasn't that what the whole Lester thing was about.. according to Lester he knew that Mike wanted the kids to be brought up as Catholics and he didn't think that wish come true unless he, as godparent was allowed access.. that was his excuse for the mess he created.

Michael though.. not sure. He did talk about God, the Lord, Jesus... and quoted the Bible quite a lot, in particular things which Jesus said... about children etc. He had his questions too though.

Sifting through what we know, I think Michael was very accepting and open hearted. I feel you are right that Mark Lester would have been the one Michael would have talked to about perhaps his deepest spiritual thoughts, since Mark was directly involved with a serious spiritual appointment in Michael's life.

I believe Michael would have not wanted to exclude anyone from his circle of love based on religion and would have seen the commonality in all religions. However, when it was time to chose one faith to assign in his family life, he chose Catholicism, which leads me to believe also he definitely saw Jesus as God, and not merely an ethical example.

I'm not shoe-horning some personal desire to have Michael be Catholic. I would love him no matter.

I just am of a firm belief Michael would chose the faith for his family with a lot of seriousness. I see him as a Catholic-Unitarian-New Age mix.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Bo, with total respect, I could not disagree more strongly. I do not believe Michael EVER would see Katherine as the "lesser of evils"... not in ten bazillion lifetimes. And I do not think Katherine is "forcing" anything on Michael's beautiful children. I think it is beautiful they go to her services with her if that is what she sees as best. With all the good things Michael has said about Katherine, she deserves all our faith, imho. To imply or say she is brainwashing them is wrong. It's wrong to even send that thought out into this universe. I feel Katherine deserves all our love, support, respect, and good thoughts. I really, really do.

I am very certain in my heart Katherine will honor Michael's wishes, an example being that the kids are allowed birthdays and Christmas.

well said. i think alot of the comments comes from ppl own opinions about the JW's based mainly on the way they are treated by the press.ppl are very ignorant when it comes to that religion.

 

[Bo G]

:agree:
I just wanted to say I always just thought Michael was smarter than the rest of us.
He knew that God is everywhere and no where. That all you need is love. None of the other stuff matters.

Speaking on behalf of nontheists, one can have love and a meaningful, ethical life without God. I'm OK with a diversity of views, but it's hard not to become defensive with statements about the superiority of religion vs. nonreligious philosophy, or the superiority of religious vs nonreligious people. I try to avoid doing this here, but can goaded into responding. I think Michael was smart, but see no need to add that he was smarter than nontheists. Many brilliant and decent people are nontheists. MJ's religious beliefs led him into some pretty mistaken views, such as disbelief in evolution. (Anyone who wants to actually question evolution, please start a new thread!)

 

[MichaelYoureAStud]

Speaking on behalf of nontheists, one can have love and a meaningful, ethical life without God. I'm OK with a diversity of views, but it's hard not to become defensive with statements about the superiority of religion vs. nonreligious philosophy, or the superiority of religious vs nonreligious people. I try to avoid doing this here, but can goaded into responding. I think Michael was smart, but see no need to add that he was smarter than nontheists. Many brilliant and decent people are nontheists. MJ's religious beliefs led him into some pretty mistaken views, such as disbelief in evolution. (Anyone who wants to actually question evolution, please start a new thread!)

I meant everyone. All religious views.


Mistaken views? Everyone believes different things.
Some believe there is a Heaven yet no Hell.
Some believe in Hell but not Heaven.

We might all be wrong.
This might be it.
No Heaven, no Hell, no God, nothing but us.
Time will tell. In death there is the answer.

 

[Bo G]

This is my understanding, as well. Thanks for clarity. Check out the lyrics to "Jam," about Michael's thoughts on the potential divisiveness of religions?

I'd like to add that technically, Prince and Paris are Jewish.

I checked out Jam... loved it, but had no idea the lyrics were so interesting... thanks! Awesome.

This is disputed among Jewish denominations, Matrilineality in Judaism, and refers to Jewish ethnicity, not beliefs.

To Tink: Many (including me) find it coercive to designate someone as "having" or "being" a particular religion without it being a fully voluntary and educated choice on his or her part. We'll have to agree to disagree on this... but thank for being so civil about it

 

[Bo G]

Oh, wait! I did not say this.

Oops, sorry, I was going on memory. (This thread is addictive...)

 

[Bo G]

well said. i think alot of the comments comes from ppl own opinions about the JW's based mainly on the way they are treated by the press.ppl are very ignorant when it comes to that religion.

I'm not "ignorant" because I disagree with you, moonwalker. Are you able to participate in this without insulting the other participants?

 

[Bo G]

I meant everyone. All religious views.

"Everyone" does not have religious beliefs; I re-read your statement and it clearly excludes those who don't believe in God.

Mistaken views? Everyone believes different things.
Some believe there is a Heaven yet no Hell.
Some believe in Hell but not Heaven.

We might all be wrong.
This might be it.
No Heaven, no Hell, no God, nothing but us.
Time will tell. In death there is the answer.

You've taken my words out of context: I did not say he was mistaken in his religious views, but that his religious views LED him into mistaken views in science. Evolution is a not a religion, it is science. People can indeed be mistaken within scientific facts. If you were to tell me you held a "belief" that gravity doesn't exist in elevators, I'd have to say your belief was mistaken. If you were to say you did not believe in the germ theory of disease, you'd be mistaken.

It's not comparable to discussing heaven vs. hell, or God or no God. You're correct, those things can't be proven.

Gravity, evolution, disease theory, the earth circling the sun and not the reverse -- these are scientific facts, and can, and, have, been proven.

Religion has tried to speak on all these things, and many other areas of science. When it does so, it often leads people into beliefs that are mistaken.

 

[Rockin.]

Are you quite sure he used the word "Lord" before Jesus? I'd be very surprised. .

No I didn't say that I said he talked about God, the Lord, Jesus. There's a comma there . I've not heard/seen him say Lord Jesus.. he could have but I've not seen it, nor have I looked for it. I just said I have heard him and read him use the words 'the Lord' .... 'God'.... and .... 'Jesus'. I think I've heard him say something like people should be christ-like or something too..

I've just looked on google and this came up

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/06/was_michael_jac.html

and also this

http://www.stereotruth.net/2009/10/andrea-crouch-talks-about-michael-jackson-accepting-jesus/

Whatever Michael thought, was in his heart between him and God.

I'm not bothered either way, don't think it matters too much.

I don't think adding in "Lord" or speaking of salvation means too much. I know in all my years growing up Catholic, my family referred to Jesus as simply "Jesus." Only in church services did we hear the longer terms "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Christ." In our family Jesus was always "Jesus" and certainly not for lack of respect. It's just how it was in fact in all the Catholic families I knew.

Me too.

 

[Bo G]

No I didn't say that I said he talked about God, the Lord, Jesus. There's a comma there .

Yeah, I saw that comma and wasn't sure. Thanks for the smiley; here's one back atcha

Technically, the only way to say conclusively that Michael was a Christian was to know whether he believed that Jesus was God. Without a quote from him indicating this, or at least regular attendance to a Christian service, (after his JW stint), I'll remain skeptical.

I'm not bothered either way, don't think it matters too much.

Since when do we talk about things that matter on an MJ board?!

(But unfortunately, the truth is it does matter to a lot of people who claim dead celebrities as their own to advance their religion, and I consistently object).

 

[*~Tink~*]

To Tink: Many (including me) find it coercive to designate someone as "having" or "being" a particular religion without it being a fully voluntary and educated choice on his or her part. We'll have to agree to disagree on this... but thank for being so civil about it

Bo, you've lost me here?

 

[*~Tink~*]

well said. i think alot of the comments comes from ppl own opinions about the JW's based mainly on the way they are treated by the press.ppl are very ignorant when it comes to that religion.

I think you're right about the press...

I would love to learn more about JW. I've always had such nice experiences with those who canvas. I have always been grateful that they would take time from their day to try to spread God's love and word. Even though I was not JW myself, I always appreciated their intentions a lot.

I think it is the sweetest thing Michael used to hand out Watchtower even when he was famous.

 

[Bo G]

I don't think adding in "Lord" or speaking of salvation means too much.

I really disagree (with love on "Salvation." Perhaps your family was different, but I think it does have pretty specific meaning to most people. It did for me in my years as a Catholic leader of sorts, and sure seems to when I hear it used by about anyone.

My good friend Wikipedia (of course always to be taken with a grain of salt): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation indicates it's chiefly used in Christianity to mean belief in Jesus as a requirement to heaven. So I would accept a reference by MJ to salvation as enough evidence to support his Christianity.

 

[Bo G]

Bo, you've lost me here?

Well, dang, we're going to have exchange phone numbers!

Give me a minute, I'll 'splain. (I'm home sick from work).

 

[*~Tink~*]

I really disagree (with love on "Salvation." Perhaps your family was different, but I think it does have pretty specific meaning to most people. It did for me in my years as a Catholic leader of sorts, and sure seems to when I hear it used by about anyone.

My good friend Wikipedia (of course always to be taken with a grain of salt): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation indicates it's chiefly used in Christianity to mean belief in Jesus as a requirement to heaven. So I would accept a reference by MJ to salvation as enough evidence to support his Christianity.

LOL... I like that, disagree with L.O.V.E.

I know the term salvation of course, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, etc, yes yes. But what I mean is that as Catholics we never used this type of formal language when we spoke about Jesus. My Mom was a CCD teacher, and my Dad helped even build the church, plant the garden, wire the electricity... for our church, but... I never heard them refer in normal conversation to "Jesus is our salvation.."

We heard those things in church books and songs, sure. But in conversations, no. It would have been more like "you be nice to your brother, Jesus wants us to be nice..." "Jesus wants us to be on time for church".... etc ... more like how Michael uses the term.

I consider myself Christian, and I accept Jesus as God/Son of God. But you'd wait forever to hear me use the term "salvation" in a religious conversation. It's just not in my normal vocabulary.

With love.

 

[*~Tink~*]

Well, dang, we're going to have exchange phone numbers!

Give me a minute, I'll 'splain. (I'm home sick from work).

Awww... feel better!!! *hugs*

Say, completely OT, is Erich Fromm similar to the humanism you discussed?

 

[Bo G]

To Tink: Many (including me) find it coercive to designate someone as "having" or "being" a particular religion without it being a fully voluntary and educated choice on his or her part.

Bo, you've lost me here?

I was responding above both to Victoria's comment that "technically, Prince and Paris are Jewish" and to your points about "selecting" a religion for MJ's children. I consider this point too hot to handle here, so was being as general as possible, and was going to leave it at that. But since I was asked for clarification, I hope I don't get flamed, so here it is:

I don't believe a religion should be selected for children. Until they're of age, it is not a fully voluntary, informed decision on their part, based on a solid understanding of alternative belief systems. It's too important to be anything less. I consider it religion by coercion. I believe instead that children should receive solid ethical instruction, and an overview of the world's beliefs and philosophies.

Some huge percent of the world's religious beliefs can be traced to an individual's parents. If you're born in Saudi Arabia, you're Wahhabi Muslim. In Alabama, Southern Baptist. In India: Hindu or Buddhist. And so forth. Thus each region believes passionately its religion is the true faith; it's ingrained from birth.

I believe when the day comes that religion is viewed as something to be examined thoughtfully and chosen (or rejected) freely as adults, we'll finally begin to approach a more unified, rational and loving world, that has more respect for the independent minds and creativity of its children.

I think it's too big a subject to handle in this thread; I feel very strongly on this point and don't want to see things get tense here.

 

[*~Tink~*]

I was responding above both to Victoria's comment that "technically, Prince and Paris are Jewish" and to your points about "selecting" a religion for MJ's children. I consider this point too hot to handle here, so was being as general as possible, and was going to leave it at that. But since I was asked for clarification, I hope I don't get flamed, so here it is:

I don't believe a religion should be selected for children. Until they're of age, it is not a fully voluntary, informed decision on their part, based on a solid understanding of alternative belief systems. It's too important to be anything less. I consider it religion by coercion. I believe instead that children should receive solid ethical instruction, and an overview of the world's beliefs and philosophies.

Some huge percent of the world's religious beliefs can be traced to an individual's parents. If you're born in Saudi Arabia, you're Wahhabi Muslim. In Alabama, Southern Baptist. In India: Hindu or Buddhist. And so forth. Thus each region believes passionately its religion is the true faith; it's ingrained from birth.

I believe when the day comes that religion is viewed as something to be examined thoughtfully and chosen (or rejected) freely as adults, we'll finally begin to approach a more unified, rational and loving world, that has more respect for the independent minds and creativity of its children.

I think it's too big a subject to handle in this thread; I feel very strongly on this point and don't want to see things get tense here.

Oh, I see. I can see you feel strongly and I don't want to upset you, either.

I disagree, because I think the family and religion you're born into is part of the Great Design. I mean, maybe a person sticks with their family faith and maybe they don't. But all in all, I think either through action or reaction, the faith we are born into is part of our life skills spiritual toolbox.

But that's my view and I'm a theist. I respect you feel differently. Thanks for clarifying cuz I didn't understand what you meant.

 

[Bo G]

LOL... I like that, disagree with L.O.V.E.

I know the term salvation of course, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, etc, yes yes. But what I mean is that as Catholics we never used this type of formal language when we spoke about Jesus.

OK, yes, that's absolutely true about Catholics; same with me growing up. We rarely said it. But when we DID say it, we knew exactly what it meant. Its common use is MUCH more a Protestant thing. It's because Catholics believe that accepting Jesus must be accompanied by a good life to achieve salvation, so for them it's too complicated to go throwing around these terms. Protestants equate salvation with accepting Jesus, a simpler concept, so either phrase is used by them far more freely.

So you're right, while his NOT saying doesn't prove he's not a Christian, if he DID say it, I would accept he's Christian. I definitely agree with you he was Unitarian material.

 

[144000]

No question, Michael was very religious -- he was a theist, either a monotheist or a New Age theist (I think more the latter), who often said he prayed to god regularly.

But not a Christian, I think. I believe he only referred to Jesus as a model for ethical behavior. Are you quite sure he used the word "Lord" before Jesus? I'd be very surprised. He always sounded more like Thomas Jefferson, who was deist, not Christian -- he took a Bible, cut out all references to Jesus' divinity, which he thought had been added in subsequent centuries, and had it printed and distributed to Congress as a guide to moral behavior. It's nicknamed the "Jefferson Bible." If anyone has evidence of MJ, post-JWs, referring to Jesus as God, or necessary for salvation, do give a link.

It does appear they're being brought up as JWs, which I greatly doubt Michael would have wanted. There's no good evidence they were being raised as Catholics, despite the baptisms and godparents, so I doubt he wanted that either. It's true that's traditionally the job of godparents, but as Tink noted, it's become more just an honor for many, and Lester is probably overstating his case to gain access.

But he probably saw Katherine as the lesser of evils, the most loving home he could place them in. I'm sure he didn't bother giving her instructions to keep them out of JWs, knowing that would be hopeless. Katherine will force those children into her own religion, something I believe is very wrong. I believe children should be taught character and morality, and about the religions and philosophies of the world, but not be brainwashed into a specific religion. But it's better than any of the alternative guardians, I guess.

Speaking on behalf of nontheists, one can have love and a meaningful, ethical life without God. I'm OK with a diversity of views, but it's hard not to become defensive with statements about the superiority of religion vs. nonreligious philosophy, or the superiority of religious vs nonreligious people. I try to avoid doing this here, but can goaded into responding. I think Michael was smart, but see no need to add that he was smarter than nontheists. Many brilliant and decent people are nontheists. MJ's religious beliefs led him into some pretty mistaken views, such as disbelief in evolution. (Anyone who wants to actually question evolution, please start a new thread!)

comon, now, lol..you're not a mod...if u post, expect those who disagree with you to post in the same thread..

.........................................................................

in the end....no matter what Michael said...no matter what anyone says...there will always be someone who will look at an exact statement, and decide that it was not what it appeared to be..

we really don't know MJ's spiritual position, because we all see what we want to see..or, if we do know it, we either do or don't admit to it...

MJ's living example is what it is...people will see it as they see it...and they will decide as they decide...and, then, their spiritual position, or lack of one, will be what it is...

 

[*~Tink~*]

Oh.... one thing I noticed in TII. I noticed, and now I forget which song it was after (Earth Song?)- but Michael at one point makes a version of the sign of the cross. I noticed it clearly. Except in his version he touched his left shoulder (with his right hand), then his right shoulder... then he gestured outward. So those are the touch points associated with the Holy Spirit. Seemed like he was sending those loving vibes outward. Very cool.

Did anyone else notice?

 

[Bo G]

comon, now, lol..you're not a mod...if u post, expect those who disagree with you to post in the same thread..

All that typing, and that's all you got from my post

It was a request (notice the "please"), not an order, for goodness's sake. The thread is on MJ's RELIGIOUS beliefs, so I didn't want to be responsible for taking it off/topic into a SCIENCE discussion. Not in the slightest way was I discouraging anyone from disagreeing with me -- I simply suggested we move that part into another thread if we want to do that. It's my impression the mods appreciate self-management of threads as much as possible. And I'm actually working very hard to do that, because otherwise this could easily deteriorate into a food fight.

Goodness, is it not apparent the extent to which I'm dialoguing in this thread with people who disagree with me?

 

[Bo G]

Oh.... one thing I noticed in TII. I noticed, and now I forget which song it was after (Earth Song?)- but Michael at one point makes a version of the sign of the cross.

Would not surprise me, since that would pale in comparison to this EarthSong Jesus reference (start at 6:30) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxrBe7kSvtk

You and I are going to disagree on why MJ makes these references. I'm going to leave it at that. When I've spoken (respectfully) with my views on this elsewhere on this site, I would have been in fear for my life had I not been anonymous (not from you, but others).

 

[144000]

All that typing, and that's all you got from my post

It was a request (notice the "please"), not an order, for goodness's sake. The thread is on MJ's RELIGIOUS beliefs, so I didn't want to be responsible for taking it off/topic into a SCIENCE discussion. Not in the slightest way was I discouraging anyone from disagreeing with me -- I simply suggested we move that part into another thread if we want to do that. It's my impression the mods appreciate self-management of threads as much as possible. And I'm actually working very hard to do that, because otherwise this could easily deteriorate into a food fight.

aha..you didn't quote my whole post, so i got a lot more from your post, and stated it(something i predicted would happen, when someone, sometimes looks at a quote)..but, indeed..if you bring up another subject, you risk response..lol..that's not good management...

and there may be someone who can respond to your different subject, and still keep things within the subject of the thread.

some people regard evolution as their religion. some people think science is their religion. some see religion as fact, and don't want it to be regarded with the word 'religion', because then it will be looked down upon, and disrespected. some see science as fact. Michael was quoted as not liking the word 'religion'. some people think there is a reason for everything, and others just see it as a belief. in the end, everything is down to the individual, so, there's always a risk of going off topic, so, that would be the mod's job to take care of it..we might as well be ourselves and discuss..not worry about trying to manage..and if we go off..the mods will take care of it.

on the topic of you saying that MJ' views were mistaken, on evolution...that would be like something else you said...you didn't want people to regard MJ as being smarter than a non theist..but you run the risk of sounding like you are measuring his intelligence by saying he is mistaken. perhaps you believe he is mistaken, but he believed he was not mistaken. and one person is not better than the other.

 

[MichaelYoureAStud]

I am so lost :lol:
I don't do religious chats just cause I don't want to step on toes.


I have no clue what half the religious titles and things some of you have posted mean.


I understand what you mean about science leading us in our views and not religion saying science is wrong.

 

[*~Tink~*]

You and I are going to disagree on why MJ makes these references.

Yes, yes. But with love. L. O.V.E.

 

[Bo G]

Yes, yes. But with love. L. O.V.E.

Wouldn't it be amusing if everyone starting doing this? In boardrooms, war-rooms...

I'll dash off a quick note to Hillary Clinton, who's trying to bring Israelis and Palestinians together right now.

"Uh, see here, Ambassador, is it OK if I just add this little "with L.O.V.E." postscript at the end of your counter-proposal? Standard boilerplate, you understand..."

 

[Bo G]

Awww... feel better!!! *hugs*

Say, completely OT, is Erich Fromm similar to the humanism you discussed?

I've certainly heard of him but haven't read him. I know he's received awards from the American Humanist Association, so they at least consider his brand of humanism friendly. The term means many things to many people, of course; I see he's called a "socialist humanist" -- not sure what that is... I come closest to the brand called "secular humanism" a la Paul Kurtz and Carl Sagan; we're the ones so demonized by evangelicals. Fromm (I learned today, thanks to you) coined one of my all-time favorite words "biophilia," which become a book by my beloved philospher/biologist E.O. Wilson.